CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 31, 2010 02:27 PM UTC

Bennet's Zero Sum Game Mistake

  • 67 Comments
  • by: H-man

There are three key voting constituencies that make up the Colorado electorate in the US Senate Race.  About 40% of the vote will be coming from Registered Republicans, who make up 35.2% of active voters; about 35% will be coming from Registered Democrats, who make up 32.8% of active voters; and about 25% will come from those who are registered as Unaffiliated, about 31% of the active voters.  We have a reasonable basis for those numbers as most of the votes have already been cast and recorded.

Bennet’s challenge has been to pick away at constituencies that take away from Buck in numbers that hurt Buck more than the tradeoff hurts Bennet.  

Early on Bennet decided to go after the women’s pro-abortion vote at the expense of the traditional base Dems have enjoyed with Catholics.  Politically that was a good move as the net likely was to pick off more Republican and Independent women than he loses in church going folk.  I would expect at a good many religious services this morning voters will be reminded of that today, but I would also expect Bennet does not care as he does not belong to any church or other religious institution.

This week Bennet made another choice which I think will hurt him.  

Bennet needs to energize his base to maximize Dem votes.  He has a friend that his base loves, but is toxic to everyone else.  In order for Bennet to win, however, he needs more than Dems to come out, he needs Independents, who hate his toxic friend.  In addition the mere mention of his toxic friend increases voter enthusiasm for Republicans which he needs to suppress.  Didn’t Bennet have any other friends who could make a call or appearance?  Couldn’t he have gotten Clinton to make the phone call?

So now days before the election, Obama calling his friend Bennet to gin up the Bennet volunteers is in the news.  It might help Dems a bit with their base but how does it plays with Independents?  Why was Bennet trying to localize the race in the first place?

Obama has a 40% approval rating in Colorado.  55% on the citizens of Colorado disapprove of the job he is doing including 54% of Independents.  In the poll that came out yesterday from Marist finding Buck ahead by 4%, here is how the approval of Obama inquiry plays out:

Of the 40 percent who approve of Obama’s performance, 95 percent back Bennet. Of the 55 percent who disapprove of Obama, 87 percent support Buck.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201…

That was not a good trade off, unless Bennet’s goal was to only get 40% of the vote.

Tweet
Share

Comments

67 thoughts on “Bennet’s Zero Sum Game Mistake”

  1. Governor Ritter visited Weld County yesterday to “gin” up the hispanic vote.

    Ritter also rallied supporters at a canvass kickoff in Greeley before heading to Denver for more get-out-the vote efforts. Ritter said all voters have a lot at stake in this election, but none more so than Latino voters.

    “It’s not just about the numbers,” he said. “Quite frankly, the issues that everybody’s concerned about are also issues that concern Latinos. There are issues in the United States Senate that should concern Latinos a great deal.”

    He said issues such as immigration, education policy and education funding are key.

    “Those are all issues that matter to us all,” he said. “They particularly matter to Latinos.”

    Ritter obviously was very careful in choosing his words but the words of this very unpopular governor will remind voters the election is about immigration.  Not an issue Dems want to be running on given a recent Colorado poll showing 61% of those polled suppported the Arizona law.

    http://www.greeleytribune.com/…

    Obviously support for Arizona’s law would poll much higher in conservative Weld County than the statewide 61%.

    Ritter’s words serve only to remind Weld County residents of the Democrat’s agenda on immigration. And it is an agenda not well received in Weld County.  Obama’s divisive declaration on Univision; “…punish your enemies.” were ill advised considering the Democrats concerted effort to prevent immigration from being an issue this campaign. Ritter’s remarks are just as ill advised.

     

  2. It is true that it will have an effect on some some women voters for sure.  What it fails to take into account though is the large number of Catholic Latinos that oppose abortion.

    Speaking from a position where I have close contact with my in-laws extended family that is largely ‘Democrat’ but Latino Catholic I can say with first hand experience that the abortion portion of his message is not popular with this demographic.  

    I would wager that it has not earned him back nearly as much vote as he hoped due to losses in voter enthusiasm in this important Dem leaning bloc.  Open borders messages also do not hold the same sway that they once did with these folks

    What Dem have taken for granted is that all Latinos support open borders with Mexico and complete amnesty.  While, that may be more true than not during economically flush times, in a deep recession it has lost a significant amount of its power.

    Who is hurt the most today by illegals working in the US?  Unskilled labor and tradesmen.  If you’ve worked construction you should be well aware that a significant proportion of tradesmen are Hispanics and many of them own their own contracting company.  Those guys are losinig what little work is out there to cheaper illegal competition and they know it.

    People personally negatively impacted by that situation have significantly changed their opinions about illegal immigration and open borders over the past few years.

      1. Do you always look for ulterior motives for people posting their opinion? Do you lack the ability to offer a dissenting opinion of JLD’s post?  Let’s see you offer a counter point rather than attacking the message. I won’t be holding my breath as you have never established an intelligent presence in any previous debates.

              1. I always find it interesting that those who exercise their free choice would deny others the same.

                Of course, if the frigging Catholic Church (and all anti-choicers) would get on board with real sex education (that is, education regarding cycles and how correctly to use contraceptives), there would be no need for abortion.

                Don’t like abortion? Support comprehensive and realistic sex education.

      2. Ads excoriating Buck for being opposed to abortion and trying to frighten people into not voting for him because he is opposed to abortion is a pro-abortion message.

        Any message that says it should stay legal is necessarily pro-abortion.  Despite the framing of the issue you would have the general public use, pro-choice is pro-abortion because it seeks to allow the practice to exist.  The only message taht isn’t pro-abortion is that of the anti-abortion movement.

        That being said, let me tell you where I sit on the issue.  I believe Roe v Wade was bad constitutional law as the Federal government was not empowered to enter into that debate anywhere in the Constitution.  I firmly believe it should be overturned because it’s a power reserved either for the States or the People.  My opinion is that abortion should be legal if the States so choose.  My mother and sister have both had abortions and I think it was probably the right decision given their particular life situations at the time.  Abortion should be a legal option for women/couples during the most early stages of pregnancy (first trimester).  After that, I do not agree with it.

        I agree that holding this position makes me “pro-abortion” in certain circumstances and am well aware that Buck and I disagree morally on that issue and there is no reconciliation to be had.  His position on that point does not sway my vote and never would.

        To suggest that permitting abortions to occur and actually campaigning on the issue is pro-abortion at it’s core.  Saying otherwise is simply trying to console yourself that you don’t ‘really’ support abortion.  If you support it in any circumstance, you are pro-abortion and would accept that label on myself.

            1. I think I get it; “pro-abortion” was yet another phrase in a post that wasn’t meant to convey meaning.

              We’ve been through this before, haven’t we?

              So I take it you can’t source that Bennet is “pro-abortion” or that he used that thinking in his campaign.

              Thanks for playing.

                  1. Bennet and his allies have run numerous ads against Buck’s pro-life stance because they support abortion.

                    If you haven’t seen them yourself you’re beyond help.

                    Done playing your game.  Respond to how vilifying pro-life views is going to get pro-life Latino Catholics to vote for Bennet or toddle off back to where ever you call home.

                    Also, respond to how open borders being detrimental to legal tradesmen is going to get them excited to go out and vote for Bennet.

                  2. From Bennet’s own campaign website:

                    “Beyond these practical medical steps, for me this issue comes down to making sure that our mothers, wives and daughters, and not the government, have the freedom to make the decisions that are best for them”

                    http://bennetforcolorado.com/i…

                    You have now been provided both sources you requested. Consistently your only contribution is to attack your opponents on a personal level.  You failing to engage in debate reinforces your knowledge on important issues.  

                    1. simply pro-choice

                      I know people who are pro-train (I am one) but I do not have a train. Also, I would not force you to ride my rain if I had one

                      I’m pro-defense. But, I think we must always be ready for war.

                    3. If you are for a woman’s right to have an abortion you are pro-abortion. You can change the term you prefer to use but it does not alter the meaning.

                      I would expect such a parsing of words from the two of you. It means you have been paying attention:

                      Global Warming is now Climate Change

                      Global War on Terrorism is now Overseas Contingency Operations.

                      Terrorist attacks are now Man Made Disasters.

                    4. women should have abortions.  I’m not pro anyone having an abortion.  I’m pro keeping your opinions out of law.

                      Freedom of religion, or all secret Muslim terrorists?

                      Right to bear arms, or you’re threatening to shoot everyone?

                      Decriminalize drugs, or pro-addict?

                      We could do this all day.  The fact of the matter is you can’t back up a stupid claim.  Admit you were wrong or stfu.

                    5. I’m anti abortion.  Personally.

                      But I’m not every person, and I damned sure ain’t a woman.  But unlike you con-artists, I don’t expect everybody to believe what I believe.  And unlike you con-artists, I don’t think the government has any place in discussions between a woman and a physician.

                      That’s for you big-government conservatives.

                    6. Yo, colawman, you might back off on who you accuse of exploiting “the art of semantics.”

                      Don’t you remember Frank Luntz’s 1995 memo to President G.W. Bush, The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America?

                      Let me refer you to page 142:

                       We have spent the last seven years examining how best to communicate complicated ideas and controversial subjects. The terminology in the upcoming environmental debate needs refinement, starting with “global warming” and ending with “environmentalism.” It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

                      1. “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming.”

                      …

                      [Inordinant fondness for over-emphasis as in original.]

                      So, colawman, you can make up new words and new definitions of words if you must in order to be faithful to your ideology. It doesn’t change that we can still think you are being deceitful.

                2. Droll, Ralphie, and Club Twitty have been given the source. They will chose to ignore it as they have been proven to be lacking in intellectual counter points.

                    2. And the Archbishop’s opinion is extremely relevant to them.  If they are told by their leaders that abortion is wrong in any instance because it kills a baby then it certainly will affect their voting decision in some way shape or form.

                      You are correct to assert that it won’t sway the opinion of all Catholics and I wouldn’t argue that.  It does have a bearing on undervote and general turnout from that population though.  My argument is that the message which supports abortion is one diametrically opposed to the core beliefs of an important Bennet voting bloc.

                      Explain how that will not cause an undervote on the race due to Bennet’s choice to make it a campaign issue.  It’s even possible it will cause less voter enthusiasm from those folks.

                      Additionally, the same voting bloc is under attack on the employment front by open borders.  Again, how does supporting open borders and amnesty help get Latino tradesmen to vote for you when they are losing what little work they have to illegals?

                      Many democrat pundits and supporters frequently talk about people needing to vote in their own self-interest.  It’s one of the reasons many Dems think that the the poor would always support Dem candidates.

                      I’ve provided very real examples of why a significant portion of those demographics would not be enthused about supporting Bennet.  Refute it or concede the point.

                    3. The point is, you claimed Michael Bennet is pro-abortion.  You could find no documentation of him ever having said that, so you changed the subject.

                      Furthermore, I don’t think an Archbishop’s opinion influences American Catholics.  Per the Voice of America,

                      The National Catholic Reporter shows that 58 percent believe they do not have to follow the teachings of their bishop on abortion.

                      There are many other surveys that say the same thing, use teh Google.

                    4. the 42% that do think their church leaders are important almost perfectly matches the 41% of the Latino vote that Bush earned during his reelection.  

                      Social issues do matter to enough Latino Catholics that violently attacking someone who supports the stance of their Archbishop may be a bad idea.

                    7. we can talk about the SEIU and Ken Gladney if you want.

                      Remember him, the wheelchair bound black man that was beaten down by the SEIU at a Tea Party rally?

                      You really don’t want to go down this road Ralphie…

                    9. The Catholics poll the same as Americans and their disagreement with Obama and Bennet’s teachings.

                    11. Catholics vote Democratic more often than not.They are not single issue voters.

                      Actually, I find H-Man’s post on this demonstrates cultural ignorance and simply seeks to divide and conquer Democrats where no divide truly exists.

                      Let’s remember the Kennedys.

                    14. I posted Bennet’s stance and linked it to his campaign website from which I pulled it.  

          2. Bennet has been decrying that Buck is anti-abortion even in the case of rape and incest.  Those are positions that Buck’s religious views inform him of.  Bennet has no religion and is not a member of a church or other religious institution.  His views that abortions are ok is reasonably described by me as pro-abortion.  But then again I also call the recently passed healthcare bill as Obamacare, which is a term others are not very fond of either.  

              2. Keeping the discussion at an adult level, eh Droll?

                Bennet has said on no uncertain terms that he doesn’t belong to a particular religion or go to church but believes in God. His mom was Jewish and his dad was Christian, but he neither practices nor considers himself a member of any faith.

                H-man brings this up to raise suspicions about Bennet — somehow believing there’s a religious test for public office in America and missing that that’s forbidden by the Constitution — but your response doesn’t clear the bar either.

                    1. Article Vi, paragraph 3.

                      no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States

                      Anyone who doesn’t like that can either try to amend the Constitution or go pound sand.

              3. Are you all of 13 years old. I have never seen such juvenile behavior. Your ability to debate is limited to name calling. If you had any intelligence you would realize Bennet is not Jewish, one of his parents is. He chooses not be be involved in religion, his words.  I don’t know why I bother to address you. I should just say somthing like, go to your room, or your grounded.  I am sure you hear demands like that daily at your age. Go hang out in some kids chat room and leave serious matters to mature adults.

                1. Tensions may be running a bit high right now, don’t you think?

                  I’ve seen way, way, WAY more juvenile behavior from many other polsters here, including some who have commented on this diary. Let’s not get carried away.

                  I don’t expect anyone to shake hands and sing kumbaya, but let’s not give in to hyperbole and exaggeration either please.

              4. You can consider him Jewish if you like.  I was interested in and referred to his belief system, not his ethnic heritage or the practiced religion of one set of his ancestors.  

        2. Personally, I put on my seatbelt every time I get in my car, no matter how short the distance I intend to drive.  I wear a big huge helmet when I ride my scooter to the train station because I want to reduce my chances of ending up in a persistent vegetative state if some bonehead runs me off the road.  Does that mean I think the government should be making that decision for me?  No.

    2. I know a few Hispanics in Larimer County who are working hard to get Buck and other Republicans elected. In fact they are some of the most active people in the party.  

      1. Zero sum means nothing can be added. You either win or lose votes. So your title meant the opposite of what you meant to say. You meant to say bennet lost independent votes by picking up dem votes.

        The case I would make is that Bennet expands the pie by energizing more voters who wouldn’t otherwise participate. No one is going to decide to vote against Bennet suddenly on the basis of this.  

  4. that H-Man was shill-scum can be found in this paragraph:

    Early on Bennet decided to go after the women’s pro-abortion vote at the expense of the traditional base Dems have enjoyed with Catholics.  Politically that was a good move as the net likely was to pick off more Republican and Independent women than he loses in church going folk.  I would expect at a good many religious services this morning voters will be reminded of that today, but I would also expect Bennet does not care as he does not belong to any church or other religious institution.

    Besides the “pro-abortion” language debunked by so many above, he sets up the typical Retardlicon straw man.  Catholics can’t vote pro-choice.  They can’t use birth control either, but 80% do.

    Having slain that scarecrow, H-boy regales us about “a good many religious services” as if Unitarians were going to be hearing about the danger to their immortal soul of a Bennet vote.  The Archbishop should stay out of politics.

    Finally we’re treated to the steaming mound of condescension H-putz peddles by claiming Bennet can’t care about religious people’s views, since he is not religious himself.  This coming from the shill who once claimed that opposing Ken Buck’s desire to see the nations laws reflect his own religious views was actually anti-religious bigotry.  It also implies that Bennet is an idiot as a politician, since he would only care about the views of people who share his views of the supernatural, and not garnering the votes of believers.

    You’re fucking scum, dude

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

54 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!