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 05, 2010 02:33 AM UTC
34 Comments
For a policy wonk all Andrew Romanoff has is one proposal to eliminate the anti-trust exemption for insurance company’s. That is laudable.
The rest is just kind of vacuous.
Come on Andrew you are one of the smartest guys around. Damn the torpedoes and say something meaningful.
Something I missed?
Where does he differ from Bennet? Oh, I see. He doesn’t.
That’s because he has no policy differences with Michael Bennet.
But, that smile…..
First, while Bennet really wants to be elected Senator this year, Romanoff really really wants it.
Then, Bennet claims he was almost as surprised as the rest of us he was appointed. Clearly an exaggeration- he at least knew he interviewed for the gig. But Romanoff was surprised he wasn’t appointed.
Then there’s that Bennet has endorsements from President Obama, Mark Feingold, Mark Udall, Gary Hart, and others. But Romanoff has Cary Kennedy, Morgan Carroll, and a bunch of county chairs.
I could go on- Bennet has a wife and kids, passed the bar, was never elected before, had a real private sector job, etc But you get the point.
Oh, yeah- Bennet has raised tons of cash and is surely planning a media campaign that starts early and goes deep. Romanoff has zero chance for big media campaign unless/until he demonstrates he can fund an 8-figure buy.
What are you implying, that he’s fertile?
I’d make some ham and eggs. If I had some eggs.
How exactly is that a message that’s any different than Bennet’s? Bennet’s the guy who cheesed off leadership by going on the floor and slamming the backroom deals, only to have some old Democratic fossil come out and blast him for upsetting the apple cart.
But it’s something. It’s just amazing that it took Romanoff nearly six months to start saying why you should vote for him.
When you primary a sitting senator it’s either because you’re a selfish narcissist (and I think we can all agree that’s not the case with Andrew, right?) or because you think the other guy has done something so heinous as to be fired.
I’d like to know exactly what that is, and all I’ve heard is endless baloney about PAC money. and falsehoods about Bennet’s votes. You can’t run the most expensive campaign in history and not raise any money. And the voting record is actually on the internets.
Let the process work itself through.
Have ya noticed lately? – people are angry, about a lot of things. One of the many things people don’t like is backroom deals, secret meetings, the powerful pulling strings behind the scenes. I am not referring to the year-old history re: this Senate seat, I’m referring to how things are being done today. Andrew Romanoff is popular with a large number of people around the state – 100-plus turn out in Pueblo to hear him speak. Perhaps even more impressive, 60 or 70 turned out earlier this week in Grand County (population 12,000-plus) to hear Romanoff speak. Many, many in the audience were already supporters, or became supporters that evening.
Right now the race is as much about turnout of supporters at caucuses as it is about anything else. I’m content to wait for caucus results and subsequent assembly results. I’m expecting county parties and the state party to play their appropriate neutral roles until the Dem candidate for the US Senate is determined. In the meantime, hold on for the ride.
I mean of course it’s got to do what it does.
But we (Colorado D’s) are behind.
We should be running hard against the R’s right now. But we can’t.
I’m glad the other important CO D races can be focused and running hard already (Gov, CD’s, and others)
I wish we could do the same on this one. Of course, Romanoff has the right to run. That doesn’t make it right.
If Romanoff wins the caucus, he will likely lose this race. At this juncture, AR supporters are chugging the Kool-Aid. Don’t get me wrong, he’s a great guy with great potential but there is no way he can win this race for several reasons, many mentioned here. Dems lose and AR definitely loses, if he’s the reason why Dems lose this Senate seat he needs to move out of the state. There’s no way he’ll ever be able to get back into politics. Hope he choses the right path.
AR has zero chance at winning the Caucus. He has minimal support even amongst the hardcore Dems. Bennet’s campaign is so well organized, they will get people out to the Caucus. AR will likely pass the viability test, but not by much.
Will caucuses get to vote Bennet, Romanoff and Uncommitted? If so, I bet there’s a large uncommitted bloc, and that Bennet wins most of them over by the state assembly. Still, I wouldn’t discount Romanoff’s popularity among caucus goers
and the answer is yes to your question.
You mean being primaried? For Larimer County, we have a primary for our Senate District 15 race and a primary for the Sheriff’s race. Is that what you meant?
I was more wondering if there were any random Senate candidates for the Democrats like the guy who challenged Udall in ’08.
I’m just trying to find reasons for people to go to the caucus other than Bennet v. Romanoff. Most of my friends and peers could give two craps about the caucus, but will vote in the primary.
I’m trying to make them understand why we have both, and why it’s important to vote in both if you’re declared for one of the two major parties.
We talked about the potential and probable low turnout in March last night, too. That was a major topic.
Why we have both a caucus and a primary is beyond me but that’s Colorado for you.
Why do we have both?
And what difference does it make to show up at caucus?
If you really prefer one candidate over the other, then showing up to caucus for them is the next best thing to giving them a campaign donation.
It shows that they are a viable candidate. Weaker candidates who don’t reach a certain threshold at caucus have to find different ways of getting on the ballot, or they’re not on it at all.
It’s also how you decide the delegates for the state assemblies and conventions, precinct committee people for the next two years, and gives you a chance to meet your neighbors who have like-minded enough political beliefs that they are members of the same party as you. I think that’s the most enjoyable part of the caucus vs. the primary, and why it’s good we have both.
Now, I’m not saying that the caucus is perfect, or that I don’t have issues with it. There’s never a very high turnout unless it’s a historic election like in ’08, only 2% or so of party-affiliated registered voters basically determine who the candidates will be. It’s not a very populist manner of nominating candidates for office.
But, given the fact that nobody is really talking about changing the process by which political parties nominate their candidates for office in the near future, I say that the best way is to get as involved as you can in both the caucus and the primary.
I hope you will understand if I “borrow” a few of your points when I am talking to potential caucus goers. This is good stuff, RSB.
who work swing shift or can’t get out of the house?
I like caucuses, but I think it’s just for nostalgic reasons. The parties can get together and swap jokes with neighbors whenever they want, but it’s kind of an archaic way to nominate candidates anymore.
But, in answer to BiCora’s question, your vote at a caucus carries far more weight than it would in an election, both because the participation is so low and because you’re able to persuade fence-sitters (grab those lapels!). So if you care about who makes the ballot, it’s worth a couple hours’ time.
And it’s true people can get together whenever they want, but very few choose to do so. The HD meetings, and the county meetings are useful tools, but when people know that by showing up they’re going to have a little bit of say in their government it brings in a bigger group of people–though not big enough that it negates your argument by any means.
I wish we were having this discussion outside of a day-old thread on Pols, though. Until there’s a larger movement to either eliminate or in some way reform the caucus, then it’s not going anywhere.
I think if we just figured out a way to nominate delegates, select PCPs, and take care of all the other non-voting caucus business in a different way, we could move our primary to March or April. That way, we would stop having these arguments about whether primaries are good or bad because of the sacrifices the party has to make for them until after August.
What about people who cannot caucus? You mentioned people with job schedules, but there are plenty of people who cannot particiapte in overtly partisan activities and so cannot caucus at all.
As for seeing my neighbors – I see them all I want all year long. I’ve never once heard from my PCP and would be surprised if I did. In the case of the Senate race this year, both have said they would petition on if need be – so what’s the point?
Oh, because we’ve always done it that way. I feel better now.
people can’t go to caucuses, including bans on overtly partisan activity. A caucus is overtly partisan, there’s no denying it, so if it’s banned, it’s banned.
No ones’s saying you have to go to a caucus — the overwhelming majority of voters don’t. But that’s the way candidates are nominated (including local ones), so if you want to have an outsized influence on that, attending a caucus is a way to do it.
How many more millions of dollars does Bennet need before he can beat up on Norton?
But that’s no excuse to refrain from beating up on Norton.
I think Pols is being too charitable.
I don’t see how this announcement qualifies as much substance or message.
1. “I’d fight to take the pork out” — Bennet criticized the pork by name, on the floor of the Senate, weeks ago, and was the first Democratic Senator to do so, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Senator Nelson said he wanted to remove his pork or make it available to all other states. Pork is a problem, but criticizing it doesn’t make Romanoff different.
2. “Put the public option back in” — Bennet was for the public option months before Romanoff even got in the race and has said he would still prefer it. Right or wrong, the President signalled he was willing to give it up last August, in Grand Junction, with Senator Bennet sitting near him. It’s been pretty dead since then. Demanding that it get put in now that Democrats have 59 votes instead of 60 would get health care to Americans sooner how, exactly?
3. “Remove the antitrust exemption” — Bennet has already publicly called for that himself and is working the aisles in Washington to make it happen. Romanoff is giving a speech saying he would like to see it happen, too.
Bennet is plenty progressive without a nonsubstantive challenge that results in Democratic money fighting other Democrats who think about the same thing.
ColoPols has just chosen to dismiss it. He believes he will be a better U.S. Senator for Colorado. More on this in a second.
Earlier today, MOTR (who must be related to MB he/she is such a booster) wrote a breathless diary about Feingold and Bennet teaming up to sponsor a “Put People First” petition about campaign finance. Great, a petition to send a message! If only Feingold and Bennet had some sort of power to do more than send out emails about a pointless petition…wait, they do! But the Bennet trumpets blared on ColoPols for the great Bennet and his love of the people’s will. (The guy who got appointed and has never won an election.) What a meaningless email.
Back to AR’s message. People continue to insist there must be policy differences between AR and MB or AR’s run is invalidated. Wrong for many reasons. The biggest is that a good Senator has many qualities and this is what AR has been trying to tell you. Here are three:
1. Policy positions we agree with. Generally the same between AR and MB from the perspective of most Coloradans. BUT, a critical difference is that AR is more willing to FIGHT for his positions than it seems MB is. Which leads to…
2. Political courage. AR has shown he has it. Think about how he tried to tackle TABOR. And just getting in this race took courage. MB has not. He had been lukewarm on healthcare and the second Brown won he caved completely. Zero courage. He may be a great guy and a hard worker but MB is not a leader.
3. Legislative proficiency. AR showed us in the Colorado Legislature that he has this skill. MB has not demonstrated any.
One final thought, if you took a hard look at AR’s life work and experience and a hard look at MB’s life work and experience, wouldn’t you expect Obama to find more in common with AR?
Disclaimer: I do not work for AR.
You “joined” on August 30, you only participate in Romanoff/Bennet diaries and you sound awful familiar in a Square State sort of way. Too bad you didn’t feel comfortable enough to just post under whatever user name you’ve had before you chose this one. Maybe you had to–maybe the campaign frowned on paid staff spending their time on the blogs.