Romanoff Raised $337K in 2009 Q4

(Discuss amongst yourselves… – promoted by Middle of the Road)

Hot off the interwebs, and current Colorado Statesman reporter Ernest Luning’s Twitter feed:

Romanoff campaign reports to FEC $337K raised 4th Q, $479K cash on hand, more than 2600 donors this quarter

Let the spin begin!


136 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Middle of the Road says:

    Romanoff: $479,000 cash on hand (2,600 donors)

    Bennet: $3,482,581 cash on hand (2,384 donors)

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      or 4th quarter donors only

    • Froward69 says:

      seems Bennet has Wealthier donors to “donate” more cash, While Romanoff has more constituents.

      With the supreme courts decision, I expect to see this trend continue even more harshly.

      Bennet will have fewer donors and far more commercials to run. Bet the farm on it… {You too will become wealthy.}

      • and another thing says:

        What does the Supreme Court decision have to do with donations to candidates?  The decision does not change contribution limits or prohibitions on corporate donations to candidates.

        I don’t follow.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        I guess the thing that sticks out in this for me is that Bennet has, on hand, $3 million dollars more than Romanoff and this was supposed to be the quarter that Romanoff blew us all away with his fundraising numbers.

        “Last quarter, he didn’t have enough time to raise money. He announced late; just wait until next quarter when he works the donors. Next quarter he’ll raise a million–he’s the people choice.”

        Any of those sound familiar? They all do to me. And at the end of it all, he raised less than Bennet, less than Norton.

        There’s no way to spin this. It is what it is. If these had been good numbers, he wouldn’t have waited until the last possible day to file them. He knows these numbers look bad. He’s no fool. This is not good news if you work for the Romanoff campaign.

    • ohwilleke says:

      Raw donor numbers suggest that Romanoff will have top line in the primary, but that both will make it to the primary ballot even if neither try to petition onto it.

    • jpsandscl says:

      to see how many of Bennet’s supporters are out of state donors compared to Andrew’s in-state support.

      too bad money trumps populism in this country.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        If you live in a bubble and think that no one outside of Colorado cares about keeping a Democrat in this seat, then I suggest politics should not continue to be your hobby.

        I gave to at least 10 out of state races in 2006 and probably 4 in 2008. Was I wrong to support candidates outside of Colorado that shared my values?

        Welcome to Pols. Sorry your candidate/campaign didn’t have better news to report yesterday.  

        • TheDeminator says:

          No statewide candidate has won with spending less money since the 70’s.   So Maybe for Denver’s mayor or local city council races but not in a statewide TV and Media driven campaign to have little to no money.

          Look We all know who these people are but to the run of the mill voter where the average American family spends 5… yes 5! mins on politics a week they don’t and without tv, mail, radio, internet they won’t vote for you.  

          • RE: No statewide candidate has won with spending less money since the 70’s.  

            Many big spenders have been clobbered in statewide races. A few I remember — Bruce Benson, Terry Considine, Bob Beauprez. Didn’t Tom Strickland outspend Wayne Allard? In Denver, Webb was outspent mightily by Norm Early.

            Money matters, but message does too. What is Romanoff’s message? He still hasn’t said why he’d be a better senator (or better Democratic candidate) than Bennet.  

        • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

          No candidate from either party can raise enough money to win a U.S. Senate race without going outside of Colorado. We just don’t have the population base to equate to the number of donors (and max-out donors) that a candidate needs to raise millions of dollars. There are only so many people in Colorado, on either side of the aisle, who can write $4,200 checks.

          Whoever wins the nomination for the Democrats and the Republicans will need to raise a lot of money very quickly in order to compete in the general election, and there’s no possible way to do that without raising money from outside Colorado.

          • Middle of the Road says:

            Well put. That’s why I sent a load of money to Tester back in 2006.  

          • ClubTwitty says:

            has boxed himself into a very difficult place forswearing DSCC and party money.  

            I sympathize with the PAC issue broadly framed, but the national senatorial campaigns exist for this very purpose.  The source rather than the vehicle is most telling, and even then I accept it is a somewhat corrupt system of murky grays.  (Ideally I support public financing).  

            Its a challenging enough proposition–especially given both 527s/c4s and the recent SCOTUS coup–to win a high dollar Senate race without corporate PACs; its quite another to abandon party money too.  And big name consultants aren’t cheap.  

        • jpsandscl says:

          thanks for the welcome. been off-line and haven’t gotten back here recently.

          Of course we contribute to other state’s races. Everyone does, but that should stop us from looking at a candidates donors either and see who is contributing to our race and why. Have any of them ever even heard of Romanoff before? Highly unlikely. So why do they support Bennett? Because he’s an incumbent and because they’ve had past business dealings with him.

          This is the essential problem with the corporatist society we live in. Politicians and political campaigns are bought and sold like any other commodity, when they should be something entirely different.

          In case you hadn’t guessed by now, that is why I support publicly financed campaigns, so every candidate has an equal chance to get their message out.

          • Middle of the Road says:

            I support publicly financed campaigns, too. And ponies for everyone, because that is about as realistically going to happen in 2010 as public financing is.  Again, thanks for stopping by.

            Why do they contribute to Bennet? Because they know him. Or they like him. Or they like the job he is doing, the way he is standing up for health care and the PO, and the way he has proven to be a solid vote for Obama and the Democratic Party’s agenda. Or they feel strongly that he has the better chance of winning the general election once he gets done wasting the next 9 months on a guy from his own party. Those are usually the reasons I send someone out of state money.

          • jpsandscl says:

            I’m sticking around, despite your brush off.

            And the reasons you send your money elsewhere are fine for you. I think Colorado’s voters can decide for themselves whether it is important to them.

            A lot of effort to kill Romanoff off before the caucuses even. I wonder why?

  2. Born To Run says:

    Andrew Romnanoff had a good quarter.  

    Michael Bennet had a great quarter.

    With the anti-incumbent mood Romanoff is raising enough cash to be competitive and even win.  

  3. redstateblues says:

    Is that he was only able to raise around $100,000 more in 3 months than he was able to raise after he had announced late.

    I agree with Indipol and Voyageur that it keeps him competitive, but he needs to either absolutely clobber Bennet in the caucuses or really step it up in Q1, because it’s going to take a lot more money than that to beat Norton.

    • Ralphie says:

      I can comment a little more to Born to Run’s post above (and to you redstate, and to MOR, which is why I’m commenting down here).

      I don’t think Romanoff’s fundraising is competitive, especially in light of the spending decisions he’s made.

      I don’t think the quarter was “good” as BtR spins.

      I think it was just good enough for him to stay in.  He’ll do well at caucus and prolong this silliness for another several months.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        I agree with your entire comment. Just good enough to keep him from being forced out.  

      • It’s setting up to be a let’s lose campaign.

        Given that Team Bennet can’t attack Romanoff the way Romanoff apparebtly let’s his people attack Sen.Bennet.

        • Froward69 says:

          and it failed. continuing the economic slide.

          as well as allowing More people to loose their homes

          to keep banks from having to give up a point or two or extending an ARM mortgage out to 30 years.

          I can restructure all of my mortgages on additional properties in bankruptcy court.

          Single Homeowners cannot.

          Thanks Michael Bennet.

          • RedGreenRedGreen says:

            You do realize “cramdown” was one part of a much larger foreclosure prevention bill, which passed with Bennet’s vote, right? And that “cramdown” fell 15 votes short of what was needed to pass it in the Senate, so Bennet’s vote was hardly decisive? Reality also has a reality bias.

          • rather than reducing principle.

            This society does have a basis in contract law.

            • gaf says:

              means that in ten years there is very little equity, and not much in 20 years–unless, of course, we have another housing bubble and one exits before the crash. Might it keep people in their home? Perhaps. Is that better than renting? Not necessarily.

              I just can’t accept that it is good public policy to treat second (and third and fourth) houses more favorably that “only” houses. I don’t know about these things. Perhaps someone can educate me on how Bennet’s votes (no’s and aye’s) on amendments (such as cram down) and the final bill relate to this.

      • BlueCat says:

        And as far as the positions he’s finally articulated, I still don’t see much there that differentiates him from Bennet. The sooner the silliness is over the better.    

  4. MADCO says:

    I predicted $434k

    And I believe fiscal viability is now confirmed. He’s not.

    Fork, please.

    Sure- he can get to caucus without a huge infusion. But when/how doe the big dough show up to run against the R (s) ?  

  5. TheDeminator says:

    With only 479k a month his team is going to drain him dry.  I’ve worked with a number of those folks and they are not cheap.   I love Andrew and hoped he would have had a better quarter.  

    With those numbers he can run for congress, not US Senate.  Sorry to say but I am a fundraiser for a living.. they are sort of sad.  

  6. caroman says:

    After meeting AR for the first time last week, I realized why Governor Ritter picked Michael Bennet.  Bennet demonstrates far more gravitas and intelligence than Romanoff.

    So, Romanoff hasn’t listened to Obama, Ritter or other adults in the party.  Who will he listen to?  I think it’s time for the state legislators who gave Romanoff preliminary support, based on their time working with him, to step in and privately withdraw their support based on his inability to raise respectable money.  This primary is not going to help their races.  It’s only going to distract attention away from the GOP candidate(s).

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Yeah, gravitas is what the voters look for, all right.  Ronald Reagan had gravitas and he crushed that lightweight Mondale.  And George H.W. Bush had gravitas and crushed that lightweight Dukakis.  And George W. Bush had gravitas and crushed that lightweight Gore and that lightweight Kerry.  

        Actually, “gravitas” is Latin for “loser.”

       I know both men a lot better than you do, Caroman, and they are both smart and deep thinkers.  But AR is considerably more effective in communicating, unless you’re the kind of My Mind is Made UP, Don’t Confuse Me with Good Impressions” voter who would say

      Michael Bennet had me at “Obama”  

  7. scobb99 says:

    I’m really impressed with Romanoff’s progress. While it seems that Bennett is catering to fewer, wealthier donors, Romanoff has appealed to more people. In the end, the strategy of working to mobilize more people with smaller donations will pay off as the 2008 presidential race proved. Expect this trend to continue, and expect Romanoff to gain some ground in the coming months.

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      For most of your post, I thought it was leading up to a payday lending link! You’ve got the jargon down pat.

    • indipol says:

      And least give us the respect of answering this question: paid or not paid by the campaign?

    • Ralphie says:

      Just to post that?

      Man, that’s devotion.

      Next time, get some ideas.

    • ardy39 says:

      You need better talking points, scobb99.

      Romanoff has 9% more contributors but 627% less cash on hand, and you think this is impressive?

      You would be better served to compare how much Bennet is raising from individuals versus PACs. THIS would be an impressive contrast to put Romanoff in a positive light.

      I like both Romanoff & Bennet. I don’t like the influence of PACs on elections. Romanoff still has an opportunity to win me over, but failed spin like this won’t work.

  8. gaf says:

    Ok, I have been following the Bennet/Romanoff conversation on Colorado Pols for some time, and it seems that the majority of Pols commentators have bought into the Supreme Court frame of “money is speech”:

    Bennet has raised much more money. That money represents the people’s voice. Therefore, Romanoff should get out of the race.

    I guess I just need to accept this wisdom of the Supreme Court–and the majority of commentators here at Pols. Why go on to caucuses and a primary when the people have already spoken with their money?

    • redstateblues says:

      If Andrew Romanoff can win the primary election, he will be the Democratic nominee. If he can clobber Bennet at the caucuses, then he has a real chance of turning the momentum back in his favor for pretty much the first time since his announcement day.

      Money is important, but it’s not the only thing. If Romanoff can show that his grassroots support is deeper than Bennet’s pockets, then he will be able to raise enough money.

      But, like I said, money is important. If he wants to beat Bennet and Norton then he needs to raise more. The first quarter of reporting, the excuses were accepted by the majority of people. This time around, it’s going to be a lot harder.

      But I think you’re misconstruing people’s minds being on the money for people thinking money overshadows votes. It doesn’t, and it never will.

      The balance book is vital during the campaign, but the ballot box decides everything on election day.

      • gaf says:

        I hope you are right, but the number and tone of so many entries here focusing on the money make me fear I am not misconstruing a number of minds.

        • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

          It’s also about being able to afford the basic nuts and bolts of a campaign. You need to pay for staff, office space, printing, postage, etc., and that’s not even considering what you need to save for television buys. You might be able to run an effective statewide campaign with $300-400k per quarter, but that doesn’t leave you with much money to save for TV.

          It’s not unfair to ask how a campaign can succeed if it cannot raise enough money to afford both the basic needs and TV advertising.  

          • gaf says:

            And yes, I realize that is somewhat off topic for this strand, but it relates: The way to make a campaign about the issues, and about who can best represent the people in office, is to have public financing of campaigns so that one can run a competitive campaign on ability and ideas rather than fundraising potential.

    • ColoDem Di says:

      When the Big Bad Oil Companies and Evil Health Insurance Providers start buying up all the ad space to ensure Jane Norton gets elected, it will take a DEEP budget to counter their misleading messages.

      Any word on Jane Norton’s Q4 fundraising?

    • indipol says:

      asked the question that you answered, I would have said the opposite: most people here are adamantly opposed to the SCOTUS decision.  A small few write the same “Andrew should get out” comment 10 times on each salient diary, so you’re seeing an inflated sample.  It doesn’t mean the rest of us agree with them.  I for one absolutely do not.  But I do agree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here that AR better start showing us something, and soon.  And by something, I don’t mean money.

  9. WesternSlopeThought says:

    at least he knew when to go sit in the corner and pout, for party “unity”, says he.  With so little measurable difference between the two D candidates on matters of policy and a huge difference in money, an internecine battle now seems so counterproductive.  I’m to the point that I think the only way I’d support AR after this, is if Bennet followed in Ritter’s footsteps.

    “Three or four years from now, we’re not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff.”  -Scott McInnis

  10. but still not enough to beat Bennet. Perhaps if Romanoff had some real substance to run on instead of shrieking about imaginary contrasts this would make a difference.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.