Romanoff May NOT Announce Tomorrow?!

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper on the Caplis and Silverman show today–riddle us this? We wouldn’t give this zero-corroboration rumor a moment’s consideration otherwise, but coming from the Mayor himself…

Can’t see the audio player? Click here.

Hickenlooper is a founding member of Camp Bennet, naturally, so consider the source–but like Craig Silverman says here (paraphrased), “if Romanoff delays, he’s done.”

WEDNESDAY UPDATE: Nothing has been shown to us to corroborate Mayor Hickenlooper’s assertion that Romanoff was reconsidering, we expect it will be proven false later this morning when Romanoff indeed kicks off–which means this little side-story is interesting for other reasons.

H/T: Colorado Drudge


63 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. TaxCheatGeithner says:

    Sounds like the czar-ship might be coming through after all?  

    Si se puede!

  2. longtimedem says:

    Give me a break….  What’s he going to do?  Just blow off all the events that they’ve already planned, done crowd building for, etc.  Ridiculous.  

  3. twas brillig says:

    But if true, I think the piss poor showing from his first email blast might have had something to do with it. I know some activists think there’s a certain nobility to unfunded campaigns, but you can’t phonebank in the dark…with cans on strings.

    Looks like the vaunted 70,000 email list didn’t exactly produce:

    Meanwhile, Michael Bennet’s broken $1 million in online donations. Reality bites.  

  4. roguestaffer says:

    Silverman is right: if Romanoff delays even a day, he’s done. The only way delaying makes sense is death or family illness.

    At this point, he’s basically committed himself to a campaign. If he doesn’t launch tomorrow, the only way – aside from the aforementioned causes – he doesn’t look ridiculous is if it’s because he’s not running and is endorsing Bennet instead – something that, while highly unlikely, nevertheless would be in keeping with the epic weirdness of this summer.

    Otherwise, he risks looking like a laughing stock. Seriously, what sense does delaying make?

    I said this above, I’ll say it again: anyone who’s telling him that delaying even a day is a good idea is committing political malpractice. It’s game on – the time for hesitation is done, unless he’s seriously considering not getting in.

    Put it this way – people I know are putting their necks out for him, or are considering it. If he’s not fully committed, then why should they take a bullet for him?

    In short: any doubt he’s got, any lack of commitment has to be squelched tonight. Wasn’t that the point of waiting this long? If it isn’t, waiting a week won’t make it happen, and he should just not get in at all.

  5. roguestaffer says:

    Silverman’s voice is most definitely not meant for radio. I know that he’s the “token lib” on a conservative show, but…ye gods. My dog was howling at him as I played the clip.

  6. Froward69 says:



    >     DENVER, CO – Former Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff will launch his bid to represent Colorado in the United States Senate on Wednesday, September 16, 2009. The formal announcement will take place in Pueblo, Colorado. The d ay will continue with two additional stops in Colorado Springs and Denver.




    >     PUEBLO, CO

    >     WHEN: 10:00 AM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009






    >     WHEN: 1:00 PM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009





    >     DENVER, CO

    >     WHEN: 5:00 PM WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009

    • roguestaffer says:

      I have that advisory as well. It went out on Sunday evening, I think. You’ve shown that you can cut & paste, though, so that’s worth something :-).

      On a serious note, this kind of story isn’t what you want to see two days before you launch a campaign, however minor it is. It’s the kind of story that you can easily squash with a phone call to Caplis & Silverman.

      Again, this makes me really question who’s advising Romanoff, if anyone. I know Joelle Martinez is a pro – so why hasn’t she, or anyone else, taken the 30 seconds to squash it? Hell, I’ll give them the language for free:

      “Dan, I know that this is the silly season, and everyone likes to play political consultant. I can tell you that Andrew’s looking forward to talking with people across the state about the things that matter on Wednesday, when he announces his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

      “Moreover, the fact that everyone’s so eager to hear from Andrew just goes to show us that he’s the best choice to represent us as Senator. He did a phenomenal job as Speaker for all Coloradans, and he’ll do so again when he’s elected to the U.S. Senate.”

      See – was that so hard? 🙂 So what’s keeping them?

      • RockyMtnModerate says:

        Yours sounds like a good response to me. Now tell me why Romanoff didn’t have somebody do just that? Oh right, no need – he’s the peoples’ choice. Seriously though, it just looks like a not ready for prime time candidate & campaign. Regardless of his popularity, grassroots support or political skills, nothing to date will instill confidence in the bigger donors & players that he needs to convince he’s a contender.

      • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

        Thanks for posting – looking forward to more insights.

  7. RockyMtnModerate says:

    There is absolutely 0% chance that Romanoff is not announcing tomorrow but I think this does continue to raise questions about the race.

    I’ve spoken with people involved with tomorrow’s event in Pueblo and Denver and they are definitely on.

    My question is whether this was a casual slip by Bennet’s former boss or part of a more deviant plan to undermine the credibility of Romanoff’s entry.

    I do think that the way Romaonoff is getting into this is leaving the door wide open to real questions about whether he’s ready to go head to head with Bennet. Not so much as a politician, but as a candidate. This may be the Bennet allies being underhanded but if Romanoff were jumping in with what at least looked like something more serious than a bunch of volunteers, party activists & rumored campaign people who were relevant 10-20yrs ago and he could let it be known ahead of time that he had big money lined up everybody would know he was serious and he wouldn’t be leaving himself open to this kind of nonsense. I raised questions before (and was ridiculed by some of Romanoff’s choir) about some of the amateurish maneuvers being made by a supposed sophisticated pol ready to run for Senate. The whole way he’s getting into this just seems more like a city council race or a first time candidate. Leaked to the press, events announced only 3 days in advance, no campaign website and what appears to be a volunteer run campaign. If this is what we can expect from the Sue Casey or Martinez clan with Be The Change as the field crew, this could be a long and entertaining race.

    Since January I’ve said I thought Romanoff had every right to get into this campaign and I still do but I’m really starting to wonder if he’s serious about this or thinks his Speaker of the House popularity is enough to get him across the finish line.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      Is his campaign experience is actually not that great. Was his first primary for a House seat contested? That is at most his one experience of running for a contested seat.

      He’s supported a boatload of candidates but that is a very different thing. And he ran A-59 but it did not do well. Granted it was a lousy environment for all initiatives but still, it was not a killer campaign.

      Everyone looks at his other political skills, which are considerable, and then assume his campaigning is as awesome. But he may be a mediocre campaigner.

      • RockyMtnModerate says:

        I don’t think he had any or at least no serious competition for his seat so no he’s never had to be a serious or tough campaigner for himself. He has been out in front a lot going back to the Dem takeover of the house & Ref C though that’s not as personal as his own races. In his defense and possibly giving him insight into what to expect from the Bennet camp, the same guys at RBI who are running Bennet’s campaign were the ones who ran 59.

    • pueblogrouch says:

      He will announce tomorrow. Most of the active Dems in Pueblo got robocalls today about the event. There have been meetings at Dem Headquarters last night and this afternoon. The bunting has been rounded up. Now, let’s see what happens.

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        Well, at least there’s that.

        Seriously, I’m surprised Hickenlooper got away with throwing this little pebble in the gears so easily. Who knew he had it in ‘im?

        Of course it’s hogwash, and of course any “rumor” passed on by Bennet’s past sponsor ought to be taken with an enormous grain of salt, not discussed by Witless and Gullibleman as a real possibility.

    • Republican 36 says:

      One thing we don’t know yet is how good a candidate Mr. Romanoff will be because, in the first instance, he has never run in a contested race before and second, running for the U.S. Senate isn’t anything like running for the state house. All candidates who decide to run for higher office almost always have difficulty at the beginning grasping the enormity, complexity and sheer effort it takes to run an effective major campaign. Will he make the adjustments to run an effective statewide campaign? Probably. Time will tell.  

      • paulrosenthal says:

        Romanoff has run Ref C and other statewide campaigns.  Actually running as a candidate is easier than running an issue.

        • redstateblues says:

          It had broad bipartisan support, and the public face of the referenda push was Mayor Hickenlooper. Without the support of Hick, Owens, and other prominent politicians, it might not have been such an easy battle.

          Look at A-59 if you want to see how well Romanoff has done on issue-based campaigns where he was the main public figure.

          As far as it being easier to run as a candidate, rather than run an initiative campaign, I think it depends on the issue and the race. In the case of A-59, I think Romanoff had it a lot easier than he’ll have it in the Senate primary and the general election. An amendment is just one issue–it might have facets (as was the case with A-59’s savings account for education that changed TABOR language slightly) that affect other issues as well, but the core of it is a paragraph or so of constitutional language.

          With a candidate running a race for an office like US Senate, they have to be on top of every single issue facing their potential constituents. They have far less room for error, and since its their face and name on all the campaign paraphernalia, it’s their reputation at stake. The risks are higher, and there’s a lot more work involved.

          I think Romanoff has the potential to run a good race, but ignoring his relative lack of experience with running a statewide campaign–and the times he’s failed in that endeavor–would be a big mistake.

            • RockyMtnModerate says:

              I think rsb is spot on about Ref C and in many ways about 59 particularly with Romanoff’s public profile and the overall political landscape last year. That was really Romanoff’s first somewhat solo statewide effort. What may be just as worth considering though is that the same firm that handled 59 are the people who are running Bennet’s campaign. One of the guys also led HRC’s Colorado game but I won’t put that loss on any strategy specifically in Colorado. Did 59 fail because Romanoff didn’t grasp a statewide effort or because the people crafting and delivering the message couldn’t get it through to voters? Were they not able to translate Romanoff’s message into one that hit with voters or did he not effectively deliver himself? Probably some of both but they also probably learned a lot about how the other is in a campaign which could make this match up even more fun to watch.

              • redstateblues says:

                I definitely supported it, and I know a lot of other people who did too. Unfortunately, it was  bad year for ballot initiatives, and the fact that it was right after Ritter’s poorly written, poorly campaigned A-58 didn’t help matter much.

                I don’t think the blame necessarily lies with Andrew, but a loss is a loss. He was in charge, and it didn’t pass. It wasn’t even close.

                • RockyMtnModerate says:

                  I would add that it was late getting going and never seemed to have a clear message that voters could grasp in 30 seconds or less and with Romanoff the guy behind it that does reflect on him.

    • Jambalaya says:

      …whether Romanoff and Ritter and the Devil and Mrs. Jones and Machiavelli struck a sinister deal by which Romanoff would achieve his lifelong goal of becoming Lt. Bucket-o-Warm-Spit in exchange for doing nothing?  What are the facts?!

  8. PolitianWatch says:

    I’m planning on attending Romanoff’s Denver announcement. How can these industry shills (Ritter, Udall and Hickenlooper) be so blatant and we so gullible.

    Please join me in celebrating Romanoff’s entry into the Senate race.  

    • redstateblues says:

      That’s rich. What’s Romanoff, the indie film to Ritter and Hickenlooper’s Michael Bay blockbuster?

      You can paint Romanoff as an outsider all you want, but if you actually look at his record you’ll see he’s just as much of an “industry shill” as the rest. You are putting all your progressive hopes in the basket of a man whose middle name was “bipartisanship” when he was Speaker of the House.

      • PolitianWatch says:

        Hasn’t Ritter been the worst offender?

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            Ritter pisses me off at times too. But the bottom line is he’s doing a really good job under horrible financial constraints. And he makes it look easy. I don’t want anyone else in that office until the economy gets moving again.

            • redstateblues says:

              but that’s neither here nor there. A lot of people who are encouraging the Senate primary are using the fact that they are pissed at Ritter for their basis of supporting that primary. I’m merely pointing out that if the problem lies with Bill Ritter (which it does IMO) then they should go after Bill Ritter.

              All this frustration with Bennet, when the person they’re actually frustrated with is Ritter, is a bit like killing the messenger.

          • One Queer Dude says:

               Lack of a candidate, I suppose. The most viable challenger — Hick — is in bed with Ritter (metaphorically) and is part of the Unholy Trinity of the Colo. Dem Party.

              What’s Joan Fitz-Gerald doing these days?  She has no great love for Ritter, coule raise the money, and would instantly mobilize labor, the pro-choice community and the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” if she took on Ritter.

              She and Andrew could run as a ticket.  They’ve worked together well enough in the past.

  9. ArdentAdmirer2 says:

    Hizzoner was not a happy camper when he was passed over for the Senate.

    The normal Hick style would have been to leak this tidbit not announce it publicly.

  10. One Queer Dude says:

    …and less time spreading obviously-false rumors about Bennet’s opponent which does nothing to enhance Hizzoner’s own credibility.

  11. johnpauljones says:

    My vote for Romanoff is still secure

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.