January 20, 2010 01:21 AM UTC
Know When to Walk Away, Know When to Run...
70 Comments- by: Colorado Pols
Andrew Romanoff held a press conference today to announce that he is still running for the U.S. Senate and will not seek any other office or accept any other job offer in the meantime.
So there’s that.
On one hand, this is the first good bit of strategy (okay, really the only strategic move) that we’ve seen from Romanoff as a U.S. Senate candidate. Romanoff got a lot of free media attention by holding a press conference to announce basically nothing, while at the same time trying to beef up the impression that he is still a sought-after politician due to all of the people who encouraged him to run for Governor. Romanoff also needed to publicly affirm that he was staying in the race for Senate because of so much speculation to the contrary. In that regard, today’s press conference was a good move.
On the other hand, it’s hard to really understand this decision in general. Romanoff is a talented policy wonk who is widely liked and respected by both Democrats and Republicans, but his campaign for Senate has been downright awful…and it’s destroying his political future in the process. Romanoff has tried meekly to distinguish himself from incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet on the basis of not accepting PAC money or special interest contributions, but policy-wise and issues-wise, there’s really not much difference between the two. The lack of a strong, clear message for why Romanoff is running for Senate has been startling, and his campaign in general has been a mess. Witness this weird item today from Westword:
The morning after Bill Ritter announced that he wasn’t going to run for governor this year, I reached out to Romanoff spokesman John Schroyer for a comment about whether or not his guy would consider switching his focus from the senate to Ritter’s gig.
Schroyer pointed me to a comment Romanoff had made at a public event the evening before about still being a candidate for the Senate — but when I asked followup questions about how his challenge to Michael Bennet was going, Schroyer said someone else from the organization would have to provide answers. I suggested new campaign manager Bill Romjue. Schoryer said he wasn’t sure if he could get in touch with Romjue, but he would have someone contact me shortly.
That didn’t happen — and after Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar endorsed Denver mayor John Hickenlooper amid his own announcement that he wasn’t going to step in for Ritter, it was clear that Romanoff’s window of opportunity had closed.
Nonetheless, I received e-mails from Schroyer later that day, and for several days thereafter, asking if I’d gotten what I needed in terms of an interview. Each time I replied that I had not — that neither Romjue nor anyone else from the Romanoff campaign had contacted me. But these notes never prompted any action. No call ever came.
The Westword story pretty well sums up Romanoff’s campaign in general. He waited way too long to begin his campaign, he went months without a campaign manager, and he still hasn’t really articulated what he would do as a Senator that Bennet isn’t already doing. Romanoff had to announce soon that he was either running for Senate or switching to Governor, but ironically, it is the disarray of his Senate campaign that precluded a real run for Governor. We heard from more than one politico in the last two weeks who would have supported a Romanoff bid for Governor six months ago but had lost confidence in his ability to run a strong statewide campaign. Had Romanoff stayed on the sidelines and waited for his next opportunity, there likely would have been a strong sentiment that he should be the Democratic nominee for Governor.
But because he has spent the last six months running a head-scratcher of a campaign while simultaneously alienating a good number of Democrats with his messageless Bennet challenge, Romanoff was never going to be able to elbow someone like John Hickenlooper out of the race.
The reason we’re having such a hard time understanding today’s announcement is because there’s really no good ending in sight for Romanoff. His fundraising numbers for Q4 haven’t been released yet, but there’s no way he’s going to be able to keep up with Bennet. Romanoff doesn’t need to outraise Bennet in order to beat him in August, but he does need to raise a considerable amount of money just to keep his campaign running. You cannot run a truly effective statewide campaign when many of your staffers are volunteers, as they are for Romanoff. But if Romanoff spends the money he needs in order to staff up appropriately, then there’s no way he’ll have enough money for the kind of TV ad buy that will overcome Bennet. Remember, Romanoff may be popular and well-known with activist Democrats, but 85% of primary voters are uninformed, generally uninterested voters. Most primary voters don’t know Romanoff or Bennet, because most primary voters aren’t all that different than most general election voters. By and large, those voters will select the person they are most familiar with come August, and Bennet will be able to go up on TV with an ad buy that will all but assure that he has strong ID among Democratic voters.
In order to be a success in politics, you need either to be feared or loved (or, ideally, both). In less than a year, Romanoff has gone from being universally loved and respected (if not-quite feared as a candidate for higher office), to only somewhat loved and not-at-all feared. As long as he remains in the Senate race, nobody who has seen Romanoff’s campaign to this point will ever again fear what he might do as an opponent. As long as he stays in this race, Romanoff will never again enjoy the kind of popularity among Democrats that he once had. The only positive outcome for Romanoff at this point is an all-or-nothing gamble that seems like more of a long shot than anything. . He’s risking his entire political career on a bet that he’s going to get dealt two or three amazing cards between now and August – cards that will somehow propel him to an improbable victory.
Maybe Romanoff will surprise us and go on to win both the primary and the general election, but no serious observer can watch this race at this point and really, truly believe that Romanoff has a significantly better chance than Bennet. If Romanoff exits the race soon, he can chalk his crappy campaign up to wrong place, wrong time and write it off as an aberration. If Romanoff gets out now, he can start to rebuild the relationships he has broken while continuing to serve as a leader to those who support him now. Romanoff is talented and young, and he can live to fight another day. But if he loses the primary to Bennet while running a bad campaign, then he’s done. Or even worse, if he loses the primary and then Bennet loses the general election, Romanoff will be blamed (fairly or not, he’ll be blamed) for damaging the chances of Democrats to hold this seat.
Perceived political power is as important, if not more important, than actual legislative or executive power. If Romanoff loses to Bennet, then he also loses his place in line for future races. No other Democrat is going to defer to Romanoff if he has already proved that he can’t even win a primary, but if Romanoff exits the race now, he can do so while preserving some chits in his pocket to use for a future run.
Look, we didn’t think that Bennet was the right choice when Gov. Bill Ritter appointed him to replace Ken Salazar last year; we thought that it should have been Romanoff, Hickenlooper or Rep. Ed Perlmutter, and we said as much. We were skeptical of Bennet when he fumbled around early, and we wrote that Romanoff and Perlmutter might have been better. There was an opportunity for someone like Romanoff to challenge Bennet and even emerge as the frontrunner while doing it. But that time passed in late spring while Romanoff waited, and waited, and waited. When he finally made a decision in August, it was too late; Bennet had raised a lot of money and was picking up more and more support. Similarly, there was a time, back in 2005, when virtually every Democrat in Colorado would have moved over to allow Romanoff to be the Democratic candidate for Governor. But Romanoff passed, and the political world moved on without him.
Did Romanoff get screwed over by not being appointed to the Senate or as Secretary of State by Ritter? Probably, but you can’t ignore the fact that Romanoff also passed up opportunities of his own. Either way, perhaps Romanoff does deserve better than this; but as Clint Eastwood once said, “Deserve ain’t got nothin’ to do with it.”
It looks like Romanoff is going to continue ahead with a Senate campaign that he most likely cannot win, and that’s a shame. Politics is as much art as science, and you’ve got to know (to use another poker analogy) when to hold ’em, and when to fold ’em. Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s just not there for Romanoff in 2010.
Andrew Romanoff has received dozens of contributions from lobbyists. Andrew even had an event at the home of a prominent lobbyist that many lobbyists attended.
Will he return all the lobbyist contributions he has received so far?
As I outlined a couple months ago, his strategy consists of winning the caucus, hopefully with more than 70%. He would then force Sen Bennet to petition, which Bennet is prepared to do, and then claim he is the people’s choice. He’ll be faced with a media blitz that probably won’t mention him at all. The Bennet campaign will advertize the positives of Sen.Bennet so it tackles both the Speaker and promotes the general.
With his current fundraising, the Speaker won’t be able to do the same thing.
So if Andrew wins more than 70% but below 90% of the caucus, how is he not the people’s choice? Not sure I’m following that one. If a supermajority of the Colorado Democrats choose him, does that not by definition make him the people’s choice?
The press “probably won’t mention him at all” after that. A sitting U.S. Senator gets blown out at caucus, and that’s not news.
the easiest way to understand it is this.
Not all D’s caucus. Not even all D’s vote in the primary or in the general.
So in the hupothetical, but I think unlikely, scenario you describe where a candidat gets a supermajority of caucus going D’s, I think he would best be described as the D caucus goers choice.
Would we than be able to say that no president has truly ever had a mandate than?
I mean if those that show up are somehow diluted by the fact that not everyone showed up, isn’t the idea of electing anyone without total turnout would only be elected president of those that voted? Which I personally am fine with, but trying to make it something less by saying that not everyone showed up is … don’t know a word for it thats not mean, but petty?
cause that’s what we were talking about, right?
Winning the caucus is not the same thing as winning the primary or the general. right?
I think the word you’re looking for might be confused.
Oh and IIRC, the President did win the CO caucus but that had hardly made him the “people’s choice.”
While I agree that winning the caucus is not the same as winning the general, I would say that its a lot closer to winning the primary. I guess if the incumbent couldn’t get enough people to go to the caucus, I would wonder about his ability to bring out voters at all.
After reading through that, it wouldn’t be just the incumbent. My thoughts on campaigning are that the real key is to get people to show up. I would think that if any candidate would like to show his strength, aside from poll numbers taken by outside organizations, would be to get the greatest number of supporters out there. Regardless of it being a caucus, primary or a general. If a candidate can’t get their people out on caucus night, how can we trust that people will show up for them in the general?
who don’t show up at caucus show up to vote in the primary and in the general.
Personally, I don’t understand why we need both caucus and primary.
Seems like procedural nonsense to me as well, but its still what we are stuck with. I think to discount one is to discount the ability of a candidate to bring out supporters. I don’t know the caucus v primary numbers stuff all that well, didn’t take my colorado political history classes too seriously.
it is an important step in the nomination process and gives a good indication where the rank and file of the party is on the topic.
Also, if either candidate were to do extremely well, say 65% or better, we may be talking about the potentional of keeping the other candidate off the primary ballot.
Caucus votes do not correlate exactly to Assembly votes, and several people do change their minds between March and May, but if there is THAT much disparity between two candidates in the caucus vote then the one who showed so poorly would be wise to re-evalute their viability.
You mean like Senator Salazar?
Fitz-Gerald clobbered Polis in the CD-2 caucus, despite Polis campaigning pretty aggressively with delegates, but it didn’t seem to give her any advantage at all in the primary (and in fact I don’t remember it ever being mentioned again).
I concluded the caucus was basically irrelevant below the Presidential level after that.
Winning big in caucuses or at the assembly has little to do with winning elections. Look at every contested Democratic primary over the last two decades.
Were any of these examples already in the seat they were running for? Is Bennet an incumbent or not? Pick one.
whether running as an incumbent who couldn’t get top line out of the assembly mattered. He petitioned onto the ballot to avoid the risk of embarrassment, and a week after the assembly it mattered not a whit. Those kinds of things are important to the people who have already voted at caucuses and further down the line. Primary voters don’t care.
was that if an incumbent fails to get top line, it’s a big deal because it demonstrates weakness. It’s a fair question, but recent history is little help because, other than Lamborn, it’s been decades since an incumbent has been challenged in a primary here in Colorado, and more decades than that since there’s been an appointed incumbent.
There were no incumbent senators in the Senate race. But there was an incumbent AG, twice elected statewide, who ran against someone who had never been elected to anything, anywhere, anytime. That never-elected person took top line at the party’s state assembly. And that crucial victory changed everything…..
running in that race. And, if memory serves, he did pretty well! Not well enough, but pretty well!
Personally, You’ve made a strong case for Bennet to avoid the caucus altogether.
Its well known that The Speaker’s support comes from his activist base.
I don’t see how he can garner enough money to compete in the general. That’s my opinion.
I don’t have polling data on the Dem prmiary. The recent polls for the general as a Bennet backer, I find just fine.
Should we take that to mean that the contributors–in Bennet’s case, corporate PACs–should dictate who the nominee should be? That surely sounds like the most frequently read argument for Bennet, on this site, anyway.
Why bother with any popular participation at all? Just see which candidate–any party–has raised the most money and declare him/her elected! Send the money to Haiti or wherever.
The 527’s will eat him alive.
Bennet is better on immigration. Bennet is better on committee assignments (The Speaker is obviously not in much favor with the President if the immediate endrosements of both Hick and Bennet are any indication, and could expect to receive quite poor assignments)
Those are 2. I have others.
…that the president dictates committee assignments.
So, we can do it your way. Instead of voting, we’ll either
(1) pick a date and say that whoever has garnered more contributions, from any and all sources, by that date is the declared winner. The accumulated contributions are then passed along to a charitable cause of the “bought candidate’s” choosing.
or
(2) ask
Bill RitterBarack Obama who the next Senator from Colorado is and fuggedabout the contributions and anything else!It’s obvious that it’s not a discussion.
Others have commented, or attempted to formulate a pro-AR message
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
But not you. You’re all about anti-Bennet.
I’m starting to think you may be a Norton shill, here to incite hostility and frustration in the D primary (I know, I know primaries good, fish are friends not food).
Ray’s right – it’s not a discussion. It’s a bludgeoning.
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
If Romanoff will start campaigning and making Bennet respond – that will be well needed training for Bennet. I view this as good news for us Dems (albeit not so good for Romanoff).
Pretty small universe of media attention. People here were trying to find coverage with little success. Whose attention did this get outside of the small group that already is paying attention?
I agree the public face of AR’s campaign has been awful so far. But Bennet’s campaign so far: “I was appointed.” Bennet supporters’ only real argument so far: “He was appointed.”
So when will Colo Pols apply the same standard to Bennet, the guy who has NEVER BEEN ELECTED TO ANYTHING. How soon people forget all that AR has done for Dems in this state. And most of all, let’s not forget that AR was the only person who tried to do something about TABOR. Colorado would not be in such a mess today if more of our “leaders” had stepped up to the plate when AR needed them.
You didn’t read what they wrote, none of you AR toadies do.
I cringed last year while the Pols attacked Bennet as lackluster and said that other people might have been a better choice. NOBODY called this place “BennetPols” then!
Pols doesn’t put it into my head than Bennet has improved markedly since then. HE HAS. And by the time Romanoff announced, the window that had been open for him FOR MONTHS was closed.
I understand that “working the refs” is a very important strategy, but it has to be based in reality. Between the endless whining that you’re being treated unfairly and the ROMANOFF CAMPAIGN STAFFER WHO TRIED TO STEAL AN ELECTION ON THIS BLOG, Romanoff’s campaign has earned my contempt and failed to show why he is deserving of support over Bennet. Period.
And Pols is also right that Romanoff is destroying his political future. And you know what? JO? Sharon? “benkenobi?”
You’re helping him.
Really?
or we’re all stinking toadying whining fools?
Very big of you.
What a master piece of logic you present.
with Bennet’s detractors. There’s a very, very thin Venn diagram connection, but for the most part they are two separate circles.
I can understand being tired of the incessant repetition of talking points, trying desperately to get something to stick to MB, but don’t mistake that with people still planning on caucusing for AR and voting for him in the primary.
…your pro-Romanoff case is:
– he’s run a terrible campaign so far, but
– he’s not Bennet
– AR has done a lot for CO D’s
– AR was the only person who tried to do something about TABOR
I agree.
Of course.
Concur
He wasn’t alone- but he did try.
I’ve posted before* (as have others) why I am for Bennet. And at least once I researched and posted a history in response to other
whiningclaims of no pro-Bennet case.I’d post it again, but I promised myself in Dec that I’d only repeat it once a month until I shortened it.
Maybe after Feb, I’ll ramp up to once a week. And then in March once a day.
Nice job, btw.
That’s the closest thing to an actual pro-Romanoff argument I’ve heard since September when he entered the race.
Before now it was*:
– AR’s entrance sets the a good example that when those in office don’t tow the progressive line, they’re out;
– Bennet was appointed by Ritter;
– AR worked the room politickn’ at the state assembly;
– AR knows how to caucus;
– AR speaks Spanish
– AR has a track record.
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
Did Romanoff get screwed by not getting Senate or Sec. of State? Yes, he probably did. And we repeatedly wrote at the time of Bennet’s appointment that it should have been Hick, Romanoff or Perlmutter who got the job.
So yes, Romanoff probably got screwed. It sucks, but it happens.
But that doesn’t change the fact that Romanoff waited too long to enter the race against Bennet and is a huge underdog to defeat him. That doesn’t change the fact that he has run a terrible campaign with no message and weak fundraising.
We’re not pro-anybody — our point is that it just doesn’t make sense for Romanoff to keep plowing ahead with this campaign because he has so much more to lose than he has to gain. That’s our analysis. If you can tell us why that analysis is wrong, other than shooting the messenger for something you don’t want to read, then by all means tell us.
kind of like the Tea-baggers aren’t anti-Obama!
Please tell us what office former Majority Leader Romanoff has ever run for that wasn’t from a safe district.
I haven’t made up my mind in this race. Running an actual contested election would be a data point to me.
The Senator has done a fine job. He will continue to do so. He’s actually more liberal than the Speaker by record.
The one that waited too long to step up is the Speaker himself.
so long, it should be turned into a movie.
Great thread, though!
but I sense this diary is a little long because CP was in a hurry and is experiencing some pain or loss about the situation.
But I could be wrong – it’s happened before.
Jane Norton
Hell even HuffPo is facing the fact Norton is up 12 points over the appointed incumbant Sen. Bennet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Your link to Huff Post is from last Friday, the same day that poll was front paged here. Who is not facing what?
Why do you continually make claims that can be shot down in seconds? How do you think that helps you or the Republicans you shill for? I really don’t understand you.
Has anyone seen his financial report?
The closest info we have we got today: 2200 contributors. 95% of them are from Colorado and none of them are PACs.
For him to have brought in $1M (and please do check my math, I suck at it) he would need to have an average contribution of like $450. That’s kind of a high average for contributions from individual donors. Sure there will be some who donate the max and some who eill donte only $10, but to get an average of $450, there needs to be a lot of top dolloar donors to balance the more plentiful $20-50 donors.
To reach a half mil for the 4Q, he would need an average of avout $227, much more realistic.
So I would expect his 4Q total raised to be something in $400k-600k range.
But then I started phonebanking for the caucus and at least a quarter of the people I have spoken with didn’t even know Bennet had a primary opponent. Stunning, no? So, why is that? Are they just generally uninformed? Is Romanoff running that shitty a campaign? Is a combination of both? Because the caucus is less than 2 months away and if people don’t know he’s running for the Senate, I highly doubt they are going to suddenly switch to him on March 16th when they hear for the first time that he is. And I repeat, these are caucus goers, not primary voters. These are the folks that general do the heavy lifting.
I missed the big Press Conference to Nowhere. So??? Wha?
“People, I’m here. And yes, I’m here! Right over here!”
No fundraising numbers yet? To demonstrate his here-ness?
It’s a good thing I didn’t call off work for that.
If Romanoff has to hold a press conference to remind people he’s still running for Senate, that seems to me to be a problem.
n/t
Mark McGwire took steroids, dog bites man, etc.
Which would be what?
Andrew could have been gov in 2006, and he could have primaried Ritter this year, which would have been the more popular choice. He doesn’t want to be governor; he’s a legislator, not an executive. Right now (assuming a Hick win, and no polls make me believe McInnis can pull this off) the soonest he could be governor is 20018, assuming he decides he’s an executive after all.
Senate is locked up in perpetuity with Udall and Bennett (I have less faith in Norton than McInnis), but I suppose a miracle by Norton could allow a run in 2016, assuming this primary hasn’t burned all the bridges to future funding.
DeGette’s seat is safe for as long as she wants to run, and she’s not viable for anything else barring a cabinet appointment, so she’s not going anywhere.
AG? Gotta pass the bar first, and he needs a legal career before he can be the state’s top attorney.
SecState or Treasurer. Too low profile. Pat Waak’s job???
What else is there for him to run for? If he’d gotten out now, Denver mayor was an option, but again there’s that executive/legislator schism.
Barring unexpected deaths/resignations, etc. Andrew’s future for elected office in Colorado is sadly bleak.
He should go off and do some policy work, or run something, and influence policy, which is his true forte, since electoral politics has not proven to be his forte.
Andrew Romanoff has a record as an elected, and re-elected, legislator. Bennet does not.
Andrew Romanoff has a record of having run successful campaigns. Bennet does not.
Andrew Romanoff refuses to accept payments in advance from corporate lobbyists. Bennet does not–au contraire.
Andrew Romanoff was not appointed by a governor who apparently judged he could not be re-elected. Bennet was.
THEREFORE, Democrats should all back Bennet? IF Ritter were still leading a Colorado Democratic party clearly headed for victory in November, the argument might hold a thimbleful of water. But he isn’t, and it doesn’t.
AR was elected four times from a safely D district and with corporate funds.
It sounds like you have the beginning of an electability argument, but not quite.
I get that you want to vote against Bennet because he has never been elected before, accept PAC donations and was appointed by Ritter.
Why are you pro-Romanoff? Is it just enough that he’s not Bennet?
Do you perceive any significant policy differences?
…that Bennet has no legitimate claim to the office, besides the inexplicable choice by Ritter–a claim of diminishing value, given Ritter’s own political fate–whereas Romanoff is, at the least, a viable candidate with the sort of resume one might expect from a prospective senator.
Some version of Conventional Wisdom says that Bennet would have stood aside to make room for Romanoff, rather in the fashion of a late senator’s wife who fills in for the balance of the term, then goes back to her knitting.
If Bennet had not been appointed–e.g., Salazar were simply not running in order to spend more time with his cows in the Valley–would Bennet the Superintendent be the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination? I don’t think so either; nor do I think he has done anything especially clever over the past 12 months to change that calculation. His fund-raising success to me smells of an attempted, pre-emptive corporate buy-off, which indeed is one very good, altogether persuasive reason to reject him! If we want a representative of corporate interests to fill that Senate seat, the Republicans will certainly provide one.
The fact that Bennet and Romanoff are essentially tied in polls vis a vis the Republican front-runner at this stage suggests to me that being the incumbent is not an advantage and/or that Bennet has not connected with voters in any meaningful way. Romanoff, at least, is a candidate who has demonstrated that he knows how to be elected, whether from a “safe” district or not. Bennet has never demonstrated that he can be elected from any district (except BennetPols.com).
I admire your ability to spew random venom at every and anyone. I aspire to be as hopelessly bitter as you one day. Indeed, wasn’t it you who questioned even Romanoff’s motives in the past week or so? Due to Romanoff’s scandalous machinations to enter the Gov’s race? Is there anyone you don’t despise? No? Then, come sit by me.
Oh? Is that what that was?
It’s not the appointment process you reject – because if AR had been appointed, we woudn’t be having this argument.
Yes, Romanoff has been elected before.
Yes, this time he’s rejecting PAC money.
So what?
Do you have any reason to be for him other than he’s not Bennet, and he has previously held office?
I assume you supported AR even when he did take PAC/corp donors.
It sounds like you think he deserves the seat. As smarter posters than I have recently pointed out – deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.
boo-fucking-hoo.
It’s time to dispel this canard.
No, Bennet probably wouldn’t have been the leading candidate if Salazar had simply left an open seat, but there’s no doubt he would have been top tier. You probably haven’t been paying attention all these years, but Bennet has been eyeing this seat for a while. Back in 2005, Pols noticed this:
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
And even earlier:
http://coloradopoliticalnews.b…
Had the scenario you describe unfolded, Bennet would still have been a contender, and you still would have had plenty to complain about.
So, we read: Bennett’s appointments seem clearly aimed at a future run for office… and Hickenlooper is now on the lookout for a new chief of staff after Michael Bennet was named today…
Did Hickenlooper play no role in Bennet’s appointment to DPS? Did this appointment come as a shocker to the Noble LoDoBrewer?
My knowledge of history is lacking… is being the appointed superintendent of schools a popular route towards getting appointed to the Senate, or any other office normally reached via being elected?
I suppose it’s a good thing Bennet doesn’t have his eyes on the White House, since presidents aren’t appointed. Oh wait, there was Gerry Ford… Hmmmm.
Wow. I am in shock… Andrew is on television saying everyone in the Democratic Party is corrupt except himself? And you are buying it… He also said he does not take PAC money yet he closed his own PAC in Feb this year, not to mention all the money he took from big banks and Oil companies…
Given your view that corporate contributions = bribery, and given the fact that Romanoff has accepted such contributions in the past (PAC money) while running for election, we have one more point of comparison:
Romanoff’s been bribed and bought in previous elections. Bennet has not.
NB: luckily, I don’t accept the bribery premise that animates JO’s passion. So I don’t have such a low opinion of Romanoff as JO’s logic would suggest. “Au contraire,” I like Romanoff and wish him well in the future.
“Dear Mom,
Trip to Damascus was uneventful. Brief lightning storm en route, but it passed. Nothing new with me.
Bought a copy of Twisted Logic: Why Nothing Changes at the used scroll store, but it wasn’t worth reading.
Love,
Paul.”
for shame! Luckily, mom and you can overlook it!
Romanoff rejects PAC money because he wasn’t going to get any anyway. It’s a lemons-into-lemonade moment, not a Road-to-Damascus one.
…the fact of 2010 is that Romanoff-the-Senate-candidate isn’t beholden to–for example–Big Health PACs; Bennet is.
in the arguing, but really interested in the subject. With your kind indulgence…
I think the “science” of political prognostication needs some serious tweaking. I am not an expert, but what I see is the experts getting it wrong more and more. “Things” are changing rapidly.
I don’t think ARs’ populist approach is a silly thing. The one thing most of the people I know will agree on is that “wealth redistribution” in the USA has been a one way street…upward, for a long time. That cannot continue, unabated.
The new political paradigm is evolving and it is going to be vertical instead of horizontal. I think Speaker Romanoff recognizes that and understands that it is becoming increasingly important for us to repopulate our government with peers who are not beholden to the status quo.
As Francis Moore Lappe noted in Grand Junction recently, we have a “privately held government”. That government is so enslaved to wealth, that it has become a thing created, staffed, and operated on principles that guarantee its’ own survival.
The solution, IMHO, starts with campaign finance reform. I have donated money to the Speaker, and as business picks up this spring, I will do so again. So will thousands of regular working Coloradoans like me (a small business owner), who believe that Andrew Romanoff will speak for us, not for Monsanto and Exxon/Mobil.
You’re right, it’s a serious attempt to reset the paradigm, and he’s got a better chance this year than he would have in years past.
If Romjue manages to swamp the caucuses and creates an Obama-Iowa moment, Romanoff might really be on to something. But Romjue ran Biden’s Iowa campaign, and that didn’t come close to delivering. That he watched Obama obliterate his candidate isn’t preparation to repeat the feat, but at least he’s got a better handle on it than Ken Gordon does.
The evidence so far, though, is that the rubber isn’t hitting the road. I’d be thrilled to be surprised if things turn out differently.
I agree with you! Andrew had his own PAC until Feb this year.. And now he is saying he takes no money from PAC’s… I think its funny. The man says he does not play games yet he was the 1st guy in the senate race to throw dirt.