Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Romanoff Raised $337K in 2009 Q4

by: redstateblues

Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 10:38:04 AM MST


(Discuss amongst yourselves... - promoted by Middle of the Road)

Hot off the interwebs, and current Colorado Statesman reporter Ernest Luning's Twitter feed:

Romanoff campaign reports to FEC $337K raised 4th Q, $479K cash on hand, more than 2600 donors this quarter

Let the spin begin!
redstateblues :: Romanoff Raised $337K in 2009 Q4
Tags: (All Tags)

Share this post:

Romanoff Raised $337K in 2009 Q4 | 136 comments
Crickets?
n/t

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
Here's the numbers as they break down:
Romanoff: $479,000 cash on hand (2,600 donors)

Bennet: $3,482,581 cash on hand (2,384 donors)

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

Are those unique donors?
or 4th quarter donors only
[ Parent ]
I don't know.
I just know they are each the numbers being cited with the 4th quarter totals.

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
WOW ~thanks MTR
seems Bennet has Wealthier donors to "donate" more cash, While Romanoff has more constituents.

With the supreme courts decision, I expect to see this trend continue even more harshly.

Bennet will have fewer donors and far more commercials to run. Bet the farm on it... {You too will become wealthy.}

"Fake but accurate!" ~GOPwarrior "infrastructure,whatever that is." ~bjwilson83 "You leftist DICK!" ~ Laughing Boy
See you at the polls you dumb bastard.~Libertad  

[ Parent ]
Citizens United
What does the Supreme Court decision have to do with donations to candidates?  The decision does not change contribution limits or prohibitions on corporate donations to candidates.

I don't follow.

[ Parent ]
as Donations are "free speech"
and are now Unlimited... (donations from any body corporations and wealthy people included)

the gop (state anyway) is seeing too it.

A river of money will soon flow to whom ever is willing to sell their vote.

"Fake but accurate!" ~GOPwarrior "infrastructure,whatever that is." ~bjwilson83 "You leftist DICK!" ~ Laughing Boy
See you at the polls you dumb bastard.~Libertad  

[ Parent ]
Donations are not free speech
Although, I don't want to sound like Alito... not true.

Citizens United stands for the proposition the corporations can spend an unlimited amount on election related advertising, including ads that expressly advocate for a particular candidate.

The federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates, parties and PACs remain in effect.  Hand in hand, corporations are banned from coordinating advertisements and advocacy with a candidate or political party.

Donations are not free speech under this case.  Advocacy by a corporation, WITHOUT donating to a candidate, is the protected speech according to the Court.

While I disagree with the Court's conclusions, your analysis is wrong.

You lose.

[ Parent ]
You're right
until the Court strikes down those laws as well, and all indications are that as soon as anyone files a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of direct corporate donations to candidates, they well.

"Have a Bobby bar! My dad made them." --Jon Huntsman Jr.
[ Parent ]
2014
I look forward to that thread in 2014, when that cape is ripe and in front of the Court.
[ Parent ]
And by cape, I mean case. n/t

[ Parent ]
Folks
There is still a 4800 limit.  Clearly Andrew has few maxed out donors.

[ Parent ]
few maxed out donors
That's one way of looking at it!
[ Parent ]
Well, I'm a Bennet supporter
and I can assure you that I'm nowhere near being maxed out. If I had $4800, I'd probably be paying down debt with it first. :)

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
Don't tug on Superman's case...err, I mean, cape...

[ Parent ]
You're welcome.
I guess the thing that sticks out in this for me is that Bennet has, on hand, $3 million dollars more than Romanoff and this was supposed to be the quarter that Romanoff blew us all away with his fundraising numbers.

"Last quarter, he didn't have enough time to raise money. He announced late; just wait until next quarter when he works the donors. Next quarter he'll raise a million--he's the people choice."

Any of those sound familiar? They all do to me. And at the end of it all, he raised less than Bennet, less than Norton.

There's no way to spin this. It is what it is. If these had been good numbers, he wouldn't have waited until the last possible day to file them. He knows these numbers look bad. He's no fool. This is not good news if you work for the Romanoff campaign.

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

[ Parent ]
The Romanoff hardcore will tell us that it's grreat
the numbers aren't bad for a safe congressional district. It's pretty poor for a contested senate race.  

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric
[ Parent ]
I wonder how many gave to both.
Raw donor numbers suggest that Romanoff will have top line in the primary, but that both will make it to the primary ballot even if neither try to petition onto it.
[ Parent ]
I agree with this assessment
Romanoff will have enough votes coming out of the caucus to get on the ballot.  So will Bennet.  This one is going to go the primary distance which I don't necessarily see as a bad thing.
[ Parent ]
Said Jane Norton to the NRSC

[ Parent ]
Go to the FEC site...
to see how many of Bennet's supporters are out of state donors compared to Andrew's in-state support.

http://www.fec.gov/

too bad money trumps populism in this country.

[ Parent ]
I could genuinely care less.
If you live in a bubble and think that no one outside of Colorado cares about keeping a Democrat in this seat, then I suggest politics should not continue to be your hobby.

I gave to at least 10 out of state races in 2006 and probably 4 in 2008. Was I wrong to support candidates outside of Colorado that shared my values?

Welcome to Pols. Sorry your candidate/campaign didn't have better news to report yesterday.  

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

[ Parent ]
In Colorado
No statewide candidate has won with spending less money since the 70's.   So Maybe for Denver's mayor or local city council races but not in a statewide TV and Media driven campaign to have little to no money.

Look We all know who these people are but to the run of the mill voter where the average American family spends 5... yes 5! mins on politics a week they don't and without tv, mail, radio, internet they won't vote for you.  

[ Parent ]
False
RE: No statewide candidate has won with spending less money since the 70's.  

Many big spenders have been clobbered in statewide races. A few I remember -- Bruce Benson, Terry Considine, Bob Beauprez. Didn't Tom Strickland outspend Wayne Allard? In Denver, Webb was outspent mightily by Norm Early.

Money matters, but message does too. What is Romanoff's message? He still hasn't said why he'd be a better senator (or better Democratic candidate) than Bennet.  

[ Parent ]
There aren't enough people in Colorado
No candidate from either party can raise enough money to win a U.S. Senate race without going outside of Colorado. We just don't have the population base to equate to the number of donors (and max-out donors) that a candidate needs to raise millions of dollars. There are only so many people in Colorado, on either side of the aisle, who can write $4,200 checks.

Whoever wins the nomination for the Democrats and the Republicans will need to raise a lot of money very quickly in order to compete in the general election, and there's no possible way to do that without raising money from outside Colorado.

[ Parent ]
Yep.
Well put. That's why I sent a load of money to Tester back in 2006.  

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
That's why Romanoff
has boxed himself into a very difficult place forswearing DSCC and party money.  

I sympathize with the PAC issue broadly framed, but the national senatorial campaigns exist for this very purpose.  The source rather than the vehicle is most telling, and even then I accept it is a somewhat corrupt system of murky grays.  (Ideally I support public financing).  

Its a challenging enough proposition--especially given both 527s/c4s and the recent SCOTUS coup--to win a high dollar Senate race without corporate PACs; its quite another to abandon party money too.  And big name consultants aren't cheap.  

"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me." Mitt Romney in a moment of clarity

"I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name," Willard Mitt Romney demonstrating 'policy flexibility.'  

[ Parent ]
Not in a bubble...
thanks for the welcome. been off-line and haven't gotten back here recently.

Of course we contribute to other state's races. Everyone does, but that should stop us from looking at a candidates donors either and see who is contributing to our race and why. Have any of them ever even heard of Romanoff before? Highly unlikely. So why do they support Bennett? Because he's an incumbent and because they've had past business dealings with him.

This is the essential problem with the corporatist society we live in. Politicians and political campaigns are bought and sold like any other commodity, when they should be something entirely different.

In case you hadn't guessed by now, that is why I support publicly financed campaigns, so every candidate has an equal chance to get their message out.

[ Parent ]
In case you hadn't guessed by now,
I support publicly financed campaigns, too. And ponies for everyone, because that is about as realistically going to happen in 2010 as public financing is.  Again, thanks for stopping by.

Why do they contribute to Bennet? Because they know him. Or they like him. Or they like the job he is doing, the way he is standing up for health care and the PO, and the way he has proven to be a solid vote for Obama and the Democratic Party's agenda. Or they feel strongly that he has the better chance of winning the general election once he gets done wasting the next 9 months on a guy from his own party. Those are usually the reasons I send someone out of state money.

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

[ Parent ]
patronizing
I'm sticking around, despite your brush off.

And the reasons you send your money elsewhere are fine for you. I think Colorado's voters can decide for themselves whether it is important to them.

A lot of effort to kill Romanoff off before the caucuses even. I wonder why?

[ Parent ]
Not a bad quarter
Andrew Romnanoff had a good quarter.  

Michael Bennet had a great quarter.

With the anti-incumbent mood Romanoff is raising enough cash to be competitive and even win.  

LOL
n/t

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
[ Parent ]
LOL indeed

[ Parent ]
Right
And somehow Andrew wins and needs 5 - 6 million bucks to fight a republican... How does he raise it.  Come on  
[ Parent ]
$14 - 17 Million Race
$337,000 is less than 2% of the amount needed for this race.  
Please, get a clue.  Romanoff is not even close to being competitive and is a distraction from concentrating on the GOP candidate.

Time has now run out on Romanoff.  Unless, that is, you just like to lose.

I don't.


ITLDUSO  
Honk hello when you see my license plate!

[ Parent ]
If you think it takes $17 million to win the nomination,
you live on another planet.  Romanoff is competitive for the nomination.  Once that's secured, the same money vaults now open to
B ennet will be avilable for Romanoff.
[ Parent ]
I also think AR is still competitive, for now
but how anybody can compare their quarterly numbers and not think AR is getting lit up is beyond me.  Their numbers are almost an order of magnitude apart.

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
LMAO
Tell Joan FitzGerald and Will Shafroth that AR is still competitive.  I think they have another perspective.
[ Parent ]
FitzGerald was still competitive
She lost, but not by a lot. Polis' proportion of the vote total was not comparable to his proportion of total spending.

"Have a Bobby bar! My dad made them." --Jon Huntsman Jr.
[ Parent ]
Yes
but that was in a district where without Jared spending that much money he might not have won.  Hell I did finance for the man and we knew we needed to outspend and have a much larger staff.

Andrew has almost no money to spend and how much of it is general money that he cannot spend. 497k is about 3 days of TV statewide... NOTHING.  

Fitz'gerald spent over 2 million plus had major 527's from many sources helping her.  Andrew has none of that.  

[ Parent ]
And maybe Michael will loan Andrew enough money
to pay the salaries for all of Andy's new staff?  Geesh.

"Three or four years from now, we're not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff."  -Scott McInnis

[ Parent ]
Including Pat Cadell,
darling of Glen Beck
[ Parent ]
But Romanoff has already said, quite recently,
that he won't take any of that money, including and especially from the DSCC, because it is PAC related. So, where will he raise it?

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
I think that's a really good point Middle
Romanoff has painted himself into a bit of a corner on this. If he sticks to his promises in the general, he may not be able to compete from an advertising perspective. However, if he changes his campaign's policy for the general, then he will open himself up to attacks about just how principled his principled stand was.

I think he will do the smart thing, and if he wins the nomination, he will do as Bob says and then put his political skills to work to smooth over any potential blow back from his more erm... passionate... supporters.

[ Parent ]
Did I Say Win the Nomination?
Very disingenuous method of commentary.  Please be more careful in your analysis.

"Securing the nomination" won't occur until mid-August. After that, there are only 6 weeks before ballots are mailed to voters. That is not enough time to raise millions of dollars and spend them effectively.  

Having only about 14% of the cash on hand of Bennet is not competitive by my definition.  But, I guess you're free to argue that just about anyone is "competitive for the nomination".  See my discussion of "loser" above.

 

ITLDUSO  
Honk hello when you see my license plate!

[ Parent ]
I see your reading disability continues....

[ Parent ]
Spot on.
Plus, I don't think there's any guarantee "the same money vaults now open to Bennet" will be available, much less wide open, for Romanoff. Part of the reason Bennet is a fundraising star is the whole new universe of donors he brings to Colorado politics. Those are Bennet donors, not "keep the Colorado seat blue" donors. And Romanoff is railing against a lot of the other folks donating to Bennet ... it's unlikely they'll reward this by maxing out to the other guy.
[ Parent ]
I assume you meant to respond to me there, RG :)
But I think you make an excellent point. Romanoff will get the institutional support if he's the D nominee, but he won't be able to put up numbers equal to the ones Bennet is putting up now.
[ Parent ]
not so
Id' be surprised if Sen Bennet assists ROmanoff rraise money he loses the nomination. Mainly due to Romanoff's hard core supporters flat fabricating the Bennet record.  

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric
[ Parent ]
Au contraire-
Bennet has accepted PAC and corpoate donateions- and AR has said he will not.

Also, there ae Bennet friends and supporters who, while may prefer to see the seat stay D are not AR friends.

I agree- getting to the nomination should not be $17m, but it's going to be wayyy more than $500k if he's going to be viable in the general.

[ Parent ]
Agreed However
with Bennets vote on the Bankruptcy bill... I simply do not trust him. He did far better at DPS.

oh he still calls that vote a "NO" vote to the "Cramdown" Bill.
Judging from the amount of cash and number of "donors" (listed above) Bennet is in someones silk lined pocket.

I would like to see how Bennet votes on Wall street reform...
betcha it is a NO.

"Fake but accurate!" ~GOPwarrior "infrastructure,whatever that is." ~bjwilson83 "You leftist DICK!" ~ Laughing Boy
See you at the polls you dumb bastard.~Libertad  

[ Parent ]
Benet's in nobody's pocket.
He's just playing the game by the rules.  Nothing wrong with that.   He'll vote for the financial reform package, I'd bet.
[ Parent ]
your on...
say bragging rights?
Bennet will vote NO. because wall street or a banker will tell him to.

"Fake but accurate!" ~GOPwarrior "infrastructure,whatever that is." ~bjwilson83 "You leftist DICK!" ~ Laughing Boy
See you at the polls you dumb bastard.~Libertad  
[ Parent ]
The real work is always in committee
making a bet about a single vote does not usually address the real politics.
[ Parent ]
But it's so much easier
to be reductive about these complicated politics, Danny!
[ Parent ]
Bragging rights, bosh.
You'll owe me a union-brewed Pabst Blue Ribbon beer!
[ Parent ]
Ewww.
[ Parent ]
Yes!
And it is still guzzled proudly by hipsters and poor college students alike.
[ Parent ]
I really have no room to talk.
I drank Schaffer beer for years and I'm convinced it ate through part of my lower intestine. But it was cheap, I'll give it that much.  

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
I used to drink Schaefer
Before I moved to PA and switched to Rolling Rock. It was good pre-1987 until they sold out to Labatt's. It was either the little green bottles or Schmidt's or Iron City.  Couldn't do those.

"33"

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

[ Parent ]
I love Rolling Rock.
Got hooked on it while bartending. Good beer.

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
I loved Schaefer's when I was in New York in the late 60s.

[ Parent ]
I loved Schaefer's when I was in New York in the late 60s.

[ Parent ]
I'm originally from the Burgh
nothing like a shot of Corby's chased with an Iron City draft while sitting in a bar across from the mill.....

It's only class warfare if you fight back
[ Parent ]
Schaffer beer
Do they serve that in the Marianas?
[ Parent ]
And...
...My buddy w/ the MMJ permit!

A woman's health decisions are a private matter between her priest and her husband.
[ Parent ]
Yes, MOTR.
PBR is on n sale most weekends at $16 for a pack of 30 at Argonaut liquor in Denver! Solidarity forever (burp!)  
[ Parent ]
Don't do it, Bob.
Think of the children. Think of your kidneys.  

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
This one's for you, Bob
http://video.google.com/videop...

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
[ Parent ]
ok... and you will owe me a "Rail-yard Ale".
From Wyncoop.

I gave up PBR once I found a job. :) ...and developed a palate.  

"Fake but accurate!" ~GOPwarrior "infrastructure,whatever that is." ~bjwilson83 "You leftist DICK!" ~ Laughing Boy
See you at the polls you dumb bastard.~Libertad  

[ Parent ]
That's a ridiculous accusation
probably from a sock puppet. It's this type of slime that really makes me lose respect for people

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric
[ Parent ]
that is some SWEET spin!!
nice work there

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
Money doesn't TRUMP populism in this country...
Money IS populism in this country.  To quote Colbert, "The market has spoken."

"History is'a made at night! Character is what you are in the dark!"  Lord John Worfin
[ Parent ]
I think the most glaring part of this
Is that he was only able to raise around $100,000 more in 3 months than he was able to raise after he had announced late.

I agree with Indipol and Voyageur that it keeps him competitive, but he needs to either absolutely clobber Bennet in the caucuses or really step it up in Q1, because it's going to take a lot more money than that to beat Norton.

Now that I've cleaned the coffee off my screen
I can comment a little more to Born to Run's post above (and to you redstate, and to MOR, which is why I'm commenting down here).

I don't think Romanoff's fundraising is competitive, especially in light of the spending decisions he's made.

I don't think the quarter was "good" as BtR spins.

I think it was just good enough for him to stay in.  He'll do well at caucus and prolong this silliness for another several months.

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

[ Parent ]
Great summation.
I agree with your entire comment. Just good enough to keep him from being forced out.  

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
have to agree with Ralphie
It's setting up to be a let's lose campaign.
Given that Team Bennet can't attack Romanoff the way Romanoff apparebtly let's his people attack Sen.Bennet.

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric
[ Parent ]
no attack... just fact. Bennet voted NO on the bankruptcy reform Bill
and it failed. continuing the economic slide.
as well as allowing More people to loose their homes

to keep banks from having to give up a point or two or extending an ARM mortgage out to 30 years.

I can restructure all of my mortgages on additional properties in bankruptcy court.

Single Homeowners cannot.

Thanks Michael Bennet.

"Fake but accurate!" ~GOPwarrior "infrastructure,whatever that is." ~bjwilson83 "You leftist DICK!" ~ Laughing Boy
See you at the polls you dumb bastard.~Libertad  

[ Parent ]
and it failed
You do realize "cramdown" was one part of a much larger foreclosure prevention bill, which passed with Bennet's vote, right? And that "cramdown" fell 15 votes short of what was needed to pass it in the Senate, so Bennet's vote was hardly decisive? Reality also has a reality bias.
[ Parent ]
Where... When... Link??
Usually I am on top of these type of issues... YET I have NO memory of this.

"Fake but accurate!" ~GOPwarrior "infrastructure,whatever that is." ~bjwilson83 "You leftist DICK!" ~ Laughing Boy
See you at the polls you dumb bastard.~Libertad  
[ Parent ]
RedGreen is correct
on both points

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!
[ Parent ]
Bill info
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...

This is the Senate version, which passed after replacing the House version, which had included cramdown.

More here: http://www.coloradopols.com/sh...

[ Parent ]
Yeah- because if you didn't see it it didn't happen.

The tide came in yesterday in Madagascar.  I didn't see it to know it happened.

As for thi svote- it's well documented and the link has been posted more than once right here on CoPols.com

BTW= next you're going to realize that the fact that Bennet's vote wasn't the deciding vote is somewhat irrelevant to the question of whether he should have voted for it or against it.

I would agree. I think he should have voted for it. His logic was sound- his conclusion was not.  But even his voting for it would not have made it pass.  COnclusion- he voted his mind and what he thought was best for all CO, even though there was a potential politcal price to pay. At least that's one conclusion.

Meanwhile, he has acknowledged the Senate efforts to help homeowners stay int heir homes was a failure (he described it as "colossal failure")  and tat the Senate needs to do more.  Same topic AR: [crickets]

[ Parent ]
"Usually I am on top of these type of issues"
Given how much you've been schooled today (in this thread, as well as in the discussion of the supreme court's decision), I somehow doubt your topness.

I'm not as sweet as I used to be.
[ Parent ]
Hey, I can't speak for all tops everywhere,

but doubt whatever, but everyone gets to decide topness  for themselves and self identify and stuff.  
[ Parent ]
Sen Bennet suggests extending mortgages to 40 years
rather than reducing principle.

This society does have a basis in contract law.

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric

[ Parent ]
"extending mortgages to 40 years"
means that in ten years there is very little equity, and not much in 20 years--unless, of course, we have another housing bubble and one exits before the crash. Might it keep people in their home? Perhaps. Is that better than renting? Not necessarily.

I just can't accept that it is good public policy to treat second (and third and fourth) houses more favorably that "only" houses. I don't know about these things. Perhaps someone can educate me on how Bennet's votes (no's and aye's) on amendments (such as cram down) and the final bill relate to this.

[ Parent ]
As long as this remains a capitalist society
contract law will be the basis of it.
I don't think thatyou could get Speaker Romaoff to deny that.  

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric
[ Parent ]
Agree Ralphie
And as far as the positions he's finally articulated, I still don't see much there that differentiates him from Bennet. The sooner the silliness is over the better.    
[ Parent ]
I was slightly high

I predicted $434k

http://coloradopols.com/diary/...

And I believe fiscal viability is now confirmed. He's not.

Fork, please.

Sure- he can get to caucus without a huge infusion. But when/how doe the big dough show up to run against the R (s) ?  


Actually
You were almost 29 percent high.

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
[ Parent ]
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
Not fair to use a percentage when the numbers are so pathetically low.

I was $87,001 too low.  Madco was $97,000 too high.  Who wins using Price is Right rules?

ITLDUSO  
Honk hello when you see my license plate!

[ Parent ]
Caroman wins the motor home
for coming closest without going over. "Going over" is the killer on the Price is Right.
[ Parent ]
if firt prize is a motor home

is second prize two?
[ Parent ]
And a cash gobbling boat n/t

[ Parent ]
then, inhale deeper next time, son


I'm not as sweet as I used to be.
[ Parent ]
lol!
good point ..... I think the general assembly  may be watching reefer madness

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric
[ Parent ]
you had me at ....

ok I'm too tired and brain dead for an actual punch line ...
[ Parent ]
High Cost Team
With only 479k a month his team is going to drain him dry.  I've worked with a number of those folks and they are not cheap.   I love Andrew and hoped he would have had a better quarter.  

With those numbers he can run for congress, not US Senate.  Sorry to say but I am a fundraiser for a living.. they are sort of sad.  

479/mo
But that was the 4th Q, yes?
[ Parent ]
Welcome back, Deminator


Buck Stops Here.
[ Parent ]
Time for the Adults to Step In
After meeting AR for the first time last week, I realized why Governor Ritter picked Michael Bennet.  Bennet demonstrates far more gravitas and intelligence than Romanoff.

So, Romanoff hasn't listened to Obama, Ritter or other adults in the party.  Who will he listen to?  I think it's time for the state legislators who gave Romanoff preliminary support, based on their time working with him, to step in and privately withdraw their support based on his inability to raise respectable money.  This primary is not going to help their races.  It's only going to distract attention away from the GOP candidate(s).

ITLDUSO  
Honk hello when you see my license plate!

Oh, that "gravitas" thing.
Yeah, gravitas is what the voters look for, all right.  Ronald Reagan had gravitas and he crushed that lightweight Mondale.  And George H.W. Bush had gravitas and crushed that lightweight Dukakis.  And George W. Bush had gravitas and crushed that lightweight Gore and that lightweight Kerry.  
  Actually, "gravitas" is Latin for "loser."
 I know both men a lot better than you do, Caroman, and they are both smart and deep thinkers.  But AR is considerably more effective in communicating, unless you're the kind of My Mind is Made UP, Don't Confuse Me with Good Impressions" voter who would say
Michael Bennet had me at "Obama"  

[ Parent ]
yea.....
I don't know either well at all (which puts me in the same position as roughly 99.5% of the people who will vote in the primary), but on their communication skills (and by inference, their politicianeering skills) drew the same conclusion on the handful of times I've seen them speak.  AR is a natural and Bennet is much less so.  Just my observation.  And with every new, "AR should just drop out of this race" comment it makes me want a primary even more.  Bennetfans, if your guy is so good, let him beat AR at the polls and save us your talk about bloody primaries and wasting money for the general and yada yada yada.

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
Actually
I've talked to people who say Bennet has gotten a lot better in the last year. That tag on him may have been appropriate when he first got his feet wet, but after a year in the Senate, Bennet's political skills have improved significantly.

I would say that Romanoff probably has the edge in pure political skill, but if Bennet does end up getting elected he could very well prove many of his detractors wrong.

[ Parent ]
and probably will


In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
He's succeeded at everything he's ever done
So I agree with you.

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric
[ Parent ]
George McClellan succeeded at everything he ever did
until the biggest test of all, command of the Army of the Potomac.  Give me a guy like U.S. Grant, who failed at many things and learned the lessons of failure, most importantly being that if you are afraid to fail, you'll never try anything worthwhile.  
[ Parent ]
Speaker Romanoff is not General Grant
Though President Grant is still the greatest alcoholic in American History.
President Nixon had chance, but he blew it.

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric
[ Parent ]
That's one of the most impressive things about Bennet.
He goes into entirely new spheres, learns really fast and succeeds.
[ Parent ]
I would agree with that.
His wife even said that last night at a meeting.

Buck Stops Here.
[ Parent ]
Bennet's wife, Susan Daggett, being another one of Bennet's closest associates
who, as a prominent environmental lawyer with a sterling resume working for non-profit environmental advocacy groups, compares pretty favorably with AR's newest buddy, Pat Cadell. Hmmm...  should I support someone who works with Russ Feingold and lives with Susan Daggett or someone who thinks the reptilian Pat Caddell is his kind of guy? What to do, what to do....  
[ Parent ]
generally true
especially the Latin part

but, have you spoken with Romanaff lately? He seems defeated, surly, and surprisingly frank about it.  I'm not sure if his communication skills are at their best now.

I'm not as sweet as I used to be.

[ Parent ]
Romanoff was brilliant and quick when I heard him
Andrew Romanoff spent four hours in Fort Collins and I heard him at two out of the three events.  His comments were clear, concise, and cogent!   And, when in a Q&A frame - I heard him respond directly to every question in depth and with humor.  So - why say these things when they just aren't true.

amolison
[ Parent ]
Well, Sharon, I didn't see him in Ft. Collins
...so maybe he spent all of his energy up there.  I will grant that these candidates are bound to be spent by the end of their multi-appearance days.  Perhaps I caught AR at the end of a particularly taxing day.

I'm not as sweet as I used to be.
[ Parent ]
no, it can't be
they can't be the same person, J.  Can you imagine, the same person writing as clearly as Ann and as incoherently as Sharon?  No, AR definitely has two die-hard supporters.  

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
They are all triguardian

[ Parent ]
so am I
so are you.  so is scobb99

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
Romanoff can have all the fucking writers that he wants
Until he has fucking issues, a fucking campaign, and raises some fucking money, I'll continue to be on the fence.

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
[ Parent ]
cogent!
Well then...

"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me." Mitt Romney in a moment of clarity

"I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name," Willard Mitt Romney demonstrating 'policy flexibility.'  

[ Parent ]
Impressive
I'm really impressed with Romanoff's progress. While it seems that Bennett is catering to fewer, wealthier donors, Romanoff has appealed to more people. In the end, the strategy of working to mobilize more people with smaller donations will pay off as the 2008 presidential race proved. Expect this trend to continue, and expect Romanoff to gain some ground in the coming months.
Had me going there.
For most of your post, I thought it was leading up to a payday lending link! You've got the jargon down pat.
[ Parent ]
and expect more and more dumbasses like you registering to post crap like that
And least give us the respect of answering this question: paid or not paid by the campaign?

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
Did you really register TODAY
Just to post that?

Man, that's devotion.

Next time, get some ideas.

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

[ Parent ]
This is so lame (you probably think I'm writing about you)
You need better talking points, scobb99.

Romanoff has 9% more contributors but 627% less cash on hand, and you think this is impressive?

You would be better served to compare how much Bennet is raising from individuals versus PACs. THIS would be an impressive contrast to put Romanoff in a positive light.

I like both Romanoff & Bennet. I don't like the influence of PACs on elections. Romanoff still has an opportunity to win me over, but failed spin like this won't work.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." --ChuckieD, 1871

[ Parent ]
Buy-in to "money is speech"?
Ok, I have been following the Bennet/Romanoff conversation on Colorado Pols for some time, and it seems that the majority of Pols commentators have bought into the Supreme Court frame of "money is speech":

Bennet has raised much more money. That money represents the people's voice. Therefore, Romanoff should get out of the race.

I guess I just need to accept this wisdom of the Supreme Court--and the majority of commentators here at Pols. Why go on to caucuses and a primary when the people have already spoken with their money?

I think that's a gross oversimplification
If Andrew Romanoff can win the primary election, he will be the Democratic nominee. If he can clobber Bennet at the caucuses, then he has a real chance of turning the momentum back in his favor for pretty much the first time since his announcement day.

Money is important, but it's not the only thing. If Romanoff can show that his grassroots support is deeper than Bennet's pockets, then he will be able to raise enough money.

But, like I said, money is important. If he wants to beat Bennet and Norton then he needs to raise more. The first quarter of reporting, the excuses were accepted by the majority of people. This time around, it's going to be a lot harder.

But I think you're misconstruing people's minds being on the money for people thinking money overshadows votes. It doesn't, and it never will.

The balance book is vital during the campaign, but the ballot box decides everything on election day.

[ Parent ]
Of course it's a gross oversimplification
I hope you are right, but the number and tone of so many entries here focusing on the money make me fear I am not misconstruing a number of minds.
[ Parent ]
Money isn't only about support
It's also about being able to afford the basic nuts and bolts of a campaign. You need to pay for staff, office space, printing, postage, etc., and that's not even considering what you need to save for television buys. You might be able to run an effective statewide campaign with $300-400k per quarter, but that doesn't leave you with much money to save for TV.

It's not unfair to ask how a campaign can succeed if it cannot raise enough money to afford both the basic needs and TV advertising.  

[ Parent ]
That's why we need public financing.
And yes, I realize that is somewhat off topic for this strand, but it relates: The way to make a campaign about the issues, and about who can best represent the people in office, is to have public financing of campaigns so that one can run a competitive campaign on ability and ideas rather than fundraising potential.
[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, in the Land of Harsh Reality money counts
When the Big Bad Oil Companies and Evil Health Insurance Providers start buying up all the ad space to ensure Jane Norton gets elected, it will take a DEEP budget to counter their misleading messages.

Any word on Jane Norton's Q4 fundraising?


[ Parent ]
Norton's fundraising
She announced a couple weeks ago, raised $550,000, which was something of a let-down after her strong start raising almost as much in a couple weeks after announcing.
[ Parent ]
550k
550k is not great but it is still not bad. I expect she will have a ton of 527's coming in to boost her name ID.  
[ Parent ]
you see what you want to see
asked the question that you answered, I would have said the opposite: most people here are adamantly opposed to the SCOTUS decision.  A small few write the same "Andrew should get out" comment 10 times on each salient diary, so you're seeing an inflated sample.  It doesn't mean the rest of us agree with them.  I for one absolutely do not.  But I do agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here that AR better start showing us something, and soon.  And by something, I don't mean money.

In fact, I just registered
www.veryliberalagitatedpissedoffpeoplewithnoorganization.com
-Laughing Boy
[ Parent ]
Gotta say one good thing about Penry
at least he knew when to go sit in the corner and pout, for party "unity", says he.  With so little measurable difference between the two D candidates on matters of policy and a huge difference in money, an internecine battle now seems so counterproductive.  I'm to the point that I think the only way I'd support AR after this, is if Bennet followed in Ritter's footsteps.

"Three or four years from now, we're not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff."  -Scott McInnis

More than I expected
but still not enough to beat Bennet. Perhaps if Romanoff had some real substance to run on instead of shrieking about imaginary contrasts this would make a difference.
Romanoff Raised $337K in 2009 Q4 | 136 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?






Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com


Active Users
Currently 10 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
Summers, Kerr to Host Joint Town Hall on Saturday
Jeffco Pols
Joe Coors Announcing CD-7 Run Today
Jeffco Pols
Roybal Fined for Wiechman Loan
Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
Poll: Who Will Win the HD-1 Primary?
Denver Pols
Hancock Rolls Out Economic Development Plan
Denver Pols
Michael Hancock Wades into ASSET Debate
Denver Pols
  More >













RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols Penalty Box



Yard Signs!



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Business Word

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Labor Blog

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate Dems

Colorado Senate GOP

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

eleXn

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Junction Daily Blog

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

TRACER Campaign Finance

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat


 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by Colorado Pols, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com

Powered by: SoapBlox