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) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

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%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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
February 01, 2010 08:38 PM UTC

Romanoff Raised $337K in 2009 Q4

  • 136 Comments
  • by: redstateblues

(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!

Comments

136 thoughts on “Romanoff Raised $337K in 2009 Q4

    1. 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.}

      1. 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.

        1. and are now Unlimited… (donations from any body corporations and wealthy people included)

          the gop (state anyway) is seeing too it.

          A river of money will soon flow to whom ever is willing to sell their vote.

          1. Although, I don’t want to sound like Alito… not true.

            Citizens United stands for the proposition the corporations can spend an unlimited amount on election related advertising, including ads that expressly advocate for a particular candidate.

            The federal ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates, parties and PACs remain in effect.  Hand in hand, corporations are banned from coordinating advertisements and advocacy with a candidate or political party.

            Donations are not free speech under this case.  Advocacy by a corporation, WITHOUT donating to a candidate, is the protected speech according to the Court.

            While I disagree with the Court’s conclusions, your analysis is wrong.

            You lose.

            1. until the Court strikes down those laws as well, and all indications are that as soon as anyone files a lawsuit challenging the Constitutionality of direct corporate donations to candidates, they well.

                    1. and I can assure you that I’m nowhere near being maxed out. If I had $4800, I’d probably be paying down debt with it first. 🙂

      2. 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.

    2. 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.

      1. Romanoff will have enough votes coming out of the caucus to get on the ballot.  So will Bennet.  This one is going to go the primary distance which I don’t necessarily see as a bad thing.

      1. 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.  

        1. 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.  

          1. 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.  

        2. 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.

          1. 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.  

        3. 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.

          1. 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.

          2. 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?

  1. 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.  

    1. $337,000 is less than 2% of the amount needed for this race.  

      Please, get a clue.  Romanoff is not even close to being competitive and is a distraction from concentrating on the GOP candidate.

      Time has now run out on Romanoff.  Unless, that is, you just like to lose.

      I don’t.

      1. you live on another planet.  Romanoff is competitive for the nomination.  Once that’s secured, the same money vaults now open to

        B ennet will be avilable for Romanoff.

        1. but how anybody can compare their quarterly numbers and not think AR is getting lit up is beyond me.  Their numbers are almost an order of magnitude apart.

              1. but that was in a district where without Jared spending that much money he might not have won.  Hell I did finance for the man and we knew we needed to outspend and have a much larger staff.

                Andrew has almost no money to spend and how much of it is general money that he cannot spend. 497k is about 3 days of TV statewide… NOTHING.  

                Fitz’gerald spent over 2 million plus had major 527’s from many sources helping her.  Andrew has none of that.  

        2. to pay the salaries for all of Andy’s new staff?  Geesh.

          “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

          1. Romanoff has painted himself into a bit of a corner on this. If he sticks to his promises in the general, he may not be able to compete from an advertising perspective. However, if he changes his campaign’s policy for the general, then he will open himself up to attacks about just how principled his principled stand was.

            I think he will do the smart thing, and if he wins the nomination, he will do as Bob says and then put his political skills to work to smooth over any potential blow back from his more erm… passionate… supporters.

        3. Very disingenuous method of commentary.  Please be more careful in your analysis.

          “Securing the nomination” won’t occur until mid-August. After that, there are only 6 weeks before ballots are mailed to voters. That is not enough time to raise millions of dollars and spend them effectively.  

          Having only about 14% of the cash on hand of Bennet is not competitive by my definition.  But, I guess you’re free to argue that just about anyone is “competitive for the nomination”.  See my discussion of “loser” above.

           

          1. Plus, I don’t think there’s any guarantee “the same money vaults now open to Bennet” will be available, much less wide open, for Romanoff. Part of the reason Bennet is a fundraising star is the whole new universe of donors he brings to Colorado politics. Those are Bennet donors, not “keep the Colorado seat blue” donors. And Romanoff is railing against a lot of the other folks donating to Bennet … it’s unlikely they’ll reward this by maxing out to the other guy.

            1. But I think you make an excellent point. Romanoff will get the institutional support if he’s the D nominee, but he won’t be able to put up numbers equal to the ones Bennet is putting up now.

        4. Id’ be surprised if Sen Bennet assists ROmanoff rraise money he loses the nomination. Mainly due to Romanoff’s hard core supporters flat fabricating the Bennet record.  

        5. Bennet has accepted PAC and corpoate donateions- and AR has said he will not.

          Also, there ae Bennet friends and supporters who, while may prefer to see the seat stay D are not AR friends.

          I agree- getting to the nomination should not be $17m, but it’s going to be wayyy more than $500k if he’s going to be viable in the general.

      2. with Bennets vote on the Bankruptcy bill… I simply do not trust him. He did far better at DPS.

        oh he still calls that vote a “NO” vote to the “Cramdown” Bill.

        Judging from the amount of cash and number of “donors” (listed above) Bennet is in someones silk lined pocket.

        I would like to see how Bennet votes on Wall street reform…

        betcha it is a NO.

                    1. Before I moved to PA and switched to Rolling Rock. It was good pre-1987 until they sold out to Labatt’s. It was either the little green bottles or Schmidt’s or Iron City.  Couldn’t do those.

                      “33”

  2. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

              1. The tide came in yesterday in Madagascar.  I didn’t see it to know it happened.

                As for thi svote- it’s well documented and the link has been posted more than once right here on CoPols.com

                BTW= next you’re going to realize that the fact that Bennet’s vote wasn’t the deciding vote is somewhat irrelevant to the question of whether he should have voted for it or against it.

                I would agree. I think he should have voted for it. His logic was sound- his conclusion was not.  But even his voting for it would not have made it pass.  COnclusion- he voted his mind and what he thought was best for all CO, even though there was a potential politcal price to pay. At least that’s one conclusion.

                Meanwhile, he has acknowledged the Senate efforts to help homeowners stay int heir homes was a failure (he described it as “colossal failure”)  and tat the Senate needs to do more.  Same topic AR: [crickets]

              2. Given how much you’ve been schooled today (in this thread, as well as in the discussion of the supreme court’s decision), I somehow doubt your topness.

            1. 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.

      2. 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.    

      1. Not fair to use a percentage when the numbers are so pathetically low.

        I was $87,001 too low.  Madco was $97,000 too high.  Who wins using Price is Right rules?

  3. 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.  

  4. 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).

    1. 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”  

      1. I don’t know either well at all (which puts me in the same position as roughly 99.5% of the people who will vote in the primary), but on their communication skills (and by inference, their politicianeering skills) drew the same conclusion on the handful of times I’ve seen them speak.  AR is a natural and Bennet is much less so.  Just my observation.  And with every new, “AR should just drop out of this race” comment it makes me want a primary even more.  Bennetfans, if your guy is so good, let him beat AR at the polls and save us your talk about bloody primaries and wasting money for the general and yada yada yada.

        1. I’ve talked to people who say Bennet has gotten a lot better in the last year. That tag on him may have been appropriate when he first got his feet wet, but after a year in the Senate, Bennet’s political skills have improved significantly.

          I would say that Romanoff probably has the edge in pure political skill, but if Bennet does end up getting elected he could very well prove many of his detractors wrong.

            1. until the biggest test of all, command of the Army of the Potomac.  Give me a guy like U.S. Grant, who failed at many things and learned the lessons of failure, most importantly being that if you are afraid to fail, you’ll never try anything worthwhile.  

                1. who, as a prominent environmental lawyer with a sterling resume working for non-profit environmental advocacy groups, compares pretty favorably with AR’s newest buddy, Pat Cadell. Hmmm…  should I support someone who works with Russ Feingold and lives with Susan Daggett or someone who thinks the reptilian Pat Caddell is his kind of guy? What to do, what to do….  

      2. especially the Latin part

        but, have you spoken with Romanaff lately? He seems defeated, surly, and surprisingly frank about it.  I’m not sure if his communication skills are at their best now.

        1. Andrew Romanoff spent four hours in Fort Collins and I heard him at two out of the three events.  His comments were clear, concise, and cogent!   And, when in a Q&A frame – I heard him respond directly to every question in depth and with humor.  So – why say these things when they just aren’t true.

          1. …so maybe he spent all of his energy up there.  I will grant that these candidates are bound to be spent by the end of their multi-appearance days.  Perhaps I caught AR at the end of a particularly taxing day.

            1. they can’t be the same person, J.  Can you imagine, the same person writing as clearly as Ann and as incoherently as Sharon?  No, AR definitely has two die-hard supporters.  

  5. 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.

    1. 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.

  6. 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?

    1. 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.

        1. 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.  

          1. 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.

    2. 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?

      1. She announced a couple weeks ago, raised $550,000, which was something of a let-down after her strong start raising almost as much in a couple weeks after announcing.

    3. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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 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

265 readers online now

Newsletter

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