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.

Thursday Open Thread on Gov. Race: It Looks Like Hickenlooper

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Jan 07, 2010 at 08:26:07 AM MST

If Hickenlooper does not run, the next name to watch is Rep. Ed Perlmutter. We wrote earlier that is was highly unlikely that Salazar, Hickenlooper and Perlmutter all pass on running for Governor, but if that does happen for some reason, the next names on the list are Treasurer Cary Kennedy (the only potential candidate who could actually transfer some of her current warchest to a race for Governor), Andrew Romanoff and Rep. Betsy Markey.

UPDATE #4: Denver Post reports Salazar will endorse John Hickenlooper for Governor.

"I know John and Helen will seriously consider this historic opportunity that will define the future of State of Colorado and her people. This is a personal decision they must make and I will fully respect that decision," Salazar said.

"As for me, I have a job to do as Secretary of the Interior to implement President Obama's vision for a clean energy economy and to better protect America's great outdoors."

UPDATE #3: Multiple sources now confirming, Ken Salazar will NOT run. In that case, we'd put the odds that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper will run at 95%. Developing.

UPDATE #2: Ken Salazar out? Just relaying this from The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder until we get additional word, which we are seeking now:

This just in.... Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has decided NOT to run for governor in Colorado. Incumbent Democrat Bill Ritter is retiring. The likely candidate for the Dems, then, is Denver mayor John Hickenlooper.

UPDATE #1:: It seems that The Denver Post isn't buying the Republican spin that Ritter is retiring because he didn't think he could win:

...we don't believe that Ritter dropped out of the race because he was down in recent polls and feared losing the gubernatorial election to Republican Scott McInnis. [Pols emphasis] The margin was only single digits, and voters haven't unseated an incumbent governor since 1962...

...It may not have been noticeable to Coloradans, but this job has worn on the governor. We couldn't help but notice the lightness in Ritter's demeanor at his press conference, joking at times with journalists. It seemed as if the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders.

He had the appearance of a man who was very comfortable with his very difficult decision, and we're happy for him. The moment he finished his speech in the Capitol foyer, he turned and hugged his teenage son. Sometimes stepping away from a job to spend time with one's family means just that.

There are 244 comments and counting on Tuesday's post, 300 and counting on Wednesday's post and quickly growing comments on this post.

Colorado Pols also broke a record yesterday with our highest number of Page Views in one day, with 60,629 (but not a record for Unique Visitors in one day, curiously enough).

So we thought you might want another open thread on the topic.

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.

Take Me To Your Leader: Romanoff Hires Manager

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 16:19:05 PM MST

To whom it may concern,

Regarding your blog post of Monday, Dec. 21, titled "Take Me To Your Leader: Romanoff Hires Manager," you note that Bill Romjue is a registered lobbyist for the Missouri Biotechnology Association. In fact, Mr. Romjue has not worked for or lobbied on behalf of that company since September of 2004. We respectfully request you correct your post.

If you require written evidence from either the Missouri Biotechnology Association or the State of Missouri, we can provide that to you. Should you have any questions or concerns, please email me.

Sincerely,
John Schroyer

--
John Schroyer
Communications Director, Romanoff for Colorado

We don't dispute this clarification, and appreciate the feedback. It's worth noting that the record we obtained from the Missouri Ethics Commission does not show an end date for his services (and there is a spot for it), though we have since found another record for Romjue which does indicate he stopped lobbying for this trade group in the fall of 2004. Original post follows.

--

After months of bumbling, former House speaker Andrew Romanoff's U.S. Senate campaign may have taken a step in the right direction with the hiring of a relatively experienced--if locally unknown--campaign manager. Bill Romjue managed presidential candidate Joe Biden's '08 Iowa operations, as well as the unsuccessful '06 gubernatorial campaign of Dina Titus in Nevada (although in fairness to Romjue, he was a late replacement for a previous manager and didn't join Titus until Labor Day 2006). Mr. Romjue is also the (former, see correction above) registered lobbyist for the Missouri Biotechnology Association, which we expect is good for an acerbic comment or two all by itself.

Here's the bio from the Romanoff campaign email making the announcement:

Bill earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam, where he served in the U.S. Army. He brings more than 30 years of political experience, having organized more than a dozen statewide races around the country and played key roles in a host of national campaigns, including those of Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Bob Kerrey, and Jimmy Carter.  He also served as chief of staff to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt.

Interesting that the campaign chose to highlight Romjue's Vietnam War experience as the first item on his resume (does Romanoff think he needs the foreign policy credentials, or are they putting emphasis on getting veterans to support him?), but Romjue has been represented to us as experienced enough to run a campaign at the level of a U.S. Senate race. Which, of course, is a big boost for Romanoff after relying on Ken Gordon for (apparently very bad) advice since his last campaign manager quit.

Having to import a professional with basically no local connections highlights Romanoff's credibility troubles among those who understand this race best. On the other hand, this is a sign that perhaps Romanoff is getting things together enough for a real race, because it's hard to imagine that Romjue would uproot from Missouri just to lead a campaign that might sputter out in a few months.

Click below for the full announcement from Romanoff's campaign:

"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.

Who's Driving the Romanoff Train?

by: Colorado Pols

Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:44:15 PM MST

We are hearing, however, that Sue Casey is longer be with the campaign. Casey, the former Denver City Councilwoman and one-time manager of Gary Hart's 1988 Presidential bid, had been with Romanoff since the beginning of his campaign and was most recently being called a "Senior Advisor." Casey was a bad choice to take a lead role to begin with, primarily because she hasn't been engaged at this level of politics in decades, and maybe Romanoff himself figured that out. The rumor is that Casey was pushed out, and although we can't confirm that, it would make sense given Romanoff's oddly terrible campaign operation to this point in the race.

We've said it before, and we'll say it again: How can someone as experienced as Romanoff, someone who polled on this race months ago, have been so unprepared to put a statewide campaign in place? If Romanoff is calling the shots on the campaign, then he's as good as done because nobody can -- or should -- be their own campaign manager at this level. But if Romanoff is not making the ultimate decisions, then who is? And what the hell are they doing?

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.

Romanoff Pushes On, Still Sans Message

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 15:49:00 PM MST

Click below to read Romanoff's latest email sent out to supporters. It's filled with the same vacuous stuff that his previous emails have included. "Grassroots effort," "Meaningful and lasting progress," and our favorite, "Real reform requires risk." It all sounds so very...vague. And that's not going to get Romanoff elected.

And please, we offer a simple plea not just to Romanoff, but to hundreds of other candidates: Stop using the "Not trolling for dollars on Wall Street but talking to people on Main Street" line. It's soooo played.