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%
October 06, 2009 06:34 PM UTC
29 Comments
Loading ...
You’ll see Marcos commenting on a race and about half way through his commentary, it becomes obvious he has no clue about the inner workings of that particular race. More often than not, these guys are working off of one or two local people’s biased impressions or anecdotal evidence and have no clue abut the machinations occurring at the state level.
I’d say the “Narrow Advantage” category is about right for both races although in Ritter’s case, there is a real possibility it could move into “Tossup.” Then again, if his opponents fundraising numbers are weak, he’s in better shape than Rothenberg is indicating.
In Patterson’s case, a primary challenger from another Dem would virtually be the nail in his coffin. Most of the time it’s considered a bad idea to primary an incumbent (see Romanoff’s own admission that this is why he is not challenging Ritter) but in the case of NY, I think this is a real opportunity for a Democrat to make their move because Patterson is so weak.
As for Deeds in VA, his campaign seems to be floundering and hasn’t really picked up steam or interest from the grassroots folks that usually do the heavy lifting. It may have something to do with sour grapes from Brian Moran supporters who are still bitter over his losing the primary (which ought to be a wake up call to folks here in Colorado that are engaging in half baked bullshit with our Senatorial primary.) That primary got really nasty with serious shit being flung back and forth between Moran and McAuliffe supporters. Deeds kept it pretty clean but it seems there is some fallout and residual bitterness from the primary.
Particularly Virginia, which makes it easier for them to assess these races.
they would at least interview locals to get a better sense of the races. They can’t possibly have a good grip on what’s happening on the ground here in Colorado from D.C.
Good point.
Accurate information isn’t as hard to come by.
when he said “All politics is local”
seen any head-to-head Bennet/Romanoff polling yet?
but then we don’t count
a Tarrance Group Poll. This one came out on the 21st and has Bennet leading Romanoff 41% to 27% with 31% undecided.
http://www.coloradopolicyinsti…
Obviously there’s good reason to be skeptical about Tarrance Group, so take it for what it’s worth.
apologies
I probably should have said “…besides the Tarrance Group’s poll.”
you take what you can get though, you know?
Normally Pols Bloggers have lots of information on who has raised how much?
Ritter’s fundraising is adequate. Not great, not terrible but adequate. I will go out on a limb and predict that McInnis and Penry combined will only raise slightly more than what Ritter has raised this past quarter. Neither has gotten anyone excited.
Bennet has effective message machine in DC media circles through his brother Jim Bennet editor of the Atlantic. DC media getting the spin that Bennet and Romanoff have similar views on all the issues and the primary is just a grudge match between Ritter and Romanoff.
Romanoff needs to fight this or his candidacy will never get traction in DC.
“the spin” is accurate.
Most primaries are between candidates with similar views on the issues and get down to candidate values. Clear difference between Romanoff and Bennet is that Romanoff is bottom up Dem and Bennet a top down Dem.
Think 2008 Obama/Clinton and not a primary but Salazar/Coors general.
Though in legislative experience vs. outsider area it makes it different than Obama/Clinton. Romanoff has lots of campaign experience and a legislative record that will both help and hurt him while Bennett is a blank slate without campaign experience. Both Obama and Clinton were experienced in running a campaign, but Clinton clearly had the edge having been closely involved in prior presidential bids. And she also came with a reputation that helped and hurt her. Obama did a good job of writing onto his blank slate what people wanted in a candidate and he turned out to have better campaigning skills.
This is a bit of a grudge match, but it is also about who can better do two very different jobs. As far as being a legislator, that’s probably Romanoff. In running campaigns it remains to be seen. Bennett could surprise me, but I think Romanoff will do better. The question is if it will be good enough to overcome the natural reluctance of party voters to change out even an appointed Senator.
Because that’s not much.
As far as policy goes, Romanoff hasn’t had very much to say on that front. He got up in front of an HD-4 meeting recently and didn’t give any specifics about policy–basically repeating the same speech he gave on Your Show with Adam Schrager.
Romanoff has to differentiate himself on at least a couple fundamental issues. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Ted Kennedy challenged the sitting President in 1980, but failed to articulate a reason why he deserved to be president instead of Carter, other than “my name is Kennedy and therefore I have some intrinsic claim on the presidency”.
Romanoff was the first choice of most rank and file Dems (including me), but if its perceived he’s running because somebody made a mistake and didn’t pick him in the first place, the party is over before it starts.
…Ritter can still win this. His approval ratings are still in the upper 40% range (almost the same as his disapproval rating), but this is pretty good compared to other governors in CA, NY, and NJ (wh have approval rating comparable to G.W. Bush during the final days of his reign).
On top of that, his opponent will be either a young, inexperienced (“if you’re being wheeled into the O.R., do you want the guy just out of medical school to operate?”) extremist, or a seasoned lawyer-lobbyist with a mercurial temper.
All things are relative.
As I recall, Colorado usually does give it’s governors two terms, absent something really egregious. Not that I have researched it – just from memory. My impression is people maybe stick with executives more than with legislators.
the best thing going for Ritter.
In the last quarter which of these challengers raised the most money?
Josh Penry
Scott McInnis
Andrew Romanoff
Ken Buck
Ryan Frazier
Jane Norton
Cory Gardner
My guess Cory Gardner. I also think that Michael Bennet raised more than all seven of the above candidates combined. As for Ritter he had a good quarter. He raised maybe 1/6 of what Bennet raised.
I don’t see this really as news.
I know who I’m backing. I know that I’ll back the Democratic ticket no matter who heads it too.
If the economy is still in the crapper it’s going to be very bad for us Dems. But if unemployment is headed down and people are optimistic about the future, then it’s another Dem sweep.
I think D incumbents need a strategy based on a slow recovery (employment lags & so does tax revenues), but hope for a quicker one.
In Colorado they may be reason to hope for a quick recovery (nationally not so much).
If the recovery is apparent Ds win in a walk and we will look back with 20/20 hindsight and wonder why we were all freaking out. If the economy is in the dump, there’s not a lot we can do except defend the house and senate majorities, and accept some erosion.