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%
September 04, 2009 06:00 PM UTC
126 Comments
not to mention being pissed off at a raw deal.
But when it is the beginning, middle, and end of your case for primarying a sitting US Senator who’s doing a good job….
He hasn’t even announced yet. If he runs, let’s at least hear him out.
where at least surrogates could be out building one, while Andrew is busy calling around the state looking for endorsements. It’s what people are clearly wondering about.
Instead, we have “sources close to Romanoff” screwing the pooch by introducing a “sense of entitlement” narrative all by themselves.
I said last week a compelling argument for a primary challenge that turns the party upside down for 11 months and puts down ballot seats at risk has to demonstrate the following: (a) why Michael Bennet ought to be fired; (b) why Andrew Romanoff wants to and should be a replacement; and, (c) that a primary challenge of an incumbent can be successful while not jeopardizing Democratic control of the seat itself.
To date, there is no answer to (a); today’s Riley piece just screwed up (b); and now it’s not even clear Andrew or his supporters even care about (c).
but you missed throwing in the mantra that Romanoff is only doing this because he feels he deserves it or is entitled to the position.
Now get back on the complete set of talking points they shipped over to you.
Ritter to his team
“there is only one question – who can raise the most money from sources outside of my fundraising pool?”
“Bennet has a lot of outside of the state money, not from your democratic base, so your second term fundraising efforts would not be shared between you and the Senate Canididate’s re-election bid.”
Day of the announcement of Salazar’s pick…
ring ring
“hello?”
“Michael, there is going to be a selection process for the next week, but the Senate seat is yours.”
Romanoff, prior to the announcement asks
“Governor, I have served the state and would like to continue to do so. Is there a capacity for me to serve, perhaps Senate or Sec. of State?”
“You are dividing the party” (and my sources for fundraising) “so step off!”
The Lt. Guv. ploy, i believe was to stall Andrew’s decision to run until it was believed that Bennet’s fundraising would scare him off.
But the people of the Democratic party, around the state have not backed off of Andrew, and are telling him they want a primary. (as I have reported to y’all here.)
More like a bullshit artist still in diapers who can’t even keep from screwing up a paint-by-numbers set.
attacks eh TB?
Or are you not a laughably inept hack? Genuine question.
After a week of your purity trolling, attacks on longtime commenters, repeated fabrications, and the poignant silences when confronted with your deceptive tactics, you want to be taken seriously after you reply to me with whatever you’ve most recently pulled out of your ass?
make it difficult to have a decent conversation with you, frankly.
no wait, that’s a job where you can “deserve to be fired”
primaries are an democratic principle that gives the voters the opportunity to select their representatives.
No one is getting fired.
The problem with the story – whether it’s true or not – is that we don’t know who the “Democratic sources” are. They may be people already invested in one of the candidates, or invested in something we don’t know about. This is the kind of story that perfectly exhibits the problems with blind quotes and unnamed sources – the reader can’t tell the motive/vested interests of those who are pushing the story.
Would it be too obvious to say that team Bennet and team Ritter had “no comment”.
This story is a good example of why it’s a bad idea to start banging a drum for someone until you know the backstory; let alone executing an ideological repackaging. That way you haven’t really invested yourself in something that turns out to be just human, all too human.
It’s been common knowledge that some labor-sponsored polls were fielded in hopes of convincing Romanoff to primary the governor, but didn’t come back looking too promising. Voila, Romanoff primaries Bennet. The LTG backstory–provided by Romanoff’s folks, apparently–just fleshes out the backstory.
is that it’s out. Period.
True or not, it puts Romanoff on the defensive from the start because it puts a question mark in the back of the mind of many Colorado Democrats. I have no doubt that this is exactly WHY the Post ran the story, and that the sources you question are questionable as well. However, first move on the “savvy scale” favors Bennet’s people (and no, it doesn’t matter this was actually done by Bennet’s people or not, he still gets the point).
The ball is now in Romanoff’s court. Will he be able to defuse that question mark and change the news cycle with an effective slate of reasons for running, or some actual dirt on those “behind closed door meetings” with Ritter? If he does, he’ll look like the statesman many believe him to be. If he doesn’t, he’ll be left looking like the one left out.
In my 10 years in Colorado politics, I’ve found law and order Democrats very un (small d) — democratic.
Primaries, and initiatives, serve a purpose, and Colorado’s Dems need to remember this — if they want to stay in power.
Killing ballot initiatives what would help the working class, keeping wolves out of Colorado, dropping the ball on mass transit, and continuing the war on drugs — is the law and order agenda.
I’ve had people tell me about being economically threatened — for simply wanting to run in a primary. These are not exactly left wing Dems — just moderates who had other priorities.
Killing wolves, killing education, ignoring taxable revenue, creating global warming — that isn’t a pitch to the D base.
How does this serve the party?
and Climate Change is something that can’t be solved by someone who runs on being “tough on crime”
We need leaders who will listen to their constituents not take them for granted – as Ritter has done recently with some of his votes.
Romanoff may not be the end all-be all, but a primary will allow us to redress some other issues that are important to the democratic party.
I first heard it days, didn’t entirely trust the rumor but am now quite sure it’s true in all major points. A minor detail may be off but that’s all. The one thing it demonstrates is that Ritter is an entirely inept leader of his own party.
He failed to negotiate a way to avoid a veto on decisively passed Dem legislation (apparently didn’t even try), screwed popular state star Romanoff not once but twice, the second time by making promises he wasn’t absolutely sure he could keep, which in turn creates problems for his own boy, Bennet.
The alternative to Ritter, one of the weak Rs running for Guv, is not an option for Dem voters, and neither is it likely that Romanoff will beat Bennet in a primary. It becomes increasingly difficult to view Ritter without a healthy dose of resigned dismay. Leaving a Romanoff out in the cold, adding insult to injury, with nothing but headaches to show for it, it’s all just apalling.
If the Rage of Romanoff does wind up a disaster for Dems, the blame falls squarely on Ritter. In my fantasy, Ritter gets a DC appointment and we all get a do-over in 2010. Alas…
Couldn’t agree more. I have said I would be mad at Romanoff if his primary ends up turning two statewide offices Republican in 2010, but you’re right that the blame should be placed at Ritter’s feet. The causation of events all goes back to him.
Everyone knew this was going on back in April and May, but no one would go on the record about it, and O’Brien’s people were denying it because it made it look like Kenney wanted her dumped from the ticket.
According to the Denver Post article (and our very own Wade Norris also mentioned that Romanoff would have a difficult time unseating an incumbent):
Romanoff is being his usual pragmatic self–he’s looking for a primary where he has the best chance of winning.
According to the Denver Post article (and our very own Wade Norris also mentioned that Romanoff would have a difficult time unseating an incumbent):
Romanoff is being his usual pragmatic self–he’s looking for a primary where he has the best chance of winning.
The only thing I forgot to add is that I will support the eventual Democratic nominee whoever it is. I don’t fear a primary, if we’re going to have one let’s do it and reap the benefits of candidates feeling pressure to act progressively.
But let’s do it for the right reasons. This is not.
But a lot of it depends on what kind of race they run. If it’s a friendly campaign, and there is a free exchange of ideas, with Democratic values front and center all summer 2010–it’s all good.
But if they try to destroy one another with cheap campaign tricks, and smears, then I don’t know that I will be able to forgive Andrew. I will probably vote for him, but it will be with my nose plugged.
campaign such as
“Andrew Romanoff, the one you know and trust”
and be successful without having to take the low road.
And neither do you–I’ve asked you more than once where he stands on the public option and it’s crickets from you. Just as it has been crickets from him.
Why would I trust someone who has shown zero interest for the last 8 months in using his AWESOME name recognition to further the Democratic agenda for health care reform?
I know you love your latest nifty bumper sticker slogan that you have singlehandedly chosen for a him but the average voter, thankfully, is a little more interested in where he stands on the issues than you apparently are.
motr, I was merely saying to RSB that I do not see Romanoff running an attack based campaign.
As for the issue of the public option, people have emailed me in the past 48 hours to say that Romanoff supports not only the public option, but Single Payer and has said so in public at the various democratic dinners around the state.
(there is probably a reader here who can confirm this – r.s?)
but, besides this, if Romanoff does not have the wherewithal to come out strong on this issue or others important to the base, then they will have the choice of choosing Bennet.
Didn’t Floyd run the CDP? This situation is much worse then I thought.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Now you’re double-posting the same crap to the same thread.
Ciruli is right. This is jaw dropping political ineptitude on Ritter’s part. People love to hate pols but there is a reason we need sharp pols.
Please. No more a schemer than the backroom conversations that took place for Bennet to be appointed to the Senate. One does not run for a major office such as US Senate in “retaliation” against anyone. You run for office because you want to serve the public in that capacity, and you believe you are well qualified to do so. The DP article (which I believe to be true) explains the key question which is, why was there an apparent delay in Romanoff’s decision. The day we begin to believe that all open elective offices should be filled by appointment, and that no one should primary the appointed incumbent, is the day we give up one of the greatest strengths of our form of self-government.
the Guv, James Lyons, Charles Schumer, Thomas Rogers III, and David Kenney.
and the Guv is too smart to let the Farber-Browstein types in the room.
That leaves this set of people + his CoS Carpenter to manage the flow. If you’re pissed that Carpenter doesn’t keep you in the loop its something you should address with him directly.
This is Libertad you’re dealing with. But considering that Bennet wasn’t on anyone’s short list and that the Post story is pretty sure to prove true, it’s self evident that we aren’t exactly talking sunshine and openness here.
I read the story too this morning in the Post and came away with the same thought. If the story is true then Mr. Romanoff (who I supported for the Senate) looks like he is pursing the U.S. Senate race for all the wrong reasons.
We can argue all day long whether Senator Bennett should have taken a position on a given issue sooner rather than later, but after we add and subtract everything, he has done a credible job and he certainly has launched a successful election effort thus far. Mr. Romanoff has not articulated a reason why we should abandon Senator Bennett. If he doesn’t, and I don’t believe there is one at the moment, he will loose the primary contest.
I understand his disappointment but that isn’t a reason to run a primary. If he announces, I’m very interested in his reasons for running and especially why he thinks Senator Bennett should be replaced.
If I was in Mr. Romanoff’s position, I would forego the senate race and show some real statemanship by healing the wounds within the party and then run for high office in the future. Politics sometimes breaks our hearts but Mr. Romanoff has a great future ahead of him. I think he should look to that and forego anything that might diminish or harm his good and well deserved reputation.
Looks like Ritter and Company strung Romanoff along to delay his entry into either the Governor’s race or Senate race. You can expect as much from Kinney, but looks like Ritter and O’Brien played ball. Romanoff reformer credentials are tarnished as story indicates he was in “backroom” meetings with Ritter and Co. Ritter and Co look like they are running the “back room” whose primary beneficiary was Bennet. Kinney has been boasting that he was party to Bennet/Ritter negotiations. Whether this is Kinney puffery or reality is up to you to decide. Not good day for anyone associated with this mess. Anyone else who wants to run for Senate could easily claim the reform mantle from this gang.
My problem with the article is that it makes Romanoff look like a whining opportunist. People have been calling for Romanoff to challenge Bennet since the appointment, so this isn’t just something out of the blue..
I believe Ritter feared a primary fight of his own and wanted to secure his own nomination in 2010 by appointing Romanoff Senator. But, Ritter felt pressure from the White House to appoint Bennet (that’s right democrats, Rahm Emanuel and Obama wanted Bennet). So, Ritter set up the deal with Romanoff for Lieutenant Governor, thereby paving the way for Romanoff in the 2014 governor’s race. However, that deal obviously fell through when O’brien decided to stay.
Romanoff wants to be Senator not Governor anyways. In fact, as a democrat, I’m not sure Romanoff would make a good governor. He’s a legislator not an executive.
Ritter made a mistake by folding to the White House pressure and appointing a Senator who invokes absolutely zero passion from the base, something Romanoff does very well.
Lastly, you make the comment in your diary that Bennet hasn’t gotten a fair shake on the job he’s doing. I disagree. There is no excuse for appointing someone who wasn’t ready for the job. People say Bennet has to get his feet wet a little first and then he’ll be great. Well, we can’t afford to have an ineffective Senator at this critical point in time. I could name off 4 or 5 other qualified Democrats in Colorado who understand the legislative process and could’ve jumped right into the fight.
We need Romanoff. At the very least we need this primary. Bennet must learn how to run a campaign before it really counts next November.
You’re like a broken record and by the way, real lawyers don’t set traps in this manner.
Here’s my advice … apply for law school now while the Guvs recommendation still carries weight.
By the way, I’m not on the governor’s staff.
but i don’t know if anyone is actually “on the governor’s staff” — he contracts to kenney group, which has staff. Like I said, not saying you are with a firm, just a clarification of terms here.
Michael Bennet was a surprise finalist for Secretary of Education in the Obama administration, but was not chosen. This shows the White House has an affinity for the guy but was unwilling to take the political gamble. It is known that Rahm Emanuel was making calls to Governors who were charged with filling vacancies. Bennet came out of nowhere when picked for the Senate. Organizing For America (OFA, Obama’s 2012 campaign) immediately began a strong campaign to promote Bennet sending out many emails and trying to rally the Obama base behind him.
If Ritter was not pressured into appointing Bennet, then tell me why else he would make such a risky and politically stupid decision, knowing he’s up for re-election.
This is interesting and suggestive, but I don’t consider it evidence. For one thing, I am not surprised anymore when Ritter makes odd and inexplicable decisions. He does it all the time. His political instincts aren’t very good, either.
No, I do not have published sources that I can point to. There would never be such a thing because Colorado does not have any real journalists. I base my claim on my own “anonymous” sources and the fact that I have spoken to people who are “close to the situation”. If you want to discredit my claim as a result that’s fine. I don’t claim to be a journalist, but simply have a good grasp on the political environment within the democratic party in Colorado.
How he got in office is a miracle. Barney Fife would be running a tighter ship at this point.
Ritter is not a bad governor IMO. He doesn’t make horrible decisions – just a bit weird. Bennet turned out OK, for example, but it sure was puzzling.
Obama state director is also Bennet’s manager and spouse of Bennet’s COS. OFA activity not directed by White House just good agressive staff work by Bennet’s people. Same is true of Education post.
White House pressure myth part of Bennet spin. Makes Bennet look like Mr Inside designed to scare off potential opponents. Remember the little case of the senate appointment in Illinois? Everyone in White House on lock down when it came to Senate appointments post Illinois. Even Rahm can only withstand one FBI recording of him injecting himself into a Senate appointment process.
Now granted, I can’t get the quote marks to coincide, and the solution includes Ritter moving up and out, and it is now too late for the solution to work….however, that Babs was the moveable object was absolutely clear for anyone with eyes to hear.
Peace Corps now has a new and great director….so good in fact that there is already speculation that he might be moved into the head of AID….so there is a way off chance that this might still work.
and thought it made sense.
Hillary Clinton went on a rampage last week about how the US AID office is in shambles and needs a MAJOR overhaul.
(I imagine Bushco gutted the AID office in the manner they gutted FEMA)
so I could see why they would be promoting someone competent to the head of AID.
Who is this person who was with the Peace Corps btw?
i can’t figure out why this did not happen…
“Romanoff with a few months executive experience under his belt slips into the the governorship…
Dems avoid primary fights for senate and governor. “
Williams is a shockingly good choice for Peace Corps. He served in the Dominican Republic from 1967 to 70, speaks perfect Spanish and married a citizen from the DR. He is African-American from Chicago, was Peace Corps staff for a couple of years, has a Master’s in International Business, worked in the private sector and then went to work for AID, Agency for INternational DEvelopment and was a career officer with AID; worked all around the world.
Peace Corps is a funny agency. It is supposed to be independent, but what that has meant in reality is that it is a political patronage plum. There are 27 to 33 political appointments in this very small agency (2500 FTEs, not counting Volunteers)..by far the largest number of poltical appointees. In fifty years, Williams is only the third Director to actually have served as a Volunteer, first. I could go on. But, he certainly has the credentials to head up AID. I would hate to see PEace Corps lose him.
I think the Obama administration needs to take another look at the “elected” talent in Colorado with a view towards finding an “easy out” for O’Brien and/or Ritter.
Let me be clear. I want a Democratic Senator and a Democratic Governor. I would vote for both Bennet and Ritter over ANY Republican. However, I would prefer Romanoff for Senator. And, I don’t have a clue with what happened to Ritter. I voted for him. I thought he would be a good governnor. I think, on the whole, he has been….but he comes across as inept and expedient.
Peace Corps Director than politician. Too bad. Too late now. We’re stuck with a mess that’s going to be hard to clean up.
And I don’t believe for a second there was no team Obama influence on the choice of Bennet. There is a world of difference between what’s officially OK and unofficial persuasion. Full of themselves out of state big shots didn’t understand Colorado politics. Ritter should have.
And Romanoff would have been a perfect fit, the practical, skilled, lets make a good deal kind of young Dem Senator that would have been an asset. All of this could have been avoided, the administration would have had an ally in the Senate in Romanoff just as much as they do with Bennet.
Romanoff’s only sin was being an HRC supporter but heck, HRC is part of the administration now. Somebody was too clever by half and somebody has been acting like a half wit.
Senator Bennett.
and the only person pushing President-elect Obama or his staff to do anything in relation to the vacant senate race was former senator Ken Salazar who wanted them to intervene on behalf of his brother.
Ritter’s choice of Bennet was even more indicative of poor judgement, even considering all the money Bennet represented. Especially after the sham of soliciting in-put. Evidence of that? Where we are right now. If you are that much of a Ritter insider, that certainly explains your stalwart defense of everything Ritter.
all the knowledge of what happened. But even if you do, the bottom line is this, no matter who was involved and no matter what the pressure was or wasn’t, the appointment process was poorly handled. If you’re Governor, you don’t make a big (and I mean BIG) deal of soliciting input from citizens, then make a decision absolutely contrary to that input.
Gov. Ritter didn’t move men on the chessboard without the advice from paid strategists and campaign consultants. Today, it looks like a few of them should be fired.
“A few should be fired?” I’d ship the whole lot off to Crete with the rest of the Cretins. I mean, how hard is it to successfully advise a Democratic Governor with Obama winning by a huge landslide and most everyone sick of Republican supply-side economics? Everyone wanted “change,” and instead we got a Republican running as a Dem, burning bridges left and right and cutting deals in broad daylight. Ritter should be going strong, not operating with a competence deficit. Who’s his chief strategist, Shemp, Curly, or Moe?
I posted this in more detail before, but again I reiterate that the primary is positive for the base — dem activists felt slighted when Ritter totally ignored that open line email thing he set up to take comments on who to appoint. This provides a choice for the base to choose their candidate — something Ritter didn’t really offer.
Does Romanoff have self interest? well duh. No one runs for office without it — why else put yourself and your family through the trials that a campaign entails? That doesn’t make him a bad person…
I think the post is jumping the gun here a bit — Romanoff hasn’t announced yet. Rather than speculating on reasons, I want to hear him say why he’s running…just like any other candidate for office.
I agree with most of what you said, but if Romanoff doesn’t run after this, it’s a huge blunder.
I’m no insider, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Romanoff had looked at primarying Bennett many months ago, but to avoid a party rift, Ritter spoke with Romanoff about the Lt. position. I don’t think there were ill intentions on either side; I just honestly believe that Romanoff isn’t throwing his hat in the ring to get back at Ritter and Bennett. Things didn’t work out, and for someone who has expressed his disinterest in running for Governor, this year is Romanoff’s best, and maybe only, year to run for higher office. He’s not going to run against Degette, or Udall or Bennett in the future. Unless one of them loses their seat or are appointed to a different office, they’re not going anywhere any time soon. This may be his only shot.
You may have some points, but even if some of what you’re saying about Romanoff just having a clear shot and a fairly weak opponent in Bennet is true, you have to admit that Ritter does not come out of this looking like a competent dealer.
I’d just like to believe that Romanoff’s choice hasn’t been driven by dangerously selfish grudges. I agree with the assessment of the majority of the posters on Pols: Ritter is no leader.
So we have a Governor who doesn’t know how to cut a deck or at the very least is incapable of long-term strategizing and is out for all he can grab now. He’s not stupid, just staggeringly self-serving.
As for Bennet V. Romanoff, I mean who really cares? Bennet was anointed by Ritter with virtually no relevant experience and acted like a Republican out of the gate. Now that Romanoff might have a jones for his job, Bennet’s suddenly found religion. Please. Romanoff is no saint, but I think any Dem who hasn’t had a frontal lobotomy knows that Romanoff is a better deal than back and forth Bennet who still won’t be clear about where he stands on all the issues.
Dems need to stop settling for whatever they can get, stop letting these Republi-Dems walk all over the party, and following Bennet around like a puppy just because he finally agreed a few weeks ago to be “for” the public option, as long as it doesn’t cost anyone anything.
Let’s purify the party, cuz the problem is we’re not left enough!
Ritter made some political decisions – gee what a shocker. Generally people here are mad when Ritter does not take politics into consideration. Yes, of course there were discussions and he had to weigh out various possibilities.
I agree Andrew Romanoff did a good job as speaker and that one political consideration Ritter should have weighed (and clearly did) was trying to find a good spot for Romanoff. And yes, Romanoff should have been in there lobbying for a good position.
But here’s the key point. The purpose of our state Democratic party is not to appoint Andrew Romanoff to a really cool job. Bill Ritter’s number 1 goal is not to appoint Andrew Romanoff. Romanoff is one (of many) very qualified Dems we have in this state.
In addition keep in mind that Romanoff has had what, 1 competitive primary race in his career. And that was for a state house seat. Appointing him to a state-wide seat (SoS, Senator, Lt.Gov.) actually makes less sense than appointing Perlmutter.
Bill Ritter owed Romanoff giving him due consideration – but nothing more.
On the flip side, I can see why Romanoff is pissed. He would feel jerked around and the natural reaction to that is to strike back. It also makes me think better of him because he comes across as more human (perfection is not interesting).
So anyways, if Andrew Romanoff wants to primary Bennet because he’s honked off – hey anyone can primary for any reason and I support their right to enter the race.
And for those of you upset about how things played out – politics is a contact sport. This is how it works.
Ritter agreed to the switch and then ducked Romanoff for a month after it became clear it wasn’t going to happen. That’s not the sign of a leader.
Lt. Gov. O’Brien changed her mind about dropping off the ticket and the Governor honored her wish to stay. There wasn’t any secret agenda at all. She simply changed her mind.
without saying why it wasn’t going to happen. She backed out and then Ritter ducked Romanoff rather than tell him the deal was off. If that was unclear in what I wrote, I apologize.
The point was more about Ritter being unwilling to face Romanoff and tell him the deal had collapsed, which I still say is not a sign of leadership.
But yeah, it’s worth underling — there was no secret plan to keep Romanoff out of the Senate race by stringing him along, as our articulate new poster contends above. That didn’t happen.
Rep 36, did the rarefied air of the ed board make you lose your reporter’s ability to spell a rat?
unless he knew for sure that her decision to leave was solid and final.
Dave, we’re just saying Ritter has shown very poor leadership skills and I don’t think you can show us we’re wrong about that. His blunders have all been highly avoidable and have done real damage. He’s not a bad guy. He’s even very smart and has great ideas in some policy areas. And I sure don’t want him replaced by any of the Rs. But most of his wounds, and you can’t deny there have been wounds, have been self inflicted and due to political ineptitude.
You don’t put yourself in the position of vetoing your own side’s legislation without even trying to negotiate. You don’t go out of your way to string along and humiliate one of, if not the, state’s most promising young Dem Pols. Not if you know what the hell you’re doing. Ciruli is right on this one.
This is the problem with election human beings, they all have weaknesses as well as strengths.
that’s why I support the personhood ammendment that will grant full rights to sentient robots.
We welcome our new overlords…
Romanoff is bent out of shape, but he lost out. The job of the party is to keep both the governor’s job and Senate seat in Democratic hands.
Any more of this scent of “I’m entitled” would put Romanoff in the same ambition corner as another young man in a hurry from the other party.
Applies precisely to what’s happening now, if Romanoff gets in the race — it’s how things play out.
I totally understand Romanoff running. I understand his sense of entitlement and expectations – very human. And I understand his wanting to beat the snot out of Bennet because he’s mad at Ritter.
I’m just saying the rest of us don’t have to agree.
that’s his right. I don’t agree with it but I support his right to primary for any reason.
I was beginning to think this would cross 120+ posts.
I’m guessing we top out at 90 posts.
I think this whole episode is just one more among many that shows just how politically inept Bill Ritter is.
The man has managed to piss off labor, the guy who (along with Alice Madden) might be most responsible for regaining the majority at the capitol in 2004, and look like he’s over-matched by budget problems all that the same time. He has also managed to create the impression that he can’t make tough decisions and chose as the replacement for Salazar a guy with no political base, no electoral experience and no real ties to the state.
The best thing that can happen for Democrats is if Obama gave Ritter a job in DC. Hell, make him the US Attorney for Colorado if that is what it takes. Right now I have a hard time seeing how Bill Ritter gets re-elected next year. He’s done well on the environmental issues, but not so well on the a lot of other things.
As for Romanoff, I can’t see how today’s story helps him. I understand his ambition, but it does present the guy as taking on Bennet out of spite and not principle.
I respect Romanoff, but, for better or worse, Bennet’s the Senator and it seems to me, after some thought, that Dems have the best chance of keeping the seat if Bennet gets a ride through the primary.
When I mentioned Ritter she said that he is the one Democrat she might vote for. As to the budget, compared to most states Ritter makes handling the downturn look easy.
I think Ritter’s skills are way under-rated.
People’s perceptions will change between now and election day. Considering the polls already show Ritter at around 40% approval, he’s already got his work cut out for him. There will be no shortage of fuel for Republican attack ads, and whoever ends up winning the GOP nod will be getting a ton of support from the RGA. Ritter will be scrambling for support from many of the constituencies he pissed off during his first term, and will most likely be rebuked unless he does a much, much better job in 2010.
Nobody is denying that Ritter has political skills–they’re basically a necessity to reach an office as high as governor of a state–but being a good leader is not one of those skills.
I agree that he hasn’t been terrible on the budget, and he’s been out in front on renewable energy and the new O&G regs, but to deny his shortcomings would be a mistake.
The bottom line is that he’s the weakest incumbent governor going in to a re-election bid that this state has seen in a long while–perhaps ever.
polls cited in this thread found that any potential Democratic challenger will loose badly to Governor Ritter. In my humble opinion (based on other polling data), the PPP poll was just plain wrong because of poor methodology. The PPP poll showing his approval rating in the low 40%’s can’t be correct when two other polls show him easily trouncing any other Democrat, including Mr. Romanoff.
What we have been debating all day today is “insider baseball” issues. These issues won’t be dispositive for Colorado voters next year.
He still has a 60% approval inside the Democratic party, so there are still enough people who want to see him Governor who would carry him through a primary election.
But the fact remains that he’s still facing a severe uphill battle in the general election. Maybe the insider baseball stuff is just that, but pissing off major constituencies is hardly insider stuff.
Maybe against some mythical R candidate. I think a lot of voters would like to see someone other than Ritter, but then they are going to see that their choices are Penry and McInnis (most likely Penry), and Ritter will grudgingly get their votes. Penry and McInnis have shown nothing but ineptness when it comes to handling the things they are in charge of.
Elections like this one are more based on the electorate’s general content or discontent with the incumbent. Ritter has to defend his record, and he has made a lot of mistakes–though admittedly he’s done a few things right.
Penry (or McInnis) on the other hand, can campaign on Ritter’s failings rather than his own record. And Josh Penry is not just some run of the mill politician. He has a higher political intelligence quotient than any Republican to come along in a long time. Not to say that I agree with him on policy, or that he’d make a good Governor because of that fact, but with the re-election campaign of an incumbent Governor being what it is, Penry has the advantage going in to 2010.
That said, there’s a lot of time between now and next November for anyone to screw up (in Penry’s case) or turn things around (in Ritter’s case). What they both do next session will be a lot more important than what they’ve done in recent weeks and months.
But IMO, this race was once Ritter’s to lose. That is no longer the case.
I disagree — I think it’s a mistake to overestimate McInnis and his laughably inept campaign. The Democrats supposedly would rather run against Penry because McInnis competes with Ritter for votes from the reasonable middle, but McInnis is far more likely to run a disaster of a Beauprez-style campaign and hand the governor an easy cruise to re-election.
The 2010 gubernatorial race here is not one of the top priority races for the Republican Governors Association.
they can read the writing on the wall. I have said it before: If the choice is Ritter, Penry, or McInnis, the choice is easy.
But how much of that is really the Governor and how much is everything else?
And by everything else I mean oil and gas prices are down, with all that goes with that. The economy is in recession. Unemployment is up. Higher ed funding is going to get hacked (again). Even the Broncos suck.
Sure, the governor has responsibility for some things. Why did David Skaggs resign from CDHE? Why hasn’t the governor been out making the rounds explaining the state of the budget and what will happen in a few months when the next two forecasts are even worse? How much is K-12 funding going to be cut this year? What’s he going to do when Amendment23 expires next year? What does he see our most important funding priorities?
But I think he gets low approval because people are generally down.
Does anyone know who Romanoff’s talking with in terms of hiring to be the nucleus of his campaign team? I would think this would be a fairly important choice due to the fact he’s so far behind Michael. Rumor has it he’s been talking to Greg Kolomitz and Steve Welchert. Have they joined forces to make up a tongue and cheek dream team, lol!!!
They both faced daunting odds and made it look easy.
You’re joking, right? One of them did, at least.
Anne Caprara ran a great campaign and dethroned an incumbent member of Congress for the first time in Colorado since the mid ’80s. But she’s got a job — she’s Betsy Markey’s chief of staff.
Becker, on the other hand, was more like a personal shopper for someone with money to burn. If he gets involved, we’re not going to have that vigorous debate on the issues you’ve been wanting.
And as we discussed ad-infinitum here, analysis shows throwing your own money in tends to not do much.
That’s not what it showed. It showed that massively wealthy candidates didn’t have much success unseating incumbents.
All three candidates raised about $1 million. That you continue to deny the $5.3 million thumb Polis put on the scale had an effect is truly astonishing, especially in a 4-point race.
Be that as it may, Becker knows how to shovel cash out the door and keep it nasty while proclaiming the high road. Trouble is, if there’s a Senate primary, that’s going to be Bennet’s M.O., not Romanoff’s.
Romanoff cannot afford to hire any unknowns or up-and-comers. If he doesn’t hire a top notch/well known name people will begin to wonder… Winning a Markey race during the Obama tidal wave does not give you the credentials to run a US Senate Race!
than someone with a “major name.” Kolomitz/Welchert might be great but Romanoff should consider them based on what they will accomplish.
how the Tide has turned from February
from shooting down the idea of a primary to speculating on who will run his team.
Soon enough it will be “who will he hire to take to Washington?”
and yes, “tide” is a very appropriate term, as it is turning…