Add Sen. Linda Newell To The Growing CD-6 Pile

UPDATE: FOX 31's Eli Stokols confirms:

On Tuesday, Newell issued a statement to FOX31 Denver confirming her daughter’s post.

“Yes, the rumors are true,” Newell said. “I’m seriously considering a run at Congressional District 6 in 2014.

“In the last couple of months, citizens and political leaders across the state have come to me with the same inquiry. People in our district want a woman in Congress who has a strong record of bipartisanship and moderate values.”

As posted to Facebook by state Sen. Linda Newell's daughter yesterday, nothing to report beyond this yet:


This places Sen. Newell into a growing pool of at least interested Democrats in competing against incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman in 2014. In addition to already-likely CD-6 primary contenders Andrew Romanoff and Karen Middleton, we're hearing increased buzz about a possible run by state Rep. Rhonda Fields of Aurora. All of this interest is being driven by a growing recognition among Democrats of Rep. Coffman's vulnerability in the newly competitive CD-6, after underdog 2012 candidate Joe Miklosi came substantially closer than expected to ousting Coffman. Coffman's recent announcement that he is not running for the U.S. Senate in 2014, choosing instead to defend his seat, also underscores his newfound vulnerability.

As for the Democrats chomping at the bit to take Coffman on next year, we don't expect they will all last through, or even until, the primary season–but there's definitely going to be a robust primary of some description.

More information on Sen. Newell's quasi-announcement here.

32 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

    Hmm. Appreciate the link, I guess, since I broke the story an hour and a half before you noticed it. But you could have saved the effort and just promoted my post. 

    I would hate to see you all over-worked. wink

  2. DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

    At some point, doesn't this help Romanoff?

    An ugly tete-a-tete like the Bennet primary only trashes the brand.  If it's a big pool of candidates,and he's the only one with name recognition, he could cruise through in a gentlemanly manner.

    • MADCO says:

      Name recognition is a slippery idea.


      In a room of 40+ Colorado voters where I would have expected 50/50 to know him – unprompted ess than 10 recognized his name, remembered the '10 primary  or that he was speaker.

      Once I reminded few he was speaker- none could name anything else notable about him.  Until I mentined the special session.  That room anyway remembered Owens and that special session, mostly.  The younger didn't – and didn't care so much either.

      I'm not convinced any of the rumored candidates to date have significant name rec advantage over any of the others with the general voters.



      • BlueCatBlueCat says:

        That's a lot more than would know the name "Newell" and name rec can be built  most effectively with lots of targeted bucks and big name endorsements. No contest there. Romanoff has all the advantage. He's a major player with major national Dem connections and one ho has already put together and infrastructure for competeing for a big fat statewide office. That's going to be very helpful in launching a CD run. Linda, who I know and like, hasn't been a player at anything approaching that level. 

        She is also what would have been called a conservative Dem back in the day when conservative didn't mean to the right of Attila the Hun.  Nowadays she's called moderate . Perfectly fine for SD26 but I don't see the need for a Dem candidate to  the right of centrist Romanoff in the new CD6, especially after the narrow Dem loss to an incumbent last time.  I personally wouldn't support Linda over Romanoff and don't see her being truly competitive with him in general.  I question who these people are (and how many of them) who are just begging her to run.

        Wish Linda all the best but hope this is more about raising her profile and less about a serious drawn out challenge to Romanoff. And remember, Andrew: Jump in with a big splash any time. All is forgiven. I 'm pretty sure I speak for the majority of Bennet's 2010 supporters.

        Now to hit "post comment" and see whether edit is back or not!  If not, I hope I proof read carefully enough and apologize in advance for screw ups….

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          Yikes.  Not proof reading quickly and well yet.  That would be "who" no "ho"  (didn't mean anything by it) and I have "and infrastructure" where I meant "an infrastructure. I got spoiled by that brief encounter with the editing function.  Wish it would reappear.

  3. MADCO says:

    I will believe any of the names CoPols and others are throwing around when any of those named confirms their candidacy.

    Don't care if that's not until …next Fall. But anyone who has not declared by September is not serious, unless they are prepared to self-fund at approx $1.5mm



  4. IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

    Well, as I said on the other article about this…

    In my opinion, Senator Newell has proven that she can walk the moderate line and win support from all over the political spectrum. She also has been able to successfully defend those moderate positions when confronted by her more liberal constituents.

    But one wonders if she is up to the acrobatics it would take to win first the Democratic Party nomination then ultimately be elected to Congress. She would have to part with her current moderate persona and begin to take on more partisan issues in order to win support from the die-hard dems that make up the party base in Arapahoe County, then pivot again and return to the middle to win in November. 

  5. ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

    Seriously considering is a long way from actually campaigning. I would love to see a woman run in an actually competitive congressional district, and I honestly wish Romanoff would drop out, not because I don't like him but because I wish he'd just stay out of politics. He seems much happier to me when not running for office.

    Newell won a tough state senate race in 2012 and with that success under her belt, I am unsurprised she's looking higher. She's an animal lover, which always scores points with me, and I really like the young woman who managed her 2012 campaign. However, I would have to see some really incredible fundraising numbers from her, and EARLY, to believe she has a chance at CD6. Romanoff, on the other hand, has plenty of money available to him and a dedicated fan base, but a lot of baggage to overcome.

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      You'd be surprised how little baggage it amounts to at this time and under these conditions. Just look at HRC. Obama supporters were ready to string her up when she came out with that 3 AM ad ( I know I was), especially since Obama was already the far more likely nominee at that point so we were furious that she was  handing Rs such potentially useful material on a silver platter.  But today she is a wildly popular choice for the 2016 presidential, including among most of  those who supported Obama early on in 2008.

      Linda is very nice.  Her daughter, who  may be the young woman you are referring to, is very nice.  And if you say she likes animals I'll take your word for it.  None of that makes her a better candidate than Romanoff. And while I'd like to see more women in our congressional delegation, that all depends on the woman. I can think of plenty of women I very much wouldn't like to see representing our state.

      Every electionis has its own special set of circumstances.  Breaking the R hold on CD6 for the first time in history  is the goal that matters most to me, not supporting a quite conservative, by the old standards, Dem woman who is nice but definitely small pond because she's a woman. 

      We don't need to go that conservative in the new CD6 and my preference certainly isn't for someone to the right of a centrist like Andrew.  After all, he isn't even to the left of Sen. Bennet by any measurable, objective standard, such as voting record and, according to the last election results, CD6 doesn't require anyone more conservative than a Romanoff or a Bennet. If it did, I'd be all for a more conservadem to get it out of R hands.

      As for the puppies, kittens and horsies, I'm all for niceness but  that isn't really right up there on a list of priorities for taking back my CD. I want a Dem Rep.  I've never had one here.  A small time candidate like Linda isn't my idea of the best way to get what I want. Especially with much better bets available.

      I'd love to hear from some fellow CD6ers on this. Do many really think Linda would be our best bet?

      • ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

        I'm a former CD6-er, but now vote in CD-7 and never lived in 6 when it was remotely competititve. I was team Morgan Carroll initially, and I'd still like to see her achieve a higher office, but if Romanoff polls as the most competitive candidate, good for him. I've just never really agreed with glowing assessments of his potential. I don't want to open the Bennet/Romanoff rift again, but I really thought Bennet was an incredibly poor-quality candidate for much of that race, and the fact that he was able to beat Romanoff doesn't say a lot about Romanoff's skills. Bennet's improved (dramatically) since that primary, and I think it was ultimately good for him in terms of bloodying him up and making him learn fast–but he was a terrible public speaker and incredibly awkward one-on-one when first appointed.

        I'm probably just biased because I really like the charitable work Romanoff has been doing now and it turns my stomach to think that he found a way to really do good in the world, and electoral politics is now sucking him back in! If he's the most likely to win the seat (by a measurable margin) I'll support him entirely. I'm just not convinced he is, and it'll take some data to convince me. I agree he's more competitive than Newell, but Carroll might be a better fit.

        And I do go by the philosophy that "If two (primary) candidates are roughly equal in their representation of my basic beliefs, and one is a woman, I will vote for the woman until the ratio of women in office reaches 50%."

        • says:

          I go by the philosophy that "If two (primary) candidates are roughly equal in their representation of my basic beliefs, and one is a Broncos fan, I will vote for the Broncos fan until the ratio of Broncos Superbowls reaches 5."

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          All other things equal, I too think it's important to elect more women and more minorities but, in this case, I don't think all things are equal.  Nothing against Linda but she is both a weaker candidate and a taste further right in my judgement.  Just sayin'. Not real confident in Field's or Morgan Caroll's appeal either.  So for now Andrew's looking like my frst choice.

          And as for minorities, Andrew's Jewish.  We're a really small minority.  Somehow though, minority doesn't seem to just have a strictly numeric meaning.  Last time I checked there wasn't any affirmtive action preference for   minorities named Shapiro or Sakata. Not complaining. Just  observing. 🙂

          • ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

            But we have 11 Jewish Senators, and Jews are only 2.1% of the US population. So we're actually an overrepresented minority!

            • BlueCatBlueCat says:

              Yes but…  Funny story.  My step brother is a Miami doctor and his across the street neighbor is also a Miami doctor with a Spanish surname through his grandfather so one quarter European Spanish.  Neither family needs help but Jewish Spanish surnamed Miami doctor's kid got  treated as a minority child when it came to college admissions. And my dad always like to tell the story of a Spanish diplomat's wife he knew who was furious when she applied for a job in the Chicago library system and they insisted that she couldn't check the white box because of her Spanish surname. As far as this European lady was concerned, being a Spaniard didn't mean she wasn't white.  So the interpretation of what comprises  "minority" for various purposes sometimes makes no sense.

          • says:

            I would agree with you that not all of the candidates are equal.

            I am itching to help out again. I have taken some time off from volunteering and I want to get back in. But I need a reason to help, a connection, and these candidates are bland

            Romanoff is the only one who has the credentials, money, charisma to make me want to get off my couch and help again. His sense of humorm akes me like him. what can I say? I am a cheap volunteer. Lol.

            The others are fine candidates but there is a reason there are major and minor candidates. And I don't see an Obama rising up out of the list of candidates so far.

            I am open to hearing all candidates but I also don't feel like volunteering for someone who can't win who only wants to boost their name ID.

        • J-Rock says:

          Not sure if you ever had a chance to see Andrew when he was working in elected politics – but he was quite a bit happier than he is now doing the charity work.

          What most people are not bringing up is that Andrew was an incredibly skilled LEGISLATOR.  Sure, there are things you can knock him for when it comes to campaigning (but I would hope he has learned some lessons). But, when we has majority leader and then speaker, he managed to push through great bills covering topics ranging from education to business development and beyond. The one blemish would be that special session, but even there, Romanoff called that (and passed the bills he did) as a preventive measure against a growing push to pass even more draconian and restrictive bills. 

          In his time as a politician in Colorado, he showed a remarkable understanding of how legislative politics can impact and improve people's lives across the board. Getting him in Congress, where he could use those skills, would greatly serve all Coloradoans. 

          • ProgressiveCowgirlProgressiveCowgirl says:

            I met him once as Speaker, and I must have been no older than 14 at the most, so the memory is foggy. He struck me as kind of a jerk, honestly. He was debating something fairly innocuous–the idea of all mail-in elections–and kept being way more rude than I thought the subject really called for. But that's my only impression of him when he was a legislator. Most of his career was during the few years of my life when I tried to stay away from politics, before Obama's first presidential campaign pulled me back in feet-first.

            I met Romanoff again after he was already out of office and was surprised to find I liked him. Then the primary happened, and, although Bennet walked in as a terrible, awful, useless candidate, I grew to like Bennet more and more and Romanoff less and less as the campaign went on. I think I miss out on the "Romanoff mystique" that captivates so many because I didn't know him as a legislator, never had the high expectations for him that his fans had, and so all I saw was someone with a ton of experience campaigning who not only couldn't beat a poorly prepared novice, but fumbled on pretty much every single play in the game.

            That's not to say I couldn't jump on the Romanoff bus still. Morgan is my favorite in the heap right now, but I hear rumblings that she's not interested in the seat. I've heard very good things about Middleton, but haven't even met her personally. Newell is good, but I don't think she can beat Romanoff in a primary. I'm certainly persuadable in any direction, especially if Morgan doesn't get in. I like a lot of Romanoff's views, and I think he'd make a good colleague for my favorite, Perlmutter. 

  6. says:

    I am in CD6.

    Romanoff could probably win.

    Fields can't win. It doesn't surprise me that she is interested but maybe senate or a few more years as Rep before she tries.

    Middleton? Right. Didn't she move away for a nice job (good for her and her family) but I got tired of her always climbing up to the next big thing (nothing wrong with that, of course) but I wanted someone to stay around so I wouldn't support her.

    Then again, don't most think Rhonda would defer to Middleton? Middleton choose her as her heir. Then again, I have to remind myself that this is politics. How much loyalty can one expect in the world of politics?

    Don't know about Linda.

    I like Morgan Carroll and even Romanoff.

    The thing is, though he had an inept campaign – couldn't stand those yard signs – I believe if Miklosi had ran a stronger campaign he could've won.

    …..kinda reminds me of the Broncos/Ravens game, in a way. lol.

    Alright, now that I've said my piece, I am sure to be butchured by early supporters. The point of this post wasn't to get in an argument, just to show an outsiders perspective.

    Don't know who I would support yet, but I doubt any of them will be beating down my door as I have a sign that reads, "Don't bug me until the Broncos win the Super bowl."

    • BlueCatBlueCat says:

      Don't see why you should get butchered.  Good to hear your take.  I think it's a little eatly for rabid support.  My preference, at the moment, is for Andrew but I'm not feeling particularly rabid. Just want to wake up one day in Dec. 2014 with my very own Dem rep. Thanks for the input. Me, I'm more of a Nuggets fan.

      • says:

        Maybe you're right about not getting butchered because it is too early. But this is a political site and no doubt, the named people are reading, as are their supporters.

        Right now, I am not in the mood to get in a knock-down fight over an opinion. And as we know, on the Internet, that happens frequently. smiley

        I saw the Nuggets at Signature FBO recently. Those cats are T A L L.

        • BlueCatBlueCat says:

          I know.  When you see them on TV they're with each other so the ones who are a mere 6' 4"  or 5" look like regular height guys and the ones that barely make or break 6 feet look small.  When you see them close up in person….wow.  Pretty awe inspiring.

  7. Gray in Mountains says:

    I hope it is AR. I voted for and worked for Bennet when they ran but I think we do need Andrew back in politics

  8. Gray in Mountains says:

    I do think AR is by far the best candidate of all we've heard from and I think we need Andrew back in politics. Dude is a problem solver

  9. Littletonian says:

    It's crazy to think of Katie Newell's Facebook feed as being a part of the newscycle – I've known her since we were in high school together. Weird.

  10. Awen says:

    Not that I want to stir up a hornet's nest….but

    Newell has taken campaign funds from the payday lenders in the past and voted their way at every opportunity. Isn't that one of CPols big issues?

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      Yup. She sure did.

      That'll take some 'splaining to get her out of a Democratic primary.

      Same with Romanoff and his "toughest immigration law in America" in the 2006 special session. I don't forget these things.

      • BlueCatBlueCat says:

        Linda is very conservative for a Dem.  So was our first HD38  Rep, Joe Rice.  Now compared to todays wacko right they are both highly preferable and really the only kind of Ds who could have broken the barrior in my SD and old HD.  That's abit differnt now too.  However, we don't need to go that that conservative (excuse me; now you're supposed to be moderate if you're not far to the right of Reagan) to win the newly configured CD6 so I don't see why we should.  She is the kind of Dem you run when you know you can't win with any other kind, not when you have more choice.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.