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%
February 04, 2010 05:36 PM UTC
34 Comments
This will send the Romies into a tizzy for sure. Did you see them bashing the President as “desperate” for coming out to help Michael Bennet? Obviously, Russ Feingold, one of the great progressive lions of the Senate who Andrew “DLC” Romanoff doesn’t deserve to get coffee for, is also “desperate.”
In fact if you don’t support Andrew Romanoff you are just a desperate beltway starfucker. This means you Russ!
Feingold has raised $1.2 million from PACs this decade, which obviously makes him corrupt beyond reproach (since Sen. Bennet is corrupt for having taken 60% of that amount.)
that star thing sounds like something.
What I don’t get is all the supposed D’s saying that primaries are a good thing and then doing everything they can think of to make the primary worse. And going all PUMAnoff and refusing to indicate that they’ll support the D nominee whoever it is and even threatening to stay home come election day. WTF?
Primaries can be a good thing when the nominee is a stronger candidate for having gone through one.
This happens when legitimate, substantive policy differences between candidates get articulated, examined and the voters choose.
So far I haven’t seen any of that because there aren’t any.
I’m glad to see my coinage is taking hold.
The differences the Romanoff campaign points to are all about process, not substance. Short of true scandal (and taking PAC money at the same rate as every other Democratic senator from Colorado, not to mention the Grand PUMAnoff himself when he ruled the House, simply isn’t one), voters care not a whit about process.
Bennet hadn’t said word one about campaign finance reform– granted it wasn’t really on the radar– until Romanoff began to paint him as a corporate scumsucking pirate. Now Bennet is up there with Feingold. That’s a big jump from last year’s self-identified conservadem and I think it’s a good thing.
That said, I think Romanoff is being a bit disingenuous. Making campaign finance his one-note anthem is all well and good I guess, except a glance at the Secretary of State’s website brings up a lengthy history of campaign contributions from the insurance, pharmaceutical, and homebuilding industries. Andy may have come to Jesus, but the book says something about “he without guilt should cast the first stone” and I would think that would also mean not casting the same stone over and over.
talking about the need for campaign finance reform last Spring- almost a year ago.
Next we’re going to hear that Bennet wasn’t really for oxygen or kids or apple pie until Romanoff got in.
But it’s not like it’s on his issues page or anything.
I find that line of thinking a lot easier to follow than the “AR pushed Bennet to the left on health care because just the mere whisper of a Romanoff primary had sweeping effect on Bennet 7 months before Romanoff even announced” canard.
His issues page never had anything about …. space exploration, public television, hi speed rail, and a hundred other things. They’re not on the agenda.
But it’s nice that we’re talking about it now. I wish that the Sharon Hanson’s of the world had framed it in a better war, because then AR wouldn’t be taking their lead, but I think it’s good that we’re talking about it. That may not have happened without the primary.
Now, whether or not that outweighs all of the BS is another matter entirely.
This is just another Romanoff supporter trying to take credit for good thiings that Micahel does.
Some people whine and spew false innuendo, others take action to help people.
I think the necessary organizing and agility on message that comes from a primary is all to the good. Bennet really needs a better adversary than Romanoff in order to hone his chops for the general, but I remember how Udall made some fairly strong effort to distance himself from progressives when his only opponent was Bob Schaeffer- Udall coming out for nuclear power? really? that was just weird.
If Bennet weren’t facing a semi-credible primary, I’m sure he’d be using his time now shoring up his moderate credentials instead of getting Obama into town and jumping on CFR as a signature issue. The caucus would certainly have delegated to somebody like Gillibrand or Spector who need to develop some populist cred.
Do you have anything you can cite for your claim that Bennet “self-identified” as a “Conservadem”?
Rachel Maddow originally placed that label on 15 Democratic Senators (one of which was Bennet). She said it was a group whose goal was “torpedoing their party’s own agenda.” Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
It was an odd label at the time and there is nothing in the last 11 months to support it, certainly not from Senator Bennet. I don’t remember Bennet ever embracing the term, as you seem to be saying.
I agree with you that Romanoff is being disingenuous on PAC money.
The actual group’s name was “Moderate Dems Working Group”. Udall and Bennet were (are?) both members.
He didn’t have to! Wade embraced it for him!
Whom would I rather see my Senator associating closely with? Progressive champion Russ Feingold or Dem bashing, sleazy Fox pet, Pat Caddell? Gee that’s a tough one.
should have Caddell on AM760
We know Caddell loves doing media and I imagine the two together would be a good show.
hates the POTUS.
Listening to Sirota today talk about “the cram down” made me think of Jon Caldera. He doesn’t talk about the facts. He spins them to attack the Senator.
His arguments were the same ones easily refuted on a thread here yesterday.
Clear Channel owns them. Perhaps he’s just a puppet on a string.
There’s a lot of grassroots for Romanoff, but he hasn’t really done/said a whole lot that’s impressed me lately.
Bennet, on the other hand, continues to do a number of things that I’m liking.
If Romanoff wants the spot, he’s going to have to stop focusing on the PAC money issue and start focusing on policy points.
has, or at least as the perception of having, the “grass roots”?
Could it be that his track record of helping other Dems, building the party, showing up for Dems, and generally being in and around the Colorado Dem scene for several years has generated a kind of loyalty?
I call it a “kind of loyalty”, because those perceived roots are D insiders who know and like Romanoff and share apparently share his frustration with him not being appointed in the first place. But if they were loyal to his politics and his priorities instead of him, they would have gotten to know Bennet last Winter and would have been luke warm or oppossed to a primary and now they too would be questioning the candidates on significant policy differences.
I like and admire Feingold, and I’m pretty neutral in the Bennet vs. Romanoff matchup, so no dog in the hunt here for me.
The intent is there – to find a way to curb the corporate influence of campaign money unleashed by the Supreme Court decision. But the details are lacking.
As I understand it, the decision did not affect corporate or union limitations directly to candidates and their campaign organizations. The decision was based on the first amendment free speech guarantee that a corporation could independently spend unlimited amounts of money promoting a candidate (or opposing an opponent).
So what kind of campaign reform law can Congress pass to negate the Court ruling? I see none, since any law passed would likely take us back to square one – it would be unconstitutional.
So are Sens. Feingold and Bennet just blowing smoke here? As Walter Mondale once said, “Where’s the beef?”
I too am neutral.
There are a couple of different things to address.
1. Direct contribs. You are correct. While this decision could not reach direct contributions to candidates by corporations, the Stare Decisis concurrence and the reasoning of the majority opinion means they are just waiting for a case to overturn $ limits and corporate limits.
2. what congress can do without implicating the 1st amendment: Without giving away the full bag of tricks there are a number of ways through corporate governance laws or attribution laws (similar to LLC giving) that could be used to place requirements on corps to give shareholders a stake in the speech. In addition, foreign ownership of US corporations(think Citibank with its large Saudi ownership), US subsidiaries (legally separate US entities owned by foreign corporations-think UBS Financial Services) and foriegn corporations domiciled in the US-think CitGo owned by the Venezuelan government) may be able have limitations placed on them because according to Justice Alito it was not the intent to allow unlimited foreign corporate speech.
last Saturday in Notrth Aurorra, and in Commerce city.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
I’m busy today or I would have more to say.
it could be….just maybe….that all those NYC bankers just like the D’s better and now that the R party has gone off the eastern cliffs, the bankers find their personal values aligning with the D’s more than the R’s. At least that’s the case for every NYC banker I know, and while I don’t know them all, five is enough of a sample for me. Every one of them far more left than myself.
Romnaoff is now urging his supporters to vote in the Be The Change opinion poll.
So far it is a close race for who Be The Changers support. Yawn. Even with these guys Romanoff does not have overwhelming support.
http://www.btc-usa.org/joomla1…
As for Bennet signing up to support campaign reform is a smart move,
I have just seen a string of emails from state party central committee members incensed over the role of the CDP in the Obama fundraisers.
They are not buying the Coordinated Campaign explanation.
They are clearly convinced that the state party is backing Bennet.
Ironic, in that Pat Waak became chair of the party because of the anger at Chris Gates over his support of Salazar over Mike Miles.
Many of the same people who were angry at Gates are now angry at Waak.
This is a strange business.
Read up on 441(a)(d).
I disagree with you on..well…almost everything.
But you are really freaking smart.
better a minor kerfuffle between insiders over perceived favoritism than a state party chair snubbing a sitting president. The Mike Miles crew had some legitimate beefs and a lot of paranoia, but even they wouldn’t have freaked if Salazar had managed an inexpensive, open to the public fundraiser with Clinton. They would’ve been fighting each other for tickets… or standing outside holding Kucinich for President signs.