U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 17, 2010 07:52 PM UTC
133 Comments
Loading ...
He threw his weight behind Maes last Friday on his radio show.
It’s like a little bonus in an otherwise sort of dismally boring election year.
Romanoff did not “win” anything by 1,973 votes statewide. Greater of 51% whilst Bennet did not make 43% The rest were undecided…
nope nada, nothing to report about pulling off an upset…
lets talk about republicans. ((eyes rolling))
Romanoff pulled an “upset” by doing better than Bennet at caucus? Caucus-goers were supposed to back Romanoff according to his own campaign rhetoric for the last 6 months.
me no less than 7 times yesterday. yes 7
People who go to caucuses are nowhere close to an accurate representation of people who vote in general elections. Last night changed nothing about any major race. Move along people, nothing to see here.
I’m betting you work for Sen. Miles’ office. You know, since he “won” the caucuses and convention in 2004.
for Miles, who had never been elected to office vs a well known elected candidate who worked on statewide issues.
(sounds just like this race)
then why was it so widely expected?
because of the Bennet Letter a.k.a
Public Option head fake, ready made for him to look as progressive as possible heading into the caucus.
Now that the illusion of his support for the Public Option is gone (as well as Polis’) the progressives can clearly see how the game was manipulated.
David Sirota tells it like it is today – listen starting about halfway in – with Polis and afterwards.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/11…
oh and by the way, Romanoff won – get used to that.
Interesting spin, wade.
Romanoff was the underdog going into the caucus NOW (they weren’t saying it two weeks ago) are missing is that people know Romanoff. Bennet has had a little over a year to introduce himself to voters, Romanoff has had a decade.
A few of the AR supporters at my caucus said they didn’t have a problem with Bennet, but that they didn’t know him. They do know Romanoff. It would be a mistake to forget that AR’s reputation preceded him into this primary.
Why are the AR supporters now talking down his name ID and favorable ratings? That was a major talking point of theirs the last 6 months. They want it both ways. The spin is dizzying though.
Clearly D’s know AR. Especially the likely caucus goers.
In my precinct (my neighbors), everyone knew Bennet too. And if my precinct is an indicator, as more voters get to know him, he’ll do better.
Romanoff and his supporters should be talking about how the caucus results prove what they had been saying all along — that he is the Democrats’ choice. But instead they spin themselves dizzy into a message that isn’t nearly as good as the one they already had.
It’s fascinating, in a weird way, how Romanoff supporters here are always looking for the antagonistic message rather than just, simply, the right message. “Romanoff was the underdog, and he pulled a big upset and nobody gives him any credit” is completely silly. There are a lot of good message points that could be used today, but instead it’s back to that old barfight rhetoric. Your guy won. Talk about how that proves he is the better candidate — that’s your message, numbskulls. You don’t have to try to reinvent history when you won.
a public option.
And I predicted it back on feb 23rd.
Think about it, Bennet announces his letter, 2 days later Obama is in town campaigning for him, and then 3 days after that, Obama announces his healthcare plan without a public option.
It was all just for show so that the Progressive base would be placated, and it probably did earn Bennet some additional votes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
That’s why the White House via D. Brazile is calling for primaries for congress members who don’t support the bill, but no such call was made for the public option, and why senators like Lieberman and Lincoln are on record saying that Obama never asked them to support the public option.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Sirota is right. A sell out occurred.
MoveOn.org is now raising money to primary those who don’t support the bill, including those whom they got to sign a petition saying they would not vote for a bill without a public option.
Guess who is also dumping 6 million into ads supporting this bill?
Pharma.
because they are going to make a mint
Oh and AR would’ve changed the dynamic of the Senate and would’ve single handedly passed the public option. Give me a break. The fact is, Andrew Romanoff has been giving out funds from his personal PAC as the Speaker of the House for years now. He was the front runner in the caucus, anyone arguing the opposite is a joke because we all know the dynamics behind the race. Quite kidding yourself already.
The career politician running as an outsider
Still taking pac money 3 months after annonuncing his candidacy ( guess he figured, he couldn’t raise money anyway)
But you spin the most, you must be dizzy.
First you post over and over all the support AR has from unions, legislators, and latinos and don’t forget he was Speaker of the house. Then today you post that all AR had to get people to go caucus was word of mouth because of his shoestring organization.
You also ignore the fact he hired Caddel and Lake, yeah these folks aren’t career politician hires.
but did anyone here get a phone call from the Romanoff campaign outside of the last two days of the caucus?
Bennet had OFA, the DSSC and the DNC funding robocalls to dems for at least a month.
and, do you have a source for this
Next?
how much better he could have done with a real head fake about single payer.
Romanoff won last night- I’m used to it. Clearl, that means he’s going to win assembly and the primary. Your work is done.
for him. A better-than-expected caucus performance won’t necessarily translate into a better fiscal performance, and he has a hell of a money gap to close. If the GOP wants to keep fomenting an acerbic, drawn-out primary race, it’s their prerogative, I suppose.
The Norton shills are reeling!
JO should be pleased–that’s three sig lines he’s now in. And who says he isn’t super popular?
Buck’s “win” certainly doesn’t pave the road to victory in the primary. He has to show he is a serious candidate by putting up some serious numbers. If he fails to do this then he proved no more than Romanoff did, that he is merely a favorite among a small, select group of voters. The longer this race continues, the nastier we can expect it to get.
If Buck wants to wallow in acrimony till August, he can, but it’s only going to help the Dems. We all know Norton is a stronger candidate for the general than Buck. And if the Dems can slide by and win in this political climate (barring, or course, a change in public perception), it’ll leave Republicans even more helpless.
How much of Buck’s success do you think came from the fringe Tea-Bagger groups?
Anyone heard anything on Frazier v. Sias caucus results?
unless precincts did it for fun on their own
Romanoff may end up with slightly over 50% statewide. Not even close to the grassroots blowout that was predicted a few months ago.
Bottom Line: No one is going to pull out their wallots to fund Romanoff’s campaign after these results.
Bennet goes on TV starting today and every month thereafter. When will Romanoff’s TV ads air? Never.
Bennet will be the Democratic nominee. He can ignore Romanoff and begin to introduce himself to Dems and Independents.
Andrew Romanoff was clearly the big winner last night. The Bennet campaign spent a lot of time and money on the caucuses and came up short. With the support of Barack Obama they still could not win last night and it wasn’t very close.
When is Pueblo going to report their results? That might add a point or two to the Romnaoff victory margin.
Does anyone have straw poll results from the State House and Senate races around the State?
and win the caucus. Many thought it would be in the 60-40 range. I think this is more of a disappointment for the Romanoff campaign, although both did OK. I think the bigger stories are on the GOP side. The anointed candidates are in trouble, don’t sit well with the Baggers.
Pols is right that this race hasn’t changed. Other than the fact that Romanoff will probably end up with the top spot at the ballot (pending what happens at the county assembly and the state assembly) this is still the same race, with the same questions about the candidates and their strengths and weaknesses.
Last night was the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. The biggest story other than Buck is that nobody’s campaign ended today.
so often think alike, even though
we’restill sometimes wrong?Don’t know nuttin’, Born?
Michael Bennet got 42% of the votes, Romanoff got 51%, PROOF POSITIVE that:
–Elections can be bought.
–The boys and girls in NY and DC have just gotta cough up more cashola–it’s their election and they can buy it if they want to.
–MB is gonna buy lotsa TV ads starting RIGHT NOW cause…cause… well, cause we all wanna see, over and over and over and over and over and over, how Serious he looks when he’s looking after the interests of
the Big BoysWee the People.Don’t worry, Mike: winning an election for the first time ever will feel great, and ain’t no one gonna imagine that those contributions influence your activities in the Senate, no siree, not one little bit.
As I say to my daughter “Does whining work on Daddy? Is it a strategy calculated to succeed or are you just doing it to make yourself feel better?”
Yes, I know I am crazy for talking to a 3 year old like this.
Wee the People and other JOisms as witty and charming as he does?
WASHINGTON (NYT): Vice President Joe Biden, acting in his capacity as president of the Senate, today announced final passage of the constitutional amendment repealing the federal law that required Americans to read and to like everything “JO” posted on BennetPols.com.
Whew. At last.
Don’t miss the newest edition of “Why Personal Insults from High School Make Effective Political Debating Points,” including a new chapter by an editor of ColoradoPols who explains why calling someone a “3 year old” is effective, devastating, clever, and otherwise elevates the level of discussion on the site. Remember: Ignorance is Bliss, Boring is Blessed, and Dumb is, well, dumb.
As we wrote in a comment earlier, why do you and other Romanoff supporters immediately go into barfight mode even after your candidate did well?
You should be talking up your success, but instead it looks like you are trying to defend something that went wrong. It really is bizarre.
1. “On the Democrats’ side, we can’t really declare either Sen. Michael Bennet or Andrew Romanoff to be a “Winner” or a “Loser” from last night.” ColoradoPols, this thread @ 10:52.40 a.m. MDT
2. “JO, your guy won last night.” ColoradoPols, this thread, at 17:23.36 p.m. MDT.
Ah, what a difference 6-1/2 hours makes. A monstrous margin in moohla, plus incumbency, plus the endorsement and visit by the President, and still a majority of Democrats who turned out for precinct caucuses preferred someone else! But wait! I know– everything will be different by August; the lobbyists will make it so. Bar-fight mode? They don’t let three-year-olds into bars, do they?
And a results win
we’ll know soon. If the $ don’t come in then only you and wade perceive it that way.
Even the Denver Post had a more accurate assumption of last night’s events.
The biggest losers should be Michael Bennet, Cleve Tidwell, Dan Maes and Jane Norton
Here’s why:
Michael Bennet is an incumbent, and I realize these are party activists who gave the victory to Romanoff, but he still got beat by a candidate who has no money and even less visibility.
Cleve Tidwell was supposed to be a Tea Party candidate. What happened?
Dan Maes was telling folks he was going to win this straw poll. He still got crushed by 20% at a grassroots level. When you look at this race in relation to primary voters, a recent poll showed Maes losing by 50 points. Saying that a 60-40 split is close is like saying Jared Polis has close elections in CD2.
The one assessment I agree with you on is Ken Buck and Jane Norton. However, we have different motives as you all believe that he is a more beatable opponent than Norton so that’s why you’re hyping this up. I would throw in that Tancredo’s endorsement and Wien’s attack ads didn’t help Norton either.
Bennet did so well, because he had the DNC and OFA calling every dem for weeks to vote for him, the President campaigning for him, and ads on every website that you could think of, daily kos, huffington post, etc.
That was compared to Romanoff’s basic word of mouth campaign and day of phone calls to dems to caucus done by volunteers.
Once the Public Option mirage fades, more people who are uncommitted or even who voted for him for that issue will rethink their votes.
You’re a real piece of work, wade.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, and resurrecting a piece of policy is killing said policy.
if you think Mike Miles who was never elected to office has more in common with Andrew Romanoff than unelected Michael Bennet
Do me a favor and don’t put words in my mouth.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
And I agree that there’s kind of a similar 1984 mindset surrounding the caucus result among pro-Bennet posters here. My comment wasn’t about the primary though, it was responding to Wade’s “head fake” comment.
How much money do you think Romanoff will raise in this quarter? Bennet will have another large fundraising quarter.
money is actually worth something. What gives you that idea?
more money because he is corporately funded.
And that is something people will need to make their minds up about – do we want corporate interests or people’s interests represented
It means you can buy ads and beat the Republican.
This isn’t an election for student body president.
Does AR have the money to win against Norton or Buck. RG, that is the only relevant question here… I think AR supporters are going to realize that AR cannot win without money and will turn to Bennet because they know he has the campaign to get the Dems across the finish line in first place. BTW- I still can’t get around the fact that AR had a PAC under his own name a little as three months ago. I can’t believe this question wasn’t asked during AR’s interviews on MSNBC. How does he answer this question??? If he wants to be our nominee, I want to know how he’ll answer that question when Norton asks it.
Bueler, anyone, anyone????
Corporations have a stranglehold on the Senate, I am taking a principled stand not to accept corporate money.
Norton?
bought and paid for, says nothing – if she even makes it out of the primary
But that “principled stand” would make me less likely to vote for him.
I’ve lived in Mesa County for 34 years and I’m tired of having to back losers who can’t/won’t raise money.
Word-of-mouth might work great a caucus. It doesn’t work worth a shit in a general where you have undecideds to sway.
Just my $0.02 as someone who has done this campaign thing before.
Has not been “principled” for the past decade? Now all of a sudden, he’s had an awakening? This will be brought up again and again since he’s made this his platform
all that money Bennet has – he is still polling lower than Romanoff vs. all republicans.
Much will change between now and Nov including Afghanistan, the economy and the health care debate all of which has hurt Bennet’s polling today. That said, AR doesn’t have this negative pull on his polling and he’s still behind or even with Bennet.
Ralphie is right on, you need money to win over undecideds. After all, they are key to winning
.
much more charitable than the “ignorant masses” who get all their information on the candidates from ads on during “American Idol” or “Lost.”
And who sometimes vote based on who they’d like to have a beer with.
.
Are “high information” voters like you, me, and the rest of the people who read this blog.
Whether you regard this as unfortunate or not, their votes count the same as ours.
with a bad campaign, that’s what happened
Dan Maes is absolutely NOT a loser from last night. He’s a nobody with no money facing a well-funded, well-known opponent in Scott McInnis, and he got 40 freakin’ percent last night. How is that possibly bad? Nobody here thinks Maes is actually going to win the primary, so put your poll away, but you can’t pretend that he didn’t do pretty well last night.
And Cleve Tidwell??? Who the hell cares about what happened to Cleve Tidwell? He’s an afterthought’s afterthought. Nobody outside of Cleve Tidwell thought that he might do well last night. You can’t be a loser if you’re not even really in the game, and Cleve is just a swell guy who thought it would be cool to run for Senate but has no idea what he’s doing.
really, swell ?
What exactly is swell, daddy-o?
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
Does anyone have straw poll figures from the other races around the state?
Sheepskin Strutt called it just right.
Both Bennet and Romanoff did what they had to do, and thus survived. A bennet below 30 pct would have been terribly harmful. Romanoff falling behind Bennet would probably have ended his campaign. Both did what they had to do and both made the ballot. My money will be on Bennet in the primary if only because he will have some money to spend with the more moderate D. base.
But like SheepskinStrutt said, Buck’s performance was a body blow to the Rs. He won’t have enough money or stature to beat Norton in the primary, because his Tea Party base will be submerged by more moderate Republicans. But his antics will force Jane to go on giving lip service to the lunatic fringe and make it harder for the eventual candidate, almost certainly Norton, to face the Democrat, probably Bennet, in November.
For the Republicans, it’s looking like a good clean fight from which no survivors will emerge. As to MNcInnis, Maes, the weak Tea Party effort there simply confirms that Rs don’t really think they have a chance to beat Hickenlooper and are putting their chips in the Senate Race.
http://enikrising.blogspot.com…
(actual maps over at his blog)
Well, the results of last night’s caucuses haven’t been completely tabulated, but that shouldn’t stop me from making inferences, should it? Don’t answer that.
Okay, on the Democratic side, here’s what the county map looks like. I have calculated Romanoff’s share of the Romanoff + Bennet vote, ignoring the uncommitted for now. Darker blue counties are those in which Romanoff did better. The data come from here.
Now, the completely white counties are ones in which we don’t yet have numbers (including, notably, Pueblo), so ignore those for now. I’ll update later. But what we do see is that Romanoff did well in the Denver metro area and even better in some of the central and southern counties. Bennet’s areas of strength appear to be the northern plains areas and the western slope counties near Grand Junction. Regression analysis shows that Bennet did better in counties with a higher percentage of college-educated residents, while Romanoff did better in wealthier counties.
Over on the Republican side, I calculated Jane Norton’s share of the Norton + Buck vote, ignoring the uncommitted and supporters of other candidates. Darker red counties are those in which Norton did better. The data come from here.
This map shows a strong regional pattern, with Norton doing much better than Buck in the western counties and Buck dominating the eastern plains. This may partially represent the candidates’ upbringings: Norton is from Grand Junction originally, and Buck is the Weld County D.A. and has a long family history in Greeley. So she’s the western slope candidate and he’s the eastern plains one (whereas we see less of a geographic pattern on the Democratic side with both candidates coming from Denver). Regression analysis shows that Buck did significantly better in counties with a higher percentage of Evangelical Christians, although no other major demographic distinction between the candidates’ supporters turns up.
Update: Dem map updated with Pueblo County data.
That’s interesting. Looks like AR is beholden to the wealthy constituency
Like Larimer and Weld. I don’t think anyone thought for a second that Romanoff was going to lose metro Denver.
She must be worrying that McInnis has that old man smell about him like McCain which means the stench of a loser.
Poor gal. She has so much invested in Scotty and now he is going to have to go even more extreme to get past Maes. Hard to pander to the Independents when you’re going to have to two shoe the Tea Party tango all summer. Meanwhile Hickenlooper gets to “Aw Shucks” his way around the state and just avoid the gunfire coming from the Republicans. They are going to have their guns trained on each other. Maybe McInnis needs a better image coach so he can shed his old man loser smell or maybe he could offer some interesting solutions for people to consider his candidacy by besides his image.
with a horse’s ass.
Romanoff won a big one. Looking at things from down here in the right-wing boondocks (Colorado Springs)it’s clear that Romanoff isn’t another Mike Miles. Dem voters went w. Salazar in 2004 because they thought he could win. Romanoff is more electable than Bennet, not less. Since he was chosen, bennet has had all the advantages of money, incumbency, and opportunities to posture/allow his supporters to paint Romanoff as a sore loser. Now that Romanoff has won the Caucuses, is he still at 20-1? Still running a sad, underfunded, and doomed-to-lose campaign? Doesn’t look that way-money can’t buy you love, and voters love an underdog story, both in primaries nad in the general-especially if the underdog, unlike Mike Miles, looks like a winner in the general.
If Bennet wins the primary over the popular Romanoff then he deserves to be the Democratic candidate because he was able to win state wide. It is looking like a win-win for the Democrats as long as they hold down the hostilities during the primary. It can get testy but if they can avoid turning nasty the primary winner will be in great shape.
You have to figure the Republicans will got at each other like Harpies in Hell so the Republican candidate is going to be savvy in the ways of dirty politics but they are going to be showing a lot of ugly to already cynical voters.
The Democratic voters in Colorado have to appreciate the potential of both their candidates. They can both message the Democratic agenda from heart and are doing this for cause. Powerful people to be pitching Democratic solutions and perspectives. They focus on substance over image. The Democrats are in good shape after their caucuses.
But why is the fundraising/financial piece so hard for some people to understand? If you don’t have money to do a strong buy on TV, you can’t win. Period.
Show us a major Colorado race where a candidate has won without running ads on TV. Seriously – show us an example. Voters may love an underdog story, but here’s the catch: How are you going to hear about this great underdog story if you can’t go on TV to tell it to them?
The Democratic Primary is in the same place today as it was yesterday. If Romanoff can find enough money to advertise significantly on television, then he has a chance at beating Bennet. But if he can’t run TV ads, then he cannot win. You just can’t compete in a race if your opponent is all over the TV and you are not; that’s not unique to this race or to Colorado. Most voters get their information from TV, and most voters do not inform themselves about politics. If they don’t see it on TV, the vast majority of voters are never going to find out about it. You don’t have to like it — we don’t think it’s a great process — but that’s how it works.
Ed Johnson (D) – 3 terms, no real tv.
In fact, I heard Romanoff talking just today about how he has an idea where broadcasters will have to give away tv time so as to lessen the need for campaign money. Maybe that’s his secret plan to get media. (I have a reality show in mind that will get him allt he tv he could handle, but I’m not pitching it here)
Change the line- make ’em even at 6 – 1. That will really stop the crazy.
Rest his soul.
And no disrespect intended.
But the request was for an example of a campaign in which lotsa money lost. Or so I understood. Maybe not having bucks will prove to be tuition of a different sort for AR.
Colorado is different, no doubt.
I was merely trying to point out that Wellstone was one in a million. If Romanoff was on the same level, I would agree that he could overcome the money woes.
Enthusiasm alone can’t win this race.
I worked on Paul Wellstone’s campaign in 1996, and I’m extremely familiar with his 1990 campaign, having studied it more than once for school and having deployed it for other successful campaigns.
The thing that people forget about Wellstone is that he had a longtime history as a community organizer, at every level. What’s more, he had a built-in organization ready to go for him. That’s how he was able to succeed in MN’s caucuses that year, and how he was able to outflank Rudy Boschwitz in 1990.
Even with all that, it took a major gaffe by Boschwitz (where he essentially questioned Wellstone’s Jewish bona-fides) the weekend before the election in order for Wellstone to win.
What Wellstone did over the course of his life is different from Romanoff having gone to umpteen JJ dinners across the state, leading the Ref C campaign in 2005, and otherwise campaign for Democratic candidates in swing districts between 2004 and 2008.
It may have gotten Romanoff’s face & name in front of Democratic voters, and it may have earned him goodwill, however fleeting, but it is not the same thing as community organizing – not even close.
Over the course of his life, Wellstone organized to stop nuclear power, on behalf of minorities and low income communities, on behalf of farmers, on behalf of mental health benefits parity…the list goes on and on. Hell, Wellstone even organized in order to gain tenure at Carleton College, where he taught until elected to the Senate! (Ask me, I’ll tell you the story).
I marched & organized with Paul Wellstone. I knew Paul Wellstone. Paul Wellstone was a family friend and one of my two heroes. Andrew Romanoff isn’t Paul Wellstone – not even close.
Oh, and even though he was badly outspent, he still went on TV, featuring some of the funniest, most original ads we’ve seen (done by Bill Hillsman, another of my mentors).
Seriously – the comparison doesn’t hold up. There was only one Paul Wellstone. And I wish people would quit bringing up his 1990 campaign (which, by the way, was his second statewide campaign – he ran in 1982 for auditor) as a justification and excuse for running a low budget campaign.
I didn’t think you meant disrespect, by any means. But the 1990 Wellstone campaign was a sui generis campaign. Working for Wellstone’s campaign was like going to graduate school for field organizing.
Nothing about Romanoff’s campaign reminds me of Wellstone’s campaigns. All I see is people who are mostly chapped that Romanoff didn’t get tipped for the Senate seat. I mean, you yourself admitted that there was little ideological difference between Romanoff & Bennet; and the salient difference between the two that you brought up, JO, was “Money” – something that’ll vanish if Romanoff becomes Senator, because knowing him, he’ll be just as solicitous as Bennet is of banking interests.
I did not mean to imply that Andrew Romanoff is another Paul Wellstone. Nor is Colorado another Minnesota. Etc.
However, by the same token, there is a thread on this site, often repeated, insisting–not just implicitly, but explicitly–that he with the most money wins. Period.
It ain’t always so. Romanoff will need to find his own groove to beat Big Bucks. My sole point: it can be done, there are precedents, Paul Wellstone is one. Bennet’s problem, in my view, is that campaign contributions are the only thing he has to recommend him to his supporters on this site, and those contributions come from… well, look up his list. That leaves a mighty big chill in the air, at least for me. Romanoff may prove to be no different–but at least he’s not starting out that way, not for this office, thereby taking all suspense out of the story.
That’s just not true. Whether or not you think Bennet’s record is real or not, it’s been presented to you as evidence for why he should be sent back for six years. Ignoring it doesn’t make you right.
The point isn’t and never has been the mostest wins. It’s that a candidate needs enough to win. It’s the difference between necessary and insufficient.
Perhaps I shouldn’t speak for everyone else. Perhaps you’ll cite an explicit statement of the biggest pile of chips is the winner. I don’t think so. But it would make a different point. So I’ll wait.
Meanwhile- Wellstone?
He challenged a sitting Democrat? I recall him running a brilliant campaign- tv and all – against an R incumbent.
The challenge was to find a a major Colorado race where a candidate won without running ads on TV. (A challenge to which I responded, by the way.)
but the race is different today from yesterday because Romanoff has shown that he has an organization and he got votes when he needed them. It is more than a maybe at this point. The outcome may come down to TV time CP but Romanoff has a solid showing to boost his standing. It might not be enough but the race is tighter now than the day before. Bennet has to use his money advantage and make the most of it. Polis did it to FitzGerald and she was as popular as Romanoff. Oops I forgot you can’t stand Polis because of his moola.
You saying doesn’t …allow me to see it.
Convince me. Whatta ya got?
http://www.publicpolicypolling…
But I thought it was pretty well dissected when it
first came up.
One point I found especially relevant in terms of the numbers you cite and others that have been posted here is that no one has been campaigning against Romanoff. Yet.
His negatives will go up when they do. Then what? HIs tremendous word of mouth machine will counter what I expect will be big, bad, media? I’m …doubtful.
Didn’t PPP show Bennet up 4 points head to head against Romanoff? I guess we’ll just ignore that one though. Yes, [pops ambien] That’ll do.
you asked who was more electable vs. a republican. The PPP poll I list does that. Yours lists who is more likely to win the primary at this point.
I mean I get the point that you have to get through the primary to take on the republican, but isn’t the whole point of a primary to choose who you put up against the other guy in the general?
maybe the arguments are circular at some point, but it seems to me that the primary head to head is less relevant to your point.
From the SAME DOGGONE POLL you just quoted:
.
Link here: PPP Blog.
Christ on a stick, Romanoff supporters are entitled to their opinon, but they’re not entitled to their own set of facts.
Bennet is trailing, of course – but, and this is where the money argument comes into play, he can and will be able to define himself to voters. Romanoff doesn’t have that capacity, at least now – he trails Norton in terms of funds raised, and it’s not clear where he gets more money.
Bennet has at least twice as much money on hand as Norton, and probably closer to three times as much – the same disparity as exists with Romanoff.
What MADCO said. And sorry if I sound ill-tempered, but there are arguments Romanoff’s people could be making. The ones that y’all have been making don’t cut it.
Maybe they’re scared off by the dubious nature of your screen name.
It’s the weather.
ps I think we met a few years ago at a thing at DU.
If so- glad to see you again. If not- let’s.
on staff for the Bennet campaign?
considering the newest diary and the possible lack of disclosure
considering the newest diary and the possible lack of disclosure
You can’t talk about how great primaries are, because they increase voter involvement and let people choose, and then accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of being a campaign shill.
There’s really no good way to figure out who’s real, and who’s a shill, but if you want to start hat witch hunt, go right ahead.
I’m taking the cycle off, and resting for 2012. If I were on staff, I’d obviously disclose it – I’m not new to online politics. 🙂
So you’re not as much of a rogue as I thought.
One thing that’s pretty clear from attending the caucuses and seeing the results: neither Romanoff nor Bennet won or lost anything. The results were well within the range of what was expected, and opinion on the candidates was still relatively up in the air or persuadable.
If anyone won anything, it’s definitely Ken Buck, who got something of a new lease on his campaign’s life last night. Now we get to see if he can capitalize on it. And we get to see if Buck’s strong showing last night exposes any cracks in Jane Norton’s support.
While Dan Maes did well last night, especially against the much higher profile Scott McInnis, I’m not sure if it translates into new electoral energy. Maes seems more of a party activist’s kind of candidate than Buck IMHO – more the kind to disappear in the primary results a la Miles.
– What about Michael Bennet?
– What about President Obama?
Copy, paste, repeat ad infinitum. You’re welcome.
As for why nobody here picked up on that, maybe the campaign forgot to send out the talking points memo in a moment of post-caucus victory celebration haze.
Romanoff also continued to hit Bennet on campaign donors, but that’s nothing new.
At what point do you think Bennet is going to start pushing back with something harder than “the other guy took PAC money too”?
Meaning, neither candidate wants to be the first to go negative. It’s been a long time since Colorado had a toe-to-toe, nasty primary – the ’08 primary in CD2 was limited to that district, and marked by the fact that the primary’s essentially the only election that matters in that district.
There’s no clear ideological difference between Romanoff and Bennet, so you’re talking about personalities. Those kinds of primaries are the ones that tend to get nasty, because you tend to go for personalities in an effort to find a difference.
For what it’s worth, I think Romanoff will be the first to go negative. He’s got no other realistic path to the nomination, and he’s got to drive up Bennet’s ratings.
Romanoff has two choices:
1. If he decides that he wants to run for another office in the future, I’d tell him to concede. Actually, I’d give him the same advice I gave him in real life: don’t run. You’ll have other opportunities, etc.
2. If, on the other hand, he decides that this is his only shot at higher office (which he may well have), then I’d tell him to take off the gloves, because there’s no other way he’s realistically going to win.
Again, it comes down to this point: Romanoff has to give Colorado Democrats a reason to fire Bennet and give him the job. He hasn’t done that yet, and unless he does it, he’s not winning.
I keep hearing this “there is no difference between MB and AR” argument — always from Bennet folks. I really have to disagree.
1) PAC money. Yeah Andrew talks about it a lot and some people on here think it’s trivial, but let’s be honest — it is an ideological difference. Bennet doesn’t see a problem with taking that money, Romanoff does. That’s an ideological difference.
2) Healthcare. Romanoff is a single-payer advocate who sees the public option as a fallback option. Bennet is a public option advocate who apparently now doesn’t have a problem supporting the bill without it (assuming I understand his current position correctly)
3) Banks v. Homeowners. It’s hard to downplay the importance of the cramdown vote. Bennet voted to kick people out of their homes instead of letting them work out a reasonable option. Romanoff would have voted to let them renegotiate their mortgages in bankruptcy court.
That’s a couple. I mean Bennet hasn’t been in all that long so there are only a few votes that didn’t just pass without controversy and already there have been differences in how they would vote.
1. PAC Money: Romanoff had no problem raising PAC funds when he was Speaker. Of course, now that he’s on the short end of the PAC stick, he’s against them. Color me unimpressed.
2. Healthcare: That’s a distinction without a difference, since the public option has long been considered a way to transition to a single-payer system. Moreover, Bennet is voting the way he’s voting because he’s got 30 million reasons to, as the Nation magazine details here. In this, Bennet’s joined by others like the Nation, SEIU and even Dennis freakin’ Kucinich.
Or are you seriously stating that Romanoff is more progressive than Kucinich?
3. I’ll grant you cramdown. That said, I don’t think cramdown is that important of an issue, and I say that as someone who lost his house. It’s certainly not as important as health care reform, or voting for war, or immigration reform.
Speaking of which, they do differ in immigration reform, and not to Romanoff’s benefit. Bennet’s in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, including the DREAM Act.
Romanoff, on the other hand, was instrumental in passing what by his own proud admission were the toughest immigration laws in the country. What’s more, even though he promised Latino leaders that he’d fix the immigration laws, he never did so. I know that he says he did to forestall referendums, but that doesn’t make it any less wrong.
1) Romanoff has discussed that point several times. There is a difference between how state and federal governments run and the influence of special interests. In addition, Romanoff isn’t exactly at the short end of the stick on this if he wanted. He’s picked up labor endorsements. Those come with PAC checks. He decided to decline all of it.
2) Has Bennet ever said he wants single payer or is he content with a public option? Also, there is a big difference in approach. Where was the single payer discussion 6 months ago? There wasn’t any. The dems in the senate started with the public option — no wonder the current negotiated bill doesn’t even have that. I think it’s a key difference in how they would have handled it.
3) Bennet voting against cramdown is part of the bigger picture. It ties back to the first point: Bennet voted against homeowners in crisis and then took hundreds of thousands from the banking industry, which he is now spending to say he’s trying to reform special interests in DC. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me (which you did).
As far as immigration, I know some people want to use the special session under Owens to say Andrew is anti-immigrant, but I think you know CO politics better than that. I’m sure there was some PR statements to appease both sides, but let’s look at what that session actually did. Romanoff shut down a radical right wing agenda that would have forced people to present proof of citizenship to use a library. His actions were seen as heroic by most in the latino community, and his support from people like Polly Baca is proof of that.
1. Again, Romanoff has been involved in Colorado politics for over a decade, starting with service in the Democratic National Committee. While serving on the DNC, he certainly didn’t have a problem with PAC money, and he certainly didn’t have a problem raising PAC funds for Hillary Clinton in 2008.
He came out against PACs because it’s a cheap point to score, not because he’s got the old-time campaign finance reform religion. Give me a break, it’s not like we’re talking about Granny D (bless her memory) here. Now, you may agree with him, and that’s great, but lets don’t pretend like this is a deeply held belief, ’cause it sure isn’t.
2. Single payer hasn’t been part of the discussion for a long time. The major health care reform groups, led by Health Care for America Now, collectively decided back in 2007 to push for a public option, in order to get all the major Presidential campaigns on the same page.
I agree with you, by the way, that single payer should’ve been the starting point, but again, let’s don’t pretend like Andrew automagically would’ve made it happen. And again, based on Andrew’s past performance as speaker, I really doubt he would’ve been raising the barn on single payer health care in the Senate. What’s more likely is that he would’ve done the same thing Michael did, only maybe sooner. Would it have made a difference? Doubtful – I don’t think there was ever a solid constituency for the public option at this time.
3. You’re entitled to your opinion. If you can’t eat their food, drink their whiskey, screw their women, and then kick the interests to the curb, then you shouldn’t play the game. That’s not me by the way, that’s Molly Ivins who said that.
4. Romanoff didn’t shut down a radical right wing agenda; he legitimized it by passing that legislation. If he really wanted to shut it down, he could’ve done the truly heroic thing, taken it to the polls, and really shut it down. Instead, we got badly flawed legislation that still hasn’t been fixed and is still legitimizing that radical right wing agenda.
And his support from Polly Baca is proof that Polly supports him, not indicative of anything more than that. I’m half-Latino (Irish and Mexican), I didn’t see Romanoff’s actions as heroic, and Polly doesn’t speak for me.
1) Maybe he finally saw the destructive power of that influence, maybe he started watching Russ Feingold youtube videos, maybe Ken Gordon convinced him — who knows. Point being he could have been taking it and isn’t. Remind me — did Obama take PAC money as a senator and was it only as president he turned it down? The point is AR is speaking out on a subject that too few are willing to address.
2) If we had more people (who aren’t Dennis Kucinich — god bless him) who talked about single payer, maybe the conversation would have moved further that way by now. Again, AR is willing to push on this. I respect him for that.
3) It’s a cute quote — yes I’ve heard before. The point is that Bennet clearly isn’t capable of taking their money and voting against them. He voted for big banks and took their money. I find it hard to believe that he voted the way he did for any other reason.
4) I take it you were also around the CO politics those days — I’ve read a lot of your posts and you’re clearly knowledgeable on a lot of this stuff. If you recall, what passed the legislature essentially said CO would respect federal law. Please correct me if I’m wrong. That’s exactly the right perspective: there is no way individual states can deal with the issue — it has to be federal (regardless of your view on what the solution is). We might just end up disagreeing on this last point, but yes — I believe he did shut down a really bad initiative and did it without it going to the ballot and costing millions to fight.
.
might I suggest peeking ahead to what the GOP will dredge up against Bennet in the General ?
Whether you adore him or not, he cannot win, not even against Steve Barton. He is going to be portrayed as the guy who destroyed phone service in Colorado, in order to further enrich the guy with the big railroad inheritance.
What’s his answer to that ? That in the long run it actually improved Internet access ? While arguably true, that could be real tough to sell to low information voters, who I guess are being called “undecided” here. And endorsements, and complex technical arguments, by Tim Wirth aren’t going to sway any low information votes.
I’m guessing that over $20 million flows from corporate persons to 527’s this year to destroy reputations in this race, regardless of facts. Both major parties see this as eminently winnable.
If Michael can’t stand the heat, maybe advise him not to camp at Ground Zero, Trinity Site.
.
How on earth did Bennet destroy phone service in Colorado? First off, people have phone service. Second, the big problem here is that Qwest is incompetently run and I don’t think Bennet forced them to hire the nimrods they presently have in charge there.
How did we already reach this level of absurdity in the debate? Bennet destroyed phone service? Romanoff causes blizzards! Norton is the reason we have mosquitoes!
Are you seriously on Pols from your vacation? I’m going to email you a ‘virtual balls-kick’ if you don’t knock it off and go outside and enjoy yourself.
David, go enjoy your vacation. Now.
She asked me to keep an eye on Pols about the birther/Hawaii bill story going national. Don’t worry, I’m on my iPhone, poolside with a pina colada, reading “The Gamble” on my Kindle.
Life is good 🙂
if the Barron is concern trolling about how bad Bennet is going to be for the Democrats then you can bet that he is scared down to his government issued skivvys of the guy. If he really thought Bennet is as big a loser as McInnis then he would be pushing Bennet as the Democratic nominee. Those sneaky government types with their psychological head fakes. You gotta love them for trying to help Democrats with their free advice.
Having a lovely time down here in Mexico so just a quick note.
Yes Ken Buck needs to raise money, but Jane Norton spent about 250K on TV and still lost to him. So he doesn’t need to raise more than her, just some money.
Dan Maes is a giant question mark. He’s got no money, organization, political experience, etc. And all that is key to winning. But he pulled 40% without that and that is supposed to be impossible. So who knows what will happen here.
I think it was a good night for both Bennet and Romanoff. Even though they are going head to head – it can still be viewed as good for both.
Finally, the people the night was bad for – Norton, McInnis, & Wiens – are also the 3 who declined interviews with me. Was that key to their defeat? No, but it might be the refusal was an indicator of an approach that was sub-optimal.
Anything within 10 points was considered a victory.
We are fine. The Speaker’s activist base gave us their best shot, and now we have the initiative.
Besides the stimulus, Sen. Bennet has been influential in gaining aid of 300 million for Colorado dairy farmers, 40 million for pine beetle disease in the mountains, and 40 Million for the Arkansas Valley conduit to bring fresh water to parts of Southern Colorado.
Sen Bennet listens to Colorado voters, and tells it like it is, sometimes to his disadvantage as his opponents are keen to take thing sout of context.
He has an excellent relationship with the President, leads on healthcare, and deserves 6 more years to represent Colorado