U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) David Seligman
50%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%↓
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Milat Kiros
90%
10%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
70%
30%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 08, 2009 09:08 AM UTC
40 Comments
Consider the implications of a system in which only those who raise the most money are viable:
It tends to indicate that only the wealthy, or those supported by the wealthy or well off, are able to be competitive. Sure, we can theorize about much larger numbers of donors each contributing a much smaller amount. But how often does that alone make a candidate viable in real world politics?
At all levels of politics.
Only those candidates who are viable are able to raise significant money.
Donors don’t give money to people just because they figured out how to fill out paperwork to become a candidate for office, nor should they. Donors give money to candidates they think can win, first and foremost. Nobody is going to give Cleve Tidwell two rusty nickels for his U.S. Senate account because HE CAN’T WIN.
Does money play too important a role in politics? Of course it does. But you can’t decry the injustice of strong candidates raising a lot of money while weak candidates don’t.
But the end game is whoever raises the most money almost always wins.
I wish we’d cap races. It’s such an unGodly waste of money.
Are certainly worthy of discussion, and we don’t disagree that there is too much money spent on campaigns (but not enough on advertising at Colorado Pols, of course). But even if we had a cap, there would still be some candidates who could raise the money and others who couldn’t.
We just get tired of complaints that if a certain candidate can raise money they must be tied to money interests, and that they shut out the “little guy.” But if the “little guy” was worth a shit as a candidate and had real community support, “he” would be able to raise money, too.
I think we should get rid of the money interests by disbanding all unions.
🙂
if we also abolish the C-corp and the S-corp and return America to a nation of small proprietors. That’ll even the field a bit.
…just saying
Just the unions.
I curry special favor. Not really, I merely organized that way since the option was available and counsel and accountants suggested such.
Personally, corporations are a fiction, they shouldn’t have the rights of ‘personhood’ and the ‘corporate veil’ should be pierced. Right now corporations have the rights of ‘individuals’ and none of the accountability.
Of course my shareholders are me and my girlfriend, also the board of directors and I am the staff (with some occasional support).
directly, then most certainly unions also should get that right.
I support public funding, and believe that corporate money should be kept out of politics. Scalia’s mom and pop barbershop arguments are so disingenuous I wonder how that man can look himself in the mirror.
He can look, but I’m not sure he can see a reflection.
We are in sad shape if we think that Norton and for that matter Bennet are raising money because they are popular or will represent the people. It means one thing Norton and Bennet are bought and paid for by special interests.
Remember Obama was also a long shot but the people got him elected.
the whole system is bought and paid for by special interests.
If Romanoff wants that seat, and this far that’s the only reason I hear that he is running, then he needs to raise some cash. Both governorship and senate are going to be way costly when all is said and done.
(Me, I support public financing for candidates that demonstrate enough small donor, individual support).
That’s nothing but a truism, and it does not mean what you suggest, unless you are suggesting President Obama is not popular or that he does not represent the people.
Obama raised more money than any other candidate for any office–ever. He raised $745 million, which had a great deal to do with his primary and general election victories.
because he raised more money for his presidential campaign than any candidate in history.
I guess when Bennet raises money it’s because he’s bought and paid for by special interests. When Romanoff raises money, it’s because he is a blessed and righteous man who in his spare time walks on water when he isn’t serving the public as the “people’s choice.”
Spew. Rinse. Repeat. Keep saying it long enough and some poor dumb fuck might just think you know what you are talking about, Sharon.
Got it. Thanks Sharon.
solely on the support of small GR donations…
Nor, if elected Sen., would he decline the ‘special interest’ money that is a disease in the nation’s capital and the statehouse. Sadly, it’s how the game is played. AR would (and will during the general should he make it that far) have his hand out to the corporate donors too. To pretend otherwise is just pollyannish.
Speaker Romanoff today can bear that title because some very wealthy people went to bat for Democratic candidates and against the John Andrews religious right and got us a new Democratic majority in the legislature.
Ditto for Marilyn Musgrave, who now has a an “ex” in front of her title, because very wealthy people invested in her defeat.
Money is how messages are delivered, staff is hired, events are built, etc. If Andrew Romanoff didn’t understand that truism, his campaign wouldn’t have been touting his (underwhelming) numbers yesterday. So your sanctimony today just doesn’t impress.
Welcome to the big leagues, Sharon.
we grading them on a sliding scale, even though they’re running for the same office? Won’t the voters do the same?
Who remembers them? Wasn’t the Democratic majority created by St. Andrew raising his staff over the Red Sea?
…Darth Romanoff overseeing the CODA Death Star…..
St Andrew? Parting the Red Sea?
This is probably the bare minimum that Jane could have raised and still be seen as a formidable opponent, anything less then $500k and the NRSC would probably be scratching their heads wondering if they backed the right horse. This was the low hanging fruit that Jane picked off. Next quarter will be abit more telling IMO. Oh and for the inevitable GOPer who says that it was only 16 days blah blah blah, if you really think that Jane started to line up donations the day of her announcement I have some nice beach front property Im looking to sell.
Besides that, Ms. Norton has a fundraising committee that looks like the whose who of Colorado Republican politics, so she won’t have any excuses if she doesn’t raise over $1 million next quarter.
I’m confused (really, correct me if I’m wrong).
Isn’t the maximum contribution for Romanoff around $500 and for Norton it’s like $2,400?
I’m not saying $200K is great but I feel like it’s a little unfair to compare the two.
So, the total they are allowed to raise is also the same.
HA! Wow, I really was confused! Not really sure what I was thinking. Second trip to the coffee guy is needed.
It’s snowing and if I don’t get some serious caffeine in me soon, I’m going to be napping by 10:00 a.m.
I thought you were just being extremely ironic. You probably could have played that one off!
Where did the post come up with these numbers? Didn’t Norton announce the day before Romanoff?
committee before he actually announced which allowed him to raise money before he was officially a candidate.
Or the lack thereof….
I think Jane Norton has just illustrated an example of a candidate that had it’s pre-announcement ducks in a row, and doesn’t need it’s fellow travelers to deliver pearls of wisdom like, “Well, now Andrew will really be able to hit the phones.”
Romo was a candidate on Sept. 1, shortly after the initial leak happened. He had literally the entire month to get money lined up. Instead, 75% of his $200,000 was online giving, most tied to the endorsement email blasts. Only $50,000 came in the PO Box.
I know small donor online giving is all the rage, based on the perceptions surrounding Obama’s 2008 operation, but a 3:1 online take indicates to me that during September, not a lot of work went into getting donors lined up for the big day.
Which were either made of lead or he forgot the helium.