CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 30, 2009 09:51 PM UTC
80 Comments
JO is about to be heard from….
It should be fun to hear them spin this one. I can hardly wait, quite frankly.
And on a far more serious note, this is the kind of crap, when it comes out, that really turns people off to a candidate and to supporting him down the road. The longer Romanoff runs using these bullshit tactics, the less I am respecting the man I thought he was.
they could say, from the Dec. 8, poll that Norton gets one less point against Romanoff than against Bennet though the spread is actually worse for AR: Norton beats incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet 46% to 37%, and beats Romanoff 45% to 34%.
Romanoff gets beaten by a statistically insignificant margn less by Ken Buck, 42% of the vote to Bennet’s 38% vs 41% to 39% for AR. Tom Wiens, in a match-up with Bennett, is up a point, 42% to 41% and up apoint, 41% to 40% on AR
So I suppose, you could twist that into polling “better” without absolutely lying, as in Wiems gets a wopping 42% with Bennet as opposed to a mere 41% with AR. Guess it would be slightly more honest than predicating a defense of one’s veracity on the meaning of “is”?
we could quote another graf from the Rasmussen poll:
Let’s agree with JO, everybody, and then ask you, JO, to comment on the fact that AR just bald faced exaggerated (some of us in the “reality based world” you so despise would call it lying but we’ll leave that distinction for your dreamers) in his email to supporters.
Exaggeration/lie? Yes or no?
That there aren’t some favorable numbers for Romanoff in these polls. What we ARE saying is that it is completely untrue to say, unequivocally, that Romanoff has consistently led Bennet in public polls. It’s factually wrong, no opinion required.
I’m still wondering if the appointed elitist doesn’t get 30% at State, then will he commit to petitioning onto the ballot?
Again, I’m still wondering if the appointed elitist doesn’t get 30% at State, then will he commit to petitioning onto the ballot?
Error error error Error error error Error error error Error error error Error error error Error error error Error error error Error error error
a lie. Say it isn’t so, Andrew!
And if you do magically reappear, please answer this question: Why was loyalty to the party so important to you when you were in the legislature, but not now?
How does “loyalty to the party” equate to “loyalty to Bennet?” Is Bennet the Democratic party?
Auto didn’t say that Bennet is the D party nor that AR owes loyalty to him.
I think – and hope Automaticftp will comment – that the comment reflects a larger issue. Why is AR running a campaign that seems not to be reflective of who he was?
For example-
When he used to take PAC money it was no problem. Now it’s evil.
since we have both weighed in on this before–here goes.
Party loyalty was Andrew’s mantra when he was attempting to take back the House (yes, I know, he claims sole credit for a job well done but believe it or not there were a few heavy hitters right there with him.)
He was quite specific with Democratic candidates and what was he specific about? That primaries were a bad idea. That you pick one guy, you clear the field of all competition and turn all of your fire power on the Republican opponent.
For some of us that really liked Andrew (and I would be one of them) this is just yet another example of him saying one thing and doing something completely different when it benefits him. I’m not big on people that can’t walk the walk. Actions speak louder than words and AR has made two major 360 degree turns on two rather large issues–
1. PAC’s, which he took over $75,000 from when he was running in a safe district for the House and therefore, truly did not need a dime of their money to run against an opponent.
2. Primaries–says one thing for 8 years, literally runs a House Majority Project on the “no primary” theory and then turns around and jumps in during an election year that is compounded by the problem of it being an off election year where the majority party typically loses more seats than they gain.
How much did Romanoff raise and spend for the House Majority Project and other CoDA projects from funding sources he’s now saying are tainted? A lot more than the $75,000 he gladly accepted for his own House races, that’s for sure …
Now there’s a point I’d like to see a Romanoff supporter reply to.
explained it well. Thanks!
I don’t, but someone smarter than me said something smart about something sometime.
Why not aim big ?
If they are going to claim that AR leads vs. Bennet, why not just claim he also leads against all R’s, too?
Oh, waitaminute…
Could it be that the AR campaign has figured out that credability is down with other than inside-insider D’s and so they need to claim to be leading v. Bennet in order to look credible, but stlll want to be perceived as the underdog against the R nominee to motivate the unmotivated D’s?
I get the part about working with what you got- but c’mon.
As I’ve said before I don’t think primaries are inherently a bad thing, nor necessarily damaging to the eventual nominee. As I’ve also said before it depends on the kind of primary. but this kind of bs is damaging to the eventual nominee.
I would now expect some R’s to support AR. Carefully orchestrated or just on their own because I think they’d rather run against him.
Sept. 16 Rasmussen
Okay, Norton beats Bennet by 9 points, Romanoff by 8. A statistical tie, maybe, but still Romanoff does 1 point better than Bennet.
Then, we see
That’s a net 11 percent very unfavorable for Bennet and net very unfavorable of eight by Romanoff. Both numbers suck but Bennets, unquestionably, suck the most.
Moving to Dec. 11 Rasmussen:
So, here, at last, is Pols’ coveted “lead” for Bennet, who only loses by 9 perent while Romanoff loses by 11. Again, these are for all practical purposes statistical ties but bragging rights, such as they are, do go to Bennet. But then, we also find,
That’s now Bennet with a 12 percent “very unfavorable” edge over very favorable. Romanoff has only a 2 percent net “very unfavorable” rating.
Again, plenty to bruise both egos. But three of the four measures in the two polls do show Romanoff more popular than Bennet…or, to be accurate, Bennet even more unpopular than Romanoff.
Here is pretty much the ridiculous argument I suggested for being able to say AR polled better! Only not from Jo or Sharon.
Read ’em and weep, spinmeisters!
You’re grasping at straws. The fact is there is no clear polling advantage for either one. AR’s fans just gut level prefer AR and think (I believe rightly so) that he got the short end of the stick in the first place. Nothing wrong with that but don’t try so hard to dress it up.
He has no particular electabilty advantage nor does he significantly differ from Bennet on issues or degree of progressive cred. The major difference is that he will have much less money and high level support. Period.
I meant Voyageur
but the fact is that by three of the four measures Romanoff outperforms Bennett. And one of them, the 10 percent “very unfavorable” lead for Bennet in the December poll, is quite statistically significant. The others amount to statistical ties that the spinmeisters can spin as they will, and shouldn’t be accused of “lying.” But Pols made categorical statements that are just not true in his lust to bash Romanoff.
I think being an “incumbent” (I can’t remember which one I’m supposed to acknowledge since I’m constantly reminded that he isn’t an incumbent but an appointee, only…I’m reminded he’s an incumbent when polls come out) is going to hurt some folks in 2010, particularly if the economy doesn’t turn around.
However, I am in complete disagreement with you when it comes to AR’s “spin” (yeah, I call that a lie–we farm girls are very black and white on that kind of shit) that he’s the “preferred” candidate who has “consistently earned the highest ratings”–that kind of spinning is making me dizzy.
Look, I know he needs to raise some money. I won’t fault him there. It’s end of quarter in less than 48 hours. I’d just really appreciate it if he and some of his more ardent supporters would quit pissing down my leg and then tell me it’s raining.
The bad news is that, as an incumbent, he takes the flack for not magically curing a bad economy in a year of casting one of 100 votes.
He also takes the flack from he Republican wrecking crew running ads saying “health care for all Americans is a communist, homosexualist, Satanist plot!”
The good news about being an appointed incumbent…well, it’s just that he has the office and the power that it carries and almost certainly would never have won that any other way. But, unlike the Bennetistas, I refuse to believe that a back-room deal between Ritter and Bennet strips me of the right to vote for a candidate of my own choice.
Appointees simply don’t deserve the deference at primary time that elected incumbents, like Ritter himself, deserve, in this farm boy’s view.
(preferably with an iota of evidence) that there was a backroom deal between Ritter and Bennet.
And when the “appointee” is doing a damn good job and there isn’t an iota of difference in the two candidate’s policies and beliefs, then I have absolutely zero reason to fire someone and replace him with somebody who keeps telling me I should hire him because he’s more popular. That may have worked when Saint Romanoff was in high school. It doesn’t quite hold water in the adult world.
No one wants to deny you your vote.
Have a primary, support Romanoff for whatever reasons you choose (as yet unspecified) but can we agree to keep the seat D?
I’ll support the D nominee whoever it is. Will you?
All I know is that I had zero say, nada, zilch. Ritter annointed Bennet. Period. One man, one vote. Ok, so I had no say. But that also means I have no buy-in. Ritter passed over the obvious choice, Hickenlooper, because he wants to be the big frog in the Democratic pond, IMO. But while I have no animosity toward Bennet, I also don’t owe him anything.
If he wants my vote, he’s got to earn it.
Any candidate should have to earn your vote – I agree with that.
And those are all fine reasons to oppose Ritter and the appointment process. And even to withhold judgement on Bennet until you get to know him.
Why for Romanoff?
Ideologically, not much to choose between them. But Romanoff excelled in putting together coalitions, working in bipartisan fashion, in the lege. Even as minority leader, he got a lot done. He picks good assistants, as he did with Cary Kennedy and a host of other stars. This state is much better off because of his leadership on Ref C and other issues.
I also know Bennet quite well and we’ve had at least a dozen face-to-face talks over the years. Give him his due, he interviews well. But he’s literally never run for dogcatcher. In large groups, he leans to the soporific. In an appointive job, like school supt., I think he was very effective. But the U.S. Senate is an elected political office and both to get there and to excel there takes the kind of political skills Romanoff has demonstrated many times and that Bennet hasn’t.
The disturbing thing about these polls is that Bennet’s negatives grew so much between polls. That suggest that as voters get to know him, they don’t like him. More realistically, it suggests that the Republican attacks are defining Bennet before he defines himself.
Thanks for that.
“…attacks are defining Bennet before he defines himself.”
Well, someone is defining him.
He should be more in front of us , in front of Colorado. Romanoff has years worth of contacts and party building track record. Sure the Senator has been to all 64 counties and did the town hall thing. And then he got busy in DC. But he needs to be here campaigning more.
Why do you think AR has lagged so much in fundraising?
I believe the attacks come from the left wing of the democratic party that stands for compromising on nothing.
That’s clear from this board.
It would be ineteresting to see the sample used, and the political spectrum represented by that sample.
Yes, but they did not report that. My understanding is that even when they do reveal methodology and exact script, they don’t weight respondents by party affiliation to reflect the voting population nor do they adjust in other helpful ways.
Doesn’t matter- polls don’t really matter now except in the broadest of strokes. The data from this round of Rasmussen doesn’t tell us anything relevant about the D primary. It does tell us that in Colorado the 2010 election cycle is going to be about energized R’s and R-leaning U’s and low turnout will kill the D’s.
Get the constitution changed.
It’s easy. Just hire Jon Caldara.
a sane defender/supporter of Andrew for a change. Man, it’s good to have you back. Now, if we can just convince Lauren to stick around…
http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
Dec 11
Norton 46 v Bennet 37 Norton +9
Norton 45 v Romanoff 34 Norton +11
Buck 42 v Bennet 38 +4
Buck 41 v Romanoff 39 +2
Wiens 42/41 over Bennet +1
Wiens 41/40 over Romanoff +1
Sep 16
Norton 45 v Bennet 36 Norton +9
Norton 42 v Bennet 34 Norton +8
Buck and Wiens question wasn’t reported in Sep.
I read this data from Rasmussen and I think several things, though
Romanoff outperforms his primary opponent among voters of every political party, every age group, and every other demographic category. (Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 8, 2009) Andrew has consistently earned the highest ratings since entering the race. (Rasmussen, Sept. 15, 2009)
wouldn’t be one of them.
What does jump out is that 13 and 11 months prior to election day, polled voters want to vote against the status quo, the President’s party. No surprise in the mid-term after a Presidential election. The surprising part is that anyone would claim this is the good news.
The favorable/unfavorable and even the “strong” f/u are meaningless at this point. Example- Rassmussen doesn’t report who was polled, but I’d guess that there is a positive number of Colorado voters who will vote for Bennet in the general if he’s the nominee but who would poll strong unfavorable, voters who want the seat to stay D but don’t like Bennet. But even there Rasmussen acknowledges that this far out the f/u data is useless*, and only the “strongly” f/u might be indicative.
*”Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.”
Sep
Bennet 19% very unfavorably.
Romanoff 20% very unfavorably
Dec
Bennet 28% view him very unfavorably
Romanoff 18% very unfavorably
Why the AR movement from Sep to Dec?
Could the JO/Sharon message be working? (Bennet sucks, AR is great )
Could it be that the respondents are reacting to health care- where AR generally gets a pass – and so those who think the health reform bill goes too far dump on Bennet and those who think health reform doesn’t go far enough also dump on Bennet?
What this poll tells me is that anyone who thinks Colorado has gone Blue and can safely stay D is nuts.
The D nominee will have my support and vote whomever it is. But a lot of other de-motivated D’s and indifferent U’s will not feel that way. I’m pretty sure that several AR supporters don’t feel that way.
2010 is going to be very different from 2008 – no matter what the D party leaders in Denver/Adams/Arapahoe and Douglas Counties think. We need to start running against the R’s now (Norton and Wiens) not in mid-Aug.
Let’s have a primary. But let’s have the kind of primary where we get a stronger D nominee than we would have had otherwise. Not the kind of circular firing squad where whomever is left standing gets crushed by the R nominee. The kind where one candidate attempts to make whatever reality is out there a strength even if it results in weakening the party’s nominee and therefore the party. We’ll see the 4Q numbers soon enough, but if AR doesn’t demonstrate he can raise 12-13mm by June, he should acknowledge he can’t win and get out.
We’re saying that the statement that Romanoff has consistently polled better in all of these polls is just not true. You can cherry pick different parts of the poll where Romanoff looks better than Bennet, or vice versa, but you CANNOT say that Romanoff consistently outpolls Bennet with any sort of truth.
Sen. Bennet led Mr. Romanoff 41-27. At the time, the AR apologists said it was simply name recognition–nothing more. An interesting assertion since AR’s advantage was supposedly that everyone knew him.
Ho-hum I’m just not that into you Colorado Pols or what you say.
See if you can inject some objectivity in your biased opinions. It will help make the sight more interesting.
Did you ever answer that question that three readers asked you yesterday?
Which made it simple to demolish their biased constructions.
for example, their false claim
is contradicted by the fact that Romanoff, who loses by 8 pct, does insignificantly better than Bennet, who loses by 9 pct, in the September poll. I could do with less bias on Pols’ part but at least they respected us enough to post their sources and that forgives a multitude of sins.
Either Pols’ or yours, until someone can show me a poll where a higher percentage of voters say they would vote for AR than would vote for MB.
I don’t know if there’s been direct head-to-head matchups for the primary or not, but I don’t think either campaign can claim a lead in the polls until that happens.
Doing less badly, or having lower unfavorables, is not “leading in the polls”.
Your point is valid Voyaguer, but it’s all spin until something more solid comes along.
We’re not spinning anything. The polls we linked to BOTH SHOW THAT BENNET DOES BETTER THAN ROMANOFF. Again, not by much, but that’s not the point. The point is that Romanoff’s campaign keeps claiming that he consistently polls better than Bennet, which JUST ISN’T TRUE.
to potential D supporter and donors certainly helps create the impression that everyone knows he’s great compared to Bennet.
Frankly- it’s the right message. ANd if this is cause Bill R. is on board, points to him. If, however, Bill R. doesn’t really care whether this seat stays D if it can’t be his guy, what are we doing?
Is this the beginning of the Romanoff campaign going negative?
Good one, RSB.
We’re all in a lot of trouble. I don’t think that’s true though.
Even though this isn’t the first time that AR’s campaign has come out with something like this, it’s the first time they’ve done it in a way that attacks Bennet. Everything else that AR has attacked Bennet on so far has been valid IMO, until now. If not valid, it’s at least been based on the issues.
It just seems like there’s not really anywhere else to go except negative. Maybe it’s not that the surrogates reflect the campaign, but that, after a while, the surrogates do affect the campaign.
No, they don’t. the September poll shows Romanoff trailing by 8 points, Bennet by 9. I’ll grant you that the difference in statistically insignificant. But for you to claim that Both polls show Bennet does better than Romanoff isn’t spin, it’s a flat-out, stink up the barnyard lie! You screwed up, why did yourself a deeper hole by making a claim that is so easily disproven?
I think polls are pretty much meaningless this far out from election day other than to show that there’s an inherent advantage for Republicans right now, no matter who they are. You can get a general sense of voter sentiment–even though I’m still wary of using solely Rasmussen as means of measuring that sentiment–but I don’t think that these numbers will match the final percentages on election day.
I also think it’s weird that they don’t do primary head-to-head matchups, just potential general election matchups. It’s a really odd to argue about who’s stronger using this kind of data. The only thing these polls show is that the Republicans are stronger–or that Dems are weaker–not the strength or weakness of any particular candidate.
confirms that 2010 will be a different kind of R cycle than was 0-8 and Udall didn’t exactly rock the vote in 08
Actblue.org contributions received as of now:
Michael Bennet $1,323,634
Andrew Romanoff $247,518
Notice how far over to the right I had to shift the dollar sign to report AR’s contributions.
Romanoff has zero policy differences with Michael Bennet and his fundraising is pathetic. This race barely qualifies as a “challenge” and should end within weeks.
n/t
unless it comes from individual, Colorado activists.
who don’t work for a bank or other corporation (since that’s how the reports classify contributions from companies, including rank-and-file employees).
How will Romanoff raise 10 million dollars?
I don’t see it.
I’ve been pointing out falsehoods for awhile.
I thought that this would improve with the new campaign manager.
I guess that I was wrong.
Have some respect for AR – he’s still one of the best street fighters you have out there
You and your snark get me every time and usually when I am in the process of swallowing coffee. You devil you.
When you coming up to Estes? I still owe you drinks.
Hope 2010 is a great year for you!
Sounds like 2009 treated you well and you were overdue. I hope 2010 is even better to you. Have a wonderful new year!
I’m excited to hang out, MOTR – I’m gonna be making tons of trips to Loveland and Fort Collins – I’ll email you soon 🙂
I’ll pick the place and if you’re really nice, I’ll even introduce you to a couple of folks–Democrats, but of course. 🙂
I hope they’ll enjoy meeting the Co-Founder of Muslims For Bush…. among many other fun things
In the meantime, I hope you had a wonderful Christmas, MOTR!
The friends I have aren’t intimidated by political differences and really love the lively conversation. They won’t try to convert you to being a Democrat, either. (The blowhards that are always trying to convert my friends are the worst–I tend to avoid those kind of folks from both sides of the political fence.)
Have a great new year and let’s get together soon, MAH.
I’m looking forward to it
Ralphie – http://www.MuslimsForBush.com
🙂
LOL
…I can’t stand it. And I’ve been known to stand for a lot!
Polls show me winning! No, you losing! No, support me because I smiled brightly while being elected before (without opposition)! No, reject him because he did it in the back room (or, he had the nerve both to ask for the job and get it)! No, support me because doing so will show everyone that you have rights to ask for things!
This is all so silly and accomplishes little. Ready your next round of fire at Senator Norton, y’all.