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) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 21, 2010 08:24 PM UTC

Bennechusetts

  • 7 Comments
  • by: JO

Lesson 1 from Massachusetts: Scott Brown received more votes than Martha Coakley, and was therefore elected to the U.S. Senate.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Massachusetts ain’t Colorado. Take it from an eye-witness. BUT the Senate race in Colorado could go the same way, albeit for slightly different reasons.

One fact emerging from Boston is that Coakley assumed she had a safe seat, ran a lackadaisical campaign, and let a supporters of the Tea Party movement sneak up on her, realizing that she had blown it when it was too late for Obama to help.

But another fact emerging from Massachusetts, and one that may well have a common thread in Colorado, is widespread discontent with … well, with things in general.

Job market: sucks. Housing prices: suck (for the owners, anyway). Health care reform: sucks. (Strange that Democrats should be paying the price for this, but fact is that Democrats tried to do something, watered their plans down, and in the end may not be able to pass even a watered-down version, to the disgust of everyone.)

In this atmosphere of widespread discontent, being the incumbent party is arguably not the place to be. But that is where Michael Bennet seems to be, certainly according to his loyalists on this site. Certainly no one is arguing that he was the Appointed One thanks to a governor who manifestly reckoned his chances of reelection weren’t good enough to stay in the race!

And in a time of widespread disgust with the overall economic picture–especially the behavior and role of major banks–being the recipient of ever-greater donations from those banks (now apparently unlimited, per the US Supreme Court), and the widely disparaged Pharma and health care industries, might not be the place to be either. But there’s MBennet, front and center with his FEC filings in 10 pt Ariel. “This Campaign Financed by Bankerbucks.” Hmmmm. Is there such a thing as turning lemonade into lemons? Could prove to be so.

Argue as you may that Romanoff might have taken such contributions too. But he didn’t.

Argue as you may that Romanoff might also have been the Establishment Appointee. But he isn’t.

Argue as you may that Romanoff didn’t really win four elections. But he did.

Argue as you may that Bennet has visited every county. WOW! Hasn’t Romanoff, the former Speaker of the state house of reps? I’m shocked! Appalled!

Is Bennet a “leader” in the health care reform debate? Or is he among the very first advocating a smaller program, urging that the Democrats listen to Republicans?

Has Bennet ever done anything as senator (besides vote against cram-down? besides argue for a smaller stimulus to help create jobs)? Of course not, and I don’t blame him for that. Not only is he a freshman, but he is also not elected and thus lacks the particular bona fides that come with winning an election. Not his fault, but nevertheless it’s a fact: he has no record in public life to run on.

Is this the Year of the Incumbent? The Year of the Corporate PACman? Is that the mood across the 1,800 miles separating Denver from Boston?

Easy enough to argue that 2010 will be rough sledding for Democrats everywhere. Even harder to argue that Michael Bennet is the ideal flag-bearer.

Tweet
Share

Comments

7 thoughts on “Bennechusetts”

    2. But facts confuse some of us, apparently.  

      Lots of other points in the orginal diary are wrong, too.

      Senator Bennet HAS been a leader on health reform and HASN’T backed down on it, despite desperate lies from the Romanoff campaign fed to an op-ed writer (at the Post) and radio talk show hosts who don’t bother checking facts (Mario). The fact that those of us who work on this issue full-time have told JO that 174 times doesn’t seem to matter. Facts are confusing, apparently.

      Senator Bennet has voted with the Dems 93% of the time.  His record is extremely consistent with the President’s record, and five times this year, he voted against corporate interests.

      Here are some examples of Senator Bennet taking on Wall Street:

      http://bennetforcolorado.com/l…

      http://bennetforcolorado.com/l…

      Here are some recent stories about how strong he is on health care reform:

      http://bennetforcolorado.com/l…

      http://bennetforcolorado.com/l…

      These are from the past few weeks. Do a search and you’ll get dozens more from 2009.

      BUT ONLY IF YOU CAN HANDLE “FACTS”.

  3. Argue as you may that Romanoff might have taken such contributions too. But he didn’t.

    Yes, he did. And if he continues to campaign on the wrongness of doing so he’s eventually going to have to explain why he did then and doesn’t now.

    And no one other than  knee-jerk Romanoff supporters has placed any significance on the fact that he could have been appointed, but wasn’t. We all agree on that fact – just some of us see it as mostly unimportant.

    Yes, AR won four elections. Making him a political insider, not the outsider he oddly  claimed to be.   And he did it with PAC and corporate donations.

    And Senator Bennet has never been elected, which I believe contributes to his electability in the general, assuming he makes it that far. ANd never having been elected before, seems to make him the actual outsider, even though he holds the seat at present making him the technical “incumbent”.   I know it gets a little hard to fit reality* into your simple sound bites, but it is what is and it’s really not that complicated.

    Why are you FOR Romanoff?

    By now you must have come up with something better than “he’s not Bennet”  which is all you ever post about it.

    *”Reality is important” ~ Republican 36, on this site recently

  4. There are 2 great things about campaigns. They allow you to see where a candidate stands on the issues before they are in a position to make decisions on those issues, AND, they give you a glimpse of the kind of work ethic they will have in their elected position.

    With that I turn to Andrew Romanoff. He is a guy who is very likable but his campaign is a disaster. He announced how many months ago? And if you ask his campaign staff where he stands on major issues like Immigration, Foreign Policy, Wall Street Reform, etc., the response is “he’s still working out the details of his platform…”

    Are you kidding me!! The caucus is less than 2 months away. If you ask me, the reason is that he’s having a hard time reading public opinion and that’s all he cares about. e talks to voters and realizes they are angry, but sometimes you have to make the unpopular decisions.

    Micheal Bennet is very clear on where he stands on issues despite the risk of upsetting the far left. If you are somehow disillusioned  into thinking Romanoff has a different position on these same issues, prove it to me, because I can’t get a straight answer from him.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

173 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols