Bennet Reports $2.6 Million Cash on Hand

I wonder how much is available for the primary?

Bennet has spent A LOT -- that's for sure.  This number shows that he is spending far more than he's raising.

The second question is how much of that 2.6 is available for the primary?  Pols -- did the Bennet campaign state how much of this is in their primary coffer as opposed to general?  Donations from so called "double maxed" donors are only available if Bennet wins the primary.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 16:48:57 PM UTC

LOLOL

You MUST be getting dizzy by now.

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

---

by: Ralphie @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 16:51:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

what point do you disagree with?

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:08:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with the question you asked

I just think it's funny when people whistle past the graveyard.

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

---

by: Ralphie @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:11:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed

Bennet can use all of the money for the Primary, but he wouldn't, because he needs to save it for the General. Bennet will save more money than Romanoff will even raise.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:14:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you say potahto

I'd have another word for asking about how much of the 2.6mm is available now.

Either way- my yard signs are up and registered.

---

by: MADCO @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:44:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They can vote next week

Early and often.

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

---

by: Ralphie @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:45:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Primary and General funds

You can use funds raised for the general in the primary.  You can also use funds raised for the primary in the general.  This according to the FEC: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui... at p. 19 (as a large doc it takes a while to load).

Importantly, should a candidate LOSE the primary election, the candidate must return all donations designated for the general within 60 days.  Id. at p. 18.

---

by: and another thing @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 16:59:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clearly the Big Dog didn't provide much of a bounce

If Clinton's endorsement had provided a big surge, Romanoff would have released his numbers, even if the quarterly total was comparatively low as expected, in order to gain fundraising momentum from the Clinton surge.

Obviously that didn't happen.

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

BTW, I "adduced" this all by myself, you total fucking assclown.
-Laughing Boy

---

by: ThillyWabbit @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 16:52:22 PM UTC

eh -- it happened at the end

I think it was the last or 2nd to last day of the quarter.  There was a followup story about an email that went out to hillary donors, which happened early July.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:07:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If it was my campaign,

I'd have wanted the Big Dawg here earlier in the quarter.  

Oh, wait- I'd have wanted his email earlier in the quarter and then his presence mid-way through the quarter.  

Unless, of course, I didn't want any stinkin' outsiders, especially Presidents.

---

by: MADCO @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:47:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Breaking: Bennet has a ton of $$$.

You hardcore Bennet Groupthinkers are so in love with his pile of $ you can't see his considerable flaws.  And to discuss those flaws is forbidden -- "Negativity, man!"  I understand the importance of $ in elections, but do you understand that $ is the bane of our political system?  

Romanoff is trying to do something about $ in elections right now.  The fierce urgency of now.  Bennet's plan is to do something about it in the future, I guess.  Like his plan with the public option and various other things that need fixing.  

---

by: oldbenkenobi @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:15:59 PM UTC

Yeah Romanoff's trying to do something

Lose.

Non impediti ratione cogitationis.

BTW, I "adduced" this all by myself, you total fucking assclown.
-Laughing Boy

---

by: ThillyWabbit @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:31:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The fierce urgency of now.

Or the fierce urgency of some time next week, when Romanoff releases his 2nd Quarter numbers.

---

by: RedGreen @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:46:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think what you meant to say was "We got the fevah"

Gold fever, maybe.

I have another kind of fever.....and when I get that fever, there's only one prescription, only one cure: more cowbell!!!!

---

by: MADCO @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 17:50:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

lolol

I found my tagline :)

GINGRICH: MOON PRESIDENT 2016!

"May Di-vorce Be With You" - Darth Newt

---

by: shrubHugger @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 18:45:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah- but you should give credit to the source

SNL, I'm betting Will Ferrll, but it's hard to know.

---

by: MADCO @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 19:37:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, Will Ferril PLAYED the cowbell.

Christopher Walken played Bruce Dickinson (the cock of the walk, baby!)

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

---

by: Ralphie @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 19:47:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah -

but Ferrell did some writing, Walken not so much.
And it sounds like Ferrell.

---

by: MADCO @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 21:20:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Either way it's a classic

I even own the t-shirt :)

GINGRICH: MOON PRESIDENT 2016!

"May Di-vorce Be With You" - Darth Newt

---

by: shrubHugger @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 18:06:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

$ in Elections

I think you're confused. The only reason why AR took the "righteous path" is because he had no other choice. He was being opportunistic. If he  had big money lined up, no way in hell would he have taken the "high road". That's what's wrong with his whole campaign, he's being politically expedient.

If it was heartfelt, he would've attacked the campaign finance long ago and if my memory serves me right he in fact had a PAC under his own name just last year.  

---

by: DevilishlyModerate @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 18:18:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

$ and purity

or  offered to refund every dime he ever took that was "wrong."

---

by: MADCO @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 19:38:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

he was still taking pac money up to four days

before he announced his candidacy and began flogging Bennet for being just as bad as he had been the previous week....

---

by: Voyageur @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 00:56:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or the fierce urgency in your bowels to void

right before you write this stuff.

It is entirely conceivable that Bennet's cash advantage is a reflection of his popularity and recognition of his work in in the Senate like voting for the toughest banking regulations since the Great Depression.  You can argue whether they are strict enough regulations to prevent the bankers from initiating another greedy meltdown but you can't argue that Bennet sided with Democratic values to re-regulate Wall Street.  Romanoff has little to quibble about Bennet's votes.

Bennet had a good quarter as a senator and as a campaigner.  He should be in good position heading into the primary.

---

by: Gilpin Guy @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 22:25:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree on the bank regulation issue

Yes Senator Bennet voted for the final bill. But on a lot of the votes leading to the final bill Senator Bennet mostly sided with the banks. There are good reasons to vote for Senator Bennet, but financial regulation is not one of them (unless you are a senior bank executive).

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 22:50:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Usually

When most people put a link in a comment, they don't put in a link to their own post.

What you opine isn't fact.  It's your own opinion.  To masquerade that opinion as fact is disingenuous.

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

---

by: Ralphie @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 00:57:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]