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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 28, 2011 07:34 PM UTC

So You're Thinking About Settling For Romney, Are You?

  • 12 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: FOX 31’s Eli Stokols:

Defining and weakening Romney so early — and spending money to do so — can only help the Obama campaign going forward, even if Romney emerges from the ongoing primary slog as the Republican nominee. But with an obstinate conservative base refusing to embrace his campaign, and a more credible challenger emerging in Gingrich, Democrats are licking their chops at the idea of knocking Romney out early.

—–

The Democratic National Committee sincerely hopes so! The longer web-only version:

As the Los Angeles Times reports:

While the timing of the ad comes as Romney is struggling to secure his path to the GOP nomination, the placement of the spots suggests that Democrats are trying to soften Romney’s support in key areas should he end up squaring off against President Obama next year.

But the DNC will also hold press events in support of the campaign in early primary states of Iowa. New Hampshire and Florida, perhaps signalling Democrats would like to deepen the mistrust some conservatives have of Romney and perhaps tilt those contests toward another contender.

Romney’s campaign swiftly issued a response.

“The last thing the White House wants is to have to run against Mitt Romney and be held accountable for the many failures of this administration,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. “So, instead of focusing on the economy and creating jobs, President Obama and Democrats are focused on tearing down Mitt Romney.”

We’d say the Democrats at this point expect to run against Mitt Romney as opposed to fearing him, though we think they’d take about anyone in this field except perhaps Jon “1%” Huntsman–and while polling shows President Barack Obama in consistently better shape against any of the GOP presidential primary candidates than the conventional wisdom wants to admit, Romney has almost always been closest in head-to-head matchups. And with apologies to Scott McInnis, Romney is really the only one on the ground with a presidential-scale campaign.

It makes perfect sense with the above in mind for Democrats to start shelling Romney now, accomplishing dual aims of sullying his path to likely nomination by hitting him on the bipartisan-resonant issue of flip-floppery–as well as making sure Romney doesn’t get any space to bury his many, many reversals on the full spread of social and economic issues.

As for “tearing down” Mitt Romney, it depends on which Romney you like better we guess? Most of this content is not new, and some of it explains why he wasn’t the Republican choice in 2008.

Tweet
Share

Comments

12 thoughts on “So You’re Thinking About Settling For Romney, Are You?”

  1. Has Colorado Pols ever once missed an official DNC hit on Mitt Romney? Transparent as hell.

    On substance, Republicans know about these issues, and while Romney is getting the hard questions, he is answering them. Part of my Christian faith involves forgiveness and repentance. Politicians sometimes flip, and sometimes they just grow. That’s not in itself a negative,

    1. … at the same remarkably coincidental time that he stopped running for statewide MA office and instead set his sights on a nationwide R nomination. I can assure you that your Christian faith doesn’t require you to declare obvious lying opportunism to be sincere repentance.

      1. Not ridiculous, actually, just rigidly unfair. You have your characterization, and I can look at the same growth and see a man who is adjusting to the challenges the whole nation faces instead of just Massachusetts.

        I believe Romney will tell you the same. He’s engaging, he’ll answer the tough questions.

        3. … would you now vote for him over Romney?

          Of course not, which shows that you don’t sincerely hold the view that it’s mandatory to believe a too-coincidental conversion of convenience transparently aimed at shoring up a constituency needed for an imminent election.

    3. right away to do your biding.  There would be some delightful irony if Willard got clipped by Newt in the final stretch. Poor Mittens, no love.   Oh the fun!

    4. That sometimes it’s legit to say, “I’ve changed my mind on this issue after learning more. Here’s why…”. In fact, it takes a big man (or woman) to say that. Romney never does say that. He can’t seem to remember from one day to the next what he believes.

      1. * Mitt wants to win election in a liberal state –> he has liberal positions on abortion, gay rights, guns, health care, etc.

        * Mitt wants to win election in a conservative national primary –> he now has conservative positions on those issues.

        It’s not “forgetting” his old stances; it’s saying whatever is politically necessary at the moment regardless of saying the opposite  in the past.

        This is why I always thought John Edwards was a phony: to win statewide in a conservative state (NC), he posed as a conservative talking about the deficit and moral values; then to win nationwide in a liberal primary electorate, he suddenly adopted a fightin’ lefty persona. Mitt is their John Edwards, running centrist to win in a state doninated by the other party, then shifting far away from the center to win a national primary.

  2. I think the video, and the commercials that will be made out of it, would have more credibility if they showed him saying entire sentences, however. Anyone can twist a person’s words to make them appear to say something they are not saying, just by pulling out phrases. Stephen Colbert does it all the time.

    That said, Romney is not smart enough to be President, IMHO. We need a President who has a high IQ, not just a pretty face, an expensive suit, and a pricey haircut.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

105 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!