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
February 09, 2013 11:01 AM UTC

Now Is NOT The Time For "Pollyandrew"

  • 49 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As support grows for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff's bid to unseat incumbent GOP Rep. Mike Coffman in 2014, there's been an…unsettling detail nagging at many Democratic political insiders. Kurtis Lee of the Denver Post reported as Romanoff announced his CD-6 bid, and commenters here have noted Romanoff's pledges to shun donations from political action committees (PACs), and other "special interest" sources of money. During Romanoff's 2010 loss in the Democratic primary to Sen. Michael Bennet, Romanoff indicated that, if nominated, he might not even accept help from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

Although some base Democrats considered this noble in a primary against the well-funded Bennet, Romanoff's pledge was widely panned by political insiders as evidence of an amateurish campaign, unprepared for what lay ahead in the general election. In hindsight, after the 2010 U.S. Senate race between Bennet and GOP nominee Ken Buck broke records for massive fundraising and spending, this contemptuous view of Romanoff's "Pollyannish" pledge was seemingly borne out by the facts.

So it shouldn't be a surprise if there's consternation today among insiders that:

In this new race, Romanoff is already saying he won’t accept PAC or “special interest” money in his bid for the House.  This decision may put him in an untenable political position late in the general election, should he become the Democratic nominee…

Folks, there is certainly a case to be made in favor of a strong ethical stand against the unchecked role of money in politics. We and most of you would be hypocrites if we didn't say so. The problem is that one cannot unilaterally disarm against a candidate not bound by such a pledge and still hope to win an election. In the case of Rep. Coffman, you have someone who has proven powerfully adept at raising vast amounts of money, and then leveraging that money into a campaign that is simply capable of outclassing his opponents. No matter how distasteful Romanoff might find PAC money, the idea that he can defeat Mike Coffman without every available dollar…there's no nice way to say it: this is what convinced a lot of people in 2010 that Romanoff was not ready for prime time.

Primary or no primary, it's something that needs to be understood. Romanoff will be forced to abandon this pledge if he has any real desire to defeat Coffman, and that probably means it's a pledge he should have left behind with his 2010 primary loss. For our part, other than noting the folly of having remade this silly pledge to begin with, we'll call it a positive development for Romanoff the moment he ditches it.

Tweet
Share

Comments

49 thoughts on “Now Is NOT The Time For “Pollyandrew””

  1. I'm generally not a three strikes kind of guy- politics is harder than baseball. But…you know.

    His announcement came out on Friday. No earned media – it's called "earned" for a reason.  Thursday is good. When there is no other political news is good.  No one cares about the Saturday news.   I know Andrew's friends and supporters think he has all the name recognition he needs (he doesn't)  but is there a winning candidate anywhere ever who got to the end of the campaign, and said "Yeah..too much name recognition"  

     

     

    … case to be made in favor of a strong ethical stand against the unchecked role of money in politics…

    Yeah- you get to make that case after you win. Otherwise it's unilateral disarmament and without self funding you're just the next in a long stupid line of losers.  (no offense Joe), Hank, John, Bill, Joanna, Lance, Ken, Henry, Joan, and a crowd that never got to 40%.

     

  2. I've been getting e-mails to sign up as a volunteer.  I'm sure all Dems on any previous lists are getting the same.  I've responded with precisely this concern. Hope all those on his campaign's e-mail list who realize that this is simply not going to fly will respond the same way. 

    Please let team Romanoff know that if he want's us to go all out as volunteers and small donors he needs to face reality.  He can't ask us to fight for him under the impossible to overcome disadvantage of unilateral disarmament in what is going to be one of the nations most hotly contested battles among the handful of truly competitive districts that can be taken from the GOP. 

    His decision will have a huge effect on how much time, energy and money CD6 volunteers will be willing to commit and we need to hear from him on this make or break matter ASAP. 

    We aren't going to win this CD with a liberal prep school class president style campaign. Sorry Andrew. We'll be forced to seek a serious candidate in a primary if you won't put on your big boy pants for this one. That would be a shame because you are the best candidate in every other way to win this thing for us.

    If you blow this one for us, the best chance CD6 Dems have ever had, by refusing to run a viable campaign you will never regain the good will of enough Colorado Dems to get elected to anything. Period.  

    It won't be fun to eat your word but jusy tell the truth: That the nature of this race makes it impossible for you to stick with the pledge unless Coffman is willing to do the same. That you have come to the realization that you will have to play by the rules as they exist today in order to have any chance of representing the people of CD6. Then promise maximum transparency in lieu of unilateral disarmament and demand the same from Coffman. He won't reciprocate and that can be used against him. Let's get ready to rumble.

  3.  

    Unfettered amounts of special interest softmoney … be it DCCC, the new OFA, WalMart PAC, or LGBTQ funds …. are still all softmoney. Under our tax laws the DCCC may or may not be a Super PAC, but the public doesn't distinguish. The GOP couldn't get away with this stretch, nor should you.

    1. What are you talking about, LaTad?  Everybody" gets away" with using  PAC and other sources. It's legal.  Coffman will be using it. Almost, if not everybody on both sides will be using these sources. Romanoff doesn't need to "get away" with it. He just needs to reverse an untenable position.  If you've actually read the diary, you must have a serious comprehension problem.  Let me guess.. .home schooled  by creationist mommy?

  4. This is really a sad commentary on the outsized influence corporations and other interests groups have gained via campaign donations. Yes Andrew needs to accept PAC funds. But I can't get upset over his not wanting to sell his soul to the devil.

    1. I can get upset over his making a promise he can't keep if he wants to win, which puts him in the awkward position of having to recant or, alternately, sticking with it and depriving CD6 Dems of our best chance of winning in 2014, not some distant time down the road.

      You might understand if you'd spent years volunteering for CD6 Dem candidates, even though you knew they couldn't win, in hopes that one would do well enough to at least change the usual equation as CD6 usual suspect volunteers have been doing.  And by usual eqiation I mean the ability to get serious targeted funds.

      Trust me…. there will be no repeat of the "all is forgiven" sentiment among  the majority of us if Andrew chooses to throw us under the bus rather than dirty his pristine hands, which, by the way, were never all that pristine back when he was running for the state legislature. Especially so soon after his pointless, hissy fit centrist on incumbent centrist challenge shenanigans in 2010. 

      We'd like to dismiss that kind of self-centered childishness as out of character. We'd like to give Romanoff a do-over. But there's a limit.  He won't get another one. Not from enough of us CD6ers. If he's not up for an all out battle, we need someone who is.

      1. Godammit, BC, if the Romanoff folks don't listen to a reaonalble voice like yours, let them get a dose of what I have to say.

        It's this way, Andrew. Either shit or pass the toilet paper. What the fuck do you want? To be the next Big Chidf Politician from CD6? or to acutally get into a position where you can do some good for the citizens there? Is this another preem and prance race? Or is this a heartfealt sense of duty to change things in Colorado and the nation  for the better?

        I don't know about the folks in your district, but I'm not going to catch a No.21 out to Aurora to help you canvass if you're going to pull a prissy, I'm so virginal, don't soil my skirt with actual $$$, stance. Hell, even virgin brides accept dollar bills tucked into their (white) gowns at the reception ball.

        Andew, this is serious. This is no game to hardworking folks you will be depnding on to get your ass into that position of trust. Trust. Trust. Get it, Mr. Wannabe.? You need folks like BC and thousands like her. And, BTW, they don't need you. This cycle. There will another. Their hopes will not fade. Their hopes will be realized. You gonna to be in the mix, or another footnote?

        Oh, another thing, Andrew. All I've seen is your record. Very good record in the House. What do you intend to bring to the Big Time if you win? You'd better bring to your campaign a lot more than platitudes if you're going to get more than the change under my rocker seat.

        Why in hell do you think you deserve to represent one of the seven districts in Colorado, if you're not in it to win? If you're not ready to fight as hard as the sneakers on the ground folks on whom you'll be depending?  Don't get all snitty now, Andrew, about "money" support. You need the hard working folks like BC a lot more than your need your PAC virginity.

        Or, again, why are you in this, Andrew? Vanity? Friendly pressure? Hmmm. How about this: You have an actual desire to affect change for the better interests of Colorado? Make up your mind now. NOW. You're going to lose it or win it very soon. Oh, not the election–that's a way off. But the support you'll need to win the election–you'd better shore that up now.

        We (a lot of folks all over Colorado and especially good people in CD6) are awaiting your call. Are you in it? Do you want to win it? Or are you jus' funnin'?

      3. I remember feeding Romanoff campaign staff in 2010 when paychecks didn't arrive on time. Funding is pretty important and nationally targetted congressional campaigns don't run on shoestrings. Andy seems like a good guy but charmingly moderate doesn't inspire the kind of passionate volunteerism that can substitute for paid professional competence. 

    1. Sorry, but if Andrew isn't smartened up by now, he's got no chance. He'd better start running a good campaign immedieately, one that supports his supporters as well as his beliefs and intentions. You see, Andrew has a history already. He's one of thos pols that has to prove himself all over again. I'm not being harsh: that's just the way it is. A lot of lolks are waiting, ready to carry him on their shouldrs across the finish line. But only if he's run the race.

  7. Isn't this what Romanoff did in 2010? Then, he had to sell his house at the last minute to finish the campaign?  Then didn't he rely on bad political advice and run a negative ad that may have cost him the primary?  Could that have been free advice because he couldn't afford anything else? Just asking.

    1. Dwyer, you and I have had our differences so I'm very happy to have this opportunity to tell you that you are absolutely right on the money on this.  A repeat of the 2010 Romanoff campaign is exactly what  the GOP should be wishing for and that's what they'll get if he doesn't adjust his game plan.

      1. BTW, who the fuck is running his campaign this time around? If it's the same folks who fostered so much animosity and bickering the last time around. Congratulations, Mr . Coffman, on your re-election.

    2. East Wash Park real estate update (from the Denver assessor's website.)

      Andrew sold his little bungalow on a 5000 square foot lot for $360K in July 2010 to a speculator who filpped it for &418K to be scraped for a new Larsen house.

      Last summer a bungalow two blocks south on the same street on a 6000 foot lot sold     for $550K to be scraped by Chalet homes.  Sadly, those owners had bought it for $760K at the height of the market in July 2008.  Ouch!

  9. Romanoff needs to mirror Obama here. They both spoke against accepting super-PAC funding. Obama later reversed his opinion and accepted the huge $$$ required to compete against Romney $$$. Romanoff must follow suit, or I fear he is doomed.

    1. The point about Obama's reversal on taking PAC money from 2008 to 2012, I think, was due to the changing character of the respective campaigns.

      In 2008 Obama's campaign was personality-driven.  In 2012, the reality of 4 years of a tough economy and coming down to earth as a normal human being dried up alot of the small online donations.

      If Andrew doesn't accept PAC money, then he'll have to mount a national fundraising campaign using a personality-based, ideals-oriented theme.

      He's a very charming guy in person.  He'll need to translate that onto the big screen to succeed. 

      1. Even Obama's first election wasn't funded on nothing but normal human contributions and a presidential is a very different animal from a CD race.  The presidential is national by definition. Everybody in the whole damn country knows and cares who is running for President. The universe of sympathetic individual donations from out of state donors so tuned in as to be aware of other states'  CD races (hard enough to make people aware of their own CD candidates) will always be way too small to amass the kind of money that a CD race like this one will require.

        Romanoff won't have to suffer much more than some smirking from the right if he presents his change of heart as a reluctant recognition that he can't fight this battle for the people of CD6 on an uneven playing field, while promising to always be on the side of maximum transparency and to work for reform that will allow   better elections in the future.  And as others here have pointed out, best to get it done right away so the reversal is ancient history, instead of a fresh story, in 2014.

        1. Well said.  Team Romanoff better be working on defining the real issues CD6ers care about — jobs, keeping our streets safe, clean air and water, etc.  It's not just about one issue that while important, isn't the defining issue that wins an election, and puts him at a serious disadvantage when he's already the underdog.

          Even worse, don't discount the Coffman campign's ability to spin this as Romanoff simply leading a "Children's Crusade".

        2. You're right of course, BC.  Andrew is getting some of the best professional political advice available right here.  Andrew should consider this as "crowd-sourcing" his campaign strategy.

          It'll work better than some of the advice his paid consultants gave him in 2010.

      2. If Andrew were to launch the national fund raising campaign necessary to compete with Coffman's money, he would be trashed with out-of-state vs. in-state fund raising comparisons. Ads featuring these comparisons suggest that the candidate lacks ties to the community. Better to just recant on the no-PAC money pledge, start banking cash now, and get ready to rumble in 2014.

    3. Exactly, Skeptical.

      There is no reason why he can't fall back on Obama's argument for taking PAC money.

      Repeat after me: "While I disagree profoundly with our campaign finance system and the Citizens United decision, which I will fight tooth and nail to reform once I'm in congress, I have decided that our campaign can't unilaterally disarm against our opponent."

      2. ….tooth and nail…

         

        How about – "make every effort"  or…." engage with all concerned to recreate a better, more just system…"

        Tooth and nail sounds….catty.

         

         

  10. Frankly, I'm astonished at the hesitance, reticence, outright cynacism toward Rominoff's candidacy here. Here: progressive Coloraodo Pols.

    He's charismatic, has a susscessful record in the House, He's a winner. Coffman is a loser. What's not to like?

    Hmm. Maybe this time we expect him to want (desire, aim, ache) to occupy the possition he's seeking in order to serve. Good word: serve.

    It's obvious we're not convinced this is not another vanity or entitlement run. I'm hopeful Andrew doesn't get a primary challenge. But I'm also hopeful that doesn't give him the impression he doesn't need to manage his campaign in a way that reassures his supportors as well as his future voters.

  11. Andrew isn't even remotely "pristine" on this issue.  No one knows that more than the Op researchers on the other side.

    I was a Bennet supporter and a big Romanoff fan.  Until the primary last time around.  Romanoff proved himself to be snide and untruthful.  Full stop.

    Basing a campaign around not taking PAC money is laudable in many respects, if unfortunate and unilaterally disarmingly misguided.  Basing a campaign around not taking PAC money when you yourself took PAC money is sort of, well, sanctimonious and unappealing.  Basing a campaign around not taking PAC money when you yourself ran a PAC, well, that may be something else again entirely.

    But there were other things about Andrew's always-misguided primary challenge in 2010 that made it a very poor reflection on Andrew himself.  One of the things about it was that he was flat out untruthful.  Anyone remember the ad that quoted from a lawsuit?  There were other examples.  Plenty of them.

    Andrew can't possibly be sanctimonious, misguided, snide and disorganized again, can he?

    1. Another way to put this is that Andrew embarrassed himself in his last campaign.  And he embarrassed himself with precisely the same people he needs right now — progressives who write checks, volunteer at phone banks, etc.

      I have no desire to have Coffman represent our state one minute more than he must — among many other things, he personifies the idea that mediocre people are overrepresented in Congress — but it's hard for some of us to support this candidate wholeheartedly.  Middleton might well have been another story, but we'll likely never know.

  13. When someone goes on a hunger strike to push a political principle, it's laudable, even when there is little chance of it succeeding. The hunger striker is being a martyr, but isn't hurting anyone else.

    Going on a funding hunger strike is another version of playing the martyr, but in this case, it's going to hurt plenty of other people. Plus it has absolutely no chance of shaming the other side into compliance. It's lose-lose-lose.

     

  15. Let's think about this for a moment, eh?  

    As a Bennet guy in 2010 I think all the criticisms leveled against Romanoff here are exactly what one would expect after he's cleared the deck to remain the last only MAN standing.  After 2010, his base IS going to be nervous that he's not in it to win it, and those beyond his base are understandably looking for something to "encourage" an alternative.  In that context, why shouldn't Romanoff toss out this little tidbit to the base, and then learn, PUBLICLY, why it was wrong as a way of showing the others he's all grown up now?  Put up against the alternative script, where he just comes out like a moneyed street-fighter, I think this actually staves off a more Progressive primary challenger.  

    Republicans do this kind of "toss to the base then walk back" thing all the time, and until the rape remarks of 2012, they generally got away with it.  Those comments were over the top, but I don't think they invalidated the rhetorical strategy.  So, my read here is that people are reacting before the play is over, and that it's pretty much straight from the Obama playbook:  

    ACT I = "I'm still the guy (some of) you believed in!"

    ACT II = but, "aw shucks,  I'm gonna have to do this if all of you want me to represent you. The sacrifices we have to make for public life, etc."  Puts his heart on his sleeve (where his base loves it), but money in his pockets (where his supporters need it).

    Course, if the curtain doesn't fall on Act II by say, Monday or Tuesday, then I'll be forced to admit that the critics were right, and that Romanoff 2014 will be an off-off Broadway show, and the last one at that.

     

    1. … Monday or Tuesday…

       

       

      You mean like mid -November right?

      Cause if he is just feeding the base – and can ramp up off donors and stuff for now, then he doesn't need real money, tv money for more than a year. So your Act ii can wait…until there can be no real primary.

       

      Though there will be at least one 3rd candidate. And he/she will be good for 4 or 5,000 votes.

      Which is good- cuz then the unaffiliated and other minor parties who can't caucus for the eventual winning candidate at least have a chance to burn a few Saturdays in the deal.

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

204 readers online now

Newsletter

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