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
December 14, 2009 10:48 PM UTC

"Where's Andrew?" Storyline Continues

  • 71 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Sorry to break it to you, anti-Romanoff conspiracy theorists, but we’re not the only ones wondering what the hell is going on with Andrew Romanoff’s Senate campaign. As Susan Greene writes in The Denver Post:

Andrew Romanoff promised a barn burner.

I’ve seen barn burning. This isn’t it.

The former state House speaker lacks ignition in his primary bid for the U.S. Senate. Three months into his candidacy, he’s is still without a voice, a campaign manager and a reason why Democrats should oust Michael Bennet from office.

“Where’s Andrew?” I’m asked at least once a week.

“Where’s Andrew?” I ask two of his advisers.

“In the bunker,” they say in campaign- speak that’s irksome not only to war veterans.

Romanoff’s bunker is an office suite on South Monaco Parkway where he’s hunkered down making fundraising calls and thinking about strategy.

“A lot of things we’ve been doing, it’s true, are sort of under the radar,” the candidate says.

Thing is, laying low doesn’t energize voters, especially in an insurgent campaign against a sitting senator.

And he has other problems.

Like money – that Romanoff has far less of it than Bennet.

And staffing woes. He has yet to hire a campaign manager after Sue Casey, a former Denver councilwoman, ended her stint in the job earlier this fall.

And a sorry lack of attendance at campaign rallies, often billed as “Coffees with Andrew Romanoff.” The candidate doesn’t even drink coffee, a beverage he says is “just an expression for me.” Ever the self-promoter, he says his low turnout encourages intimacy. “We packed the house in Trinidad last week,” he notes weakly.

“I think it’s safe to say most people haven’t tuned in yet,” adds the candidate who has given little reason to tune in.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that Romanoff really has some brilliant strategy for winning this race that involves being virtually invisible. Maybe this really is all part of the plan.

But even if that were true, and we don’t think it is, Romanoff is really handicapping his own campaign because of the storyline that has been created. As we’ve said time and time again, perception is everything in politics, and Romanoff has created the perception — true or not — that his campaign is a complete mess. That kind of perception snowballs over time, because the more potential donors and supporters hear that his campaign is rudderless, the harder it becomes for Romanoff to reach them.

What’s the message? That there is no message.

And that’s not a good message.

Tweet
Share

Comments

71 thoughts on ““Where’s Andrew?” Storyline Continues”

  1. the two areas that I found most telling in this article:

    Far be it from me to pile on, but I’d be remiss in ignoring Romanoff’s biggest problem – his failure to brand himself as an insider turned outsider, state House speaker turned anti-establishment underdog. He has yet to define himself in contrast to Bennet, a fellow Ivy Leaguer, transplant to Colorado and political moderate. Romanoff’s mantra that “There’s a hunger for a change in politics” doesn’t jibe with his record as co-chair of the state’s centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

    And a sorry lack of attendance at campaign rallies, often billed as “Coffees with Andrew Romanoff.”…Ever the self-promoter, he says his low turnout encourages intimacy. “We packed the house in Trinidad last week,” he notes weakly.

      1. and former Co-Chair of the state DLC. Please, please, someone, anyone, explain to me how this makes him a progressive.

        Part of Romanoff’s appeal for me has always been his centrist, pragmatic approach to politics. There’s nothing more off putting than to have his supporters try and reshape who he is.  

        1. I don’t blame them.  I wanted him to be appointed.  He did a lot to make Dems the majority.  He worked his butt off to get us a Dem Guv.  I also know some moderate Dem pols who support him, but that makes sense because he too is a moderate and he worked with them on their legislation and helped them a lot when they were running.  But as far as Romanoff being the champion of the Progressive grass roots, the only explanation that I can come up with is some kind of self-imposed mass hypnosis/hysteria.  


    2. “Andrew’s acting like a spoiled brat,” says Frances Koncilja, an influential party fundraiser. “He’s like the former president of the student council who can’t move beyond high school and feels like he’s still entitled to office.”

      If that is not evidence that this is a hit piece, I don’t know what is.

      So i will leave it to the Colorado Pols community to agree with Ms. Greene and her source, Ms. Koncilja, that our former House Speaker is ‘acting like a spoiled brat’.

      Classy.  

        1. I’m dying to hear a straightforward answer to the question of how Andrew tries to reconcile his “party first” approach while in the state legislature with his 180 degree switch to “me first.”  

      2. But even if it was, it doesn’t change the VERY REAL FACTS that Romanoff’s campaign is a mess, and he is in big trouble because that message is getting traction.

            1. i doubt you could find any reasonable objective person who would classify either Bennet or Romanoff as a ‘spoiled brat’

              and yes, reporters do quote people that they want to reflect the sentiment of their story.

          2. Quit blaming others for your candidate’s failings.

            It makes you look bad.

            As far as your candidate goes, only your candidate can make himself look bad.  Voters will decide if that actually happened.

            1. Quit blaming others for your candidate’s failings.

              i am not blaming anyone, i am calling out colorado pols for supporting a hit piece, the second in fact in recent postings…

              the first cited a politico story that included a famous

              ‘anonymous source’ which had a hit piece tone to it as well.

              http://coloradopols.com/diary/…

              The burden of proof is on this site to report who the heck Frances Koncilja is and why her standing is of relevance.

              oh wait, I will do the oppo research for the editors…

              The Governor appointed Frances to a six-year term on the Colorado Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Nominating Commission. The Governor also appointed Frances to the State Fair Commission which oversaw the State of Colorado’s $4,000,000 cash infusion and revitalization of that entity.

              http://www.koncilja.com/France…

              Oh, right, a Governor Appointee standing up for another Governor Appointee.

              Add to that the website itself is not saying clearly whether or not it agrees with ms. Koncilja’s statement.

              Well, Colorado Pols, do you agree with this statement, that former house speaker Andrew Romanoff is a ‘spoiled brat’ –  because people reading here and all across the state are wondering about your journalistic standards, and you can trust, your response to this will be recorded, emailed, and blogged about, guaranteed.

                1. not to you, but to the editors of this site, the Colorado Pols Editors, because this article, which they promoted,  left out the the statements by ms. Koncilja, which were obvious hit piece type statements. Many of us want to know if that was an accidental omission or a pattern (such as promoting a Politico story that quotes hit piece styled unnamed sources) as something they stand by, as editors of credible news blog.

                  For all of you out there who are not the editors for Colorado Pols, I will ask of you, to keep your opinions on the sidelines until the Editors of this site say whether they agree or disagree with the statement that the former speaker of the House is a

                  ‘spoiled brat’ so that voters and, more importantly readers, will know how this site views the former speaker.

                    1. For all of you out there who are not the editors for Colorado Pols, I will ask of you, to keep your opinions on the sidelines until the Editors of this site say whether they agree or disagree with the statement that the former speaker of the House is a

                      ‘spoiled brat’ so that voters and, more importantly readers, will know how this site views the former speaker.

                      this matters, for us readers, especially when this site boasts of more readers than the Denver Post’s Political Section

                    2. It was in the Post – CoPols promoted it here in order to comment.

                      CoPols’s comment was right on.

                      The article was …. weak. So what?

                      It’s not like it was factually in error- it was an opinion piece and you disagree with that opinion. Express your own if you want.

                      But no more foot stomping. And if you want to hold your breath, please do it somewhere else.  And if you don’t want your face to freeze that way you should stop making that face.

                    3. to shut the fuck up until the Editors of this site give me ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

                      Seems about as reasonable as your demand that no one should comment on a public blog in a diary that quotes extensively from a newspaper article.

                    4. my comments are not meant to stifle the discussion on a ‘public blog’

                      as you can see, those of you who are commenting to me are not the editors of Colorado Pols.

                      This is about the integrity of the editors of this website.

                      Do they stand by the statement that

                      Andrew Romanoff is a ‘spoiled brat’?

                      i asked that simple question on Monday at 5:29 in the afternoon. Now it is Tuesday mid morning.

                      I have gotten responses from Ralphie, Ah Choo, Middle of the Road, Madco, and Automatic Clip, but somehow the editors of Colorado Pols has not responded.

                      Readers here are still waiting.

                    5. because the question itself is too slanted to be answered yes or no?  Or perhaps because your claim that it is about the “integrity” of the editors is absurd on its face?  

                    6. how is it too slanted?

                      the editors of this site do have some journalistic standards right?

                      there last promoted article cited a politico article that used an ‘unnamed source’ and now they are promoting an article that quotes a fellow Ritter appointee that calls the former Speaker a ‘spoiled brat’

                      I have a hard time believing that any objective voter would classify either candidate as anything less that a moderate politician.

                      That is why I, and others reading this discussion, want to know what the journalistic standards of this site are.

                      Did they simply not read the entire article before promoting it?

                      readers are left to ponder what the editors were thinking and what their standards are.

                    7. I don’t think Readers here are still waiting. You seem to be the only guy here throwing a hissy fit.

  2. Just got back from his town hall here in GJ.  That be where.  Of course, the west slope does not matter to some, as we know.  He didn’t convince me of much at the meeting.  But I’ll keep an open mind.

    1. You mean the meet and greet at the bagel shop?

      From Romanoff’s Monday schedule:

      12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.: Meet and Greet with Andrew Romanoff

      Main Street Bagel

      599 Main Street, Grand Junction

      How many folks showed up, not counting uninvolved customers and staff?

      2. that his mother could not confirm that he was born in the US after Ralphie asked him if he’d produce his birth certificate.  Andy call his mom and put her on the speaker phone to confirm his birth.  But she said she was not sure.  She was knocked out during the birth of Andy and his twin sis.

        1. have a great sense of humor. Sounds like it runs in the family, too.

          Are you going to the Mesa County Dems holiday potluck dinner tonight? He’ll be there too.

  3. When I wrote my “resurgence of Romanoff” diary, I was hoping that it was the first step in a cohesive message. Declining PAC money, for good or bad, was the semblance of something going on in the campaign.

    Since then, he gets bad press like this Susan Greene article, and he does more events with 20-30 people at each of them. That would work fine if he was running for state senate, but it’s not going to cut it.

    He needs someone to come in and bring life to the campaign. That means a message beyond “no PAC money”. Because he can have no message, or no money, but not both.

    Also, next quarter needs to be stellar, or he’s going to start getting serious pressure to drop out.

    3. It is true that his “campaign” is sorely in need of a competent campaign manager. But at this point, does it even matter?

      Andrew, as nice as he is, as competent as he is, has successfully insulated himself with wannabes and behind-kissers, who are tripping over themselves to have their photos taken with him, rather than vote for him or donate anything. I, along with several other Dems, have volunteered for his “campaign” multiple times and gotten no response. This is a running theme.

      He gives the same stump every appearance about “choice” but nothing specific about specific issues, and those people surrounding him clearly don’t care about fundraising or reaching out to regular voters or else that would be happening. Great potential candidate, but complete lack of organization.

      Flat out, this thing was a disaster from the beginning; announcing his candidacy too late, starting off with no direction or money in the bank, surrounded with behind-kissers and candidates who lost one election or another organizing local events for him.

      It’s in the ditch and will need a bulldozer to pull it out, and it would have to be done fast, at this point, to even catch up.

      Sad misdirected waste of energy all around. Sorry, Andrew.

  5. Where’s Andrew?  He’s in the People’s Bunker, hiding from plotting winning the shoulda been the Governor’s Senator’s seat, to re-establish the political harmony that has been usurped upset by the one who now feels entitled from the one entitled, truly, by the People.  

  6. Can anyone credibly claim anymore that Bill Ritter wasn’t correct in not picking Andrew Romanoff? Or that President Obama made a bad choice in endorsing Michael Bennet?

    Bennet is a saavy campaigner. Romanoff is a disaster.

    The only thing he’s shown since he announced is that he would have lost the seat.

    Hats off to Bill Ritter.  

  7. He made very clear his intentions to be a different kind of candidate, one that listens to his constituents and is willing to work with the other side of the aisle.  [emphasis Twitty]

    http://www.kjct8.com/Global/st…

    Romanoff says the practical ideas of everyday Coloradans need to be heard, both in Denver and in Washington D.C.

    “I think the danger is that people that spend too much time whether it’s the state capital or the U.S. Capitol.  The temptation they face is to conclude wrongly that all wisdom rests under those domes, and that’s not the case,” Romanoff said.

    Romanoff says he wants to change the way things are run in Washington, reducing the influence of special interests.

    “When I got elected to the State House people thought we’d be in the minority forever,” said Romanoff,  “I led the effort to take a majority.  Then they said the budget’s all bolluxed up you’re never going to fix it, we led the effort to fix it.  Then they said you’ll never get Bbollixeds [sic] to sign onto that. We did.”

    Many on the Western Slope wonder where he stands on the  struggling oil and gas industry.

    “We need a balance here,” said Romanoff, “I don’t think anyone is seriously proposing to remove all regulations and to let development run amok.  Nor is anyone seriously proposing to shut down the industry and switch overnight to renewable sources.  In the long run, by definition these non-renewable sources will be depleted.”

    Romanoff says he’s met with about 10,000 Coloradans over the past 12 weeks, and is proud that nearly all of his funding has come from within the state’s borders.

     

  8. Current ActBlue fundraising results:

    Michael Bennet:  $1,307,337

    Andrew Romanoff:   $215,003

    Bottom line: Bennet has raised more than SIX times than Romanoff.  Read ’em and weep, Wade Norris.

    Where’s Andrew indeed.

    1. are you really fired up about Mr. Bennet?  I mean, he has stoked your fire like nobody since MLK or JFK (or BO) and he’s got you and RSB and MOTR and Ray S just so fired up you can barely stand?  I mean, all’y’all who are piling on people like Wade, are you doing it just because Wade and Sharon Hanson and the like are obnoxious, or because you really love love love Bennet?  Because if it’s the latter, I just don’t see it and I’m still looking for the mustard.

      1. Because he was arrogant enough to suggest that people who don’t agree with him shouldn’t post their opinions.

        I think that Bennet and Romanoff are both excellent people.  I’ll vote for whichever one is on the ballot in November.

        1. I can buy it if people are just trying to turn the screws on Wade, Sharon, et al.  But I can’t buy it if people have convinced themselves that Bennet is the second coming.  From some of the comments it makes me wonder.

          Far as I’m concerned, I’m with you.  They’re both fine with me.  (Although I am very sympathetic with frustration over appointed representatives.)  

          1. I’m piling on because I find it ironic beyond belief that Wade wants everyone to shut up on a public blog if they don’t have nice things to say about his candidate. I find people that engage in half truths lose all credibility with me and tend to drive more people away from their candidate/cause than they attract.

            Either of these guys are light years better than any Republican running in this race and I want to keep this seat. Whoever wins the primary has my vote, my dime and my time, it’s as simple as that.

            And for the record, I really like Bennet. I don’t need to have a love fest with a candidate or need the candidate to be the most dynamic human being since the Christ child for me to appreciate when someone is doing a damn good job and genuinely cares.  

            1. I’m piling on because I find it ironic beyond belief that Wade wants everyone to shut up on a public blog if they don’t have nice things to say about his candidate.

              i am not asking people to ‘shut up’ I am asking the editors of this site to respond to a specific statement made in an article they promoted – that Andrew Romanoff is a ‘spoiled brat’

              so far, i have gotten responses from you, Madco, Ralphie, Automatic Clip, and Ah Choo.

              So far, the Editors of this site have not taken the time to simply respond to that statement which was part of a story they promoted.

              I do not presume to ask anyone to ‘shut up’ on this blog, I am just trying to get a straight answer from the website editors.

              1. some random quoted in an article said ‘spoiled brat.”  Who the hell cares?  Why is it Pols’ responsibility to discuss random quotes in random articles they put up on the site?  

              2. Do you ever take responsibility for any of your nonsense?

                obviously you can’t read

                For all of you out there who are not the editors for Colorado Pols, I will ask of you, to keep your opinions on the sidelines until the Editors of this site say whether they agree or disagree with the statement that the former speaker of the House is a ‘spoiled brat’ so that voters and, more importantly readers, will know how this site views the former speaker.

              3. Here’s what you said:

                For all of you out there who are not the editors for Colorado Pols, I will ask of you, to keep your opinions on the sidelines until the Editors of this site say whether they agree or disagree with the statement that the former speaker of the House is a

                ‘spoiled brat’ so that voters and, more importantly readers, will know how this site views the former speaker.

                That sure sounds like asking us not to post our opinions.

                Maybe if you stamp your feet a little harder, someone in management will pay attention to you.

                1. I read it, and didn’t think it was a “hit piece.”

                  If you have a beef, you should probably take it up with the source cited in the article at the top of this thread.

                  my response to you and all the others ‘piling on’ at this point is, why are people not simply asking along with me, to get a response from the editors of this site?

                  It does matter if the editors are openly promoting hit pieces on either candidate in a primary.

                1. the editors respond…

                  but not to the question asked.

                  Do you, the editors of Colorado Pols, agree with the sentiment behind the quote that Andrew Romanoff is a ‘spoiled brat’ in an article that you promoted to your frontpage?

                    2. Pols quoted an article.  They cited the source.  It was a credible source, the largest daily in the state, not one of Libby’s splinter-group blogs.  They provided a link.  You’re just having a tantrum because you don’t like what it says.

                      Are you sure you are ready to be involved in politics?  You don’t seem to have the skin for it.

                  3. So whenever we post a link to an article, that means we agree with everything in the article? Of course not.

                    Do we think Romanoff is acting “like a spoiled brat?” No, we don’t. But we look at these things as rationally as we can (you should give it a try sometime), and what Romanoff is doing is running an embarrassingly bad campaign that reflects poorly on him. We’ve been saying this for a long time, and we linked to the Post article because that storyline is becoming more and more prevalent.

                    Romanoff is a really nice guy. He’s done some great things for Colorado. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t capable of being a shitty Senate candidate, which is what he’s doing at the moment. And whatever he did in the past doesn’t excuse the fact that he’s running a terrible campaign. Does that mean he’s not qualified to be a Senator? Of course not — but it does mean that he’s not likely to get there anytime soon.

                    If this were a game of hold ’em poker, and you just went all-in with a 2 and a 7 non-suited, we’d say you just played a terrible hand. That doesn’t mean you won’t play better later, and it doesn’t change that you might have played well in the last couple of hands. But we’re talking about the hand in front of you NOW.  

                    People are criticizing Romanoff because his campaign sucks. Not because they have a secret plan or they don’t like him. Sorry that doesn’t make you happy, but don’t blame us or The Denver Post or space aliens or anyone else because Romanoff’s campaign is crap.  

        2. Unless some other candidate emerges – I’ll vote D in Nov because no matter who is the D nominee they are a better choice than the three R candidates.

          Can Wade, Sharon, JO say that?

          Maybe they did and I missed it.

          Is Michael Bennet like RFK?

          Uhhh- Well I think RFK went to Harvard and was later appointed Attorney General.

          No- Senator Bennet is not the inspirational, omg-i’ve been waiting all my voting life for him candidate.

          But he is more electable in the general and he said from the get go he would be a strong supporter of the President’s agenda.  I like him.

          I like AR too- I just am not nearly as confident he can win.

      2. 1) Michael Bennet has been a reliable vote for the Obama agenda.  I want to reward him for this.

        2) Despite repeated attempts, I have received no answer to my question: “What policy differences does Romanoff have with Bennet?”  Since there appear to be none, I see no need for a primary challenge.  

        3) I want to keep this seat in Democratic hands in November, 2010.  This primary is preventing national Democratic resources (money and staff) from helping us here in Colorado.  If Romanoff cannot demonstrate the ability to raise sufficient funds to run a credible campaign by the end of this quarter (12/09), then he should drop out and let us focus on November.  This will be a difficult race regardless of who wins the Dem nomination.   Voters will receive mail ballots only six weeks after the August primary.  That is not enough time to change gears to attack the GOP candidate.  

        This primary challenge is just plain stupid.

      3. The people who you mentioned are not nearly as “fired up” for Bennet as the other people you mentioned are fired up about bashing him. I think you’re confusing where the heat in this debate has come from. Compared to JO, Sharon, Wade, etc., MOTR, Ray and myself are emotionally detached from this race.

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

200 readers online now

Newsletter

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