Ed Perlmutter (3-1)
Perlmutter tops our list for a couple of reasons:
1. He has a huge warchest already that he can transfer right over to a Senate account. Having a money lead like that makes a big difference.
2. He has been the most aggressive in pursuit of the post, and he's a good insider politician.
3. He has the best connections with business, labor AND Washington D.C., and he's a proven campaigner.
4. Democrats would have to defend his seat if he left, but CD-7 is a lot safer than it was, and there really aren't any strong Republican contenders. This isn't CD-3, where a lot of well-known Republicans would jump in a fight for an open seat.
John Hickenlooper (5-1)
1. Ritter was always angry at Hick for screwing around for months when he was thinking about running for Governor. Hick's indecision cost Ritter significantly in fundraising, and it would have made a difference had Ritter had a tougher opponent. Plus, it also made Ritter look second-tier. Ritter may say he is no longer angry at Hick, but certainly it's still in the back of his mind.
2. Hick is always too coy, which makes it look like he's indifferent. We hear that Hick really wants the seat, but he needs to act like it.
3. Hickenlooper's top political advisor is David Kenney, who is also going to be running Ritter's re-election campaign. That's a HUGE conflict of interest, which is a point that has not been brought up before.
Andrew Romanoff (5-1)
1. Romanoff is a talented and likable politician, but he isn't Perlmutter or Hickenlooper, who are both known quantities on a larger scale.
2. Romanoff does have the benefit of being the only candidate whose selection doesn't cause a domino effect, and that's perhaps his biggest selling point.
John Salazar (7-1)
1. Losing Salazar in CD-3 would be problematic for Ritter's re-election efforts. Democrats would have a tough time holding this seat without Salazar, but it's basically a safe seat if he remains.
2. Salazar could really make a strong play for the appointment, but does he want to give up his seat on Appropriations to do so? How hard is he willing to campaign for it?
3. Salazar has the best combination of a strong warchest and solid name recognition.
The Also-Rans
Diana DeGette
She probably can't win statewide, but more than that, she has no chits to call in for the appointment. For years DeGette has done very little to help other Democrats in Colorado, focusing her political efforts on Washington D.C. What that means is that nobody owes DeGette locally, and nobody will be pushing hard for her to get the appointment.
Cary Kennedy
She'd be a great pick...in four years. Kennedy just doesn't have the name recognition to be a strong enough candidate for the U.S. Senate in two years. You can't make the argument that she would be a better candidate in 2010 than Perlmutter or Hickenlooper, and fundamentally, that's what matters.
Federico Pena
We just don't see Pena seriously campaigning for it.
Tom Strickland
He's run for Senate twice in the last decade, and lost both times. There's nothing more that needs to be said. The wild card is that Strickland was a huge help to Ritter when he ran for governor, so there could be some payback.
Bernie Buescher, Alice Madden, Joan Fitz-Gerald, etc., etc.
Same issue: None are a better choice than either Perlmutter or Hickenlooper. The decision won't get this far. |
