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%
February 28, 2010 09:49 PM UTC
94 Comments
But, I do think AR did pretty well. And, at least he wasn’t snarky. Maybe he is learning.
no mention of the Republican Primary.
I thought Andrew did well not to get hedged in by the Fox News interviewer.
However, this site is engaging in some skewing of the truth with the cropping of the quotes:
first this:
the full quote is this:
(which is classic Fox spin for ‘government takeover of healthcare) to which Romanoff responds with this:
this quote, ended here and with the cropped correspondant’s quote, makes it sound like Romanoff only supports private insurance, but the continued quote indicates otherwise:
Romanoff is saying that he believes that he does not believe in government owned healthcare, thus refuting the Right’s attack of healthcare reform as ‘government takeover’
(which is why it is important to say ‘public option’ or other popular ideas like ‘medicare for all’)
Romanoff stayed out of the trap set in the interview – it’s just too bad this site is misleading with the cropped quotes
Are you saying FOX News chased after Romanoff with cameras?
Ambushed? Really?
another democrat’s call to reform healthcare as ‘Government takeover’ like they ‘have in Canada’
Romanoff refuted that talking point quite well.
Andrew forcefully stated he’s for the single payer/private provider model. This has been his position for years.
A counter to this position is that rationing will drive payments and thus services … among other things. I have to hand it to AR, he sees the government being able to take a business acquisition stance.
Under AR’s plan Obama acquires all the insurers at market prices, realigns the workforce, policies and systems thus cranking out the lowest cost insurance options — from Caddy plans for Union members to catastrophic-only for small businesses.
Now the AARP and Catholics will freaking flip out. AARP earns millions and they’d need a good payout for their system and customer base. But the Catholics … whoa they will flipout when the single government insurance company telegraphs they’ll be forcing abortions at a some bishops hospital.
If AR wasn’t such a big government hound I’d have to back him. Too bad, he sounds great on the first blush.
just making shit up.
I’m proud of my Libertad disendorsement. I pity the candidate who doesn’t get one!
n/t
Yes or no? You’re not running for office, so unlike your candidate, you should be able to answer this without the dodge and weave. Yes or no?
Second, do you approve of your candidate’s position (the same one the GOP is taking) that does not support reconciliation?
Third, how far right will AR have to go before you stop supporting him?
and Andrew said that he supports reconciliation for budget issues – (which this healthcare reform is) and did not let the interviewer to frame reconciliation as ‘pushing through this healthcare reform bill’
which is another rightwing meme – that using reconciliation for this bill is some kind of ‘force – push’ procedure by the democrats.
The way you spun your reply and his answers my 3rd question. Thanks.
A verbatim, GOP talking point since the health care roundtable discussion earlier this week.
Want to guess who said it, besides your guy today?
Senator Jon Kyl, Republican, Arizona
Steve Harvey may be right–Romanoff is staying on message. It just isn’t a Democratic message, which is sort of worrisome since that’s the party he belongs to.
is that Kyl is calling healthcare reform a ‘massive entitlement program’
and the truth of the matter is, this bill is a budget balancing maneuver – the CBO says that the Public Option will reduce the deficit- thus passing it through reconciliation would be appropriate for a budgetary issue –
the difference is that Republicans are saying this bill would balloon deficits, when the opposite is true.
(which is why Fox is trying to peg a democrat as being for ‘forcing’ government takeovers and entitlements and ballooning deficits – nevermind the huge expenditures during the Bush years)
on yet another campaign, become an apologist for your candidate. Those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
I thought it was just this election, just these candidates.
BTW- the plaque hanging over my desk has it this way:
n/t.
Or should I call you Tool? Which go you prefer?
In the interview I heard AR say he supports up or down votes. What part of that is reconciliation spin? You will go to great lengths to discredit a supporter of AR. If you are that desperate to trash AR you really will have to dig a little further.
and then explain, pivot, qualify etc.
It’s what I wanted to hear. It’s what my neighbors said right after we watched yesterday (informal caucus training with a bunch of firts timers).
as he should have done but to frame it quite the way ColPols has is a bit of a stretch. Just a tad dramatic for the content. To frame it the way Wade has is even more of a stretch. Let’s just say it was neither a profiles in courage moment nor a complete Fox pet Dem style pander. Don’t see it causing many Dems to switch sides either way.
We didn’t address that part of Romanoff’s comments at all, just that one of the “couple of ways” to achieve his stated goals by definition isn’t the one on his website.
Furthermore, the FNC anchor asked about Canada, not Great Britain, and in Canada most health services are delivered by private providers. That makes Romanoff’s answer to the question at best a non sequitur and at worst, well, misleading.
when you framed the quote as
and left out
Ask yourself, would Michael Bennet (or anyone here) answer a question that directly states that single payer = government run?
Not everybody says “single payer or die on our swords” like some of the BTCers and other hard cores. Has Bennet ever said he supports “single payer?” I don’t think he has, so I think he would have answered the question better, or at least without contradicting his own issues page.
Besides, I think the ambiguity about reconciliation, or saying the current bill needs to “be improved” is much more interesting. What did you think of that? What would you think of it if you had never heard of Andrew Romanoff? Not everybody can fill in all the blanks with your endless Romanoff apologetics. They don’t have the script.
need to be improved – it does not have the Public Option and the House is rightly refusing to proceed until the Senate leadership takes out the Nebraska and Louisiana special pet provisions which have made the Senate bill so unpopular. (which is why Bennet is trying to improve the bill now)
Romanoff is on FOX guys – just imagine that were Bennet answering the same questions –
“Do you support forcing the bill through?”
(so you would force americans to do x,y,z? Socialist!)
Do you support single payer that is government run healthcare?”
(once again, Socialist!)
thanks for the compliment
Bennet isn’t in your “single payer” box for easy Fox News pickings, Romanoff is. Therefore the same trap could not be sprung on Bennet.
I’m glad Bennet is doing what he can, but above all we have to pass a bill. Bennet will help do that while Romanoff picks at him from the sidelines. What he said to Fox News, without you inserting apologetics around every sentence, does not help us pass health care reform.
Fox news is out to trap our democratic candidates into statements that can be used to attack those candidates and stifle reform.
Fox is using Romanoff to attack and entrap the Democrats. And Romanoff, either with full lucidity (Caddell) or out of helpless ambition, is letting them.
n/t
support a public option and says so.
He’s obviously playing to the audience that he feels that he most the most support: conservative Republicans.
I have pointed out before that “ColoradoPols” takes every opportunity to twist anything Romanoff as negatively as possible. Wade Norris is exactly right in calling your clipped quote on single payer–both of the question and of the answer–as totally misleading. It is clear Romanoff is addressing the part of the question
as wade points out. Romanoff differentiated his single payer plan from the misleading implication of the question–which shows understanding of the issue and ability to not go along with the improper frame by Fox.
His mention of Great Britain is another example to show a difference, not a non sequitur and not misleading. It takes a lot of balls–and no shame–to call Romanoff misleading for addressing the question that was asked when you, dear CoPols, deliberately left out critical parts of the question and of the answer!
Pols, can you at least recognize that your clipped quotes were inadequate, misleading journalism, even if you won’t admit that you twisted it into the most negative spin possible?
but it seems the most negative stuff in the Bennet/ Romanoff primary is coming from this site. Pols, MOR, and a few others seem to take every opportunity to bash Andrew about EVERYTHING and obviously consider Sen. Bennet to be perfect. Maybe one of you have offered some criticism of “Saint Michael”, but I must have missed it.
I am not trying to pick a fight with anyone, but most of the venality I see here comes from the Bennitistas. You will note that I have seldom commented on this, preferring to wait until the primary to cast my vote.
This primary election cannot further descend into vituperative nonsense unless WE allow it to continue. Please remember that we are all supposedly on the same side (Booo…Jane Norton) and this endless dissing of AR at every turn kind of turns some people off. If you really support Sen.Bennet, perhaps you should elevate the discussion a bit, and stop being so perpetually catty.
For the record, while I am a supporter of AR, I like Sen. Bennet and think he is doing a pretty good job. OK, MOR…I await your snarky reply. 😉
I have no apologies for my comments on this thread–when I see a Democratic candidate take up facetime on FOX News, I’m not going to defend that, or half assed answers. If that seems negative to you, Duke, I’ll just have to live with the burden.
“I’m not going to defend that”.
It isn’t the defending part that seems negative…it’s the attacking part.
Just the same, I have always respected your input, as you seem exceedingly bright. After all, it is a big tent…nicht wahr?
And your point is well made. I’ll take it to heart, because I respect what you bring to every conversation, duke.
I have tried to avoid the venalities of the campaign – though I have been assaulted for choosing Bennet. I
Why are you for Romanoff?
What meaningful policy differences do you see between Romanoff and Bennet?
I would put single payer in the “difference” column. Another reason I choose Bennet: single payer would have been impossible last year and still doesn’t have enough support to give us anythnig other than Senator Norton.
FB has plenty of negatives coming from the AR campagin.
Square State has had plenty of AR campaign negatives run.
Huffington Post has featured AR attack writers against Bennet from people close to the AR campaign.
The Denver Post has appeared interested in giving the Romanoff talking points. They’ve been more balanced. They give Sen Beent time, too. Sen.Bennet has not been running a negative campaigin.
AR site himself has plenty of smear campaing tactics, i.e. claiming to not accept pac money sanctimoniousy,sugesting that people that do are corrupt, while having a PAC in his OWN PERSONAL NAME active and giving donations in the same time period.
AR is the one calling the party an “incumbent protection racket”, while depending on his party insider base to deliver counties. He’s used appearances in CDP county meetings to turn into fundraisers as recent;y as this weekend. At least one county objected, and he had less time as the meeting proceeded per the announced agenda.
I’ve been asked by Steve Harrvey to tone down my rebuttals, so I will. Nevertheless, It’s been my experience that negative campaiging when not vigourously opposed works. You can ask Sen Kerry and Michael Dukasis what happens when one expects the average voter to not buy into it.
I’d add some other locations but I’m reluctant to generate any traffic or subscribers.
As for Steve suggesting you tone it down- he’s right and he’s not. He’s right that a practical, energetic debate among D’s can make the eventual nominee a stronger candidate and the party stronger and more energized. And that a vicious, circular firing squad does not.
OTOH, negative MUS not vigorously opposed is too effective to let it go. June is before Sep. The Senator did say he would vote for single payer if it came up for a vote. And PAC money is not inherent;y evil – and no candidate in this race really believes it is.
and another that is at best disingenuous.
of late, say no to reconciliation. I cannot begin to tell you how well that gutless position is going to play with the undecided Dems at caucus. Thank you, Andrew.
himself from MB, who I support.
And by moving to the far right of him, apparently. Again, I say thank Andrew Romanoff for this free gift.
But hey, at least we now know what Caddell’s influence and advice to the campaign consisted of, “Get on FOX, Andy! Get yourself on FOX!”
he can move to the left of Bennet and win the general. This is hardly a liberal blue state. Not to mention that he has always been a DLC centrist so it would be kind of a long haul from his previous positions. I think AR is having a heck of a time figuring out how to run against such a similarly positioned candidate.
The not taking special interest money doesn’t work so well against someone who votes pretty much exactly the way he would in any case. The Cadell gambit backfired. Appearing on Fox isn’t very likely to improve his polling numbers against Norton so he can say he’s more electable, not that Norton is probably the Colorado Fox viewers darling either. Dem caucus goers and primary voters aren’t likely to be watching much Fox. I think he’s in I’ll try anything mode.
even if I happen to find it disgusting. Going on during caucus season when there’s no reason (what Democrat will be watching FOX News?) is just confounding to me.
And parsing your words to the point that you regurgitate a Republican talking point is downright disturbing. I thought primaries were a good thing and were supposed to move our candidates to the left? Seems to be moving Romanoff further to the right.
Apparently it isn’t working, so maybe it’s lets try being right wing instead?
It’s always a tough high-wire act, trying to present yourself well and truly, but trying not to draw overly tight lines around who and what you are. I think that calling him to task for doing a decent job of staying on message isn’t entirely fair.
The debate over whether this performance helped him or not is fodder for political bloggers, but not what’s most relevant to a discussion of the relative merits of our two Democratic candidates. I have some criticisms of my own for Andrew on substance, but this interview increases rather than decreases my confidense that, were he to win the primary and become our party’s candidate, I will have no trouble whatsoever supporting him in the general.
At this point he needs a strong win when he gets an opportunity like this because he’s so far behind. As we’re discussing how bad he did – that makes this a failure.
would be discussing how bad he did no matter how he did, which means that the fact that “we” are discussing how bad he did is an indication of what “we” are all about, and little else.
As I said above, “The debate over whether this performance helped him or not is fodder for political bloggers, but not what’s most relevant to a discussion of the relative merits of our two Democratic candidates.” And, I should add, no what’s most relevant to a discussion of the relative merits of either of our Democratic contenders and any of the Republican candidates.
Naturally, it’s all you want to talk about, like baseball fans counting RBIs. Okay. Knock yourself out. I still like to talk about other things, like what policies are in our best interest, a ranking of candidates from both parties in terms of how well they might advance those policies, and a strategic approach to making sure that our actions best serve the end of advancing those policies.
Though I would prefer to have Michael Bennet remain a U.S. Senator from Colorado, I’d much rather have Andrew Romanoff in that position than Jane Norton. I consider the possibility that Andrew will be our party’s candidate, and act accordingly. Rather than tear him apart at the smallest opportunity, I focus on the fact that he demonstrated the intelligence, bearing, and articulateness that I want in an office-holder, and will advance the Democratic agenda if elected. You can play the other game; I’ll keep my eye on the ball.
That’s a game changer.
As Sabrmetricians will tell you, RBIs are overrated.
They are a better measure of the team than they are the player.
or Hack Wilson.
Linebackers don’t have RBIs!
Most of the things that come up I don’t say anything as I don’t see it as much either way. But this I think was bad in that he needs to be making good use of every opportunity.
I want Romanoff to campaign effectively because I think Bennet needs the training and better to get it from Romanoff than Norton. He needs to do better than this to have even a shadow of a prayer.
Like I said, how much of an electoral prayer someone has is not generally the focus of my attention, nor is it the focus of either my complements or critiques of a candidate. I’m pretty consistent about that across party lines (you don’t see me participating much in these kinds of discussions, not even when they are trashing a Republican candidate). I posted my comment not as a reply to anyone because I wasn’t replying to anyone; I was stating an assessment by criteria other than those being employed by others.
There are some legitimate substantive issues that can be (and have been) discussed, but I’m declining to address them because they do not concern me nearly as much as the legitimate substantive issues plaguing the Republican opposition, and, given that there is an electoral contest involved, I don’t feel obligated to try to undermine the candidates that I favor. Personally (without meaning to offend anyone), I don’t consider Andrew’s performance in this interview to be among those substantive issues, or particularly indicative of them.
He sounds more like a Jr. Lieberman to me.
tells us more about him than his campaign, I think. But I agree that he’s not to the left of Bennet, and never was. I strongly suspect that, if elected to the US senate, he’d tow the Democratic line pretty well.
A little overblown ado about not much. I know we Bennet supporters like to look for gotchas and so do Romanoff supporters but as a gotcha opportunity, this appearance doesn’t rate very high. I supported Bennet before and still do but I don’t think many AR supporters are joining me because of this. Does anyone think so?
as you always are (except when you disagree with me, of course…) 🙂
But really, the only thing I took away from this post is that you’re admitting Democrats would be breaking Senate rules to pass health care reform through reconciliation.
Hey, at least you’re honest.
Reconciliation can be used for anything budgetary. The Dems are using it only to amend the budgetary parts of health care (e.g., eliminate Ben Nelson’s kickback, modify the tax on high-cost plans). The Dems are not reconciliation for the non-budgetary health policy matters, like ending the ban on pre-existing conditions – -that part got 60 votes. So what’s “breaking the rules” here?
BoulderRepublican pretend to forget using reconciliation is exactly what the rules allow, and that Republican Senates used reconciliation as often as possible. In fact, when the Senate parliamentarian refused to go along with Republican senators wanting to use reconciliation to ram through non-budget-related items early in the Bush administration, they simply fired the parliamentarian and hired one who would agree with their version of the rules.
BoulderRepublican also seems to forget that health care reform has already passed both houses of Congress. This notion that reconciling some minor differences between the bills is somehow subverting democracy is laughable.
is my favorite new euphemism for “lying.”
reconciliation has been used 21 times… 16 of them by Republicans.
Wow. Talk about a stretch.
That’s one of my new favorite euphemisms for “lying.” (h/t sxp!)
Earth to Romanoff campaign headquarters:
you’ve lost this campaign, bow out gracefully while you still have your reputation intact.
add up the numerical values of the letters in “otoole” and multiply the sum by zero you get the same product as you would if you added up the numerical values of the letters in “SH TCO” and multiplied by zero. Coincidence? I think not….
I feel like I need some graph paper to parse all the self-referential insults that get thrown around here. I step away from the blog for a few days, and it’s suddenly all foreign to me.
Otoole = crazy and belligerent = a zero.
SH TCO = crazy and belligerent = a zero.
Otoole = SH TCO?
Romanoff is against the health care bill passed by the Senate. He would have voted no because of the Nebraska provisions, etc.
Romanoff is also against using reconciliation to pass a health care bill. Or at least he didn’t say he was for it, when asked, twice.
Despite those things, he presents himself as stronger than Bennet on health care, more of a leader, or something.
With this Senate and this political climate, I do not see how Romanoff has an approach that would actually get something passed that Colorado Democratic primary voters want to see as law.
there’s that whol false choice thing, where if Andrew was there, we wouldda got a whole differet bill, ’cause we red wouldda unicorn started with blue single-payer and unicorn not on the 50 yard line.
Forget that single payer was a non-starter in this Congress.
It wouldda been different, I tell ya.
He’s said he’d make the Republicans do a “real” filibuster where they’d actually have to speak the whole time, a la Mr. Smith goes to Washington. But the rules don’t require that any longer, and as we all know, filibuster rules can’t be changed by simple majority vote, much less by Romanoffian force of will. So what the H is Romanoff talking about, other than demagoguing the issue to conjure up an imaginary difference between him and Bennet?!
It makes the pubic think that he could have an impact on Senate rules. A Jr.Senator unpopular with the body for calling it an incumbent protecion racket wouldn’t have an impact on much. The committee assignments would not be prime.
His supporters haven’t thought about that.
He has some supporters that think he practiced law at the SPLC. If he did then he did so without a license. I don’t believe that Morris Dees nor Julian Bond would permit that. My understanding is that he worked there while an undergraduate at Yale, probably for a summer job.There s nothing wrong with that. It beats painting houses, or shoveling 5 tons of iron pirate a day, which is what I did in the summers while at CC.
I wonder how much money he’s made from his familiy’s NGO.The same supporter said the Speaker has poured 40k of his own money into the campaign. He must have been paid a boat load to afford that on 30k a year. NGO’s have complicated finances. I doubt that he donated money from his personal pac, as he is not accepting pac money.
How can he say he is the only candidate with legislative experience? Last time I checked, Michael Bennet had been the sitting Senator for more than a year already.
or something.
who can vote for or against things but pretty much do nothing else is very different from being a longer-term incumbent in the leadership who can propose legislation and has to work to get it passed.
Bennet’s big accomplishment in his one year is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that Medicare shouldn’t be cut, which passed unanimously. It was strategically clever, so I appreciate it, but it’s not the same as getting your own legislation passed by negotiating with the rest of the body.
I’m not saying Bennet could have done more than he did, given his minimal seniority, but the point is that he hasn’t. And Romanoff has.
But that’s different from being the only candidate with legislative experience.
Andrew has more years of legislative experience than Bennet. Wiens has a different kind of legislative experience- but no denying he was there.
And even though
BennetPolscontinually slams Romanoff at every chance and says that Romanoff doesn’t have a chance I think it’sBennetPolsColoradoPols that doesn’t have their facts straight.AlmostEveryone was FOR Andrew Romanoff and not only that they were AGAINST Bennet. I’m so proud of my county.See you later Bennet. You don’t have a chance in the primary. People just don’t like you Bennet. They are not impressed.
I guess that you are still a Republican, Sharon. Your support of the Speaker does not surprise me.
The only reason a Dem candidate goes on fox news is to appeal to the Republican vote. He’s in the wrong primary! I’m not sure that he would beat Buck in it, but he’s obviously trying.
A contenda for ColoradoPols worst political campaign, that is.
The missteps of this campaign are truly puzzling, topped off by this appearance on Fox Spews. Did he run out of house parties to attend? At least he could have talked to 10 or 15 people who might attend caucus. Maybe Caddell is helping him get a gig on Fox after the election.
I am really encouraged by the quiet, but strong support for Michael Bennet that I am hearing from the calls I am making. Sure, there are lots of undecideds, but they probably won’t caucus anyway. Those that are paying attention are really impressed by Bennet and are firmly on his side.
Is that Romanoff’s comments on Fox News can only be justified if you insert a bunch of stuff you “know” about Romanoff.
If you don’t “know” Romanoff’s position on reconciliation and HCR, you might think after hearing this that Romanoff does not support reconciliation, and thinks the current bill should do more to “lower costs.” Those of you who support Romanoff are adding things he did NOT say in order to justify what he did say.
Most Fox News viewers don’t know Romanoff, and therefore don’t know all these other things about him that you are using to justify what he said.
In the absence of what you “know,” Romanoff did not help pass HCR and presented himself far to the right of where he otherwise claims to be.
Who wants to say I am wrong?
This is a legitimate argument based on the actual interview. I don’t agree entirely, but it is legitimate and you argue from the real words. I wish “Colorado Pols” had done the same, rather than their trick of quoting only part of a question and part of the answer to come to a twisted conclusion.
In other words, bullshit! has something to say, and Colorado Pols is bullshitting.
At this point in time, he’s not playing to Democrats. If anything, he permitted Fox to give Jane Norton a free plug as she is not the presumptive nominee and has a caucus,and most likely a primary to face.
You changed the subject. My post was only about Col Pols inaccurate, misleading, dishonest quotes. If you want to respond to me, do you have anything to say about that?
Let’s support the true progressive DLC pragmatist?
Based on what I’ve seen of the two and their track records, I would say that Bennet has the more progressive records, but that’s just me.
populist.