Polling numbers for Bennet and Romanoff

( – promoted by Middle of the Road)

Romanoff may not need to worry about ‘how long he can keep the lights on’ according to a new poll for the Colorado Senate Race:


Rasmussen released the results of a new Colorado Senate poll Friday, and the news is particularly bad for incumbent Democrat Michael Bennet. According to the telephone survey, Bennet now trails likely Republican nominee Jane Norton by 14 points, 52%-37%. Norton’s lead is up two points from January’s Rasmussen poll, which showed her with a 49-37% lead.

Making matters worse for Bennet, his Democratic Challenger, former Speaker of the Colorado House Andrew Romanoff, seems to be making a push in the Rasmussen poll Romanoff trails Norton by just 7 points, 45%-38%.

Hmm, Jane Norton has opened up a double digit lead on Bennet, while Romanoff has picked up 5 points and is only behind 7 points.

Seems like this not going to be just about money, it is going to be who can actually compete vs the Republicans.

And this:

Rasmussen also reported that 70% of Coloradans thought that the government was beholden to special interests, and another 70% think the government often works with big business to hurt consumers.

Romanoff’s campaign message has centered lately on the candidate’s independence, and his decision not to accept campaign donations from special interests.

Watch Romanoff’s first web ad playing up his independence from special interests:

Whoa, the end of this commercial speaks volumes about this campaign.

The race is on.

Visit Andrew Romanoff’s Website

153 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. wade norris says:

    ‘reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated’

  2. Laughing Boy says:

    This is getting awesome.

  3. ace41 says:

    For handing the NRCC and the NRSC ample fodder to use against all of our Democratic incumbents.  Well done.

    Funny how Andrew never seemed to object to taking “special interest” money when it was being offered to him as Speaker of the House.  But now that those funds have dried up, he suddenly has an ideological objection to them.  I would not count on that little piece of hypocrisy staying out of the debate when Michael Bennett uses the millions of dollars he will have for the primary election.  

    Wade, Andrew will lose this primary.  The question is whether he takes the whole ticket down with him.

    • wade norris says:

      are about who can raise the most money from Banks and Wall Street, then you are missing the writing on the wall.

      And how did that primary with Obama and Hillary ruin the party in 2008?

      Primaries, whether you like them or not, are a part of our system.

      • Raphael says:

        all of those reasons why the Obama/Clinton primary is not analogous to the 2010 Colorado senate (or really any other) race?

        Also, you don’t necessarily need to raise the most, but you do need enough to be competitive. Anyone who thinks DLC-er Romanoff can somehow ride the populist wave for free into office is so sadly, sadly mistaken for so many reasons.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        and it’s this: if Romanoff does win the primary, he has neither the funds nor the poll numbers right now to defeat Norton. He is still 7 points behind her and if he goes dark in October, she has free rein to advertise for 8 weeks and owns the media. We lose a Senate seat to a Republican for 6 years. And Romanoff becomes persona non grata with every Democrat in this state.

        I do so hope you all have a big strategy in place for raising some dollars to prevent that scenario because whether you want to ignore it or not, his fundraising numbers have been downright embarrassing for a Senate candidate.

        And that, too, is a reality, just as this poll appears to be.  

        • wade norris says:

          thanks for frontpaging the story, second,

          do you think that if Andrew wins the Primary, the DSCC will not step in to assist in fundraising?

          And your counterargument is that since Bennet has a lot of money, it will be a better loss since he is down by 14 points?

          Granted this is just one poll, but the primary will strengthen both candidates in the run up to the General

          • ace41 says:

            does not have enough money to play everywhere they need to play next year.  So the answer to your question is yes, if Andrew wins, they will take a pass and find someplace else to save a seat.  That’s a fact.

            • Raphael says:

              supposedly including the DSCC? So to not be a hypocrite, wouldn’t he have to refuse their help even if they offered? I may be wrong on this, but wasn’t there discussion just like a week or so ago where Romanoff or someone for his campaign explicitly said they wouldn’t accept the DSCC meddling or something in the general?

            • pambennett says:

              does not have the money to play everywhere. If the RNC is going to be supporting the R taking on Markey the question becomes will they split to support Norton against Romanoff? Or go for the trifecta? I think they should go into the Hick v. McGinness race along with every other D v. R/T race there is.

              • RedGreen says:

                might not, but the NRSC makes its own decisions. Colorado will be a top target whoever wins the Dem primary, but if Romanoff wins they can spend some of the money elsewhere because they won’t have to spend as much here.

          • Middle of the Road says:

            since some of it comes from the very people he vows not to take money from?

            Can you please blockquote where I said that since Bennet has a lot of money it will be a better loss? Because I don’t remember saying that and this is why you get yourself in trouble, Wade. You either don’t read very well or you make shit up. Now which is it?

            You’re welcome on the FP.  

          • Ah Choo says:

            If Romanoff Land thinks the DSCC is guaranteed to save their bacon post-primary, they know nothing about how party committees work, and do not comprehend the toxic effect of their own candidate’s rhetoric:


            Romanoff went even further after his speech, telling The Colorado Statesman he plans to give the cold shoulder to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, if he wins the primary in August.

            • Middle of the Road says:

              against President Obama’s visit will also really endear Romanoff to the higher powers, don’t you think?

              • Laughing Boy says:

                I don’t know how excited I’d be about Obama’s visit, either.

                If he continues to have the same effect on Dems he campaigns for, the Secret Service will have to change his code name to “Albatross”.

                • Middle of the Road says:

                  But if you want to base the entire 2010 election on what happened in Massachusetts don’t let me stop you.  

                  • Laughing Boy says:

                    New Jersey?

                    How about a nice steak and many bottles of red wine with Fidel and me?


                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      And your steak, too. But I might show up to see Fidel… 🙂

                      Did you ever meet Creigh Deeds? Great guy, worst candidate ever. Nuff said about VA. New Jersey? The Dem was a creep and I can’t say I’m too sad to see him lose.

                      I don’t think Obama is your reason for the losses–I think it’s a combination of poor candidates or poorly run campaigns combined with an intense distaste by voters for all things incumbent. And that is where I would suggest Bennet faces his biggest challenge–even though Romanoff’s people declare he isn’t really an incumbent, the voters see it differently.

                      There are a great many safe seats that are facing tough races. From the Rasmussen link:


                      Other Democratic Senate incumbents who currently trail their challengers include Harry Reid in Nevada, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Democrats Barbara Boxer from California, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin find themselves in potentially more competitive races than usual.

                      However, keep in mind this is the same polling site that also takes credit for this prediction:

                      In the 2008 Missouri race for U.S. Senate, Rasmussen polling showed Mark Udall beating Bob Schaffer 51% to 44%. Udall won 53% to 42%.

                      For what’s it’s worth, last time I checked, these lads were in Colorado and Rasmussen was the only polling report in 2008 that had Schaffer ahead of Udall at one point in the race. Rasmussen is consistently–unfortunately, consistently wrong.  

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      But I can tell you that I couldn’t have imagined picking up Kennedy’s seat until January.  

                      Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.

                      The spin makes me believe that anti-Obama sentiment might be closer to the heart of the matter (‘People were mad at Bush so they voted in a Republican’), but you’re exactly right – they were terrible candidates.

                      Which is probably good for all of us over time, eh?

                      I’m totally using you to get to Fidel anyway.


                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      And here’s why–I was talking to a client of mine–he’s in his mid-sixties, has been a truly engaged voter and worked on a lot of campaigns as a volunteer–in other words, he is the heart and soul of what makes up a political party.

                      I asked him the other day if he had ever seen Democrats throw their own President under the bus like this before and he said, “No. Never. I can’t ever remember Democrats talking this way about their own President. They’ve done far more damage to Obama than any Republican and they’ve done it 12 months. That’s gotta be a new record.”

                      For what it’s worth, I think he’s right. There is a level of shit slinging at this President that makes me come to some very uncomfortable conclusions about fellow members of my Party. And their criticism doesn’t seem to have much to do with their differences with him over policies and political issues.  

                    • sxp151 says:

                      At least Moynihan isn’t in the Senate anymore. And when Clinton was elected, people like Richard Shelby were still Democrats. Clinton couldn’t even get 50 out of 57 Dems to vote for his agenda.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      that is already missing with Obama.

                      And my point isn’t really about who in Congress is working with the President. This isn’t about how many Democrats will work with the president to pass his agenda–this is about the average Dem that posts on a blog and spends their every waking moment moaning and wailing and gnashing their teeth over how they have been betrayed…in less than 13 months. (Not in any way talking about you or even anyone specific–just the pattern I and others keep on seeing.)

                    • sxp151 says:

                      I thought you were talking about Dem politicians.

                      I don’t know what average people were saying about Clinton then, partly since there were no blogs then.

                    • butterfly says:

                      And this is what I think of them:

                      There are 59 Dem Senators, most of them with considerable experience. Why is it that they don’t start acting like adults and work out their own problems. Are they really so spoiled with a President that settles all their disagreements that they can’t think for themselves?

                      They are expecting the President to act as the President of the Senate. The President doesn’t have the time for that, he has at least 59 other pressing problems that also need his attention.

                      I think that President Obama HAS told them what he wants, now he expects them to figure out how to get there. They need to stop whining and work it out, soon!

                      They need to stop wasting time and energy whining and do the job that they were elected to do. I don’t think that they were elected to hang back and wait for the President to solve their problems for them!

                    • butterfly says:

                      They need to refer to him as President Obama, not Obama and not Barack.  Show the respect that he deserves!  That the office deserves.  

                      As far as the whiners on blogs etc, they obviously were not paying attention during the election because their expectations were not, and still are not, realistic.

                      So, unless they (you) want the Republicans back in in 2012, they had best show respect and help instead of hinder.  They won’t get all of their wish list but they might get Health Care (in a form that can be improved)which will save lives and help keep health care costs from overwhelming families, businesses and the government.

                      I am 67 years old and I have never seen such stupidity on the part of the left.  (The right is always stupid but they are not part of this riff)

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      Beautifully expressed. Well said.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Yes. Yes they are.

                      People who want to become Senators are frequently egotistical douchebags. There are exceptions. They are few.

                    • RedGreen says:

                      Carter didn’t get a lot of love from a lot of Democrats either.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Actually except for FDR and JFK, I can’t think of a Democratic President this century with whom Democrats were happy.

                      We need to start referring to Obama as BHO, I guess. Doesn’t flow as well though.

                    • ScottLewis says:

                      I’m not trying to throw out a conspiracy theory, but…

                      Who stands to gain the most by Obama tanking?


                      And no, I’m not joking. If he tanks enough, wouldn’t she be “drafted” to run in 2012? Just to save the party?

                    • RedGreen says:


                      If the Obama administration is as much of a disaster as the Bush administration was (exceedingly unlikely), any savior would have to come from outside the administration. But you’re getting carried away for no reason.  

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      I fucking LOVE it when you cuss at me.  That’s how I know we’re homies.


                    • Middle of the Road says:
            • MADCO says:

              “I don’t welcome the outside interference,” Romanoff said. “My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals,” he said, eschewing PACs and special-interest donors he labeled part of an “incumbent-protection racket” in his speech.


              • Laughing Boy says:

                I think it’s fair to call them a special interest, right?

                  • Laughing Boy says:

                    That means they’re not a special interest?

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      Norton is 14 points ahead.  Even our so-so candidate is going to crush Bennet.  CD-4 is coming back to us as well.  It’s the Gov. race we need to focus on.  So far it looks OK, but Hick is popular and (unfortunately) can’t be connected directly to the crap his party has been pushing at the Federal level.

                      I’ll sit here and wait for all the faithful ColoradoPolsters to call me an idiot and list lots of funny and fantasy-land reasons why I’m wrong.  And then I’ll just point out that I’ve been saying what’s in my signature since last April.  And they gave me all the same crap for months and months and months.  And then?  DOOM!

                    • sxp151 says:

                      It’s been about 10 months since Democrats went from incredibly popular to rather unpopular in most polls. (I’m skeptical of Rasmussen in particular, but there are other numbers I find convincing that say the same thing.)

                      Now the elections are also about 10 months away.

                      And I don’t understand this idea that public opinion could change drastically in 10 months but could not possibly ever change at all in another 10 months.

                      Help me quantify the difference between one set of 10 months and another, please.

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      …to swing the other way.  But I’m telling you that the same crap that, to put it euphemistically, “changed public opinion,” doesn’t seem to be coming to an end.  And Republicans are playing the part of loyal opposition well.  Unemployment is projected to rise to 10.5% at some point this year, and at the absolutely minimum will still be 9.8% at the end of the year.  And guess who has controlled Congress for the last two sessions?

                      Case rested.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Er, no, that would be a literal statement whether you agree with it or not. A euphemism is different.

                      Republicans are still more unpopular than Democrats, and I think the main reason Democrats are unpopular is that they haven’t done much. If they accomplish more of their agenda, they can become more popular. I think voters tend to dislike inaction more than anything.

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the receiver.

                      I was trying to be nice by saying “changed public opinion.”  I could’ve said “made America realize just how much damage they had caused by electing an incompetent imbecile President and giving him 60 + 256 rubber stamps.”  But I digress.

                      The term “Republican” is, perhaps, more unpopular than the term “Democrat.”  But the term “conservative” is far and away the most positively viewed political label.  And if you thinking having passed that abysmal health care plan or cap & trade or card check would have improved Americans’ views of Democrats, you’re just simply delusional.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      It’s true that more people identify themselves as conservatives than liberals, and that’s been true for probably 30 years. Didn’t stop people from electing big Democratic majorities. Of course, it’s also true that large majorities have rather liberal views on health care and minimum wage laws and such. Even most self-identified conservatives think the government should provide health care for everyone.

                      As for my delusions, anyone who’s paid attention knows that voters don’t generally elect politicians based on their views on particular issues. For example, I met many people in 2004 who self-identified as liberal, but they liked George Bush because they knew where he stood, and he got things done. Voters are very pragmatic.

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      Of course, it’s also true that large majorities have rather liberal views on health care and minimum wage laws and such. Even most self-identified conservatives think the government should provide health care for everyone.

                      Where do you come up with this stuff?  Show me one poll by an even half-way reputable polling firm that shows a majority of self-identified conservatives believe we need a government run health care system.  Because I’m pretty sure we’ve been polling Americans on that for a while, and, well…here:

                      There’s wide political disagreement over the single-payer issue. Sixty-two percent (62%) of Democrats favor a single-payer system, but 87% of Republicans are opposed to one. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 22% favor a single-payer approach while 63% are opposed.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Everybody knows that.

                      I’m kind of busy tonight, and finding a poll will take a while. So I’ll try again tomorrow. I found one that says 41% of Republicans support government-provided universal health care. (Download the PDF and scroll down.) As opposed to 51% against. Which is better than you’d think, given the phrasing.

                      Pretty sure I’ve seen a poll that says something even stronger (because the fact that health care is universal doesn’t mean the government is providing it or running it, see e.g., Switzerland). I’ll try to find it later.

                      Also, how come Republicans always seem so pissed off all the time? Is it because we still have a black President?

                      (I mean, if you’re just going to throw out offensive random trolling shit at people, as you’ve been doing all weekend, I might as well jump in.)

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      That’s just simply not the case.  We disagree, and always have, with the President on the issues.  It would be no different if he were white.

                      Now, onto the part where you’re talking out your ass:

                      Of course, it’s also true that large majorities have rather liberal views on health care and minimum wage laws and such. Even most self-identified conservatives think the government should provide health care for everyone.

                      Pretty sure I’ve seen a poll that says something even stronger (because the fact that health care is universal doesn’t mean the government is providing it or running it).

                      So a majority of conservatives believe that “the government should PROVIDE health care for everyone,” and yet I’m being unfair by asking you to provide a poll that says a majority of conservatives believe the government should provide everyone with health care?  Gotcha…

                      And yet, you can’t even find a poll that shows a majority of conservatives believe we should have “universal health care,” which is pretty sad considering how easy it would be to get people to say all people should have health care.  Then again, when the poll actually mentions anything about us having to pay for it with tax dollars or about the rationing of care that would result, and the reduced R&D in the medical sector, the numbers change drastically.

                    • RedGreen says:

                      there aren’t deep, seething pockets of racism at the heart of the “conservative” movement and what else remains of the Republican Party.


                    • sxp151 says:

                      I said I’d do it tomorrow. Fuck off for now.

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      You said most conservatives support a health care system universally PROVIDED by the government.  Then, when I challenged you to produce a poll that backed this up, you said “there’s a difference” between universal health care and universal, government-provided health care.  Which is true (sort of…), but you still suggested the latter was what conservatives favor.

                      Thank you for the kind words.  I look forward to this poll you will be bringing to my attention tomorrow.

                      And RG, are you really citing an article about James O’Keefe as proof that the entire conservative movement has racism “at the heart” of it?  Maybe if the page you linked me to hadn’t printed this correction:

                      The Feb. 3 “James O’Keefe’s Race Problem” reported that O’Keefe helped plan a conference on “Race and Conservatism” that featured white nationalist Jared Taylor. The freelance photographer who attended the event, and snapped O’Keefe’s photo there, now says the right-wing provocateur helped out at the conference, but cannot confirm that he helped plan it. The story has been corrected.

                      And if that weren’t bad enough, one of the links the article used to source its “facts” also printed a correction:

                      CORRECTION: A bit of a goof on our part was corrected in the article. Veteran Holocaust denier Willis Carto has been to several events we had covered, but he was not at this 2006 forum, despite what was originally written.We apologize for the confusion.

                      So to whatever extent any of that article is even true, you’re talking about one 25 year-old man.  One who holds no elected office, and represents nobody but himself.  I’m not sure that exactly constitutes the “heart” of the conservative movement.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      You believe the Republicans are going to win Congress in a landslide this year. If I believed my party would win a landslide, I’d probably be feeling pretty good. Yet you’re pissed off all the time and keep calling people you disagree with “idiots” among other things. Why?

                      You took my racism joke very personally. I can see that you’re angry enough that you don’t finish reading my posts before you respond to them, and so perhaps you didn’t notice I was joking, as you didn’t notice that I said I’d provide a better link tomorrow.

                      Patience, young padawan.

                      Here you go.


                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      …on this site thinks all conservatives/Tea Party attendees/Republican elected officials are racists.

                      You still haven’t addressed the fact that you completely moved the goal posts when I called ‘bullshit’ on your claim.  First it was CONSERVATIVES prefer government provided universal health care (i.e. single payer), and now it’s REPUBLICANS prefer “offering a government administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans.”  I don’t believe either is true (I mean, come on, you did cite a CBS poll), but assuming the poll you provided is accurate, so is the one below that also says large majorities of Americans in EVERY age group would be worried in that case of rising costs, lack of care, and poorer quality of care.

                      And here’s the kicker…that poll was conducted in June of last year before most people were even aware that the national dialogue had switched over to health care.  But after people learned more about it, the numbers just bombed among people of all ages and all party affiliations.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Losing interest…

                      Let’s debate the meaning of the word “is” next, that’ll be fun.

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      You’re out of ideas for how to come back without actually acknowledging or attempting to refute my points directly.  Got it.

                      I’ll dumb myself down for you in the future.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      Couldn’t possibly be that you keep turning debates into “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Don’t know why I even imagined that, it’s so far from the truth.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      and polls show that Republican ‘leaders’ and Congresscritters are at the bottom of the head in popularity.

                      GOP can do well, if it runs moderate and sensible candidates–getting up and lying (by, for instance, claiming that you are against ALL federal spending other than defense,m when you are stumping for a federal job, with a budget, offices, staff, etc. is just mind-numbingly stoopid.  

                      Pretending that our federal system only allow for the just over a dozen powers that framers specifically enumerated as the anticipated needs for their nascent 18th-cenutry agraian America, is twice stoopid.  (BTW BRepub: I still want an answer on the question if we need to give a third of the continent back to France?)

                      Luckily, for Dems–not so much for GOP leadership–the Tea Baggers are intent on throwing GOP incumbents out too.  The Scott Brown model won’t play well outside the (still liberal) NE–instead Baggers will push flat-earth birther candidates in many primaries, which will show the 40% of Americans–many in the coveted middle–who remain undecided on the Tea Bag ‘Movement’ how extreme they are.  If Baggers keep talking finances and general frustration, they could do well–once they start drifting into crazyland, which they seem to do when facing primaries…well, that chapter is harder to see how it ends.  

                      The idea that Baggers have a GOP loyalty is not founded.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      ‘prognostications’ from February 2008 for context?

                    • BoulderRepublican says:


              • ClubTwitty says:

                Roberts said so…

          • MADCO says:

            Don’t you mean the “incumbent protection racquet” that Romanoff said he would reject?


      • ace41 says:

        …but I refuse to just wholesale buy into the nonsense that they are good for the Party all of the time. Sometimes they are not…especially when the division they create jeapordizes a seat.

        And before you say it, yes I think winning is the most important thing.  Every single Democrat might not do what I want them to do every single time, but the Democratic Party as a whole does what I want them to do most of the time.  And I refuse to allow the GOP control of this country again through control of the House or the Senate.  We cannot afford it.

        I think this year’s elections are about who can raise the money and win.  If Andrew was putting up $1 million plus quarters and Michael Bennett was someone I found to be opposite my beliefs, I would think differently.  But he’s not and I don’t.

        If you think money does not matter, well just look at almost every election of the last 10 years. I hate that it does, but that’s the system we are stuck with for now.  You need to start tempering your idealism for just an ounce of pragmatism.

        And as for the presidential primary, you are right, the Hillary/Obama contest did not hurt us as a Party.  

        But Wade, Andrew Romanoff is no Barack Obama.  Nor is he a Hillary Clinton. So time to put the Kool Aid down.


  4. botw says:

    Rasmussen (the Fox polling partner) is not known as an entirely unbiased or terribly accurate polling firm.

    Drawing the kinds of conclusions reported in the Huffington Post, and then saying Romanoff’s ad really “speaks volumes” seems a bit overblown.

    • wade norris says:

      that last part with the names of the different corporate contributors for Bennet scrolling on and on and on – i think is significant.

      • Raphael says:

        despite your continued assertions that because Bennet receives money from corporations that this makes him beholden to all of them (which is pretty nonsensical on face given the number of them), but corporate donations do not “buy” representatives in any empirically verified way.

        I was going to write a diary on this in more detail, and may still do so, but in the meantime consider this paper by several political scientists from MIT that uses actual empirics (imagine that in this world of blanket assertions!) to conclude that it is highly unlikely that contributions “buy” votes.


        So while you may think that list is significant, it’s not really statistically significant. So to repeat my title, who cares?

      • botw says:

        I don’t think it speaks volumes about anything other than the fact that Romanoff has only one point to his campaign and it is quite disingenuous.

        • harrydoby says:

          Besides, wasn’t Brown down by 30 points just a few weeks before the vote in Mass.?

          It’s a long time before August, much less November arrives. Lots can and will happen.

          If this were late October, I’d find Rasmussen’s numbers concerning.  Right now, it’s just a data point, no more no less.

  5. ProgressiveCowgirl says:

    I like that Romanoff is in the race, since it forces Bennet to pay some attention to the progressive wing of the party. But he’s not going to win. Norton is leading only because incumbents are pretty damn unpopular right now. When she has to actually go head to head with the Democratic nominee, whoever it is will blow her out of the water in short order. I don’t think it will be Romanoff. He’s simply not Senator material. He has very little to say that isn’t about his inability to raise money–not what I’d recommend highlighting, Andrew!

  6. peacemonger says:

    Deceitful and ugly, but very effective.  

    • peacemonger says:

      The principle that he will not take PAC money is great. Good for him. I try to be a vegetarian 90% of the time (I eat fish though), I car pool when I can, and I give to charity frequently. Unfortunately, none of those good deeds will help us win against Jane Norton in November.

      The deceitful and ugly part I referred to above is the implication that Senator Bennet’s votes can be bought. Apparently, Romanoff supporters keep wanting to brush his solid voting record for the Change agenda under the rug.  Bennet’s voting record is as good as Jared Polis’ and Mark Udalls.  It is ASSANINE to primary an already GREAT Senator, especially with ugly rhetoric the Republicans are all too easy to use in November.

      Unfortunately, despite the fact they will have tons more corporate money than Dems, the GOP slime machine will use this same video against Michael in the fall — and we can all thank Andrew Romanoff for giving it to them.

  7. peacemonger says:

    Lots of new employees over at the Romanoff office, I guess.

  8. redstateblues says:

    You diary has inspired me to work that much harder to make sure Michael Bennet is the Democratic nominee.

  9. JO says:

    1. Which is easier, selling ice cream to Eskimos in December or persuading voters that corporate donations don’t influence legislation? Note that I said “influence legislation,” not “buy votes.” The AR commercial makes the point perfectly: contributions buy access, which influences how legislation is written. That’s the point.

    2. AR is the only candidate in this contest who can say: “I don’t take $$$ from corporations.” Could be that’s a message that can be easily understood and spread fairly inexpensively (relatively speaking), one that distinguishes AR in both the primary and general, and speaks to a general and rising sense of disgust among the voters with the status quo.

    3. Is “incumbency” an advantage in 2010? For the Appointed One, it’s the worst of both worlds: he’s an incumbent, but has never been elected to office.

    4. Does a visit by Obama in February influence a primary in August? In Colorado?

    • BlueCat says:

      The overwhelming majority of voters have never heard of any of these people. What kind of name recognition can Romanoff buy on a shoe string?  

      • JO says:

        …that Romanoff has been around Colorado politics long enough, as speaker of the Colorado House, to elicit at least some name recognition–at least as much as a former lieutenant governor. Bennet, of course, is the real newcomer to politics; name recognition may be the only advantage his “incumbency” cum cash provides. In any case, as news coverage ramps up closer the both elections, issues of name recognition will begin to fade; advertising is not the only means of gaining recognition (unless you’re a box of soap on the shelf).

        (I take it you have no concrete evidence of who and what the overwhelming majority of voters have and have not heard of, or else you would have cited it.)

        BUT, what had been perceived as two of Bennet’s chief advantages–incumbency and cash–may well turn out to be his two biggest disadvantages.

    • peacemonger says:

      Where have you been hiding?  It has been much too quiet around here.  

  10. Sharon Hanson says:

    All the money in the world isn’t going to buy his seat in the Senate and voters are blaming incumbents for selling out to special interests and not getting any meaningful legislation passed.

    It’s now official what most progressives knew to begin with, Bennet is a toxic asset for the Democratic Party.

    • BlueCat says:

      if I were you, Sharon.  Same to LB.

    • botw says:

      It’s now official?  Toxic?

    • BoulderDem says:

      First of all, this is a general election poll, and we don’t know who will be the nominee for either party. All the energy in the GOP is in the anti-Norton camp.

      Second, by all polls I’ve seen, Bennet is miles ahead of Romanoff in the Dem primary, AND has a 7:1 or so money advantage (which is likely to grow since the big dollar people are all with Bennet). If Romanoff beats Bennet despite any spending deficit (let alone 7:1), it would be the first time since the 1960’s that’s happened in a primary. This is a good poll for Romanoff supporters to feel self-righteous about, but he’s just as toast as he was yesterday, primarily because he has no money with which to define himself while Bennet attacks him on TV. That may be good news for the GOP, or not, but it doesn’t change reality.

      Romanoff supporters are approaching the Deaniac level of extreme annoyance. Not Andrew himself, mind you, whom I really respect and like. Same in 2004 with Dean: That sense of unfounded “mission” that suggests their candidate is the “answer,” without any specific reasoning why that should be the case any more than any other candidate. In the end, I suspect the Romanoff partisans will turn off more folks than they convince, and in the end the primary will sort of fade away.

      • ohwilleke says:

        Romanoff will probably get top line in the caucus process.  Bennet will probably make the ballot with the minimum 30% going that route, but will be hard pressed to do so.

        And, primary voters have longer memories than general election voters, particularly off year primary election voters.

        Among the party faithful, Bennet is far behind in support.  And, his donor base is strongly out of state.  While money does fuel campaigns, especially in the general election, normally, this is partially because it is a proxy for support among the party faithful.  When that rough equivalence breaks down, the tea leaves are harder to read.

    • BoulderRepublican says:

      …in my life, but somehow I find myself craving whatever you’ve got.

      For starters…

      All the money in the world isn’t going to buy his seat in the Senate

      We all know that the kind of money advantage Bennet has over Romanoff will buy virtually every primary election everywhere in the country.  It’s true in both parties, especially when you’re also supported by the state Democratic party, the national Democratic party, and the President of the United States, whoever that may be.

      Bennet is a toxic asset for the Democratic Party.

      I wont even take a cheap shot here.  I’ll just say that Romanoff is likely no more or less politically toxic for Democrats than Bennet is.  He may be “pure” at the moment (as in not taking corporate contributions) but, let’s be honest, in this fantasy world of yours where Romanoff can pull out a primary win, he would fold like a cheap suit and start grabbing dirty money with both hands.  Why?  Because every politician does it, because without money you can’t convey your message, and without conveying your message you cannot win.  The end.

  11. JO says:

    I, with others, have argued that the most meaningful numbers at this stage in the proceedings are the “veries” — very favorable vs. very unfavorable.

    In this category, the news for Bennet is a bit better.

    In the past two Rasmussen polls (Jan. 13 and Feb. 5) his “very favorable” ratings have gone from +12 to +17, while his “very unfavorable” ratings have gone from minus 24 from  minus 25, altogether an improvement from net negative of 13 points, to minus 7.

    For Romanoff, comparable figures were very favorable unchanged at 17; very unfavorable up 1, from 15 to 16.

    The 15-point “very gap” in January (Bennet net negative 13 vs AR net +2 = 15 pt. gap) has declined to 8 (net negative 7 versus net plus 1).

    Break out the Rolling Rock! No, make it Schaefer! Pabst! Iron City! Have at it… but have your virtual IDs ready to show.

  12. BoulderRepublican says:

    …their political careers by fighting out a race for a chance to get their ass handed to them by Jane Norton in November.

    • BoulderRepublican says:

      …”The Big Line” is?  Here you are citing a Rasmussen poll that shows Jane Norton with a 14 point lead over Michael Bennet, and yet he’s winning?  In fact, you don’t have a Republican ahead in any of the races that have even a chance of being close.  This is pure delusion.

      • BoulderDem says:

        Money. A 5:1 money advantage is worth WAY more than 14 points. And she might not even win her primary (I’d give her no better than 2:1 odds).

        • BoulderRepublican says:

          I’d pick Ken Buck if it were up to me, but it’s pretty clear she’s going to win.  As you said, it’s about money.  She raised 10x+ Buck’s #s, and Wiens can’t pull from his own pocket forever.  And once she becomes the nominee, she’ll be inundated with money, ESPECIALLY from the NRSC.  Oh, and everyone who wants nothing to do with Michael Bennet.

      • redstateblues says:

        If you’re going to call the election based on a Rasmussen poll in January, then feel free. Why work to get your candidate elected at all? just sit back and watch as Jane clobbers everyone. Nothing to see here, move alone, move along.

        • BoulderRepublican says:

          It helps that Bennet’s doing all the work for us.  He’s trying to appear to be one of the most liberal Senators there is.  More than even Udall, who, I can tell you, is most definitely a typical Boulder liberal.

          And can you produce a Rasmussen poll on the 2008 Senate race that says Schaffer had a significant lead?  Because I saw them tied.

          And if you take a look at the polling, it’s pretty clear what really turned the tide.  Hmmm, what happened in early September of 2008?  Oh yeah, must’ve been this.

          Let’s be honest.  We’re not likely to have another month quite like September 2008 before election day.  And if we do…wouldn’t it give the Republicans a boost?

          • RedGreen says:

            turned Democratic leads into landslides, but Schaffer was struggling all summer because he was a deeply flawed candidate. He sunk his own campaign when he bragged about his work in the Marianas in April, and it was all downhill from there. Republicans would be wise not to nominate another deeply flawed candidate — oh, wait, they’re about to!

            • BoulderRepublican says:

              And I didn’t just link Rasmussen.  I linked to the full list of polls, virtually all of which show the race being a toss up right up until Lehman Brothers collapsed.

              • redstateblues says:

                The earliest polling on the wikipedia entry you linked to is from August. If you can find some from January and Feb., you’ll see that Schaffer had a lead and blew it.

                All I was saying is that Norton could easily do the same thing if she doesn’t find a message that resonates with voters. “I’m not Bennet” isn’t going to cut it.

              • RedGreen says:

                Udall was ahead and then pulled solidly ahead:


                • BoulderRepublican says:

                  …the entire swing from 2008.  Bad candidate, horrible economic conditions, and lack-luster top of the ticket included.

                  • RedGreen says:

                    that Democrats, either Bennet or Romanoff, have a tough election ahead. But no one’s running against Norton yet, and Bennet (and to a lesser extent Romanoff) are suffering from intense anti-incumbent sentiment.  

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      But let’s cut out this “anti-incumbent” nonsense.  There may be “anti-incumbent” sentiment, but that’s because the “incumbents” are viewed as the people currently in power (i.e. Democrats).  And the reason for it is the agenda they’re pushing.  The same was true in 2006 for Republicans.

                    • RedGreen says:

                      Sure, there’s anger at Democrats, because they’re incumbents. The party in power always gets blamed when things suck.

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      It’s because of 1) their partial culpability in things sucking, 2) their making things worse, and 3) their focus on things that don’t have a damn thing to do with jobs.

                      It’s not like no matter what they had done the last year they were destined to be unpopular.

            • redstateblues says:

              It was that, in combination with Schaffer’s utterly atrocious campaign, that secured a Democratic victory. The economy tanking, and Schaffer’s inability to craft a message on the economy, had something to do with it, but Udall did a good job portraying himself as a pragmatic politician willing to reach across the aisle to get things accomplished.

              I think that message resonated with voters, whereas Scandalmatic Schaffer did not.

          • redstateblues says:

            If the economy shows signs of recovery, won’t that give the Democrats a boost? Doesn’t it make you feel kind of.. I don’t know.. dirty, just kind of hoping that the economy tanks some more? And knowing that if things get better it might hurt your guys?

            BTW that Rasmussen poll you cited was from October 17th, and was laughed at soundly when it was released back in ’08. Udall was clearly ahead in most other polls.

            Go back to January or February and check out the polling. Schaffer was ahead in the early going. Maybe not by 14 pts like in the Rasmussen poll in this diary, but it was outside of the margin of error in what most considered would probably be a Democratic year.

            It’s not about generic ballots, or how liberal or conservative they are being portrayed by the opposition (ask Dick Wadhams how “boulder liberal” worked for him. I think he only said it about Udall 50 billion times) it’s about how good of a campaign they run.

            If Norton can run a campaign like Udall ran in ’08, then she might win. The only thing is that I haven’t seen anything form her that makes me think she will.

            • BoulderRepublican says:

              …for the entire race.  From back in 2007 through the final poll in October 2008.  They were within a point in February.  That stayed relatively steady until after September, when Udall opened up a 7 point lead, that wound up being 10 points on election day.  No reason to say Rasmussen was inaccurate.  With all that was going on and the insane numbers Obama drew to the polls, a 3 point shift over the last 3 weeks of the election season isn’t unreasonable at all.

              • redstateblues says:

                I’m still waiting for other polling outfits besides Rasmussen and Research 2000 to take a look at this race. I don’t think we’re getting a clear picture from either.

                • BoulderRepublican says:

                  I’d like to see some other polls to gain some perspective as well.  I know you guys like to pick on Rasmussen, especially for their polling on Obama’s favorability, but I’ve never seen it off by more than a couple points on election day.  It’s the reason I went into the 2006 and 2008 elections ready for Democratic sweeps.

                  • RedGreen says:

                    and nine months out, when there’s still a busy primary ahead, are two different things. Rasmussen tends to find things more favorable for Republicans on all sorts of measures, but you’re right, they get closer to the truth as Election Day approaches.

                    • BoulderRepublican says:

                      …in February of 2008 should have been a relatively large Udall lead and the numbers didn’t actually change all year long, only Rasmussen’s poll numbers as election day drew nearer?

                    • RedGreen says:

                      and it gradually widened as the year went on, then widened further when the depth of Republican mismanagement of the economy became apparent. Just like the Pollster.com trend lines show. As you know, the difference of a few points can be the difference between a solid win and a blow-out, and between Udall slightly ahead and Schaffer ahead by a point, as Rasmussen showed at this point two years ago. This far out, Rasmussen polls were consistently more favorable to Schaffer.

                      One difference between this year and the 2008 election is that Schaffer was far more in the public eye, and opinions were more set, than is the case with Norton. She’s a blank slate to most Colorado voters. I’d trust the DSCC to help fill in those blanks, once they get the chance.

                      This year too, there’s an incumbent (albeit unelected, so he doesn’t have the base of support that goes with having won statewide) who bears the dissatisfaction voters have with the way things feel in the country. Bennet hasn’t been campaigning on a large scale statewide yet, so when he starts making his case, I would expect the race to tighten simply because at least some voters will like what they hear but haven’t heard it yet.

  13. GOPwarrior says:

    Is Senator Jane Norton. You do realize that somewhere under all that hair and manmakeup and Cheetos in your mom’s basement, don’t you?

  14. oldbenkenobi says:

    …may think you could win the U.S. Senate seat this year with an empty suit.  And to prove your point, it seems, you found about the most empty of empty suits in the state in Jane Norton.  She makes Gail Norton look like an elder statesman.  (Or stateswoman.)

    But people will see through her in her first debate with Andrew Romanoff.  And Romanoff will beat her despite the anger out there because Romanoff is angry too.

  15. Ray Springfield says:

    I’d take it seriously.If they polled “Dems” like you then they  got Bennet is a crook, any Democrat that tales pac money is a crook ,except Andrew of course.

    Why don’t you ask Andrew just what Democrats he thinks are bought? Name names?

    He’ll never do it.

    With the addition of Pat Cadell your campaign has shown that you have gone fox.

    RoOian tactics of smear and deny.

    It’s digusting.

  16. peacemonger says:

    why did Andrew Romanoff take it in all four of his previous elections?  

    • BoulderRepublican says:

      Don’t ask questions that have no [good] answer!

    • RedGreen says:

      At least that’s the premise of Romanoff pronouncements like the one today, that began like this:

      In a return visit to the state Capitol today, U.S. Senate Candidate Andrew Romanoff contrasted Colorado’s relatively fair and efficient governing system to the dysfunctional morass that the federal government has become

      I’m not sure I buy it, but it’s an argument he can make.

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.