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
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
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
70%ā
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 03, 2010 05:34 AM UTC
156 Comments
Loading ...
than you will ever exhibit in your entire life, my friend.
You’re an insufferable toad.
the Bennet campaign is operating perfectly.
I put you in the “unencumbered by the thought process” camp.
He’s put himself on-par with Stryker, JO, Firewalker, and the rest of these idiots.
The problem with Bennet is he lacks a personal connection with the group of average Democrats active here in Colorado….among other key character flaws.
Most of my Democrat friends are no different from most of those in the GOP camp – they all want to have a political leader to set the tone and move forward a principled agenda. 90% of us want your Helton, Elway, Sakic type. The other 10% of us just want to mold the rules to our complete advantage. But that is life in our capitalistic republic – we trade votes and cash for leverage.
Bennet understand this 10% very well, but fails to connect with the 90%. Had he had time to develop without the bothersome Pelosi-Reid socialist agenda pushing and pulling him for the last 18 months he might have developed operational respect.
I suspect he’s never hand dug a trench, let alone developed any skill useful in a machine shop, EMT bus, QA group or the formulation of excel cells on those business deals he opines about.
Like his political germination, he’s Somalia bred and in a failed state. He lacks the personal connection with party faithful to overcome these genes. Its too bad, he knows well how to serve the 10% that allocate capital and create the jobs and payroll we need.
Libertad sums it up concisely.
Prince Bennet likes playing ‘everyman’ but it rings hollow. He claims he’s learned what’s broken in DC in his short tenure but actually this jr. Sen has learned to play the system better than many. In just 18 mos. he’s sure made some very interesting & generous well-moneyed ‘friends.’
Bennet is what’s wrong with the system. He’s a hollow uninspired middlin’ political appointee that’s more than happy to just follow the crowd, regardless of the needs of CO constituents. Who does he work for?
You, on the other hand, couldn’t find your ass with both hands on a good day.
and still won. That is not saying as much as you think. The Obama phenomenon had less to do with campaign management and there were many, many other independent groups working to get Obama elected. The bit on his resume also doesn’t mean the next campaign he runs isn’t a train wreck. happens all the time.
Not alone
as your last campaign. Dick Wadhams ran John Thune’s campaign that ousted Tom Daschle….and he’s lost every campaign he’s ran since then. At one point he was revered as “the next Karl Rove”…now he is viewed as a clown.
Bennet’s campaign has sucked. He’s outspent his opponent roughly 5-1 and the most recent poll has him behind by three points. It is either the manager, the candidate, or both that bear responsiblity for the situation they find themselves in and generally, is is much more difficult to can the candidate than it is to can the manager.
still qualifies him as a potential next Karl Rove.
I’ll say it again – as much as you all bash Romanoff supporters, clearly the Bennet supporters are no better.
TW has a long history here on Pols as one of the more thoughtful and insightful participants. He may be a bit steamed right now (who isn’t), but this reflects more on his relationship with David than it does on MB supporters.
Your assumption, David, is that Craig is doing something wrong. No one ever said this race would be an easy contest. The Romanuts have made Andrew out to be a cross between John Elway and Jesus of Nazareth.
Andrew was very wise to give so many of the state legislators a few hundred bucks for their camapigns through his PAC (the money was fundraised then redistributed — it was not his own money). It bought him future support when he ran for state-wide office. Brilliant.
The myth that he turned this state blue endures. We ALL turned this state blue, and we can thank the Gang of Four for giving us the resources to make it possible in just a few years.
The problem is keeping it that way. Suppressing the vote with negative campaigning, as Andrew has done, unravels all our successes over the past ten years. People will begain to despise him for it.
I think the problem the Bennet campaign had was taking Andrew Romanoff at his word. He not only lied when he promised he would not have a negative campaign, he’s become a master of it. They also let Team Romanoff define Bennet more forcefully than Team Bennet did. I don’t think anyone expected the nastiness and deceit Joe Trippi had up his sleeve.
Bennet is a decent man with a strong sense of integrity. So is Craig Hughes. I doubt they will stoop anywhere near as low as Romanoff has, but they will fight back, in an ETHICAL WAY. I do think Bennet will win, and I think he will be seen as the Statesman he truly is. If he had to spend a few extra mill to preserve his honor and integrity, I think that is money well spent.
The Romanoff campaign reminds me of plants grown on Miracle Gro. It may be burning brightly at the moment, but it’s artificial ingredients (negative campaigning, personal attacks, dishonest messaging) cannot sustain it for long.
I couldn’t be more proud to stand with Michael Bennet, one of the great Statesman of our time.
Saint Bennet’s team are the wing-nuts who idolize their man far more than Andrew’s supporters lionize him. The reaction to this piece clearly shows that yet again.
In fact, it is the easiest attack your side loves to make, that we who support Andrew are somehow delusional and can’t see clearly what an evil man Andrew is compared to your innocent lamb.
The truth is Andrew is a good man with a great deal of excellent experience in Colorado that give him good claim to the nomination. He is no saint and doesn’t claim to be one.
Your team however likes to cast a lot of stones against Andrew and then claim it is our side doing all the stone throwing. You can’t have it both ways try as hard as you might.
To be honest with you, I met Bennet and didn’t feel as though he was a guy i’d like to get a beer with. He wasn’t very personable.
This has nothing to do with idolizing the guy though. He’s done a great job in office and deserves to keep his job. PeaceMonger summarizes it well, AR has been positioning himself for sometime now and I simply don’t feel as though he’s in it for the right reasons. Very opportunistic and calculating, which BTW isn’t a bad thing as long as your platform isn’t a sermon.
Not what have we gotten from having a random moderate Democrat there, but what specifically due to Michael Bennet?
is tough work, David!
He’s obviously back in the game and ready to receive contributions from PACs
AR would be a senior Senator overnight and would’ve fix all of our problems. Sure David. When you made your big Dem caucus announcement I knew you were off base, since then you’ve gotten much worse.
What have we gotten specifically because it’s Michael Bennet in that seat?
AR would have voted the same on every issue. At the end of the day, all that matters is that we have a Dem who supports Obama’s platform. We need to keep the seat and AR is putting it in jeopardy.
What would we have gotten with Andrew Romanoff in that seat?
I mean real shit that you can document, not just Romanoff talking points.
This being an outsider year, the question David asks is more relevant to the general election and to voter sentiment – and to my own decision-making process.
What has Michael Bennet done as our Senator that we should be enthusiastic about? Is Romanoff likely to be worse or better on the things we were disappointed in Bennet for? Worse or better on the things Bennet has done well?
What it came down to for me is that Bennet really hasn’t done anything I’ve felt warranted standing up and cheering for him. Letter on the PO? MIA. Introducing the clean energy bill? Stood with Udall on it, and it’s not a great bill.
Best thing I’ve heard him introduce: today’s announcement on a new FDA regulatory powers bill. But, of course, it’s a week before the election and the bill won’t be considered (if ever) until well into the remainder of the fall session. It could as much be a throw-away gesture toward the primary as anything else.
So it falls back to: did Bennet do anything disappointing? Answer: several things. Do I think Romanoff will be worse on any issue considered? Answer: no. Do I think Romanoff might be better on some issues? Answer: yes. Decision made – the rest is tiresome political infighting on the part of both candidates and their supporters.
so if you answer him, I’ll answer you.
Statesman is usually a politician or other notable public figure who has had a long and respected career in politics or government at the national and international level.
Statesmanship conveys a leadershp quality that organically brings people together and of eldership, a spirit of caring for others and for the whole.
Statesman is usually reserved for a head of state, a senior political figure, or anyone who in a given moment exhibits a certain quality of statesmanship.
Just remember the lip balm ‘monger cause cause that’s some serious tuchus kissing.
I need a “Gentleman”. I need Andrew Romanoff to live up to “Former Speaker of the State House”. I need someone to remind him that he once spoke for the entire legislature. I need him to remember when he was one of the most well-respected politicians in our state. I need him to live up to the claim of helping to turn Colorado blue. Whether that means he was a Statesman or just a politician that was trustworthy, ethical, and moral doesn’t matter to me.
As for Bennet being a Statesman, I think it goes to more than just age or years in politics. It goes to setting an example. It goes to not compromising on your morality. Whether you think Bennet is a Statesman or not doesn’t matter. He’s setting an example.
Feeling spurned much?
I guess you’re really bitter that people don’t care about you because you’re irrelevant, uninteresting, and write stupid shit (see, above.)
Welcome to the monday-morning quarterbacking game. And way to show you aren’t any good at that either.
If you had a clue what you’re talking about, you’d probably have made it, instead of being some shitty irrelevant wanna-be blogger that no one really gives a damn about.
Your whole crusade with this switch to Romanoff has been to make yourself relevant.
Well, newsflash buddy: You. Aren’t.
And on August 11th, you’ll be even less so.
Have fun rooting for Ken Buck.
The Bennet campaign is letting itself be defined right now, and Romanoff’s late poll surge may portend trouble for his campaign.
If anything, reasonable responses here might actually help the Bennet camp.
Sounds to me like he has an ax to grind with someone. Why else call out Craig Hughes?
And he’s doing it without offering anything thoughtful or substantive as an alternative. Just a stupid hit piece. Really lame. David should never have been a front page editor anyway. This stunt should get it taken away.
But it does make you fell better for a bit…
Not once has Bennet led off the line. 58% of use think jobs and payroll are issue #1 – his ads have failed to deliver this message from day 1. Know this – it is not a new issue its just that the bailouts have failed to deliver the promised sustainable payrolls.
Call AR an opportunist, but he’s saw this consistent stutter step from Bennet. He and Romjue (sp?) laid down some crack-back blocks and there lies the Obama-backed appointed Senator hobbling to and fro. To be sure, AR’s Tea Party style approach has worked very well. And why not, the people are not happy.
Should AR win, the question he faces is how to deny the big government programs he has latched his saddle to for the last 15 years.
Illegal aliens have taken Teamster and AFL-CIO jobs and those that aren’t here have been cut out to the overreach of SEIU funded socialist programs. Sure NAFTA moved a lot of jobs south, but that would have happened anyway – NAFTA just accelerated it.
Ya gotta learn to manipulate the audience like Hickenlooper. Having laid waste to a hundred thousand plus of jobs and a handful of fortune 500 HQs he stands there, junk hanging out looking for the next hole to insert it into.
Many of the Bennet supporters here claim that Romanoff supporters denigrate anyone who disagrees with them while Bennet supporters are all dignified and proper. Then I put up a diary asking what should Bennet do, and you guys go all Skyler2K on me.
Next time you ask who’s lowering the level of discourse in this race, take a look in the mirror.
The Bennet supporters, who kept saying Romanoff should bow out because he can’t win without Bennets’ mega-bucks, are struggling for a new message.
It seems they can’t get past their anger long enough to formulate anything more than insults. I’ll keep reading, just the same.
Okay, his polling says he’s up in ballots already returned, but some of the polls are also showing him behind… He’s got to shore himself up somehow in a positive light before the election closes. So, most important tactic for Bennet in the next couple of days? Get some positive press. Show you’re working for the people. The easiest place to start is, IMHO, that public option letter that he’s got sitting on a dusty shelf somewhere. He’s already come out in favor of a PO, so he’s got nothing to lose and everything to gain by following up. And he’s got good CBO numbers coming from Woolsey’s House bill to bolster his support. While he’s at it, how about a regulatory follow-up to health care reform? I understand some insurers are deciding to drop individual coverage for children altogether… He could also use his fiscal credentials to be one of the point men on a second round of stimulus, which it looks like our economy might need to keep it on the right track.
He could try to damage Romanoff; bad news travels faster than good news, after all. But for all the negative campaigning, it’s all been pretty weak stuff, and I think voters are getting tired of it. It would have to be something legit and damaging.
People are obviously too overheated on this topic to restrain their free speech with quality writing right now, so we’re being extremely lenient. But if you could please try to make the point you presently have at the top of our front page a little more substantively, perhaps with something thoughtful to offset the gratuitous profanity, we’d appreciate it. Thanks.
The “full of shit” is a quote I got from Ralphie a bit earlier but I’ll sanitize it.
My original intention was to put my suggestions as a comment so as to not get primacy of place due to being an editor. But I think you were right that i should have put my ideas as part of the original diary.
without putting it on the front page?
About half my diaries since becoming a FPE I put on the side. I put this on the front page because I figured it is the big question facing the Bennet campaign right now.
to be more PC, you should remove the quotation marks David. If Ralphie said “full of shit”, then full of doodoo is not a quote.
He came in 3rd, and not by a small margin. Enough people realized what he’s about (hint: himself) and voted against him, I think (speaking as one who voted for Clubtwitty both because I think he’s great and I didn’t think David was a good fit for it this cycle).
I would prefer if we dialed down the hatefest…
you realize the other 2 frontpagers are Bennet supporters.
David was the only Romanoff one close to the top – and he has been a bit more reserved in his writing – he seems to genuinely want to make Bennet a stronger candidate for the general in case he wins the primary –
imagine if I was a frontpage editor writing this diary writing this story –
– and for that matter, imagine if the media had only listened to Team Hillary – we would have lost a stronger candidate in Barack Obama.
You can attack David, but I sincerely think he is trying to help the Democratic Party retain a Senate Seat.
Cause you know that the Republicans are going to attack whoever is the dem nominee for being a “Nazi-Socialist-Marxist-I had my picture taken with Barack Obama/Bill Clinton/Fidel Castro commie”
zero diaries on the Senate Primary?
But the other was just voting numbers – I think it was the only primary diary that had no arguments š
You’ve bashed Bennet for being the “appointed” Senator. David is the “appointed” FPE. The other two were elected.
nice catch
The horror, the horror.
You didn’t.
It’s not that important.
There’s always something to learn about campaigns, and it’s fun to discuss. But taking a cheap personal shot at Craig Hughes crossed a line that I don’t think should be crossed on the front page of this blog. Let it stay in the diaries with the rest of the rabble.
not Craig specifically, but I think their shop is top notch.
And Craig may be both a competent operator and a nice guy. But looking at this from outside, it sure looks like they were coasting to what they thought would be an easy win. And they were caught by surprise, with so little time leftmthey could well lose.
of what’s been going on.
The Bennet campaign has been in full campaign mode since last summer. Do you think they raised as much money as they did because they were “coasting”? (Most of the money raised through last quarter was primary money.)
They lost the caucuses, lost the counties, and lost the assembly — how on earth do you cast that as them thinking they had an easy win?
Also, did you miss the Bennet campaign’s internal poll released today, which covered a few days last week, that showed the race tightened to within the margin of error? Do you really think this was the first time they’d seen these numbers?
Despite what your mom tells you, David, you’re not a campaign strategist.
Ouch. That’s going to leave a mark. You know how overly sensitive Dave can be.
the Bennet campaign appears to be doing nothing but reacting to Romanoff’s attacks. That leads me to think they were caught by surprise.
Maybe they are really good and have been doing their best. But if so, after 5 million dollars and a year, to be on the ropes at this point leaves me wondering why they are so weak.
about the amount of money Bennet has spent, vs. their relative positions. But, yes, I think the Bennet campaign has known since at least late winter that this would be a very tough fight, and that no one is surprised that Romanoff’s advertising has been the way it has. You hire Joe Trippi, that’s what you get. But Bennet has had the opportunity to run vicious negative ads against Romanoff (“sleazy”?), all while being able to say they only did it to defend Bennet’s honor. That’s why they appear to be reacting. You’re also leaving aside, though, about a million dollars in issue and positive Bennet advertising, which is what it takes to overcome a blanket anti-incumbent sentiment. Will it be enough? We’ll see, but remember, Bennet started out without a reservoir of personal loyalty among state Democrats, and it’s neck and neck. I’d say that’s evidence the campaign knows what it’s doing, not the opposite. This is going to come down to the wire.
This was of course the year of “anti-incumbency” that Bennet had to fight off well before he ever got around to fighting off Romanoff. Bennet, unfortunately, has really been fighting off two opponents.
I think holding even with Romanoff is pretty big accomplishment for a guy who has never campaigned before, has to overcome the image of incumbency, and fight off an unethical primary opponent.
or cheap about this diary? he’s asking if there is anything they could do better? man you’re overly sensitive.
I would send Michael on every possible media outlet and get his voice heard as frequently as possible. And his message would be the typical high road message. No one cares about policy right now, it’s all character. Bennet needs to hound home the idea (accurate or not) that he is taking the high road and is the true statesman.
As for the above commenters, you are seriously unpleasant people with little anger control.
Couldn’t agree more!
I hope you post more. And by the way, Bennet IS the true Statesman.
David, this must be one of the better diaries around here considering the incredible venom it engendered. But I guess challenging anything about Saint Michael and his team would get no less on Bennetpols. Good job!
say something or shut up.
you have nothing to say and you’ve said it many times. enough already.
Are you supporting Michael Bennet? You really should make that clear somewhere in your post. I mean I just can’t tell if you’re trying to have a substantive discussion of how MB can get his groove back or if you have some ulterior motive.
What gives?
But if Bennet wins the primary, I want to see that they are capable of winning the general. And that means picking up their game over the next week.
… you are supporting the worst possible candidate and the worst possible Democrat to run.
But way, way more important than that, you are trying to insure that we have a dishonest person who has run a dishonest campaign represent our state.
Unforgiveable.
It is you and Romanoff supporters of good will who need to man up, stop the craziness that is going on this race and make your candidate stand up like a man and disavow the lies.
To fall back on lines of argument that begin and end with “I know this is BS but I want to see a guy who can deal with lies” is amateurish and wrong.
Right now, Romanoff is cowardly and so are supporters of his who fail to disavow the truly sickening distorted campaign he is running here.
I guess it was too subtle for you.
He should buy five minutes on all the local stations and go up live – just like he did Sunday.
In that time he should talk about himself and sell the deal. for 90 seconds – and ask for support, cash, volunteers, and votes.
For the next 90 he bashes AR with the most audacios bs you can think of, while also pointing out that his PAC contributions are just 18% the lowest of any Colorado elected in the House or Senate.
For the last two minutes he talks about what’s happening in the Senate in the next 4-6 weeks, how he approaches votes, and why Obama & Ritter and every member of the Colorado delegation endorsed him. Wife and kids join him at the end – to a cheering room of Coloradans.
6:17. Bewitching hour; you filed your post too late to matter.
17. So the lead declined. So what?
300. Yeah, he needed cash and, just like any regular guy, he wrote a check.
1. The number of votes PACman has ever received for public office = the number of terms served by the voter who voted for him served as governor = the number of fingers in which talent of his campaign is stored. He’s number 1! He’s number 1!
<100. Too bad that the intelligentsia with IQs >100 are all for Bennet; annoying that there are so many idiots among the voters. Doesn’t matter.
insult all opposition and claim intellectual superiority while doing it. I think that was Carter’s millieu, wasn’t it? Look how that turned out for him.
I can see the attraction of a high-road strategy, but he’s been doing that all along, and it’s taken him from 17 points up to 3 points down – maybe more, maybe less, depending on if other polls are in the field, which I’m sure they are. So, were I directing things, I’d go negative. And I mean hard negative. In short, I’m looking to destroy Romanoff as a political candidate, now and forever after.
He’s got three areas where, according to SUSA, he’s at a deficit:
– Liberals
– Latinos
– Voters under 50
He could try to introduce the stand-alone public option in the Senate, but I don’t know how much time he’s got left in the session. Personally, I think it’s too late to do that, and it’s something he should’ve done back in the spring, as sort of a next step in the HCR fight. I don’t think, frankly, there’s anything Bennet can do to woo liberals in this fight – Romanoff’s run more of a culturally progressive campaign than Bennet, so to me it was always a matter of when Bennet would lose them.
To me, the more worrisome sign is that Bennet’s losing to Romanoff among Latinos. In order to deal with that, you have to do two things:
– Start running ads on Spanish-language television, stating your support for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR), including the fact that you’re a DREAM Act co-sponsor;
– Start playing up the fact that when Speaker, Romanoff proudly supported the most anti-immigrant state legislation package in America, and that in many ways, he was the spiritual father of Arizona’s SB 1070. Matter of fact, I’d run TV ads on Spanish-language TV and radio coupling him with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
“But Romanoff supports immigration reform!”
Ahhh…that brings me to the rest of the voting population. You start blanketing the airwaves with ads accusing Romanoff of being a flip-flopper. You’ve started with the Latino population, now you’re talking to the general population at large. Now, the Bennet folks have done this with Romanoff’s PAC, but the broader message hasn’t been delivered yet:
The visual would be a gymnast, but it can be anything indicating flip flopping, including flip flops.
The flip side to this is having Bennet say something to the effect of:
Now, will this work? Hard to say, but I’d reckon yes.
But this is politics. You do what you have to do to win. If running that sleazy 527 hit over the last week or so was legit – and I haven’t seen Romanoff say that it wasn’t – then so’s this.
Don’t listen to bloggers.
I think Michael Bennet has integrity, intelligence, and common sense. He isn’t a politician that will deny his record. I happen to think that the Dems got what they could in health care and financial reform. No amount of spin can change the vote totals which were exremely close.
Those that would accept no change at all in the name of “progress” pine for what would equate to a total depression.
Frankly if BOA, Citi, or AIG had failed it would have meant social chaos.
Those that cry for Glass-Steagall should call out the President that permitted it to lapse.
The problem with the campaign is the candidate, not the manager.
Bennet needs to grow up and start being something other than a cardboard cutout. How can the voters believe in someone who first doesn’t believe in himself and second makes it clear that he doesn’t think that he is worthy of the office?
Campaign rhetoric about throwing the rascals out of DC notwithstanding, the man did not show any backbone on his votes that would make me think he will ever be anything but a journeyman Senator.
As wacky as Tancredo is, the guy has backbone. It may be a weird and twisted backbone, but it is a backbone.
Bennet needs to decide whether he is going to be a leader with the courage to advance issues or whether he just wants a cushy administrative job where there is not much risk.
I may owe Craig Hughes an apology.
the product has failed to pay attention to the field workers … they think he is an arrogant leader and wish not to follow.
Or does MB sound wasted when he speaks?
Michael Bennett is one of the most active members in Washington in trying to reform the Senate. I know that voters don’t love process arguments, but they do love arguments that set candidates against intrenched interests or inefficiencies. He should have a commercial that doesn’t even mention Romanoff’s name that has the phrase “up and down vote” about twelve times in it, since that seemed to be popular when the Republicans were wanting to go nuclear. Plus in a primary talking about taking on Republican obstructionism in a productive way might be good.
This and his education policy are why I hope Bennett gets out of the primary, though I understand his education policy is a bit divisive in the primary though it should be great for the general.
and if that isn’t good enough for those Democrats who have been so quick to abandon President Obama and his agenda then so be it.
Bennet can hold his head up that he took the job, did his best and campaigned on positive solutions. If Bennet had waged as nasty a campaign against Romanoff, his supporters would have cried victim and their loss of support would have crippled him in the general.
Romanoff has tore this party apart and the repercussions of taking down Bennet in the way that he has speaks volumes about the man and his disregard for his promises to the party. Bennet doesn’t have to do anything other than be Michael Bennet. If the primary voters reject him for the little back stabber then that’s the way it is. We’ll never move beyond petty as long as we vote for disingenuous people like Romanoff. The country and the party deserve better. This was a continuity election and the Democratic message should have been stay the course better days are ahead. Throwing Bennet overboard opens the door to it being a change election which benefits the other party.
Bennet is a class act and he’s message if fine.
This is very well-said.
Win or lose, Michael Bennet and his supporters can be extremely proud of the campaign he has run and the work he has done in the U.S. Senate.
My evidence is anecdotal, but I personally believe that Democratic voters on the fence are tilting towards Bennet, in part because they are seeing the real Romanoff and in part because they are seeing the steady, civil Bennet maintain his composure, sell himself and his record, and push back on rank lies.
sure AR took special interest money – millions of it in hard and soft forms over the last decade. Hell he allocated it for electioneering.
Bennet’s problem is the troops don’t like him. If he wins he’ll need to inspire AR’s supporters and that may be very difficult to do.
The record is clear 58% of us think jobs and the economy are #1 – Bennet’s record is not strong on that front.
How do you really feel, Gilpin Guy?
has a real chance to put Senator in front of his name.
If the little back stabber wins the primary the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party will have succeeded in using the politics of personal destruction to dismantle the progress of 2008 rather than build on it.
I do have to say that this whole exposure to the little back stabber has upped my respect for Ritter. He must have known how untrustworthy the guy was when he made is appointment. It might cost Democrats the seat to have appointed someone as apolitical as Bennet but Ritter did the right thing to not give the appointment to Romanoff.
The other person who stands out to me as a classy person is Joan FitzGerald. It must have been a bitter defeat to lose to Jared Polis but she moved on and is now fully engaged in a new career with a national voter organization. Democrats have been fortunate to have been served by some classy people. Romanoff isn’t one of them.
“little back stabber”? Incredible.
How dare he challenge Saint Michael! The nerve! The little back stabber! Doesn’t he know that all the powers that be have decided already who should be the Democratic Senator of Colorado! No one should let the voters decide by challenging the one we’ve anointed/appointed!
All of you who hold this view are pathetic. Early on many of you complained it didn’t seem how passionate Andrew supporters could ever support Bennet in the general if he won. I’d say a lot of you have boxed yourselves into the same corner of Andrew wins. If we lose the general, look in the mirror for the blame.
But it is kind of funny that you get outraged when a little mud gets through at your favorite. Interesting.
This the paradox that Bennet faces. Romanoff can sling all the mud he wants at Bennet but if anyone so much as insinuates that the little back stabber is an untrustworthy prick his groupies go all nuts with outrage.
Frankly I think we lost the seat the moment the little back stabber decided to make his campaign about personalities instead of issues. We should have been talking about better ways to use the beetle kill in the forests to be the Saudi Arabia of pellets or better ways to fund solar farms. I think if we lose the seat and the Republicans retake the Senate, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the little back stabber.
Well said- and astonishingly calm for the moment.
I’m just calling bullshit when I see it.
You should give some credit to Bill Ritter.
highlights the differences between the non-political Bennet and the sleazy veteran politician Romanoff.
This is one of those 1984 “white is black and black is white” moments where the phoniness of Romanoff being the brand new politician is contrasted so sharply with the non-political Bennet. Maybe Bennet isn’t cut out to be a politician but he isn’t the one making bullshit claims about being different even though he is. The Democratic Party has a stark choice between these two people. Choose the sleazy politician who will do anything including compromising his ethics to win and one who is doing his job. It’s a pretty stark choice.
If AR wins, we only know that the D’s wanted what AR said he was. But sine that’s not what he is, ….you see the problem,
you’ll come crawling back when Andrew wins… I know your type. Hussy!
I have been a member of pols for a while now but have always lurked and not posted.
Having said that, this is just too ridiculous to pass up. David, everything you write at this point just reeks of “This is what I would do as I am an expert, please pay attention.”
And yet here you are posting on a blog, while other people go out and work for campaigns. Coincidence that no one wants you running theirs? You call yourself a journalist, yet most journalists I know don’t spend their time bashing on candidate and talking up another on blogs, instead focusing their time instead on, oh you know, actual journalism.
Yes, I would say the Bennet campaign has made some errors, as all campaigns do (and I believe Romanoff’s has as well), but seriously even the most novice understand that races, especially in off year primaries, tighten considerably as the attention level ramps up and go up on TV, particularly when the name id of each is low (I know Romanoff people will say his is high, but that is just patently untrue. People barely know their Congressperson, let alone state rep). Being within the margin on both sides is just that, an indicator that the race is close. If you honestly thought an off year primary was going to be a blowout you are just ignorant. You seem to totally ignore this fact, despite your “depth” of campaign management experience (non existent as per resume posted on website).
Secondly, I have never seen worse advice. Honestly? Your strategy would be, in the last full week of a mail-in election, to totally shift and attack Romanoff on job creation? Try and lay out full justification for each vote?! (Which by the way if you actually listen and read the material out there I feel they have done). THERE IS ONE WEEK LEFT, and the number of outstanding ballots goes down every day! Amateur hour.
Pretty sure most people at this point would turn their efforts to GOTV and persuading the remaining votes versus abandoning strategy. But your strategy doesn’t even mention these things. Unreal.
If you are going to say you can run with NBA you should probably play college ball first. This diary is a joke.
Jokes are funny.
This is …something else not funny.
no you haven’t
Created:
Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 15:30:34 PM MST
if you don’t like David’s advice
write your own diary.
I would call 9 months “a while”!
Pretty lame, Wade!
But I’ve been here less than that and I think I’ve been here a while (but a day on pols can seem like an eternity…)
š
But it’s only Wade.
you on the other hand are enthralled with me…
LOL!
no you haven’t
Created:
Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 15:30:34 PM MST
if you don’t like David’s advice
write your own diary.
I guess in the echo-chamber 10 months isn’t long enough. What qualifies as a while?
The dictionary tells me: a period of time : we chatted for a while | she retired a little while ago.
Pay him no mind.
And glad you came out from the shadows polster…
A lot of AR shills posting here have appeared much more recently than you and Wade has never mentioned it…
For some of these folks, reality is malleable.
What matters is the true essence–their candidate. A poll that is within the MOE, favoring AR is a clear win; a poll spun the same way by MB (i.e. Bennet ahead but within the MOE) is deceitful and an indication that the Dead Guvs and FPEs (myself included) are rapid Bennetistas.
Its a bit bizarre really.
Andrew’s lead was 5 points, MOE was 4.5 I believe. His lead is real and not a statistical draw.
I have noticed that direct links to DP are unacceptable, so find below the pollster.com link to the latest DP poll.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/…
Up three, with a margin of +/- 4.3%.
The latest Harstead that the Bennet camp released was up four with a 4% margin. And that is with roughly 10 times the sample size.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/…
The latest poll that was not internal that had Bennet up was the previous poll done by Zata3 with Bennet up 4 with a margin of 3.6%. Automated, with a slightly larger sample than the DP and again significantly lower than the Harstead.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/…
Take these to mean what you will, but that are all with MOE.
I know I will be accused of being a shill and fed info from the campaign etc etc, but these numbers are readily to anyone with google and a computer/iphone/blackberry/etc by searching “pollster colorado senate 2010.”
don’t mean a thing.
Also I would like to add that
Kind of reflected in the fact that your front paged a diary talking about the fantastic advice you would give that would carry Michael Bennet to a November victory!
… I don’t think it’s possible for front page editors to post diaries that stay over in the right margin. I think their power automatically promotes their own diaries.
Apparently there is a little check box on our FPE Master Control Panel (from which we rule the world) that allows us to not FP our posts…
Being power hungry, I wouldn’t know, as my end is to bend all of you to my will.
I’ve put about half my diaries on the side, half on the front. I figure this was a good front page one based on the number of comments.
I suppose that still counts.
I’m not saying my advice is perfect. But at least I’m looking for ways Team Bennet can step up their game. What I find crazy is I’m a Romanoff supporter and I’m trying to get you guys focused on winning. And you’re all focused on shooting the messenger.
Bennet has spent 5 million dollars, is the incumbent, has the backing of most of the party leaders – and he’s on the ropes after 3 weeks of somewhat rough comparison ads and one lying robocall. You guys need to focus on improving your game.
I was shocked to see this video. It proves Bennet’s been off his game … relying on the Den Post as his validation? Turning down 9 debate opportunities????
Meant to achieve nothing but a nice soundbite. Most of us ignored it as we understand that Bennet has one of those pesky job things. Maybe you haven’t heard but Bennet was appointed as U.S. Senator instead of Romanoff.
it’s his job for life?
a fake persona to invent.
Who is “us”?
At least, that’s what Pogo said.
Or did the turtle that say that?
And I have learned not to doubt the wisdom of Pogo
just wow.
David – I know all politics is emotional and it makes grown men act like five-year-old brats but that’s just part of the process I suppose.
You and I agree sometimes, sometimes we don’t but I always appreciate your input even when it could be said in a more concise manner. š
Thanks for all the time and effort you spend.
I believe you want to make Bennet better should he win.
I just wanted to give you a little encouragement as the Kings of the Keyboards type away and throw firey font bullets in your direction.
Will he allow PAC money to suport his campaign or not? (will)
Will he repudiate the lies from NLC or not? (not)
Should we believe his progressive words or his moderate actions? (he says actions)
the primary, the one thing that I hope his campaign will have learned from this is that he needs to fight and not let his opponent define the campaign.
I said it a couple of days ago and was flamed for it, but the bottom lines remains: Politics is a blood sport and primaries are good things. It makes the general election candidate stronger and more able to take a punch as well and more willing to dish a few out.
If you thing that Romanoff and his supporters have been tough on Bennet (whose political values are quite similar), what do you expect Norton/Buck and their supporters (who think that both Romanoff and Bennet are tools of the socialist revolution that wants to take their money and clise their houses of worship) to do to him in the general?
choosing between Romanoff and Bennett is like choosing which type of toilet paper your going to buy. Sure, both will get the job done, but no matter whether you buy the quilted expensive stuff (Bennett) or save money and go with the budget roll (Romanoff) it all gets gets flushed down the drain when your done using it
Both dem candidates are really not that compelling. Both candidates let their hunger for power shine through their poorly veiled facades of wanting to help Colorado.
From my standpoint (left leaning independent) there’s not much of a choice for senate this year: we got ultra right wing radical tea party crazies on one side, and dem candidates who seem squarely in the back pockets of wherever the money comes from…gee, what a choice…
PS, all you Bennett and Romanoff supporters bashing each other only serves to verify that both of your candidates aren’t worth voting for…too bad, the options this election around don’t leave much choice since the GOP side is a big pile of crazy…
Bennet’s votes and positions don’t generally fit into sound bites or inspirational lefty baloney.
If you took the chance to meet him and ask about the things that are important to you, you’d know that his answers are thoughtful, considered and all him
Too long? sometimes
Too long for campaigning – mostly.
None of the big money wanted healthcare. Benent voted for it (AR criticized him for it but admitted he would have too)
The big money didn’t want credit card reform. Bennet voted for it (so did Udall and though critical, AR said he would have too)
The big moeny didn’t want the financial reform – Bennet voted yes (AR criticized him for it but admitted he would have too)
But on a ton of the amendments he voted with the banks.
and if you don’t see that, you need to look harder.
If you do – and still insist on taking this approach, you are almost as much of the problem as Wade.
Example- you and I agree we need to do different things with public schools. You and I agree that the teachers unions are often obstructionist because while we want to put the kids first always, they sometimes do and sometimes need to put their own careers first.
It’s complicated and nuanced. Answers are hard. Good answers are even harder. But when we insist that we let the voters decide- even the low information voters – we force the various campaigns to take a simple ez to sell emotional appeal.
It’s for the kids.
It’s only fair.
Etc
nice toss in there to slam teacher’s unions while you’re at it. I’m pretty sure you’re a Republican after all.
the hobgoblin of little minds. “You wouldn’t understand”
But at least you’re consistent!
BAH!
only meaner.
DT is as clueless as Wade on how banking and capital markets work.
But in Bennet’s votes you see him siding with the banks most of the time. It’s that consistency that bothers me.
Please take a look at http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
you said it- it must be true.
I stand by my original assertion on this subject- you know it’s more complicated than that.