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%
November 11, 2010 08:50 PM UTC
59 Comments
showed this too close to call on election day.
I agree with Buck that
and, I might add, in the weeks before when we hustled mail and early ballots.
The polls always showed us how to win:
A Republican edge in most likely voters, a Democratic edge in all voters.
We dipped into the pool of potential support and pulled this off. Thanks to the thousands of men and women who rolled up their sleeves and went to work to turn back the Tea Party madness in Colorado.
Who certainly did mount a robust campaign operation, and produce a strong Election Day turnout that may well have been decisive in this race.
But Buck can’t escape the damage he did to himself on the campaign trail, combined with a record that was ripe for negative scrutiny, that weakened him to the point where the race was in winnable range for Bennet to begin with. That’s the part that Buck would like to avoid, and doing so also has the side effect of praising the Democrats’ campaign efforts.
Republicans ought not forget the whole story.
R’s should forget the whole thing.
Maybe next time they’ll nominate Maes for Senate. Or Tancredo. Or both, somehow. They could nominate Dan Caplis. Or Bill McCartney. Or Jake Jabbs. Or a dozen other awesome R’s.
I fear
Buck clearly started with a five to eight point lead early on. His shot himself in the foot, Bennet ran an almost flawless campaign. The result is that as we neared the finish line, the Dem GOTV was able to put him over.
There was a real problem with the independent ads, which were the majority of the advertising. They were almost all negative and negative ads depress turnout.
So even hammering at Buck, outside ads tended to depress turnout and indirectly play buck’s game. That’s why personal gotv was so vital.
On election day, I posted here that I was cautiously optimistic. The Paper That Must Not Be Named had it 47-47, RBI had Bennet up by a point. Bennet internals maybe up 2.
Buck’s Buckups and heroic efforts by D volunteers brought us to election day itself within striking range. But we still had to win the thing on the ground, with shoe leather and phone calls. I made call after call to people who were sick of being nagged, which told me that at least we were making the effort. And it paid off.
Some Times the Good Folks Win!
I walked precincts. Saw the Clean Water folks out there but never saw anybody from the other side. My impression is Tea Partiers are not willing to actually talk to voters outside of their comfort zone.
Said earlier that Buck is not smart enough to be a US senator. But that’s not it. I think it is an amazing lack of preparation for public appearances. He didn’t have the right stuff.
Money. Bennet had enough money to run negative ads against Buck every day for two or three months. While he did get some outside support from the DSCC, pro-choice organizations, and one silly commercial from AFSCME, Bennet’s team largely waged their battles on their own.
That’s why it was a such a big deal that he was raising all of that money in 2009 and pre-primary 2010. That, and it didn’t hurt to be able to loan his own campaign $500,000 at the end.
Buck relied too much on outside groups to do the heavy lifting. He ran positive ads about himself–some that contained a little bit of negative messaging against Bennet. With Karl Rove putting up ludicrous American Crossroads ads, there was a bit of a messaging vacuum because the Buck campaign couldn’t put up enough of its own message.
The ground game may have pushed Bennet over the edge at the 11th hour, but it was the constant barrage of social issues-based negative ads that won it for Bennet.
And the fact that Bennet was able to raise and spend money effectively justified my decision and that of others to vote for him in the primary. I originally backed Romanoff. But his decision to scorn PAC — and even labor union — contributions convinced me he wouldn’t be able to run an effective campaign in the fall. I don’t like corporate contributions either, but unilateral disarmament is as dumb an idea in political affairs as it is in military affairs.
but the fact that I knew Romanoff was never going to be able to raise enough to turn back a strong GOP candidate was a factor, among other important ones, that figured into that decision.
Remember Bill Romjue setting the stage for the PAC flip-flop the weekend before the primary? If Romanoff had won the nomination, he would have taken some–though probably not all–of the outside money he made into his signature issue during the campaign.
But yes, that was what I was getting at. The money was important, which was why it was such a divisive issue in the primary. It turned out to be the difference between an extremely narrow victory and getting boat raced by Buck.
Both sides had plenty of money. This was by far the largest amount spent on a Colorado Senate race. As the press has reported, the amount of third-party money spent here was a record and the highes in the US. The outside money dwarfed the amount that either campaign spent. When you’re talking more than $35M spent, they each had plenty of money. It was pretty even and didn’t make any difference. Remember, Buck’s folks were running negative ads every day for two or three months. This is an understatement. They were both running multiple ads every day on every station. There was no question in the voters’ minds as to where these candidates stood. Buck lost because of exactly what Bennet accused him of, he was too extreme for Colorado.
Buck gave bennet some great material.
That was my point. Buck was relying too much on outside groups, whereas Bennet’s campaign could control their own message. Buck wasn’t able to spend as much as Bennet because he didn’t have as much money as Bennet. There was plenty of money from outside groups, but the majority of it was coming from Karl Rove and the US Chamber.
There was a vacuum between what Buck was personally able to put up on the air about Bennet, and what Bennet was saying about Buck. It was “Buck’s folks” as you say, not Buck.
I have been waiting to see one, still! I mean you made the statement that he did it for two to three months so surely you can attach one. Right? Uh no you won’t because there are none. So are you lying or just speaking about things you do not know about?
It was his first one. You can argue, I suppose, that the ad was in fact not negative. But it sure as hell looked like one to me.
You’re welcome.
Except he did, until he didn’t.
Then he did again. But there’s tape of him when he didn’t. WHo could keep up?
How big a drag was the Maes/McInnis fiasco on the Buck campaign? Conceding the governors race in August pretty much allowed everyone to concentrate on the Senate race. Hickenlooper got to run saccharine sweet ads without any serious attacks about what an anti-rural urban elitist he was. Republicans blowing up the gubernatorial race so early had serious consequences on the senate race.
Buck got all the financial resources that would have otherwise been divided between the gubernatorial race and the Senate race. The out-of-state Rove/Koch money tended to care more about the Senate anyway, but if you were a wealthy Colorado Republican, who else were you going to donate to?
We talked about this back in July when word broke that the Republican Governor’s Association would be pulling out of Colorado. The complete lack of RGA money in the state that could have been used for GOTV was a definite factor.
On the one hand, Republican GOTV is not as vital or as productive as Democratic GOTV, because the Republican base, especially this year, was more reliable. I described it as being like the old George Wallace vote:
Our job was to bring up a rising Tide of Democratic votes and submerge that rock.
But even so,the total collapse of the Republican gov. race hurt, in numerous ways. Despite their lead in most likely to vote, Rs have their own marginal voters, though less in percentage terms than Democrats. Buck made efforts of this sort, as the beej reported. But it was lackluster and leaderless. Without a central party effort behind the gov., and the money the Rpublican Gov. effort could have given, the Republican GOTV was hampered.
The Republican collapse in the Gov. race actually crreated the opportunity for the Bennet campaign and the Democratic GOTV to pull out the victory at the wire — with the invaluable assistance of Buck’s foot in mouth campaign.
In his Denver Post column today, Mike Rosen said “Directness and candor were, ironically, [Buck’s] downfall.” Yes, if you’re candid about holding repugnant views, then when voters realize that you hold these views, that will be your downfall. I have to wonder what Buck’s political future looks like, given that the public’s awareness of his views will not go away anytime soon.
Because we’re missing the stupid/obnoxious ones: Libertad, Bj, Laughing Boy, etc.
What a pleasant discussion!
I think it’s a pretty good analysis too. You can kiss my squirrel anyway, though.
was probably the best line in the movie UP.
I cracked up when Doug would yelp “Squirrel” to distract the other dogs. My foxhound definitely would fall for the “Squirrel” alert every time.
“Tax Cuts”
Sadie is standing on the Continental Divide Trail above Berthoud Pass. It is a marvelous trail above treeline and goes up and over into Clear Creek County.
goes over towards Saint Mary’s Glacier by way of Mount Flora and Breckenridge Peak. One of the really cool things about this hike is that you can see Longs Peak from Mount Flora. It is also a quick way to get above timberline. From the parking lot it is only about 20 minutes to tree line and about 40 minutes to the Divide.
If we’re doing after action reports it is important to learn the lessons to be learned and to learn the right ones. I’m concerned about a diary that Pols deleted due to sourcing problems. Something about cronyism and incompetence… This is your sandbox for sure but I wonder if there is an acceptable way to fix the sourcing problems and bring it back in??? Not sure that those subjects should be or could be discussed in public … but they should be discussed. I wonder about the charge that a different campaign consultant would have given better support to SOS and Treas. candidates. Hope I’m not way off base here.
My concern is simply: Is there still a Colorado Democratic Party or not? Does money fund some campaigns and not others? Is there any kind of statewide strategy?
i wrote about this here earlier this week…
certainly Maes’ nomination may have had something to do with it, and the Democrats actually had something to do with that nomination.
The Dems had a better ground game, and that made a difference.
And the debate on “Meet the Press” really opened up some fallow ground for the attack ads that followed.
i saw some exit polls on election day that had Bennet up by 2. Both candidates told one of my PoliticsDaily.com editors that they were convinced they would win the race.
in the end, it was a razor-thin margin, and all of these things likely factored in…
Whatever the combination of factors, it allowed Democrats to escape a political Tsunami and cast doubt about Republican methods.
In sports it’s called the ‘killer instinct’ and for all the bravado about what ruthless folks they are, the Republicans didn’t show any. They opted for goofy candidates who didn’t have the message discipline or savvy to close the deal. This could come back to bite them because Democrats saw that the GOTV networks they put together in 2008 can be effective in a tight race.
In the Austin Powers movie the son of Dr. Evil keeps pleading with Dr. Evil to just shoot Austin Powers instead of some contrived death by laser fish. Republicans preferred the exotic laser fish of Tea Party extremism to old fashioned establishment methods. Bad move by the bad guys.
not that Dems ever do.
The pro choice Republicans, Jane Norton diehards and Lincoln Log Republicans (RINO’s in Dan Maes book). They went either for Bennet or can be counted in the undervote.
Many of them also voted for Hick, but then ran back home to vote R for secretary of state and treasurer.
Dems. had their own set of disenchanged voters to deal with including grumpy Romanoff supporters and the disillusioned by Obama contingent including Arvadonian who undervoted to protest administration DADT policies.
One of the consequences of winning is that Dems. won’t have to debate whether Romanoff would have won. Losers have to fight the what-if battles.
If Obama doesn’t do some sleight of hand magic over the next two years regarding progressive issues, he is going to have to deal with an even bigger contingent of disenchanted voters in 2012. Extending the Bush tax cuts isn’t going in the right (pun) direction for a lot of hard core liberals.
He’s dead set against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and famous and not so that make over $250,000.
Kind of reminds me of W: All the crap that came down on his watch and his idea of his lowest point? Getting called out by Kayne West.
Being undeservedly called a racist.
Always thinking about himself instead of the 4000 kids he killed in Iraq.
is probably something he doesn’t even remember. It happens to black out alcoholics.
That was probably the low point for America to see our commander in chief with that deer in the headlights look during our time of crisis. Naturally he took off and was incommunicado for the rest of the day but cowards are known to be prone to flight instead of fight then turn around and act the bully after it is over.
Funny how Republicans kept him out of sight before November 2nd while Clinton was on the stump every week. That says it all doesn’t it about how people really feel about him. Guaranteed any candidate he would have campaigned for would have lost.
For examples of candidates that lost because he campaigned for them.
The UN embassy in Baghdad being blown up?
No WMD?
Seeing the pictures from Abu Ghraib?
The economy collapsing on his watch?
All successful politicians must be narcissists to be successful, hence the butthurt.
I think you need to dislike black people or think poorly of them to be racist. Krazy Kanye just said he didn’t care about them.
after Katrina and Bush was sharing birthday cake with Old Fart McCain and took four days to even acknowledge it was a problem.
Not caring about whether people are dying and being a racist are not the same thing but if you are an ardent conservative like LB the distinctions don’t matter.
“George Bush was the victim because Kanye West called him a racist”.
It’s too bad LB doesn’t see those dead people as victims of Bush’s incompetent response to Katrina.
Buck is right, turnout did push bennet over the edge. It makes me particularly proud! Thanks Buck! But its a sure good thing Bennet had money, and outside groups had money, and Buck said a lot of stupid things so that all that money could be well spent. But I think without the turnout (from both the campaign and outside groups) this would be your next senator still saying stupid things
I know I have told at least parts of this story before, but about a month before the election I was invited to a business networking lunch hosted by an associate who I think very highly of. He told me the lunch was with Dick Wadhams and because I respect the gentleman who invited me I had to tell him I was a pretty solid Dem and tried to dis-invite myself. We had never discussed politics before. He said no problem I should still attend. So I sat at the lunch with Wadhams and 2 of his top associates and about 8 other people. What I took out of the lunch:
1. They were worried about Moderate and Republican women crossing over to Bennet becuase of Buck’s extreme social stances.
2. That their GOTV effort is about 10 years behind the Democrats. Not what he said. This was just my assesment when they seemed proud that they actually had everything in one computer database.
So hindsight being 20/20 why did Buck loose?
Moderate and Republican women crossing over due to social issues and a relatively crappy Republican GOTV effort.
I should have bet on it after that lunch.
That’s how Buck lost. It’s simple and nobody wants to admit it, but the nasty misleading negative ads ran by the Democrats over and over and over again worked. Stupid voters do not want to admit that they are influenced by such garbage but they are.
You fools that claim it was the Dem GOTV effort are delusional yet again. Obviously, in a close race every vote obtained helped, but why didn’t it give the Dems victories in the other statewide races?
With slightly outdated numbers, Buck received less than 20,000 votes than republicans in lesser statewide elections. How do you explain why Buck was outvoted by Scott Gessler? Republican GOTV efforts managed over 900,000 votes for Suthers. Buck wins big if not for misleading ads.
So now that it is understood that the negative ads were the major reason Buck lost, what was the major issue of the negative ads. Abortion and the amendment 62 crowd. My question is when will they realize they are the code pink of the republican party? If 62 was not an issue this year what would the negative ads been?
This ad is an example of a deceitful, negative media ad:
Here’s another-from the Rove attack group: (which, although by law they were not allowed to coordinate their activities, a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission during Buck’s primary battle against Jane Norton, laying out those accusations at length.)
Look, no one on this site is going to allow you to ignore the record and attempt to rewrite history. Enough is enough.
I love it that you blame nasty and misleading ads for your culture warrior’s demise. How appropriate is it that Republican women put the knife in him?
Good to see you continue the Republican tradition of blaming everyone else for your heroes failures. Republicans never let you down when it comes to shifting the blame to someone else.
Not shifting blame. Just providing my opinion based off of my analyzation of the rough data I provided in my post.
Christopher Robin please articulate what makes the Buck ad deceitful and misleading. Second, what record am I attempting to ignore and how am I trying to change history? Because if I have a way to change history, there are a few thousand bad votes I would like to change.
Is that what they’re calling it these days?
With the numbers in my post do you still think that Bennet won because of GOTV efforts? I would like to hear your reasoning on how that works.
In the old days it was called flaming each other and like jousting knights who understood that at the end of the day you ate turkey legs together over a stiff mug of mead and chased the winches into the fields, we enjoy your keen intellect and deflection of personal responsibility. Ribbing might be a better term to keep you humble with your bombastic predictions. It is only Republicans who see effort encounter as a fight to the finish.
The argument that it was GOTV success at the end that got it for Bennet is based on the idea that Republicans have done a superior job through the evangelical wedge issues to turn out the vote. This election the non-crazy people who believe in personal responsibility and letting people decide their own fates were able to counter the previous Republican advantage. Bennet won because Democrats were able to match GOTV efforts chasing mail in ballots and on election day.
It is only Republicans who see every encounter as a fight to the finish.
gullable voters were able to vote Suthers into office with more votes than any other elected official in the state? Garnett, et al, ran nothing but negative ads against Suthers.
Why did this same group of imbeciles pick Tipton over Salazar?
Gardner over Markey?
Gessler over Buescher?
Stapleton (excuse me while I clear the vomitus from my throat) over Kennedy?
Negative ads were the major reason poor Ken Buck lost, and they were effective because they were for the most part true and even the Buckheads couldn’t refute or ignore that.
Voters aren’t so dumb.
It seems to be a problem with losing candidates. They don’t take responisibilty for their losses.