Sue Casey to Manage Romanoff Campaign?

Odd line-up forming but heard differently

I heard a similar rumor over the weekend but slightly different with Sue Casey being the consultant who is organizing things for him now with an expectation of hiring full time staff and her consulting. Even with that slight difference it is an interesting alignment of Ramona & Joelle Martinez, Sue Casey and Patricia Rivera. Yes he'll need some of the "establishment" hands or at least those with deep experience in Colorado and working with the old guard but I would have thought he'd be tapping some newer talent who have been involved in more current campaign styles.

I agree that Romanoff has been known more for policy than campaign saviness and the way this is unfolding raises some questions:

1) Was the "leak" intentional a few weeks ago? If so, WHY? If not, who allowed that?

2) Is the announcement this week being rushed because of that leak?

3) Why with the whole year to plan or at least a few months since the talks with Ritter fell apart is there no campaign team in place?

4) Has Romanoff spent the last few months at least lining up a good chunk of cash so he can end the quarter with mid to high six figures if not more?

5) Why in 2009 would you launch a campaign without even having a website live?

I think it's time the other 60% stand up and start wielding their power within both parties.  I'm convinced we have more in common and more common sense than the 20% of the loons on the left and whackos on the right who run the show now.

---

by: RockyMtnModerate @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 16:22:21 PM UTC

Campaign finance rules

The answer to (1) is pretty easy. He was lining up support for a possible run, and that involved asking a lot of people their opinions. Most campaign leaks happen when someone on the team is letting something out of the room, but in this case there was no "team" and no "room" yet. You can't set up the type of full blown campaign that you are expecting him to roll out and have it be a total surprise. Can you imagine the push back from key leaders if Romanoff hadn't told them this was coming?

The answer to (2), from what I gather, is that the 16th was always going to be the day he announced.

The answer to (3),(4), and (5) could easily be campaign finance rules.

Romanoff just filed, and he hasn't officially announced yet. If he had hired a campaign team, raised money, or launched a Senate campaign website before now it might have been a violation.

By the way, (5) might be a bit more rhetorical than you meant. Romanoff has a website: andrewromanoff.com and it has been up for years. Do you mean to ask, "Why in 2009 would he announce at a rally in Pueblo that he is running before announcing it days earlier on his website?"  If that is really the question, then I suggest you don't run for Senate in Colorado.

---

by: Aaron Silverstein @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 18:14:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can see some of what you're saying

I can see your points on 1 & 2 though it just seems to have been a bit sloppy.

I don't see how campaign finance laws are the explanation for the others. Even without a formal filing he could definitely have been putting a team together so that when he announces he's ready to go full speed. Maybe he could not formally ask for donations but he could (and may very well) have people ready "if he were to run" lined up to start building the warchest.

As to your snark about the website, I'm well aware that he has a site and no I wouldn't expect an announcement on there yet. What I would expect is that he would have had a new website ready to go (like other candidates who pre-announce their announcement). Maybe it will go live Wednesday morning but it just seems like for a guy who has spent months getting his ducks in a row, most of the ducks aren't in a row.

I think it's time the other 60% stand up and start wielding their power within both parties.  I'm convinced we have more in common and more common sense than the 20% of the loons on the left and whackos on the right who run the show now.

---

by: RockyMtnModerate @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:07:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No ducks yet

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I agree with you that if he is ready to go we haven't seen evidence of it yet.

I don't hold out much hope that any campaign in Colorado will use the net well (those that "get it" either can't afford it, or don't have the electoral map where it makes sense.)

But even beyond the net, I think we agree that this is a race where he better have laid the groundwork. Romanoff is a smart guy and a shrewd pol, so I am going to believe he has until I see otherwise.

(You know, if we would just start "ColoradoPols Commenter Consulting Inc." then for a small fee these campaigns could save themselves a lot of headaches.)

---

by: Aaron Silverstein @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 21:27:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mt Asshole

Glad you have come down from Mt Asshole long enough to render your condescending opinion. When have you ever used the net well?  Go back under your rock.

---

by: silverandblue @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 01:55:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jesus, what's that all about?

That's just plain rude...and uncalled for. The only one looking like an asshole here is you.

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:10:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lighten Up

From the Post:

"Jane Norton is a nice lady who I like. End of story. But I fear she is not ready for prime time."

Tom Tancredo

---

by: silverandblue @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:36:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lighten up?

Try growing up, you asshole.

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 14:49:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what is wrong with you?

The Mt. Asshole comment was completely uncalled for.  

---

by: smellykat @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:56:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disingenuous

when it comes to 5, and you know it. The current iteration of the Romanoff website is a hot mess. Up until about 10 days ago, it was as dead as a campaign site could be, with references to him still being House Speaker, and with no updates since late 2008.

Right now, there's a link to an ActBlue donation page, and another link to a Google Spreadsheets form. Again, messy. And the email that he sent out to his supporters went to a list that hasn't been active, again, since 2008. Assuming his email list had 70,000 supporters, standard numbers for open & click through rates would've been:

1. 1% open - so, assume 700 people opened it.

2. .2% click through - so, assume 14 people clicked on the link.

That's assuming the list was active; which, if it hasn't been used since late last year, was anything but. That list is dead, dead, dead, and his campaign will have to rebuild it.

Which, given that he was a known figure, won't be that hard; but it'll be an uphill slog.

What I would've done:

1. take down the current website
2. put up a splash page with links to contribute or sign up for info
3. have the announcement schedule as a separate page.
4. work like hell to have the site up in time for Wednesday, or failing that, the following Monday.

But as it stands now, things are a hot mess, and you know it, man. You're better than this :-).  

Currently working for no campaign or candidate.

---

by: roguestaffer @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:10:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not to mention

soliciting money for a federal campaign under his state house campaign banner. Sloppy.  

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:19:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe not.

Just as McInnis can roll his $1.4 million into his gubernatorial race, and Penry rolled a last minute Senate contribution pitch into his gubernatorial run, if people give money to Andrew for his House seat, he can then roll that money into his Senate campaign.

Pretty smart if you ask me.  He'll have a nice, snazzy looking website on Wednesday, and that's very 2009.

---

by: paulrosenthal @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:31:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, it's just like that.

Sheesh.  

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:36:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, he can't

Those two examples are for state office, which is governed by different regulations than Federal office. Any money that is raised for a State House campaign must remain in that account, and cannot be rolled over to the Federal side.

As for the website, maybe he will, maybe he won't. That all remains yet to be seen. What I've seen so far on that end doesn't inspire confidence, however.  

Currently working for no campaign or candidate.

---

by: roguestaffer @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 20:22:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exactly

Thank you. I couldn't bring myself to point it out. Then there's the matter that this email is non-compliant with FEC regulations while it asks for money. Amateur hour.  

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 20:33:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, my

Now that I look at it again, you're right. A mischievous person could ask that the campaign return all contributions received by that mailing, or file a complaint with the FEC.  

Currently working for no campaign or candidate.

---

by: roguestaffer @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 21:04:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

mischievous person

It's not like Bennet supporters are the only ones who want to take Romanoff down a notch. There's the whole, you know, other side.

---

by: RedGreen @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 21:10:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If they are packaging Andrew

as the stronger campaigner versus an incumbent US Senator who's raised millions of dollars, it would be helpful to not break the law two days before the announcement.  

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 21:22:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Romanoff already filed with the FEC.

Ergo, he can raise money.  So, the silliness about Andrew violating the law is just plain silly.

---

by: paulrosenthal @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:34:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The question isn't whether he can raise money

it's whether his fundraising appeal follows FEC requirements. It doesn't.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1973...

---

by: RedGreen @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:39:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How doesn't it fit FEC requirements?

He filed with the FEC.

---

by: paulrosenthal @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 23:06:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry

That's too easy. Head on over to http://FEC.gov and dive in.  

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 23:07:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not good enough.

You are making the allegation of impropriety.  Now you need to prove it.

---

by: paulrosenthal @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:22:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hah!

Nice try. I'm making the allegation of negligence. Totally different from impropriety. Besides, I've taken the time to read FEC regulations. Not my problem that box has yet to be checked in the Romanoff for Senate campaign.

But because I like you, I'll get you one step closer: http://www.fec.gov/info/compli...

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:30:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmm.

Gotta read this.....I don't see it yet.

---

by: Chef @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:54:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bull

Glad to learn you can read.  File a complaint or zip it.  

---

by: silverandblue @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:00:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're back!

Missed you something awful.  

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:06:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No

You are defending the behavior.  You need to reconcile it with the law.

Sorry if that doesn't suit your purposes.  But get your nose into the campaign finance regs and tell us why it's OK.  Let us know.  We're not going to do your work for you.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

---

by: Ralphie @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:07:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

File

Last time I checked none of us are with the FEC.  So file a complaint and let's see if Romanoff broke the law.  Otherwise, as I said, zip it.

---

by: silverandblue @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:30:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um........no?

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 02:51:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Donny, you're out of your element.

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:46:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gotta Give It to You

Very true, Paul.

Have to admit, though, I think everyone who's been waiting for Andrew to throw his hat into the ring, has expected a smoother start to things.  The start does seem a little sloppy thus far, but here's hoping he doesn't helm another "team of rivals."

---

by: Chef @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:47:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

None of this violates campaign finance laws

IMHO.  Not that I think his rollout was anything but sloppy, but that is not illegal, just ill advised.

---

by: Lafayettedem @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:42:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Money

I heard he has over 70,000 email names on his email list for the email he just sent out.  If each gave just $10, that's $700,000 in a very short period of time (and most will be from Colorado).  Yes, some will give more and some won't give anything, but he'll have a good first filing quarter.

---

by: paulrosenthal @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 16:28:24 PM UTC

LOL

And ponies for everyone!  

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:28:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yaay.

I love freakin' ponies!  

---

by: Chef @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:50:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where's my pony?

I've been sitting here with a bag of oats waiting all day.

History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.  (Mark Twain)

---

by: PERA hopeful @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:58:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sue Casey did not manage Hart's Campaign

Sue was the field director or volunteer coordinator but was given a great deal of credit for Senator Hart's upset win in the 1984 New Hampshire Democratic primary.

Sue was in charge of the Kerry Colorado campaign in 2004, ran for Mayor in 2003 gaining less than 5% and her son is a great soccer player.

---

by: ArdentAdmirer2 @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 17:47:12 PM UTC

Conor Casey?

---

by: CrazyOkie @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 17:51:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She managed the second campaign - in 1988

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:05:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wasn't that Dixon & Stratton

If I recall correctly, Didn't Bill Dixon manage '88 with Mike Stratton in a senior role and John Emerson as the Deputy Campaign Manager? I believe '84 was managed by Oliver Henkel. Sue Casey was involved in '84 but I don't think she was focused on field, particularly New Hampshire which is why she's often given credit for the primary win in NH.

I think it's time the other 60% stand up and start wielding their power within both parties.  I'm convinced we have more in common and more common sense than the 20% of the loons on the left and whackos on the right who run the show now.

---

by: RockyMtnModerate @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:19:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Correction

Correcting my typo - should have read "I think she was focused on field"

I think it's time the other 60% stand up and start wielding their power within both parties.  I'm convinced we have more in common and more common sense than the 20% of the loons on the left and whackos on the right who run the show now.

---

by: RockyMtnModerate @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:22:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What happened to Kolomitz/Welchet

Everyone was saything these guys were running the race. Not. Did Pols, or the others get it wrong?

---

by: SaveCoH2O @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 19:55:25 PM UTC

We didn't say Kolomitz was running anything

Nor did anyone else say that. Kolomitz is still radioactive.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:07:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Someone suggested it

as a joke a while ago.

---

by: RedGreen @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 22:33:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Romanoff v Bennet

Congratulation to Andrew for getting into the race.  Coloradoans deserve a choice not a coronation.

Invite, however, is weak, no website, weaker.

---

by: silverandblue @ Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 20:31:39 PM UTC

True.

Like I said earlier, the organization already is seeming a little off. Why let the campaign start off with disjointed communications when you have a great candidate? Because the man at the top doesn't know how to organize a team?

---

by: Chef @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 00:49:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

There has to be a plan

I don't know what it is but the way Andrew intellectualizes (sometimes overly) everything, I have a hard time believing he's doing all this without a plan.

---

by: longtimedem @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 01:26:48 AM UTC

thinking.....

sheila mcdonald - who handled Ritter's field would be a good choice.  

---

by: smellykat @ Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 03:59:31 AM UTC