U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 25, 2010 10:27 PM UTC
17 Comments
What name calling? Miles only comments on fund raising tactics. The only name calling here is in the article written by the Bennet lackey.
No, no name-calling anywhere to be seen.
I think Romanoff is calling Bennet bought and paid for.
I don’t think there is any other interpretation of what Romanoff is doing in this campaign, from the web ads to the messages sent and paid for by the candidate.
if he did win the primary (he wouldn’t) and the general (he won’t) he would be hated by every member of Congress when he got there. His campaign has basically painted them all with the same bold brush — that every one of them is dishonest, greedy and immoral. We are asked to believe by Team Romanoff that Andrew is the only person who ever ran for public office in the nation with a conscience. Oh wait, the second — the first was some guy named Mike Miles.
Sorry, I’m not buying. Yes, there are some creeps in Washington, and yes, there are some who appear to have been bought, but I believe most of them go to Washington with a legitimate desire to do what’s right for America. Bennet, with his 90%+ Democratic voting record, is a shining example of someone who went to serve others.
Miles’ accusation is an assault on the memory of Ted Kennedy, and is disrespectful to people like Carl Levin, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Boxer, Diana DeGette, Ed Perlmutter, John Dingle and many, many other principled members of Congress who stand with ordinary Americans EVERY SINGLE DAY and have been able to resist the temptation to be bought by corporate lobbyists. I will never understand, if the Romanoff campaign continues to trash the heroes of the progressive movement, how does that help Andrew in the long run?
Andrew could have chosen to lead his campaign in a positive direction. Instead of trashing Democratic leaders, he could have simply made the case for himself being honest. He could have highlighted his own record, and trumpeted his own values. The Obama generation respects that. If I learned anything working with the Obama movement is that people hate politics-as-usual. They loved Barack Obama the candidate because he was positive. He didn’t have to trash his seven Presidential primary opponents to win — he just had to wake up each day and be Barack Obama.
Senator Michael Bennet learned from a master. You don’t see him making u-tube videos trashing Andrew Romanoff. He just keeps showing up to work everyday (100% voting record, by the way) and voting like a principled Democrat. No fanfare, no press conferences, now “Look at my conscience”. Just hard work.
I’ll say it again. Andrew Romanoff was a good leader. I’d like to think he can be again someday. His campaign’s dirty campaign tactics, now with Mike Miles as a proponent of them, are a disgrace to his legacy as Speaker of the House in CO.
I guess I was a little miffed.
When Andrew Romanoff’s campaign says “other candidates say they are for reform but they take the money and never get around to reform,” who are they talking about? Martha Coakley?
When Andrew Romanoff runs an ad with a senator who pats the dollar bills in the pocket of the lobbyist and Romanoff pushes the money away, what candidate is Andrew Romanoff talking about?
Andrew Romanoff is running in only one race right now. He is running against only one candidate.
His campaign isn’t right, it’s sleazy and wrong and beneath him and the voters. Some of us will never forget what he has done and is doing here. It tarnishes him and the work he did for Colorado, which I and many others have genuinely saluted for some time.
The sad thing is that the Speaker obviously has sanctioned this negaativity from the start.
His personality has flaws, and it shows when he is under stress in a campaign in which he now finds himself losing.
I’m not sure that he has ever faced difficulties like these before. How people hamdle stress is a good gage of how they lead.
I’m disspaointed with him.
Given the fact NONE of you Bennet staffers/volunteers had anything to say in response other than the babblings of defeated people who refuse to give up (I have to admire your fighting spirit) it is not surprising you ran and hid here.
Also peacemonger – you coward. Why don’t you just stand up for your candidate if he is so great (I know you have to read what he says on his website/talk to your campaign before you talk on his behalf). Also – good work telling the campaign about the error on the website I point out to you.
What a leader Michael Bennet is – he talks about leadership on a very important bill and it takes a “volunteer” to tell him he is lying.
I cannot believe you peacemonger – a person of such hi moral standards and just out there to do what is right of the people of Colorado can stand by this guy.
As I have got more into this race I have realized this (fyi-before I started looking at what the Bennet people were saying here I was undecided in this race) Bennet has some of the most easily corrupted people working/volunteering for him.
Please Craig Hughes/Adam Dunstone- get rid of the these people so we can have a real discussion about the issues.
You really do think these people are actually answering to Craig Hughes. That’s ludicrous. I assume you’re also asking Bill Romjue to rein in Sharon Hanson somewhere else I’m not seeing.
You obviously have a personal problem with posters on this site. Airing your grievances in public is certainly your right so long as you tread the fine line you’ve been treading, but if you think certain Polsters are dragging down Bennet, you should maybe think about what kind of effect the things you’re posting are having on people who are undecided or leaning toward Romanoff.
But I gotta go now because I’m alt-tabbing away from Pols so Craig Hughes doesn’t fire me because I’m saying that he doesn’t control the opinions of the people who post here. I really don’t want to lose that money I’m getting as a Bennet staffer–I’m putting it in the same pile as I put the checks George Soros sends me for blogging here.
In your above post:
1) In line one, you make arbitrary assumptions about the identities of people on the basis of their holding a position that differs from yours (I, for instance, am a state candidate, and no one’s staffer). Issues? None.
2) In line two, you dismiss those who disagree with you as “babbling” and “defeated” and “refusing to give up.” Issues? Still none.
3) In line three, you suggest that people who are posting on various threads posted here to “hide” from you, which, granted, is a tempting idea, in much the same way that it’s a tempting idea to hide from any incredibly obnoxious nut-case who persistently demands the attention of saner people with his desparate need to inform them of the conspiracy, or alien invasion, or danger of microwaves, or whatever, that is occupying his tortured mind. But, still no issues (you know, other than those mental ones).
4) In line four, you called another blogger a coward, but still no mention of any issues….
And on, and on, and on. Please, go find some road kill to regale with your imaginary focus on the issues and obnoxious personal attacks. That’s as interested an audience as you’re going to find anywhere. (But, please, make sure it’s dead first; no need to compound the suffering of the poor creature’s final moments of life).
So, you have called me a coward, a fake, someone who is easily corrupted, someone who cannot think for himself, and someone not capable of discussing “real issues”.
I’ve said hundreds of times exactly why I personally support Michael Bennet (he is a good Senator, he’s running a strong campaign, he has a great record, he sticks to issues, he is endorsed by the President, etc.). I never said he was perfect or that I agreed with him 100%. (I don’t agree with any other human being 100%.)
I’ve said I respect and admire Andrew Romanoff publicly, even to Andrew just weeks before he entered this race. I have clearly listed why I believe he cannot win (trouble raising money, hasn’t controlled the message, has had issues with his campaign, hard to sell outside of Denver, etc.).
You said (paraphrasing), Adam Dunstone and Craig Hughes should “get rid of” people like me so you can have a real discussion of the “issues” with someone. 1. I think I have pretty clearly stuck to the issues. 2. I don’t work for Michael Bennet. 3. Would you know what an issue was if it fell on your head and created a gaping, oozing, bloody gash?
Seriously, other posters respond like they understand whatinhell you are talking about, so anyone explain it to me.
Otherwise – I don’t understand.
I get the tone- otoole is ….mocking and condescending and angry and …other stuff.
But this makes no sense to me.
In response to what?
Hid? Right here on a public page of a public blog?
Huh?
Clearly you don’t know pm.
No coward – unless you have a new definition.
Huh?
I saw the apparent error you described (though your link doesn’t work). And then I contacted govtrack to see if Bennet cosponsored or not. They told me that it’s possible he had submitted to add as a co-sponsor, but because of the blizzard (snowmageddan 1 & 2) that the documentation is behind. Is this really the source of your opposition to Senator Bennet and support of AR? why do you support AR? What issues are you on about?
Man- I wish I had the ear of Craig Hughs and Adam Dunstone. Start running against the R opposition NOW.
Communicate and over communicate and then do it again on what’s in the health care bill – Colorado wants a public option. Get tough on Michael and Andrew. In fact, be as tough on Andrew as the NRSC, ElRushbo and the R nominee will be – it will make both D candidates stronger. Not always, but sometimes – shorter answers. Don’t gain weight in the campaign- tv is going to add some anyway, start running or go veggie or something. Get the campaign communication team on the “new media”. Yes- cable is a PITA – but Michael needs to get on Maddow and CNN and MTP. Do some joint appearances with Hick, and Perl, and Jared and Udall and Markey and Middleton.
Like what?
Cramdown? Not really an issue that needs discussion, but I’ll engage on it again if you want.
Otherwise, I’m waiting (and have said so many times) for an explanation of any significant policy differences between Senator bennet and Andrew. Whaddaya got?
Or start with an answer to why you are for Romanoff.
not only do you elicit nothing but the contempt that your rancorous noise deserves, but also that not one single Romanoff supporter here is coming to your defense or aid? You know why? Because they realize that being associated with you would only serve to discredit them, and to sully their own reputations.
It may well be that this reaction is exactly what you are shooting for, that you couldn’t care less about the Democratic primary but rather are entertaining yourself by spray-painting obscenities on a public wall to see how much of an annoyance you are capable of being to others. But even there you’ve fallen short: You lack any subtlety, any substance, any element that is even marginally compelling or credible, and so, rather than be as annoying as possible, you manage to provide a form of diversion, like an ugly little cymbol-clashing wind-up toy to be dismantled with gusto.