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%
April 16, 2010 12:53 AM UTC
72 Comments
They should have kept Pat Caddell.
Whatever happened to Joe Trippi by the way?
If that’s the case, this is actually a very savvy campaign.
while it may be salacious to readers here, likely amounts to less than a few hundred dollars in campaign funds to create a new banner, that photoshopped people together from the same event.
Compare that with the 3 million dollars lost per month by the DPS pension derivative investment swap that Senator Bennet brokered as the DPS Superintendent.
(which comes out of taxpayer’s pockets)
Which issue do you think merits more coverage, and which do you think will make the bigger difference in the general election?
statements like “those minority folks” are something a campaign can be really proud of huh?
This is a thread about a minor Photoshop incident and the response from Andrew’s campaign.
Do you think you will be able to make calls and knock doors for Bennet if he wins the primary?
Because the slander that comes out of a few of you worries me. This “any means to achieve an end” strategy is way off the charts and actually prevents meaningful discussion.
You do this to every thread about Andrew in order to prevent discussion from occurring. It really is shameful.
but in the last 3 weeks that you have posted here, you have not challenged this very website to do the same.
pity for your concern.
I read your post, yet again spouting off on a topic on which you’re clearly, completely uninformed, and this song just spontaneously popped into my head. Now I can’t get it out.
Camp Romanoff. I know he has a diverse following. So does Michael Bennet. Let’s talk about real issues, shall we?
I agree with Monger.
It is ALWAYS about the spin , the coverup, the explanation….
When in the blue blazes will politicians learn..’fess up to a mistake, and move on…
Candidate education class 1. Take question/whatever 2. Mull a second (repeat question whatever) 3. Answer with what you want to say, not what the question is. Repubs are the finest example and role model for not answering any question.
The question is “why did you doctor your front page banner pic? And, not let me have the first interview – I am po’d and will make a big deal out of this because you ignored me?”
The Answer could be ” Our original pic was very good, and because it was a collage it is now more representative of how America is; we will continue to update it as we see fit; and we are going to successfully win this primary and the general election”
Or “Do you realize that our campaign is now more popular with the people of Colorado than ever?”
Or “Andrew is the best candidate to ever walk the plains of Colorado or climb the mountains of Colorado”
Or “Andrew has not accepted money from those unwilling to write a personal check”
Repeat as many times as needed
Kudos to that.
Really not a good idea. And calling her column “despicable” — not so bright either.
I hadn’t read that before! Oh boy
Pols harping on this story…again. Come on pols — Hughes, Dunstone, and Kincaid not send you a new anti-Andrew talking point for the afternoon so you feel the need to recycle this mornings?
The Romanoff campaign statement you list is the right move — it dismisses Bennet’s attempt as sad ploy while focusing on what Andrew was doing yesterday — talking about jobs.
But then again you don’t actually want to talk about the positive press Andrew got yesterday…from papers in two major towns. You know — these stories:
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
Do you have a smoking gun not yet revealed for this weighty accusation? Spill it!
Looking and sounding progressive and smart is good.
But the news wasn’t news – and right now the only thing anyone wants to hear is what’s the Romanoff media budget.
I knew this was a good move by Romanoff’s campaign and somehow Bennet’s fault. I love that you are so…. reality based.
I mean if we love democracy, we’ll quit paying attention to the incompetence of the Romanoff campaign and assume he’s going to be MUCH MORE competent if we ever let him participate in running our country.
Sorry, Rice Czechs, you’re gonna have to be more convincing than that.
My vote hangs in the balance.
This story has gotten NATIONAL news coverage. We did two posts on this, which have gotten more than 200 comments.
But obviously nobody cares.
earn their keep just like the rest of us.
Whether people care, and whether it is a politically significant story, are two completely different things. Otherwise, there’s nothing more important in this world than Tiger Woods’ infidelities, and whatever popular inanities are occupying the spotlight at any given moment.
These kinds of discussions are the political equivalent of those other pop-culture morsels of irrelevance. What we should be talking about are the issues that face us, the policy ideas that address those issues, and the positions of candidates vis-a-vis those issues and those policies, as well as their political skills for engaging in the processes required to advance their positions.
Some might argue that the photo-shopping is relevant under that last category, but since this is a normal-stupid political gaff, one similar to gaffs of similar form and magnitude found in almost any campaign, I’d say it’s just background noise. And that’s what it should remain.
I really don’t understand politics.
I did not think this was a real story. Certainly not a story that the campaign would ever feel the need to comment on.
if it was just a snarky column from susan greene, yeah the smart move is to ignore. In this case, Lynn Bartels picked it up (why I can’t understand), Pols has been harping on it all day, etc.
So I would bet that they are being hounded for a response. If they don’t give one, it’s another round in the post about how “they refuse to comment on doctoring photos” — which of course makes it sound really bad.
They did the right thing — they explain, dismiss, and deflect — back onto positive things about Andrew. It’s a solid move.
and mostly low energy.
All the passion and energy in this thing on this site anyway- was from camp Romanoff. Wade, JTB, strkyer2k and you. deflect, deny, outrage.
It’s not a story. Leave it alone and it goes away faster.
“I think we might be talking about a .22 caliber mind in a .357 magnum world”
And they spend a week talking about whether the governor of Florida is an idiot or not. Leave it alone and it goes away.
Or comment and pivot on it every day. Matters not to me- I was trying to be funny all day about it.
she didn’t “pick it up.” Greene wrote a column on what Bartels had already reported.The Hill, Talking Points Memo and others did pick it up … Just sayin’.
It’s a non-story. There’s no need to draw attention to it. I’d just blown it off & continued about my business.
Tell your story, don’t be a character in the other guy’s.
Want to distract from this nonsense and set the day’s agenda? Release some surprisingly good first quarter fundraising numbers Thursday afternoon. For some reason, that didn’t happen.
A press release today would have been a good idea – but on the subjects that play to Andrew’s strengths.
A former legislator had told me that he/she believed Romanoff had an incredibly thin skin for a politician. This response by Romanoff seems to confirm that judgment.
She spent money defending herself from MM’s attacks instead of running ads on subjects that gave her an advantage. You don’t win a campaign playing defense.
Photoshopping a web banner doesn’t say anything important about a candidate.
Calling a person bought without any evidence does.
Saying a guy is corrupt because he takes PAC money — when you yourself took PAC money for years — also says something about a person.
Failing to identify meaningful policy differences definitely matters in an election.
Being snarky matters.
Photoshopping doesn’t say anything meaningful to me, but plenty else does.
Puffing minority suopport is not new, but not uncommon.
Andrew’s big policy statement on trade, though progress in actually talking issues, simply states in a round about way that he supports the President’s position.
Andrew is the one who said he would not have voted for health care in December.Then he said he wouldn’t vote for it in March. Then he put out an e-mail sayiing what a great victory it was.
His supporters called Bennet people fascists in Boulder, not just Brandon. Only one potential fist fight was broken up in Arapahoe instigated (per an uncommitted delegate that stayed that way that got between the combatants) by an AR supporter.
AR keeps saying that he has no control over his supporters and can do nothing to stop the negative campaigning. That’s not true leadership.
That’s what the Republicans say about Tea Party violence.
and over and over through this primary, Romanoff has shown a huge lack of leadership.
You would think that the career politician would be able to run a better campaign. Does this reflect the fact that he has never had to run a competitive campaign before?
Is this what we would expect from him in the Seante?
The photoshopping story was pretty pointless. No doubt.
Not a smart move responding to it, though.
“new and especially despicable charge”? Talk about an overreaction.
The new press secretary made The Hill’s Quote of the Day today:
”
And apparently this is an “ongoing” controversy. Double ouch.
Pretty easy to say “Everyone pictured was at the rally”
I guess staff doesn’t matter.(someone elses’ words, not mine)
Is this guy #4 or #5?
Or did we find out that #1 wasn’t really, so he’s #3?
Okay, then let’s look at the photo on Bennet’s website. Is the Bennet family really standing in that field? Were those mountains really behind them? Were ALL those mountains really behind them? I don’t care. I’m more interested in Romanoff’s proven leadership and Bennet’s lack thereof.
But since we’re down to studying website headers, it’s interesting to note that Romanoff is pictured with the people of Colorado and Bennet is not. At least he’s with his family. It used to be just him, didn’t it?
You are all so angry that Romanoff isn’t following the script political consultants would write for him. I like that he’s not.
Maybe Lynn Bartels should write a story about how Bennet’s website no longer mentions the Regal theater deal by name. Or how his website blocks the wayback machine internet archive. (Thus I could not verify my claim in this paragraph, which I base on memory.)
Here’s a gem from the website though (look now, it may be gone by by tomorrow):
“Though he did not have any previous business experience” he got a job as a Managing Director with Anschutz! How did that happen!? Bartels might want to ask.
with a sloppy cut and paste on your web banner then keep talking about it?
on his website? Good thing Pols didn’t go overboard on that one and go posting diaries or nuthin’.
But like they say, if you’re not interested, you can always change the channel, OBK.
By the fact that this site is the one of the main ways Romanoff has been able to get the word out, to get press.
The largest audiences he is normally able to get are the Denver Post, local papers, Facebook and this site. Without TV, he relies exclusively on these limited resources.
It is going to be very hard to frame the debate for Romanoff with no way to get earned media after the assembly. If this type of story is the only way he can get on TV or in the paper/blogs, this is going to be a looong primary for the 4th spokesperson. If he lasts.
I have almost as many frineds as his campaign.
Then their sock puppets say that I just don’t like him.
This latest gaffe is a pattern of half truth and spin. It’s his style.
Stop attempting to make points based on how many “friends” you have on Facebook. It is juvenile and really makes you look ridiculous. I’m just giving you a heads up on that one.
AR is the only remaining US Senate candidate for Colorado (yes, I’m ignoring Wiens – cuz, well, nobody cares about Wiens) who hasn’t announced his Q1 fundraising numbers.
Friday is a good day to release bad news, right?
Its like Christmas.
at about dinner time. He raised almost the same as Buck, and loaned himself almost the same as Buck. Odd.
Please drop the constant Romanoff bashing. I have been a loyal reader of this blog for years but am quickly getting turned off by your blatant and sometimes reckless and personal biases against individual candidates. I am an undecided Dem (between Romanoff and Bennett) who finds your coverage of this primary more than pathetic thus far and certainly less than helpful in my decision making. By all means report on news that is news and feel free to repeat when such news has merit or importance. Stop, however, rubbing our faces in meaningless non-stories like this one (over and over again, twice in one day, day after day, etc).
There is a ton of comments by all the people that hit this website. For whatever reason, and I’m not sure why, this story is resonating. Might be due to how badly team Romanoff has handled it.
This is silly season stuff. Just like every mountain scandal, or facial hair fiasco. But you know what, Pols covered those too.
that Al Gore lost in 2000 because he didn’t kiss Oprah on TV. GWB did and jumped in the polls.
Gore lost in 2000 because he wouldn’t let the Big Dog campaign for him.
Gore even lost his home freakin’ state.
This story was carried by national and local press. I hope the same standard would be applied to The Hill that is being applied to Pols.
And this is relevant to the Senate race. The response to this incident is much more important than the Photoshopping ever was.
They are on their 4th (I know, 3rd to be fair) spokesperson. What is this, his first week at work? Jeez.
What I think is far more important than any of this is ARs FEC reports. That is really newsworthy. And if AR pulls down chump change again, that will be a substantive conversation and one that merits major criticism of his campaign.
FoCO, a little sensitive are you? This is what happens in a primary race and when one candidate who’s running an insurgency campaign that many in the party think could potentially be a spoiler race, runs a negative campaign and makes gaffe after gaffe it’s no wonder Pols covers it. After all, the leading state and national media outlets are covering the stories that you’re blasting Pols for covering and Pols is an insider baseball political blog. Get real!
I don’t necessarily yet have a dog in this race. I am just disappointed in the way that Pols constantly harps on individual candidates and pretends at other times to be unbias and almost journalistic in nature. I don’t really mind that they ran the first fluff story on the photoshopping… I found it irrelevant, yet tolerable. The second story however and the colorful language employed in its title just served to illustrate that Pols has some kind of axe to grind with Romanoff personally.
I would not say that either campaign has ran a particularly “negative” or nasty campaign. I don’t know where your perception of that comes from. I have found neither side turning me off based on any of their efforts to beat the other candidate. My problem here is with Pols’ coverage of the primary alone, not with Bennett or his campaign. You should have read my post a little more thorougly before you provided your no-point defense on behalf of Bennett for my non-attack.
Welcome FoCo. I was once a lurker too though for full disclosure I’m not undecided – I’m supporting Romanoff.
You have to understand the rationale of the Dead Govs – they didn’t want to post it, they didn’t even think to post it and they certainly have no favorite in this race. They just comment on the news and in this case, Romanoff made them post this. You see, what Romanoff should have done was sit and watch while the hacks at the Post (who have made no secret of their preference or lack of journalistic competence) run not one but two pieces accusing them of something while Romanoff’s camp sat silent and said nothing. In fact, when The Hill and TPM picked it up and further twisted the story to “report” that Romanoff had “doctored photos to add a black woman” that’s when Romanoff should have stayed super quiet. EXCEPT… then the good Govs would have front-paged the ineptness of Camp Romanoff for failing to dispute it and assailed them for letting the story go national without setting the record straight.
I guess when you’re a political has-been or wannabe, formerly relevant or a former mouthpiece for a union who has gotten marching orders from Rahm and still tickles you from time to time, you go where you’re told in hopes that you can be relevant again or seem to be setting the news story
Hey! Are you outing anybody there? It’s kind of confusing.
I say incoherent wtfever.
I would have to say in response is that the AR folks are doing most of the personal bashing here, at least on this blog, and at the caucus, and at the county assembly. Most of the personal attack language has been uttered by the AR folks; I think most of the independent folks, or the Senator Bennet folks, have been mostly focused on issues, not Karl Rove attacks based on vapor. I feel just the opposite; the more the AR folks get defensive and lash out, the more turned off I am to any kind of substantive message the AR folks have to offer.
The AR folks are handling this badly from a PR standpoint, and need to put it to bed on behalf of their candidate.
Then speak to the folks at the AR campaign who are coordinating the inane character assassinations of Senator Bennet in the finest tradition of the Tea Party crazies, Rush, Beck and Atwater. As far as I can tell, there have been more personal insults offered by Senator’s Bennet’s character and motives here by AR folks than by Bennet supporters about AR’s character and integrity. Most of the criticism has been about the campaign management and his “wandering in the desert” approach to running a campaign.
Most folks I talk to who are sort of aware, but not really involved yet are growing very tired of the trashing of Senator Bennet, and the whining and action out of the grassroots folks. It is being perceived as a version of the kids who act out when Dad doesn’t get the car for the 16th birthday, and boy, will I show them. Same thing by folks who expected AR to be handed the nomination, and he didn’t get it, and now, boy, are we going to make people pay..Instead of answering questions, or acknowledging mistakes and moving on, the counterattack with questionable, non provable accusations about Senator Bennet’s motives, ethics and thinly veiled accusations of back room deals with Wall street fat cats…I am beginning to wonder if the RA folks are really Tea Party folks trying to high jack the conversation and set the parameters of the discussion. True RA folks had better hope not.
Before Photoshop, candidates hired photographers to take pictures of them for use in campaign ads. Yes, the pictures were mostly staged. But at least they were real. Now, Photoshop makes campaign fakery easy.
http://www.squarestate.net/dia…
This conspiracy goes all the way to the top.
Bennet’s campaign/Susan Greene (no question the Bennet folks gave her this – she is not smart enough to figure this out on her own) have gone Rove and the Romanoff was completely right for responding.
If these are the tactics the Bennet campaign is going to use it going to be easy for the Romanoff staff to rip them apart. By the way-I have heard all of these rumors about this “dirt” on Romanoff-Bennet crew do tell. Wait you can’t. It doesn’t exist. With Romanoff’s momentum and popularity going up and Bennet falling this is all you can come up with.
The Denver Post is in the pocket of Michael Bennet, right?
What doesn’t this supremely powerful man control?
Colorado Pols is now sounding desperate. Having miserably misdiagnosed the Jared Polis vs. Joan Fitzgerald campaign they are in full out advocacy mode on behalf of Michael Bennet praying to not be embarrassed again.
It’s almost sad to watch this site at this point.
I’m having a difficult time wading through all the comments, so maybe it has already been posted, but what is this:
in reference to?