President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 16, 2010 07:40 PM UTC
28 Comments
Bennet has spent A LOT — that’s for sure. This number shows that he is spending far more than he’s raising.
The second question is how much of that 2.6 is available for the primary? Pols — did the Bennet campaign state how much of this is in their primary coffer as opposed to general? Donations from so called “double maxed” donors are only available if Bennet wins the primary.
You MUST be getting dizzy by now.
I just think it’s funny when people whistle past the graveyard.
Bennet can use all of the money for the Primary, but he wouldn’t, because he needs to save it for the General. Bennet will save more money than Romanoff will even raise.
I’d have another word for asking about how much of the 2.6mm is available now.
Either way- my yard signs are up and registered.
Early and often.
You can use funds raised for the general in the primary. You can also use funds raised for the primary in the general. This according to the FEC: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui… at p. 19 (as a large doc it takes a while to load).
Importantly, should a candidate LOSE the primary election, the candidate must return all donations designated for the general within 60 days. Id. at p. 18.
If Clinton’s endorsement had provided a big surge, Romanoff would have released his numbers, even if the quarterly total was comparatively low as expected, in order to gain fundraising momentum from the Clinton surge.
Obviously that didn’t happen.
I think it was the last or 2nd to last day of the quarter. There was a followup story about an email that went out to hillary donors, which happened early July.
I’d have wanted the Big Dawg here earlier in the quarter.
Oh, wait- I’d have wanted his email earlier in the quarter and then his presence mid-way through the quarter.
Unless, of course, I didn’t want any stinkin’ outsiders, especially Presidents.
You hardcore Bennet Groupthinkers are so in love with his pile of $ you can’t see his considerable flaws. And to discuss those flaws is forbidden — “Negativity, man!” I understand the importance of $ in elections, but do you understand that $ is the bane of our political system?
Romanoff is trying to do something about $ in elections right now. The fierce urgency of now. Bennet’s plan is to do something about it in the future, I guess. Like his plan with the public option and various other things that need fixing.
Lose.
Or the fierce urgency of some time next week, when Romanoff releases his 2nd Quarter numbers.
Gold fever, maybe.
I have another kind of fever…..and when I get that fever, there’s only one prescription, only one cure: more cowbell!!!!
I found my tagline 🙂
SNL, I’m betting Will Ferrll, but it’s hard to know.
Christopher Walken played Bruce Dickinson (the cock of the walk, baby!)
but Ferrell did some writing, Walken not so much.
And it sounds like Ferrell.
I even own the t-shirt 🙂
I think you’re confused. The only reason why AR took the “righteous path” is because he had no other choice. He was being opportunistic. If he had big money lined up, no way in hell would he have taken the “high road”. That’s what’s wrong with his whole campaign, he’s being politically expedient.
If it was heartfelt, he would’ve attacked the campaign finance long ago and if my memory serves me right he in fact had a PAC under his own name just last year.
or offered to refund every dime he ever took that was “wrong.”
before he announced his candidacy and began flogging Bennet for being just as bad as he had been the previous week….
right before you write this stuff.
It is entirely conceivable that Bennet’s cash advantage is a reflection of his popularity and recognition of his work in in the Senate like voting for the toughest banking regulations since the Great Depression. You can argue whether they are strict enough regulations to prevent the bankers from initiating another greedy meltdown but you can’t argue that Bennet sided with Democratic values to re-regulate Wall Street. Romanoff has little to quibble about Bennet’s votes.
Bennet had a good quarter as a senator and as a campaigner. He should be in good position heading into the primary.
Yes Senator Bennet voted for the final bill. But on a lot of the votes leading to the final bill Senator Bennet mostly sided with the banks. There are good reasons to vote for Senator Bennet, but financial regulation is not one of them (unless you are a senior bank executive).
When most people put a link in a comment, they don’t put in a link to their own post.
What you opine isn’t fact. It’s your own opinion. To masquerade that opinion as fact is disingenuous.