Romanoff Fundraising Numbers

IIRC, that's just a little more than Markey

ie, just enough to be really competitive in a House race.

---

by: MADCO @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:15:19 PM UTC

MADCO...

...you and MOTR and peacemonger and Ray Springfield etc have all fought harder for Michael Bennet on this blog than Michael Bennet has ever fought for any issue in the U.S. Senate.

---

by: oldbenkenobi @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 19:30:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But was the statement innaccurate?

Probably not.

So, it's valid, whomever the source.  

"Politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth." Paul Krugman, 9/2010

---

by: parsingreality @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 20:46:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can someone post Norton/Buck?

I thought I remember reading about it but now I can't find the diary.

I would say this is probably expected.  If I remember correctly it's more money than Romanoff has raised previously, his cash on hand is about the same as it was previously.  Television is expensive and that added to his other campaign expenses (staff, offices, etc).

No big surprise here; I don't think this is a game changer either way.

Now here's a little story I got to tell...

---

by: MikeD1970 @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:16:54 PM UTC

I agree it's not a game changer

But with Romanoff down 16 points in the lastest poll from That Which Must Not Be Named, he needs a game changer.
 It reminds me of when I was covering the Broncos-Raiders for UPI back in the Lou Saban Era.  Oakland fumbled the opening kickoff deep in its own territory, Denver recovered, and ran its patented pattern of Floyd Little right, Floyd Little left, Bobby Anderson up the gut and had to settle for a field goal.
  About two minutes into the game, Denver had a 3-0 lead over the hated Raiders.  Suddenly a fan yelled:

"Run out the clock, Saban!"

  The whole stadium erupted with laughter.
 But right now, I'm betting Bennet can run out the clock without going negative on Romanoff and thus lead a fairly united party against the R's (probably Buck) in the fall.

---

by: Voyageur @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:27:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Bennet were still up 16..

Craig Hughes would not have sent out that whiny email complaining about of all people Ken Gordon if Bennet were still up 16. Bennet has changed his message more times than Scott McInnis has changed his mind.
Panic seems to have set in Bennet land and Romanoff has enough money to do a competitive ad buy.  
Just not being the incumbent may be enough to win in this crazy year for office holders.  A month ago I would have said the chances of a Romanoff win were zero.  Today I'd call it a toss up.

---

by: Say Hey Kid @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:38:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course, you'd call it a tossup.

As I recall, you called the Titanic v. the Iceburg a toss-up!
  (Don't feel bad -- I took the Titanic and gave six points...)
   You're an ardent AR guy and more power too you.  But you're letting the wish be the father of the thought.  Even the tiniest of straws that you grasp, Rasmussen, shows Bennet beating AR.
 No, this isn't a game changer and it's not a toss-up.  I'd guess Bennet 58-AR 42 when the votes are counted.

---

by: Voyageur @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:42:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

maybe you're right just explain

If your candidate is up by double digits why does did Craig Hughes send out such a whiny email blasting Ken Gordon.  BTW Senator Gordon dropped a lot of money getting the same bad advice that Craig is now giving Bennet

---

by: Say Hey Kid @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 17:07:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And if you're not way behind, please

explain your candidates increasingly desperate and negative attacks on Bennet.  And while you're at it, explain why a pissinhg contest twix Hughes and Gordon should concern me.

---

by: Voyageur @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 17:53:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW, Apparently

Gordon, among others, has been no slouch in handing out bad advice either; to Romanoff. Gordon's holier than thou shtick wears thin. People are more interested in who's likely to get decent, useful stuff done than in who is the most self-righteous. Most people take self-righteousness from pols wih a grain of salt.

---

by: BlueCat @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 18:00:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Whatever helps you sleep at night . . .

Perhaps you'd care to share the polling data you have?

Discipline without purpose is tyranny.

---

by: Automaticftp @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:45:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with some of what you say, Kid.

A year ago, I would have said Romanoff has zero chance. He has spent almost every penny of his campaign money and it took him right up to the primary. I've always liked Andrew and am impressed by how far he has come in a year. He deserves a lot of credit for fighting a very good fight.

That said, his unwillingness to take PAC money would be the kiss of death for Democrats; if we allow him to win this primary, we lose the seat. US Senate races require a ton of commercial time, which is extremely expensive. The DSCC will never get behind a candidate with such dismal fundraising sense, and so few national donors to Bennet(you know, the ones with deep pockets) and Michael's law school buddies and business colleagues, would never make the switch. They don't believe in Andrew Romanoff; they believe in Michael Bennet. Heck, the vast majority of them don't even know who Andrew Romanoff is. For them, they would rather put their money on a known candidate in another state.  

Andrew's resistence to take PAC money started out to be a way to differentitate himself from Michael Bennet, especially because he had no problem with doing in his previous four elections. If no one is offering you PAC money, a great way to spin it is that you would have refused it anyway, and turn it into a strength. I think Romanoff actually started to believe it was possible (after awile) to win that way.

Needing PAC money to win a US Senate race is a horrible reality.  None of us like it. Unfortunately IT IS a reality. Michael Bennet is very, very good at it, and Andrew sucks at it. That is the honest truth.

I can't think of a single Senator who has ever done what Andrew is trying to do and WON.  It's la-la fairy tale land, and he is taking a whole lot of our best Dems to fairy-land with him. It makes me cringe just thinking about it. Yes, this race is closer than I thought it would be 10 months later, but I still feel exactly the same way I did last fall about it. http://coloradopols.com/diary/...

When the rest of you want to live in the land of reality again, come on over. The water is fine.

Buck Stops Here.

---

by: peacemonger @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 17:47:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Better than I expected, but Mike D is right . . .

Not a game changer, which is what he needed.  

Cue the AR sock puppets in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

Discipline without purpose is tyranny.

---

by: Automaticftp @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:34:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bennet raised 1.24 million in 2nd quarter

Granted, only twice as much as AR (better for AR than three times as much as has sometimes been the case in the past) but, big deal and the cash on hand disparity is enormous.  Game over no matter what Wade Norris may have to say.

---

by: BlueCat @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:22:51 PM UTC

Why is the game over?

With voting beginning today, how does Michael's cash-on-hand advantage mean game over?
If Andrew wins the primary, then Bennet's COH is meaningless.
Andrew just has to hang in for 2 more weeks and win the primary.

---

by: davebarnes @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:41:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not the COH advantage

It's that Romanoff didn't raise enough to have a big TV buy, which is what he had to have to beat Bennet.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:50:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Romanoff also didn't raise enough to

signal a major sea change in the race. At this late date, that's what it would take. Game over.

The reason I also referred to cash on hand is because that contributes to Bennet looking like the more potentially successful candidate, a consideration with many of the voters I talked to phone banking for Bennet. Many said they thought both were good candidates and planned to decide based entirely on which would be  most likely to beat whoever the Rs put up.  All the numbers including polls, fund raising and cash on hand made it easy to make the case for Bennet to that type of primary voter.

---

by: BlueCat @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 17:51:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks bc

BING gives me $5 every time my name appears on this blog.

---

by: wade norris @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 19:41:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My pleasure, Wadester

---

by: BlueCat @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 21:09:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well then, you must be making a fortune

over my sig line.

You're welcome.

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

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 21:10:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not bad numbers

The Big Dog comes through, at least a little.

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 @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:24:17 PM UTC

Clinton was so late in the game

I doubt he raised much money for AR, at least in this quarter.  A good job by AR's team of dogged idealists.  Give them their due.  But they still face an uphill battle.

---

by: Voyageur @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:43:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A decent quarter, but it isn't going to change anything.

He'll burn through all of his COH to GOTV. It will help, but won't be enough though. I bet he'll pull within 5 points of Bennet.

Hopefully Romanoff won't go too negative over the next few weeks. So far everything that's been anti-Bennet could be considered pro-Republican, meaning it won't effect opinions in the general. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, Romanoff and company haven't said anything that could be used against Bennet by the GOP.  

---

by: jW @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:47:45 PM UTC

And Andrew was supposed to be the white knight

who eschewed negativity and rose above the fray.  He is one muddy puppy right now.

I am very disappointed in the tone, direction and content of the Romanoff campaign.  Nasty and negative unnecessarily.

You have to figure your campaign is anti-Democrat when you have David Sirota in your corner.  Everyone notices when the nut jobs attach to your campaign.

---

by: Gilpin Guy @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 16:56:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bennet has accomplished so much with the money he's spent so far.

Do you think all his money is going to do him any good?

---

by: oldbenkenobi @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 19:19:54 PM UTC

Absolutely

In the general.  He has produced a series of positive image ads that show a thoughtful candidate.  Compared to the crazy ads the Republicans are putting up, he looks like the sane one.  When the general gets going in earnest his early ads will be an asset.

---

by: Gilpin Guy @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 19:39:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Decision points

Let's see if these words ring any  bells.

Hypocritical (as in I was for PACs before I was against 'em.  But it's convenient to be against 'em this time.)
Selfish (I'm term limited and couldn't get appointed to any of the jobs I tried to get so I'll try to upset the applecart, damn any potential consequences.)
Wimpy (as in I'll pretend to run a positive campaign but send out Weissman, Gordon and others to do the dirty work.  Also see Duplicitous.)

Those might be used to describe many in the current crop of GOP candidates.  They came to mind as I was trying to decide whether to support someone I've known since before he was campaigning for the DNC and later worked with vs. someone I'd known only a few years but also admired and respected.  The decision, unfortunately, was easy.

At least in the general, whether it's Bennet v. Norton or Bennet v. Buck, there'll be some real differences on issues and clear vs. manufactured differences.

"No snowflake in an avalance ever feels responsible."  Voltaire

---

by: Outrider @ Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 23:24:32 PM UTC

Perhaps we are seeing the true Romanoff

He's never had to run a close campaign. This campaign has not had the maturity or leadership that you would hope for in a senator. He's found out that not all Colorado Democrats think that the party couldn't exist without him.

I guess he is willing to be remembered by the way he has acted in this latest campaign. He better also remember that it cuts both ways. There are many Colorado Democrats who will not forget this and will be unwilling to support him for anything in the future once he loses in the primary.

---

by: denverco @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:07:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said! n/t

"But, when it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you've got to grow up and realize there's a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy" - Bill Maher

---

by: EmeraldKnight76 @ Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 02:19:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]