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 26, 2010 05:13 AM UTC
24 Comments
It’s pretty standard to downplay expectations in a caucus, but Romjue’s in a pickle. The standard expectations game doesn’t apply.
Andrew needs a clear and decisive victory in order to prove he has the mandate he claims he has.
Downplaying that just says the mandate doesn’t really exist, and that the “people’s choice” talking point is bullshit, and admits that there really isn’t a groundswell of support behind Andrew Romanoff.
So much for message control.
Yea ok BICora, how dare Romjue comment on a story nicely placed by the Chicago machine. It’s an expectations game. Mikey is nervous so he has Craig try to lower the expectations. Romjue, not having been given the same opportunity, comments back to play the expectations game.
Good to know that y’all are continuing to stay on the talking points put out to you, Caroman, peacemonger, madco and MOTR. But a reality check: Mikey has 10x the money, the White House, the DSCC, OFA, the DNC and for the most part the CDP. The President came to town specifically to help him in the caucuses. Mikey has the bully pulpit of the US Senate, press ops handed to him by Rahm. All this, but yea, you and the minions argue Romanoff should have the upper hand?
As to going outside the Post, why don’t you ask Bartels or Hubbard why the silence on the race? You’ll say not newsworthy. I’d say it’s a caucus that normally 10-12k people vote in so not really a big story. Want to whine about Romjue going to the national press? Yea, better keep those national entities out of this. Like, say, the hundreds of OFA people working for Mikey from out of state or the 65%+ of the money Mikey takes from out of state or all of the out of state field staff air-lifted in to boost Mikey’s cred. I actually overheard two of them at the state central mtg asking an elderly Romanoff supporter “Well who is Romanoff – what has he ever done for Colorado?” Yep, really locally connected crew there. It is a nice jobs program Mikey has – raise millions and hire lots of out of state kids while asking local activists to volunteer or become “fellows.”
And your bashing of Romjue for trying to get earned media is laughable. That’s kind of his job. Sure he needs to do more and locally but when Rahm and Messina are handing all the earned media to Mikey to save his butt, Romjue has to go where he can get through the media silence on the race here.
when you call him “Mikey”.
The main reason Romjue was quoted higher in the story than Romanoff is a campaign manager can always say things more directly (and more quotable) about these kind of process stories. It’s no big deal one way or the other.
Actually Romjue wasn’t quoted at all. The author quoted Craig Hughes and alluded to an interview with Romanoff but didn’t seem to have talked to Romjue. That left Romjue to post a comment to the story which does seem a little beneath a campaign manager but maybe that was the only way he could get his side of the expectations game out there along with Craig’s.
where it says Romue had the first comment, thought that meant to the reporter. Thanks for clarifying.
I don’t know if I agree with that, unless you are suggesting the commuication team should have been on it.
But I thought that was kind of BICora’s point – that Romjue should have better things to do and better uses of his posting time and talent. I haven’t seen a thing from him in Denver- though it’s possible I haven’t been looking.
You created a user account just to mock someone else’s user account?
That’s like eight different kinds of lame.
Coming soon: user sxp152 who’s a Republican and never curses and hates math. Fun!
I seriously don’t know what you mean. Yes I just finally signed up tonight but the screen-name doesn’t have any hidden meaning. If it offends or mocks somebody that wasn’t my attention. Now, you posting just to swear at somebody new to posting – that’s pretty lame.
who’s a prominent poster around here, but JeffcoBlue says you should eat a dick.
it ain’t thin mints either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…
I’m willing to give you the benefit of doubt that you didn’t know there was another similar user name.
But swearing at new posters is sort of tradition.
The lame repsonse would have been not to swear at you.
Posters, including Romanoff supporters, made that case last Fall. It’s late now, but I could look it up if it would help.
You can do it – you search the diaries or comments using the search box on the right side of the page. Then you scroll backwards until you get to Oct or Sep. Somewhere in the the hundreds of comments you’ll see posters explaining why they think Bennet is the better candidate (I did and I posted it back then and I still do so will again). You’ll see some Romanoff support (not from me) and compliments, including from me.
In that time frame there were posts (not mine) about how Bennet might not even be viable at caucus because Andrew is so well known and liked in the Party and would have so much loyal support from likely caucus goers. But now Bennet is paniced about caucus? Makes no sense to me (though I have also acknowledged that I do not understand why we have both a caucus and and a voting primary so maybe I’m easily confused).
I didn’t get that BICora was “bashing of Romjue for trying to get earned media”, though maybe. Nor did I think the point was to complain about national attention on Colorado, BICora and I have agreed before now that national attention can be a good thing for Colorado. I thought the point was – hey how about some earned media in Denver, you know, where the caucus goers mostly are.
And I think BICora is reading into The Hill piece a bit too much to suggest that Romjue was getting his name out there in DC because he’s already thinking about the next gig. Maybe – but I didn’t see it that way.
Welcome to Colorado Pols (If I could be the first to swear at you and call you a name, I would just cuz, but I was off the site for a couple of hours (canvassing by phone- OMG, I really enjoy talking to the D neighbors*) and missed the oppty. If you create a new user name, I’ll try to be first next time. )
In fact, I didn’t realize you were new, I thought you were a different poster from before, must be a similar user name who was also supporting Romanoff.
Which I presume you are – supporting Andrew. Not by bashing BICora and me and others, but, you know, in the primary.
If so – why?
A lot of Romanoff supporters have posted here about why Bennet, or me (and other Bennet supporters) are bad. (Hasn’t moved me to reconsider the candidates, yet. But hey, you never know so whatever.) Oddly, the posts about why Romanoff has their support are fewer and less… clear. Though, like I already wrote (typed) there were some last fall about how Andrew would do so great at caucus. If I get a chance I’ll look for them over the weekend.
And while I can’t speak for Senator Bennet or other Bennet supporters, what I would find compelling is an explanation of how the candidates differ on significant policy, why one would be more competitive or electable in the general, or how and why either could be a better US Senator than the other.
I’m not telling you what to post, just what I would find interesting.
He has proven experience:
8 years as a legislator, 4 year prior to that as an elected member of the DNC. To the best of my knowledge, Bennet has never been elected to anything
Because of this experience, he has staked out his position on most issues I care about. I may not agree 100% with him on every little detail (but I never do with any one else either), but I know what his position is (and he has a voting record to back it up) and I agree far more than I don’t. With Bennet, I simply don’t have enough information to know if he will be there in the bigger battles. It could be he will be there just as much as Romanoff, but I just don’t have any experience to look at to be sure.
I also believe in supporting candidates who have been active in their party. I am very active in Denver Dem party activities and have been for many years now. Romanoff has been there with us the whole time (and well before he was elected to anything). I met Bennet exactly once before his appointment: and that was only because I went to a DPS board meeting.
What little I know of Bennet thus far is definitely preferrable to the likes of Jane Norton, so I would have no trouble supporting him if he becomes the nominee, but as long as I have a choice to select Andrew Romanoff, I will take that choice.
And you did it without mentioning Phillip Anchutz. Not even once!
Invoking a demon’s name gives him power.
That’s the way it should be done, folks.
As a supporter of Andrew Romanoff the human being and Speaker of the House, I think you are right on. I was originally for him, as well. I think what you just did was what his campaign should have done all along.
I spent a lot of time around Senator Bennet this past year because I was working on health reform. This is why I eventually decided that although I respected Andrew, I think Senator Bennet should stay in office. Here is a link to the Senator’s record. You can see the long list of “votes with party”. http://www.opencongress.org/pe…
Whether we have Andrew Romanoff in the general, or Senator Michael Bennet, we will have a great candidate to take on Jane Norton.
All I meant was that while it is earned media, it is weak.
Perhaps suggesting it was just as much to get the campaign manager’s name in the news was a stretch, but it was my impression when I saw it. Why not a communications director? Or even the candidate?
The rest of your frustration is misdirected.
You really have no good arguments
apologies if it looks like I pulled a “JeffcoTrueBlue” and infringed on your name — I’ve been using this pseudonym for years and wasn’t thinking of you when I signed up. And I like your posts, so I certainly wasn’t trying to get into it with you!
.