U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(D) Julie Gonzales

(R) Mark Baisley

80%

20%↓

10%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Michael Bennet

(R) Victor Marx
50%↑

50%

20%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Hetal Doshi

40%

30%↑

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) James Wiley
50%

50%

10%
State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

80%↑

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(D) Milat Kiros

(D) Wanda James

60%↓

30%↑

10%↓

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) Dwayne Romero

(D) Alex Kelloff

50%↓

35%↑

30%↓

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) E. Laubacher

80%

20%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Jessica Killin

53%↓

48%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Mel Tewahade

90%

2%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) A. Capobianco

90%

2%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Shannon Bird

(D) Manny Rutinel

45%↓

30%↑

30%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

[wpdreams_ajaxsearchlite]
September 15, 2009 06:48 PM UTC

Public Option Important for Bennet in Primary

UPDATE: Westword’s blog says that Bennet was backing away from the public option on the air, but Polster redstateblues found the quote from the show, and it’s not nearly as damning:

Silverman: “Are you for a public option? Because when it comes to business, I think about the PXs on a military base, and I’ve never been able to shop there because I’m not a member of the military, but I understand they have low prices. How could King Soopers and Safeway compete with a PX?”

Bennet: “Well, I have supported… I do support a public option, and I have supported it. [Pols emphasis] Let me tell you why, and then I’ll answer your question. The reason is, that I have heard so many stories from people all over the state from people who have paid in every single year and then when they needed it or, you know, when their kid got sick, and they needed it, it wasn’t there anymore. And they are really resentful of the fact that somebody earned a profit off that commercial transaction. There are… the weird thing about insurance is that you pay for it way in advance, usually, of when you use it, and there have been a lot of folks who have had terrible experiences with that. I don’t think we should have a subsidized plan that would compete unfairly, as some have said, in the market, but I think a non-subsidized plan that, like I said, doesn’t have the high administrative costs and is available just as a choice–just as an option in the market–I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.”

We still say that strong support of the public option will be critical for Bennet in a primary battle, but it definitely looks like Westword’s claim that he was “backing away” in this interview is not correct.

Original post after the jump…

We’ve written before in this space that Sen. Michael Bennet and his political advisors erred greatly in trying to make him appear as a centrist while a potential primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff was still looming. Focusing on what Bennet would present to general election voters is great if you know you won’t have a primary, but Romanoff was always the bigger threat to Bennet’s election than any Republican candidates out there.

Nonetheless, it doesn’t appear is if Bennet has learned his lesson. Or maybe nobody told him that Romanoff is running. Westword writes this morning that Bennet was backing away from the “Public Option” piece of health care reform on an appearance on KHOW radio:

Naturally, the topic of healthcare reform was front and center, and Bennet, like so many other members of his party, made it clear that a public option is no longer a make-or-break facet of the plan. Indeed, he said too much attention has been paid to this element, thereby obscuring many of the proposal’s other fine and important aspects. He also used a buzz term we’ll be hearing much more in the coming weeks: “deficit neutral” — meaning that he doesn’t want the final bill to push the nation’s finances any deeper into the red. In truth, there’s no way to say with absolute certainty that this will be the case, since any such determination will be based on projections, estimates and other sorts of guesswork — but it sounds good.

What. Are. You. Doing?

A “public option” is very popular among Democrats, and the more Bennet backs away from this, the bigger an opportunity he presents Romanoff. If we were Romanoff, we’d make certain that affirming support for a public option was one of our main talking points at tomorrow’s campaign kickoff. “Romanoff supports the public option, Bennet doesn’t,” would be a very clear delineation for Democratic voters.  

Comments

Recent Comments


Posts about Donald Trump

Posts about Rep. Gabe Evans

Posts about Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about the Colorado House

Posts about the Colorado Senate


78 readers online now

Newsletter

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