Hold the Confetti, Really

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Mar 18, 2010 at 12:58:12 PM MDT

But the other narrative, which we think much more accurately reflects the process in Colorado and the state of this race generally, was reported by the Denver Post's Lynn Bartels today:

Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff declared victory for the little guy in Tuesday night's caucuses, saying "Main Street won, Wall Street lost," but among the pundit class, the results were viewed differently.

By barely cracking 50 percent among the people perceived as his base, Romanoff has a tough row to hoe to compete with Michael Bennet, his $3.7 million in the bank and deep support from the Obama administration, said political consultants Steve Welchert, a Democrat, and Katy Atkinson, a Republican...

Democrats at their caucuses had only one major contested race, the matchup between Romanoff and Bennet, who was appointed to the U.S. Senate in January 2009. Romanoff received 50 percent to Bennet's 41 percent.

"We just saw the strongest day Romanoff is likely to have," Welchert said. "The fact that the spread is 10 points evaporates when you're going to be outspent 10-to-1."

Atkinson said she had expected Romanoff to top Bennet, but by a wider margin.

With irony that few readers will miss, Romanoff's biggest defender in Bartels' story is none other than Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams:

"Are you kidding me?" Wadhams said. "With all respect to my good friend Katy, Romanoff didn't even get into the race until September, and President Obama just came here and campaigned for Bennet."

We have a little bit of news to add to this parlor-game debate, which is really just a debate about impressions of impressions ahead of the parts of the primary process that matter: but impressions being the game today, you might be interested in knowing that Romanoff has dropped below the much-balleyhooed 50% threshold in the latest updated caucus preference poll results. As of 12:50PM MDT, Romanoff is sitting at 49.96%--unlike sale prices in the grocery store, a few cents off doesn't actually make this number more appealing.

Joking aside, our view hasn't changed: Romanoff didn't beat Bennet by enough of a margin to make Tuesday's caucus preference poll "conclusive" either way, and that means Romanoff did not perform well enough to meaningfully affect the same long odds he faced before the caucuses.

Steve Welchert is stating the simple facts of the matter above when he talks about Romanoff being outspent 10-1 in the coming months, and that is all that's going to matter when it comes to reaching thousands of primary voters instead of hundreds of ardent party-activist caucusgoers. The same thing holds true for Buck on the Republican side; his victory on Tuesday is certainly significant, but if he has another $40,000 quarter of fundraising, none of this will make any difference come August. As we've said over and over, the voters who will decide the primary are not all that different than the voters who will decide the general election. They're not that interested and not well-informed, so it's going to take a lot of mail, radio, and especially television to get those votes--none of which you can buy with contrived moral rectitude.

Caucus Winners and Losers

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:52:40 AM MDT

On the Democrats' side, we can't really declare either Sen. Michael Bennet or Andrew Romanoff to be a "Winner" or a "Loser" from last night. Romanoff didn't beat Bennet by a significant margin, so little has changed in this race in the last 24 hours. But that doesn't mean there wasn't a lot to discuss on the Republican side, so let's get to it...

WINNERS

Ken Buck
As we wrote yesterday, Buck's campaign for the Republican nomination in the U.S. Senate race obviously had a good feel for the likely results given that his manager was actually raising expectations rather than lowering them. Buck did just slightly better than Jane Norton (37.86% to 37.74%), but this is still a huge victory for the Weld County District Attorney because it shattered the idea of Norton as a clear frontrunner.

Norton spent a lot of money on TV ads leading up to the caucus, and she still couldn't even get to 40%. She's now going to have to continue to spend money through the state assembly in order to hold on to her delegates and stem Buck's momentum. Buck still has to show he can raise money after a pathetic Q4 that saw him raise just $40k, but the momentum is now on his side.


Dan Maes
Lost in the discussion over the U.S. Senate race was the fact that the unknown, poorly-funded Maes managed to pull nearly 40% in a preference poll for Governor. This is more an indictment of frontrunner Scott McInnis than a sign of strength for Maes, but nevertheless this is a big victory for a guy that nobody had even heard of a year ago.


LOSERS

Scott McInnis
If the results from last night's preference polling holds through the state assembly, McInnis is going to have to really campaign to make sure he makes it out of a gubernatorial primary. Challenger Dan Maes has been a thorn in his side for a few months, but most people (including us) wouldn't have expected Maes to actually be on the ballot in August. Maes likely couldn't have afforded to petition on to the ballot, but now it looks like he might make it on through the caucus process, which is a massive blow to McInnis' hopes of beating Democrat John Hickenlooper in November. McInnis will now have to expend real time and resources in the primary -- neither of which he can afford to use up before a general election battle with Hick.


Jane Norton
We covered this in our discussion of Ken Buck above. The image of Norton as GOP frontrunner has been smashed, and she's going to have to really ratchet up the fundraising (and the spending) in order to make sure she gets through the primary.


Tom Wiens
By picking up just 16% of the votes, Wiens came in a distant third to Buck and Norton in the GOP Senate polls and needs to go the petition route to make sure he makes it onto the ballot. Given that most of Wiens' warchest comes from his own bank account, he's got a decision to make. Does he spend the money to gather the necessary petition signatures and continue his campaign? Or does he take the caucus results as a sign that he might not have the support to win a primary? We don't think Wiens is out of the running by any means -- not with Norton's poor performance and Buck's meager finances -- but last night was definitely a "fork in the road" moment for him.

The Caucus Spin: Who REALLY Has the Most at Stake?

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 13:28:20 PM MDT

Rep. Ed Perlmutter Endorses Bennet

by: Colorado Pols

Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 15:01:35 PM MST

Democrats in Colorado are blessed to have two highly qualified men running to represent Colorado in the United States Senate. One is our sitting US Senator, Michael Bennet, the other is our former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff.

I have remained neutral in their primary until now, because I believe both men are gifted and talented public servants of whom Colorado can be proud. However, I have decided to endorse Michael Bennet in this primary. Over the past year, Michael's diligence, determination and dedication to solving problems and moving Colorado and America forward have earned my trust, respect and full support.

Perlmutter and Denver Rep. Dianna DeGette had been the only Democratic members of Colorado's delegation to not take a side in the Senate primary, but of the two Perlmutter's support is definitely more important. Perlmutter's district boundaries include large portions of two of Colorado's biggest and most electorally important counties -- Jefferson and Adams -- and his support will carry particular weight among Jefferson County Democrats who might have been inclined to back Andrew Romanoff.

More commentary from a Pols diarist here.

Caucus Prediction Time: Democrats

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:51:44 PM MST

For example, can Sen. Michael Bennet still be considered a "winner" after Tuesday even if it looks like Andrew Romanoff got more pledged support? You could say yes, considering that the caucus is supposed to be Romanoff's real base; but you could also say no, arguing that an incumbent Senator should not lose in a caucus process.

So vote below, and then offer your comments on what the caucus process means for the candidates. We'll offer our opinion later in the week.

New Rasmussen Polling on Senate Race

by: Colorado Pols

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 12:05:29 PM MST

As we've said over and over, head-to-head polling (of general election voters) matching up candidates from different parties is virtually meaningless at this point in the race. Probably 95% of voters aren't paying any attention whatsoever right now, so polling today is basically asking people their opinions about two people they don't know anything about. Matchup numbers today will look completely different in three months once the candidates start advertising heavily -- that's when these numbers will tell us something meaningful.

For example, this poll shows that Republican Ken Buck would beat both Democrats Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff in a head-to-head race. But as you'll see below, basically only 22% of voters even know anything about Buck. What this really means is that "unknown Republican" beats "unknown Democrat," but given the recent anti-incumbent trends, we already knew that.

The only numbers worth looking at this early in a race, which Rasmussen acknowledges, are those that show "very favorable" and "very unfavorable" ratings; in order to have a "very" favorable or unfavorable opinion of someone, you probably know something about them. With that in mind, here are the "very" favorable/unfavorable numbers:

VERY FAVORABLE
Jane Norton: 21%
Andrew Romanoff: 17%
Michael Bennet: 16%
Ken Buck: 12%
Tom Wiens: 11%

VERY UN-FAVORABLE
Ken Buck: 10%
Tom Wiens: 11%
Andrew Romanoff: 19%
Jane Norton: 21%
Michael Bennet: 26%

What does this mean? It looks like a pretty clean slate all around. Nobody's "very unfavorables" are too bad (and nobody has great favorables, either) which says that there isn't a huge hurdle for any candidate to overcome. Back in 2005, then-Rep. Bob Beauprez had very high unfavorable ratings more than a year before the election for governor, which portended an uphill climb for Beauprez; for obvious reasons, it's hard to get people to change a negative opinion about you.

Without seeing detailed results, it's hard to know how much of Bennet's unfavorables are because of him personally or because of a negative attitude towards incumbents generally. The most interesting number is Norton's 21% "very unfavorable" rating; do people dislike Jane Norton, or do they dislike some other Norton? There must be some "Norton confusion" here, because when you add up both numbers, she is as well known as the incumbent Sen. Bennet. Elsewhere, we don't see anything noteworthy about Romanoff's numbers, good or bad, and Wiens and Buck remain a mystery to voters.

Romanoff Campaign Morphing Into Mike Miles 2004

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:31:24 AM MST

Well yesterday, Romanoff's campaign sent out an email from supporters Polly Baca and Ramona Martinez that continues the drumbeat that they are mad at President Barack Obama for supporting Sen. Michael Bennet, etc., etc. Here's a snippet:

We are alarmed that this long standing tradition has been violated by the current National Democratic Party and our current President, whom we both supported for election.  It is inappropriate and unacceptable for national Democratic Party officials and the President of the United States, who is the titular head of the Democratic Party, to engage in Democratic primaries.  Colorado Democrats have the inalienable right and intelligence to select their own candidate for the highest political position in the state without interference from our Democratic leaders in D.C. who are supposed to be supportive of our local parties and candidates.

Perhaps Romanoff and his supporters are correct in that Obama shouldn't be getting involved in Democratic primaries, but what's done is done. This obsession over Obama helping Bennet is practically the only thing you hear from Romanoff and his supporters anymore, and it is eerily reminiscent of the 2004 Senate race.

When then-Attorney General Ken Salazar entered the Senate race in March 2004 and subsequently began racking up endorsements, supporters and big checks, Miles supporters were beside themselves that the "Democratic Party," and their particular bogey man, Party Chair Chris Gates, were supporting Salazar instead of letting the process play out.

The conspiracy allegations were silly and juvenile (not to mention without evidence), but they became both the fuel and the flame out of the Miles campaign. Instead of a race focused on solid campaigning and issues, virtually all you heard from Miles and his supporters was about the unfairness of big bully Democrat power brokers who supported Salazar when they should have remained neutral.

The very same thing is now happening with the Romanoff campaign, which has become obsessed with complaining about Obama's involvement in the race rather than focusing on campaigning, fundraising and delivering a solid message to the 99.9% of primary voters who don't give a rat's ass about this insider squabbling. Should the Democratic Party remain neutral in a Democratic primary? The answer isn't important, because the campaign is asking the wrong question. We could count on two hands, and maybe a foot, the number of people who are truly interested in listening to that discussion.

Focusing on Obama's support of Bennet is also baffling for another reason: Democrats still like President Obama, and Bennet is surely pleased every time he sees an email from Romanoff's campaign reminding people that the President endorsed his opponent. Yeah, it sucks that President Obama endorsed your opponent. But why the hell do you keep talking about it? Hey, did you hear? The President has endorsed Michael Bennet. Isn't that horrible?

As we've said over and over again, this race has a long way to go before the ballots are counted. But unless Romanoff starts really doing something different -- something besides complaining about insider squabbles and PAC checks -- then this has all the makings of the 2004 primary that Salazar won with 73% of the vote.

And...Romanoff Jumps the Shark

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 12:23:08 PM MST

Romanoff's campaign just sent out an email today from none other than former U.S. Senate hopeful Mike Miles. The full text of the email is after the jump, but here's a smidgen:

So let's help Andrew.  I don't want to sound like other fundraising emails that exaggerate the significance of the race they are asking you to contribute in, but the stakes here are actually significant.  All candidates have a strong interest in getting elected.  If someone gets elected because people supported him rather than wealthy corporations others will notice.  Others will copy.  It takes a lot of little money to get big money out of politics.

For those of you unfamiliar with the phrase "jump the shark," here's a quick definition from The Urban Dictionary:

The precise moment when you know a program, band, actor, politician, or other public figure has taken a turn for the worse, gone downhill, become irreversibly bad, is unredeemable, etc.; the moment you realize decay has set in...

...Origin of this phrase comes from a Happy Days episode where the Fonz jumped a shark on waterskis. Thus was labeled the lowest point of the show.

Look, we have nothing against Mike Miles. But Good God, man!, Romanoff's campaign can't possibly want anyone to associate what he is doing with -- let's face it -- the completely hopeless bid that Miles made for the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Miles raised $363,000 in his 2004 race -- that's a total amount -- and ended up losing the primary to Salazar 73-27 (173,167 to 63,973, if you're counting votes at home). Miles was a nice guy with nice credentials who was in wayyyy over his head. Hell, his campaign manager even went on vacation the very summer of the primary.

Romanoff supporters have been trying to downplay the Miles comparison (with Sen. Michael Bennet in the role of then-Attorney General Ken Salazar), and for very good reason. Romanoff is certainly not Mike Miles, but any mention of the two in the same sentence is terrible for Romanoff's campaign.

Most people knew that Miles' campaign was completely hopeless, even after he won the most delegates at the 2004 state assembly. Using Miles to publicly drum up money for a Romanoff campaign that is looking more and more hopeless by the week only helps to increase that perception.

By sending out this email, Romanoff's campaign is either a) incredibly, amazingly ignorant to the damage it could cause by making a direct comparison, or b) so completely desperate for money that they don't care (and considering that Miles couldn't raise money for his own campaign, what makes them think his name will raise money for Romanoff anyway?)

Either way, this email signals the final bell for Romanoff. There is a long way to go in this race, and Romanoff may very well hang on all the way until that fateful Tuesday in August. But we're calling it here. Mark it down.

The shark has been jumped.

Has an Incumbent Ever Lost in a Primary in Colorado?

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 13:19:28 PM MST

Calling all Polsters! We need your help!

We were curious about this question given all the discussion about the Democratic primary between Sen. Michael Bennet and former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff: Has there ever been a successful primary challenge of an incumbent in a top-tier office, such as Congress, Senate or Governor?

We're not going to argue about what makes a "true" incumbent. Bennet was appointed to the U.S. Senate when Ken Salazar left the office, just like Republican John Suthers was appointed to be Attorney General when then-AG Salazar was elected to the Senate in 2004. Neither Bennet nor Suthers got their respective titles by winning an election, but they were both "incumbents" because you could call them "Senator" or "Attorney General" heading into their first election.

So, with that definition cleared up, we looked back 20 years, beginning with the 1990 election. Some of that data is still available, and some is not, but from what we found (and what we remember), there have only been two primary challengers of a sitting incumbent in the last 20 years, and neither were successful.

1. 2002 CD-1 Democratic Primary
Ramona Martinez challenged incumbent Rep. Diana DeGette in a Democratic primary. DeGette won an easy 73-17 victory over Martinez (who, ironically, was one of Romanoff's first supporters in the Senate race).

2. 2008 CD-5 Republican Primary
Two 2006 candidates, Jeff Crank and Bentley Rayburn, challenged former opponent and incumbent Rep. Doug Lamborn in the 2008 primary. Lamborn won easily with 44% of the vote (compared to 29.5% for Crank and 26% for Rayburn).

Polsters, we need your help to know if we're missing someone. How many other times in modern Colorado political history has someone challenged an incumbent in a Primary election? (and we mean serious challengers, not just people who put their name on the ballot and raised $2,000) Has there ever been a successful challenge of an incumbent -- in a top-tier race -- in a primary?  

That Wasn't So Hard, Now Was It?

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 16:33:37 PM MST

But while we've been critical of the fact that Romanoff spent the first several months of his campaign completely sans message, we can also acknowledge the fact that he has finally started to figure it out. This doesn't exactly differentiate Romanoff from Bennet, but at least Romanoff is finally starting to say what he would do if elected. From an email sent to supporters today:

Speaking in Pueblo today to more than 100 people from Pueblo and Fremont counties, U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff called on Congress to solve America's health care crisis, save money and save lives.

"If I were in the U.S. Senate today, I'd fight to take the pork out, put the public option back in and remove the health insurance industry's antitrust exemption," Romanoff said. "Congress should put an end to its backroom deals and pay-to-play politics and put the health of Americans first."

Gee, that was easy. It was expensive, apparently, but it was easy. If Romanoff had been doing this from the beginning of his campaign, things might look a lot different for him than they do today.
 

How Long Can Buck and Romanoff Keep the Lights On?

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 13:00:39 PM MST

As we've said before, fundraising reports are normally a reliable indicator of potential electoral success, because most large donors (people that give at least $500 to a candidate) write checks to the candidate that they believe is most likely to win.

But the other reason that fundraising is so important is for very fundamental purposes: You need a lot of money to both support a statewide campaign and to get your mug on television. It's no secret that the candidate who does best on TV is often the candidate who ends up winning the election, so an effective campaign has to be able to pay for its day-to-day operations while also saving as much as possible (70-80% is a general rule of thumb) for television.

Obviously, a U.S. Senate race is a costly affair. In 2008, Democrat Mark Udall outspent Republican Bob Schaffer $11.7 million to $7.4 million. Now that the fundraising reports for the 2010 batch of Senate candidates are available, we thought it would make sense to look at just how much money they are going to need just to fund their campaign. The answers tell us a lot about which candidates are in a position to win, and which are just treading water right now.

Big Numbers for Wiens, Not for Buck

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Feb 02, 2010 at 11:36:36 AM MST

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet raised more than $1.1 million last quarter, nearly 3 1/2 times more than his Democratic opponent, Andrew Romanoff.

On the Republican side for the U.S. Senate seat, Jane Norton collected more than $550,000.

The campaign for Tom Wiens, the newest Republican candidate for the Senate, said it raised more than $725,000 but declined to give any details or say how much of the money came from the candidate...

...On the Republican side, Norton's donations last quarter were nearly 14 times more than those of Ken Buck, whose campaign netted about $40,000, according to federal filings...

...Wiens' campaign did not elaborate on the $725,000 besides saying it had about $550,000 on hand. Detailed contribution records for the period are not yet available.

"Those are the only two figures I have," said campaign spokesman John Ransom.

Walt Klein, adviser to Buck's campaign, said the low totals were the result of the splash Norton made when she entered the race last fall.

"It was a disappointment but not one that was unexpected," Klein said. The campaign has more than $276,000 on hand.

Wiens has said before that he is prepared to put $500k into his own campaign, so it will be interesting to see how much of the $725,000 his campaign is reporting having raised came from the candidate himself. But whether Wiens dipped into his own bank account, raised the money or had it delivered by a magical fairy, $725,000 is still a lot of money. This result pretty much can't help but put a few dents in Jane Norton's 'aura of inevitability.'

The biggest news from Q4 on the Republican side is the anemic $40,000 raised by Buck, whose spokesman termed it "a disappointment." We wouldn't call it a disappointment so much as a "disaster," since most of Colorado's congressional candidates pulled in much more than that in Q4.

While Buck does have the support of outside groups, we hear that Republicans who are supportive of Buck as a candidate are now starting to encourage him to run in CD-4. If Buck can only net $40,000 in a quarter, then he's not ready to be a candidate for U.S. Senate, although he has shown the chops to be a strong candidate for another office.

Given the fact that Republican Cory Gardner continues to make stupid mistakes and has been weak to this point in his campaign against Democrat Betsy Markey, it's no surprise that many Republicans view Buck as a better choice for that seat anyway. Buck has a natural base in Greeley, which is a major population center in the district, and his relatively weak fundraising would be less of an issue in a congressional race than a Senate primary with two big money opponents. Democrats would probably prefer that Buck stay in the Senate primary and make Wiens and Jane Norton spend every last penny that they raise, but we can't disagree that it would make sense for a lot of reasons for Buck to switch gears.

Obama Will Stump for Bennet

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:07:56 PM MST

The White House has confirmed that President Barack Obama will visit Colorado in February to attend an event with U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet.

White House spokesman Adam Abrams said Thursday that the details are still being worked out.

Craig Hughes, Bennet's campaign manager, says Obama will be in Colorado to campaign for the senator, who is running for election. A date hasn't been set.

Know When to Walk Away, Know When to Run...

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Jan 19, 2010 at 15:21:46 PM MST

So there's that.

On one hand, this is the first good bit of strategy (okay, really the only strategic move) that we've seen from Romanoff as a U.S. Senate candidate. Romanoff got a lot of free media attention by holding a press conference to announce basically nothing, while at the same time trying to beef up the impression that he is still a sought-after politician due to all of the people who encouraged him to run for Governor. Romanoff also needed to publicly affirm that he was staying in the race for Senate because of so much speculation to the contrary. In that regard, today's press conference was a good move.

On the other hand, it's hard to really understand this decision in general. Romanoff is a talented policy wonk who is widely liked and respected by both Democrats and Republicans, but his campaign for Senate has been downright awful...and it's destroying his political future in the process. Romanoff has tried meekly to distinguish himself from incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet on the basis of not accepting PAC money or special interest contributions, but policy-wise and issues-wise, there's really not much difference between the two. The lack of a strong, clear message for why Romanoff is running for Senate has been startling, and his campaign in general has been a mess. Witness this weird item today from Westword:  

Romanoff Considers Suicide Switch?

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 16:22:29 PM MST

We can't verify what KMGH-TV reported yesterday as a sidebar to coverage of John Hickenlooper's gubernatorial campaign announcement, and then amended, but we think it deserves a brief mention:

Hickenlooper decided to run for governor on Sunday, and met with Romanoff Monday night, sources told 7NEWS. During the meeting Romanoff pressed for a Romanoff-Cary Kennedy ticket for governor and lieutenant governor. Kennedy is the state treasurer.

They met again Tuesday morning.

"He never tried to dissuade me from running," Hickenlooper said. However, he refused to discuss the details of their conversation, saying they have been friends for a long time.

Hickenlooper decided to make the announcement Tuesday to pre-empt any announcement by Romanoff that he would enter the race for Colorado governor, sources said.

Apparently redacted from the original report (but not before being posted in a comment here):

Romanoff asked Hickenlooper not to run, but Hickenlooper adamantly stated he was running, according to sources.

We've heard more rumors today that Romanoff is considering leaving the Senate race and challenging Hickenlooper in a gubernatorial primary. Certainly he could make that hard-to-imagine midflight switch from a federal to a state race, but we have grave questions about how that would be received by voters, not to mention the practical problems of such a move--Romanoff was having trouble raising money for a Senate race with contribution limits significantly higher than those for Governor, and none of the money he has raised for Senate would be usable in a race for Governor. How many of those people who donated to his campaign for Senate would be interested in donating again to a campaign for Governor after seeing how poorly his campaign for Senate has been?

There's the possibility Romanoff could get the Lt. Gov. nod, thus alleviating tensions, but that seems less likely with another male from Denver headlining the ticket.

Short of joining the ticket, to "step down" to the governor's race from the Senate primary would be a frank admission that he couldn't win where he was--and if he can't beat Michael Bennet, arguably in a more vulnerable spot than Hickenlooper, how could he possibly expect to beat a sitting mayor of Denver with 80% approval ratings?

But beyond that, the optics of Romanoff making such a switch now would be absolutely horrible: it would reek of desperation, signaling that personal power--and career insecurity--really were the driving force behind all his agitation these last few months. Unfortunately the damage may be done at this point, any speculation about Romanoff switching races cannot help but weaken him in the race he's nominally running in now.

For as critical as we have been of Romanoff's quixotic nonstarter of a Senate campaign, we would be pained to see this get any worse for him than it already is in terms of future political viability--and that means he needs to stop the appearance of erratic "shopping" for his next office right now. There was a time back in the day, in 2005, before Bill Ritter (or even Hickenlooper, for that matter), when Romanoff could have had the same deference in a gubernatorial campaign from other contenders that Hickenlooper enjoys today. And Romanoff is still a pretty young guy--if he doesn't flush his reputation reaching for things that lie just beyond his grasp this election cycle, which involves some swallowing of pride and realism, he could be back to triumph another day.

Or, maybe Romanoff will become a punchline: this decision could be the crucible.

If You Just Keep Saying It, Maybe It Will Come True

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:51:00 AM MST

Except that he isn't.

In mid-December, the Romanoff campaign sent out an email to supporters claiming that he was the favored candidate in a Rasmussen Reports poll from September. He was not.

Today, in an email from new Campaign Manager Bill Romjue, Romanoff's campaign again claims that he outpolls Bennet in the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll. But he doesn't. Check out this sample of the email sent today (full email appears after the jump):

Andrew Romanoff outperforms his primary opponent among voters of every political party, every age group, and every other demographic category. (Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 8, 2009)  Andrew has consistently earned the highest ratings since entering the race. [Pols emphasis] (Rasmussen, Sept. 15, 2009)

Not only has Romanoff not "consistently earned the highest ratings since entering the race," we don't know of any public poll showing that Romanoff leads anybody. That's nothing to worry about, because it's still early in the race, but it's not okay to just lie about stuff that is easily verifiable.

Neither the December 8 Rasmussen Poll nor the September 15 Rasmussen poll show Romanoff leading Bennet. In both polls, Bennet outperforms Romanoff by a small margin against potential matchups with Republicans Jane Norton and Tom Wiens. Bennet doesn't outperform Romanoff by much -- and that is certainly a message they could exploit -- but it just simply isn't true to continue to say that Romanoff polls better than Bennet.

We've not been shy in expressing our confusion over the apparent lack of direction and message coming from the Romanoff camp (nor are we the only ones confused), but this is a different story altogether. Romanoff's campaign has now sent two separate emails in the same month touting false information that anyone with an Internet connection can easily check themselves. It's one thing to try to spin the results of a poll, but it's another entirely to just flat-out lie, repeatedly, and expect that nobody will notice.

"Where's Andrew?" Storyline Continues

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 12:48:32 PM MST

Andrew Romanoff promised a barn burner.

I've seen barn burning. This isn't it.

Under the Radar or Barely ON the Radar?

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Dec 09, 2009 at 12:58:25 PM MST

Romanoff's campaign is shaping up to be a far lower-profile -- and less damaging -- effort than Democrats anticipated. Three months after announcing his bid, Romanoff remains a distinctly under-the-radar candidate, picking up little media coverage and shying away from launching pointed barbs against his establishment opponent.

"I don't think he's been able to give an answer to the question, 'Why are you running?'" said Floyd Ciruli, an independent Denver-based pollster. "It's left the campaign without a clear constituency and without a clear message."

Perhaps most surprising to state insiders, Romanoff has overseen a Senate campaign that is decidedly lacking in infrastructure. Sue Casey, a veteran party operative who ran Sen. John Kerry's 2004 effort in the state, confirmed to POLITICO that she left Romanoff's campaign in October - a departure that has left the campaign without a manager for the past several months...

...With Casey gone, sources familiar with the campaign say Romanoff has largely relied on a staff of informal advisers, including his cousin Melissa Caplan and Ken Gordon, a former Democratic leader in the state Legislature. Dave Hemrick and Tom McMahon, two veteran Washington-based Democratic strategists, have also been advising the campaign.

To Democrats in the state, Romanoff's relative quietness in a contest many expected to be a barnburner has raised broader questions about whether he should have stepped into the race in the first place.

We first noted that Casey was out of the Romanoff campaign back in November, wondering who was driving and where they were headed. Some Romanoff supporters have jumped to his defense here on Colorado Pols, but we've just been calling it like we see it -- despite the spin attempts.

"There's no sense of momentum; there's no sense anything is happening," said another well-connected Democrat in the state. "I'm not sure anyone is running his campaign, quite frankly."

In a statement to POLITICO, Romanoff spokesman John Schroyer said the team was "delighted with how the campaign is developing. The campaign staff continues to grow." Schroyer noted that the campaign "has been endorsed by 200 elected leaders, has 900 volunteers ... and has collected more than 2,600 contributions, with 95 percent of those from in-state donors."

Look, this is what you are supposed to say when you are a campaign spokesperson -- that you are "delighted with how the campaign is developing." But no rational observer could look at this campaign and think everything is just swell.

The Politico article runs down basically the same issues and concerns that most Colorado political observers -- including us -- have had about Romanoff's campaign. There's no message, no clear direction, and not much to get excited about now that the potential of Romanoff as a candidate has given way to the reality.

The only part of the Politico article that we don't agree with is Ciruli's nonsense statement that a Romanoff victory in the caucus will make this a race; Romanoff is supposed to win the caucus because hardcore Democrats are more familiar with him. The real question is whether Romanoff's campaign can make it that far.

Head, Meet Brick Wall. Commence Banging

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 13:59:28 PM MST

Romanoff continues to be silent in terms of any sort of platform -- hell, we haven't even seen talking points -- that mention what he believes in and why you should vote for him over incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. While Bennet makes national headlines with his bold statement that he would risk losing his seat over his vote on health care reform, Romanoff says...nothing. About anything. (Well, except for talking about how he's a leader and stuff, which is, in a word, pointless).

The criticism aimed at Romanoff's campaign has largely been about the total absence of any position, yet inexplicably he keeps feeding the beast. Witness, if you will, an email sent today from the campaign with this headline" "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

We'd normally make a joke here, but this narrative has gone from amusing and ironic to confusing to just, well, just plain sad. A candidate criticized for not having a position on anything sends out an email with the headline "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Are they trying to look silly?

Full text of said email below.

More Weirdness from Romanoff Campaign

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:11:04 AM MST

During those three weeks, Bennet raised twice as much as Romanoff, $364,000 to $181,000, among itemized individual donors giving $200 or more...

...Joelle Martinez, spokeswoman for Romanoff, said her candidate's fundraising did not begin in earnest until the last 10 days of the month.

"I think we felt really good about what we were able to bring in during that 10-day period," Martinez said.

We don't believe for a second that Romanoff didn't bother to really start raising money until the last 10 days of the month, because he certainly understands the importance of showing solid fundraising numbers. But as we've mentioned before in this space, we're baffled that Romanoff has gotten off to such a plodding start in his campaign, particularly given this revelation:

His filing also showed he paid $27,500 out of his own pocket for a poll in March, six months before he announced his candidacy.

"It's a big decision whether or not to run," Martinez said. "That was one of the things he turned to as far as making a decision."

So Romanoff had solid numbers on a potential matchup with Bennet in March, yet waited until September to bother lining up donors? Combine this lack of planning with the total absence of any message from Romanoff, and it's getting harder to see where this campaign is really going.