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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 04, 2010 08:31 PM UTC

Romanoff Campaign Morphing Into Mike Miles 2004

  • 92 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We wrote last week that the U.S. Senate campaign of Democrat Andrew Romanoff had officially jumped the shark when he used the name of 2004 Senate hopeful Mike Miles in a fundraising email. Our point at the time was not that Miles is a bad messenger in and of himself, but that it was disastrous for Romanoff to publicly align himself with someone whose Senate campaign was a hopeless disaster; Romanoff is certainly of a different political pedigree than Miles, but he can’t afford the image that he is running a race — like Miles ran in 2004 — that has no hope of succeeding.

Well yesterday, Romanoff’s campaign sent out an email from supporters Polly Baca and Ramona Martinez that continues the drumbeat that they are mad at President Barack Obama for supporting Sen. Michael Bennet, etc., etc. Here’s a snippet:

We are alarmed that this long standing tradition has been violated by the current National Democratic Party and our current President, whom we both supported for election.  It is inappropriate and unacceptable for national Democratic Party officials and the President of the United States, who is the titular head of the Democratic Party, to engage in Democratic primaries.  Colorado Democrats have the inalienable right and intelligence to select their own candidate for the highest political position in the state without interference from our Democratic leaders in D.C. who are supposed to be supportive of our local parties and candidates.

Perhaps Romanoff and his supporters are correct in that Obama shouldn’t be getting involved in Democratic primaries, but what’s done is done. This obsession over Obama helping Bennet is practically the only thing you hear from Romanoff and his supporters anymore, and it is eerily reminiscent of the 2004 Senate race.

When then-Attorney General Ken Salazar entered the Senate race in March 2004 and subsequently began racking up endorsements, supporters and big checks, Miles supporters were beside themselves that the “Democratic Party,” and their particular bogey man, Party Chair Chris Gates, were supporting Salazar instead of letting the process play out.

The conspiracy allegations were silly and juvenile (not to mention without evidence), but they became both the fuel and the flame out of the Miles campaign. Instead of a race focused on solid campaigning and issues, virtually all you heard from Miles and his supporters was about the unfairness of big bully Democrat power brokers who supported Salazar when they should have remained neutral.

The very same thing is now happening with the Romanoff campaign, which has become obsessed with complaining about Obama’s involvement in the race rather than focusing on campaigning, fundraising and delivering a solid message to the 99.9% of primary voters who don’t give a rat’s ass about this insider squabbling. Should the Democratic Party remain neutral in a Democratic primary? The answer isn’t important, because the campaign is asking the wrong question. We could count on two hands, and maybe a foot, the number of people who are truly interested in listening to that discussion.

Focusing on Obama’s support of Bennet is also baffling for another reason: Democrats still like President Obama, and Bennet is surely pleased every time he sees an email from Romanoff’s campaign reminding people that the President endorsed his opponent. Yeah, it sucks that President Obama endorsed your opponent. But why the hell do you keep talking about it? Hey, did you hear? The President has endorsed Michael Bennet. Isn’t that horrible?

As we’ve said over and over again, this race has a long way to go before the ballots are counted. But unless Romanoff starts really doing something different — something besides complaining about insider squabbles and PAC checks — then this has all the makings of the 2004 primary that Salazar won with 73% of the vote.

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

92 thoughts on “Romanoff Campaign Morphing Into Mike Miles 2004”

  1. It is ironic that Pat Waak became chair of the party because of the anger over the perception that Chris Gates was inappropriately supporting Salazar over Miles.  Now many of the same people are angry at Pat for the same perception.

    As they say, everything old is new again.  Or the more things change the more they stay the same.

    Frankly, Andrew’s problem (that this typifies) is too much Ken Gordon.

    1. Ken Gordon, Ramona Martinez and Andrew Romanoff are all Denver Democrats who have grown up in a political environment where these kinds of insider battles are somewhat interesting to the people around them. But that only happens in Denver, where Republicans have no chance of winning and the only confrontations are among other Democrats.  

      1. when i was travelling outside of Denver, like on the plains or fremont county, I was surprised at the anger towards the governor for the appointment.

        it also did not help Senator Bennet that he turned down Fremont county for their annual Democratic dinner – to which they in turn, invited their first choice, Andrew Romanoff.

        AR may be from Denver – but his support does not end with Denver.

        By the way, i don’t think Obama’s endorsement is as big a deal in light of his other endorsements – you know like his recent immediate endorsement of conservadem Blanch Lincoln, the day she got a primary challenge.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

        Similar to here, polls show Lincoln being beat by double digits by her Republican challengers. Policy differences aside, why would the White House interfere and endorse a candidate that is guaranteed to lose in the general, when a stronger primary candidate could emerge from the primary process?

        Seems contrary to keeping the seat in Democratic hands.

          1. and more on the Blanch Lincoln bs

            http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

            Stunning. Blanche Lincoln’s first campaign ad is out, and the message is…Washington is filled with screaming children and Lincoln is at home among them? Lincoln is the grade school teacher you always hated? Lincoln is so wedded to the Party of No that she doesn’t just vote with them but can’t mention a single thing she’s for?


            “(her) real message is: Fuck you, Democratic establishment. You’re supporting me in this race and I’m glad to take any money and support you want to throw my way, but fuck you nonetheless. I’m not just going to vote against every major piece of legislation that matters to Democrats, I’m going to join the Republicans in preventing it from coming to an up or down vote.”

            And this is who the White House endorses?

            1. We need to nominate a far-left liberal, so a right-wing whack job like Jim Bunning can win the seat for the Republicans.  Shame on Obama, trying to hold his majority!

                  1. in Colorado – but the larger question of why the President would endorse Lincoln when she, baring a miracle, can not hold on to the seat for the Dems, and her primary candidate could.

                    Does that make sense to you?

                    1. My point was that it’s not the case in Colorado. I think that the Democrats have the potential to do much better in the Senate race here in Colorado than they do nationally because we have such strong candidates in Bennet and Romanoff.

                    2. Bennet down to Norton by 14 points

                      Romanoff down to Norton by 7 points.

                      The significant issue is that Norton’s lead has increased vs Bennet and decreased vs Romanoff.

                      As for Negatives

                      Romanoff leads in that department as well

                      Seventeen percent (17%) of Colorado voters have a very favorable opinion of Bennet, while 24% view him very unfavorably. For Romanoff, very favorables total 17% and very unfavorables 16%.

                      http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

                    3. It was where Blance’s Lincoln’s progressive primary opponent stands in polls in the conservative state of Arkansas?

                    4. Halter is polling lower than Lincoln vs. opponents, but there has not been any polling since he announced he was running.

                      And, the more important point is that Lincoln’s support among the base democrats is pretty low, consequently, he has nowhere to go but up among the base, which is not the case with Lincoln.

                      (unless she immediately pulls a Specter and starts reversing her positions on many issues.)  

                    5. I have never seen any meaningful response to the repeated concerns that have been raised about Rasmussen’s polling.  My strong impression is that they lost a great deal of credibility in the last election cycle and by being Fox’s polling partner.

                      There may or may not be differences between Bennet and Romanoff that show up in polling, but Rasmussen isn’t a very credible one for any of us to base an argument on.  I promise here and now that you will never see me cite Rasmussen even if it is “good” for the candidate I support now or in the general.

                    6. Analyst Stuart Rothenberg took a look this week at “some really silly political stuff that screams out for attention,” including the Romanoff campaign’s attention to this Rasmussen poll. (There are more “exhibits,” some including strange reliance on Rasmussen polling, in the story.)

                      Exhibit No. 2: A Feb. 8 e-mail from Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff’s campaign touting his standing in recent Rasmussen polls.

                      Romanoff, a former Colorado Speaker, is challenging appointed Sen. Michael Bennet in this year’s Democratic primary, and given the political environment, anything is possible.

                      But there are two things about the e-mail that are ridiculous. First, Democratic strategists spend a good deal of time discrediting Rasmussen as a Republican pollster whose results rarely reflect reality. Yet, here is the Romanoff campaign basing its entire argument about Romanoff’s alleged electability on two Rasmussen surveys. Incredible.

                      And second, the argument that Romanoff is the stronger general election candidate because of the Rasmussen polls comes from Romanoff consultant Celinda Lake. Since Lake is herself a pollster, you’d think that she might refer to one of her own surveys, rather than the survey of another pollster. She doesn’t.

                    7. We have a ways to go before the general election to put so much emphasis on this poll. Also, Bennet has the funds to counter his negatives and increase his favorables whereas AR does not. Easy decision here, for the sake of Dem’s holding the CO Sen seat we cannot afford a primary. This is getting out of hand. If we lose the seat in Nov, the blood is on AR’s hands…

        2. Then have your people  quit attacking the President, which they hsve been doing since September.

          Honestly, The Speaker’s campaign is developing a credibility gap.

          Wlll the real Mr. Romanoff please stand up. It is the one that wnats to be SEc.Of State? Is the one that wants to Lt.Governor? Is  the one that wants to be Governor?

          Is it the one that calls the party a criminal organization ” incumbent protection racket” Is it the one that relies on state party officals to break the rules and openly endorse him?

          Is it the one that attacks pac money? Or is it the Andrew Roanoff PAC that distributes money?

          Is it the one that insists on single payer? Or is it the one on fox news, the DLC man of the year playing to the Teabaggers?

          Is it the one that hires advisors that call environmentalists communists and union members thugs?

          Is it the one that hnnors his own families immigration, or is it the 2006 ROmanoff that makes immigrants, many fleeing violence, face some of the toughest laws designed to make their lives miserbale?

          WIll he do a Sen Campbell on us and change parties, or affilaite with Sen Lieberman?

          1. if i am attacking the President, then you should easily explain to me why Blanche Lincoln, who has openly fought and threatened to filibuster the Public Option should be endorsed over a primary challenger who is for the Public Option

            1. He goes on Fox news and states that deficit neutral single payer is all or nothing.  Furher your backers have said that even though they have heard Sen Bennet backs the public option stronger than any other Senator, that he really doesn’t because he wants it deficit nuetral At the same time, AR  facetiously states that he “didn’t know” that Pat Caddell thought that you were a communist becuase you are an envronnmentalist, and that Union members are thugs.

              He claims on the stump and in the debate that he :Andrew Romanoff,  would make fillibustering Republicans return to the old way of having to continue to read the phone book or like minded boring material. He fails to mention that this would take a super majority to change the rules, and that his relationship with the Dem leaadership, wether we win or lose the majority will be horrible. He claims inthe Statesman that he wants Sen Bennet’s seat of the HELP committee, but with his calling the US Sennte corrupt, which he has done in at least HD42 with several skeptical party people that work for Perlmutter , and Udall present, he will have no friends and his he’d be lucky to get the worst assignments. He did this at the sme time that he had his ANdrew Romanoff PAC open and donating to Colorado Democrats (he would never do that to get endrosements, it’s just a coincidence)

              He might choose to caucus with the Republicans if his recent fox news appearance is any indication.

              We need people in DC more interested in promoting legislation passing rather than their own personal ego. Mr.Romanoff is not that man.

              2. Your stretching Romanoff’s position on the public option.

                To be fair I have called out those who have said Bennet didn’t didn’t support the public option until Romanoff entered the primary, when the senator had clearly supported it in mid summer.

                Both sides please try to keep the stretching or repeating of disproven points to a minimum.  

          2. It’s like “1984” in the Romanoff campaign.  I don’t understand the huge jumps of logic that the Romanoff campaign has to make in order to make his case.  

            Candidate Romanoff tries to cast himself as the “outsider” and “grassroots” guy, after being a career politician and ultimately Speaker of the House.  How is that in any way outsider?

    2. The Ken Gordon influence over Romanoff is palpable.

      Gordon seems to have become a one issue person (PAC money) and Romanoff’s campaign to date has reflected that fixation, whether or not it boomerangs on the candidate and whether or not it is the best way to win the election and whether.

  2. Which in itself was baffling, I’m a “U” and won’t be caucusing–what are they using for lists?

    And I thought the same as you, Pols.  “Is this the best they’ve got?  That Obama is a prick for endorsing Bennet?”  Talk about a turd in the punchbowl.

    Maybe that email will get them some hard-core Bennet haters.  But I suspect they’re on board already.

    I don’t see how it helps.

  3. While it remains obvious that Pols has a nearly psychotic desire to see Romanoff lose this race, this post is clear that Pols is the one who has “jumped the shark”.

    If you read the letter in full, you clearly see that the real problem is not so much the President’s involvement, but the DNC’s involvement.  Baca and Martinez are making the very credible case that the Party is getting involved where it should remain neutral.

    While we can certainly debate whether it was a good idea for the President to get involved, can’t we all agree that the Party should not be getting involved and spending resources to support one candidate over another in a primary race???

    1. The coordinated campaign is a roundtable. Andrew can write a check and then he’d have the services of the DNC too.

      But he’d much rather rage against the party he claims to love.

      1. This isn’t about the Coordinated Campaign.  This is about OFA, which is an arm of the DNC.  The Coordinated Campaign is a different issue altogether.

        For the DNC itself to get involved in a primary race like this (not the DSCC, but the DNC) is historic, and Baca and Martinez are right to raise hell about it.

      2. ran and won against Chris Gates – due to his omission of Mike Miles’ name to the DNC for our list of Senatorial Candidates and open sabotaging of the Miles candidacy ( i admit, Salazar was the stronger GE candidate – but Gates could have been neutral and let Salazar win on his own – which he would have done, instead of trying to interfere – which cost him his job).

        Now, Waak is coordinating with OFA and the DNC to help Bennet damaging Romanoff.

        oh the irony

    2. You want people to agree that the Party shouldn’t get involved. Maybe you’re right. But none of this is going to do squat to get Romanoff elected. The answer isn’t important when you’re asking the wrong question.

      Whether you are correct about Obama or the DNC is irrelevant. This is an insider issue. The only people who care about this discussion are people who have already decided who they are going to vote for in the primary.

      The primary is decided by regular Democratic voters who don’t pay attention to this inside baseball nonsense.  

    3. If you feel as I do, please consider donating to or volunteering for Andrew by visiting:  http://www.andrewromanoff.com/.

      Yours truly,

      Morgan Carroll

      and

      I am writing to you today to let you know that I have endorsed Andrew Romanoff to serve as Colorado’s next United States Senator.

      Warm Regards,

      Cary Kennedy

      Both of these endorsements came before Obama announced his. Romanoff has been touting them as evidence of why he’d be a better Senator than Bennet since the campaign started.

      1. Again, this email was about the DNC spending resources to push people to caucus for Bennet.  We aren’t talking about Party leaders or elected Democrats here.  We are talking about THE PARTY ITSELF getting involved.

        That’s a HUGE difference!

        1. Are the County Chairs the party? Here is Romanoff for Senate (this is the primary campaign, not the push to get him the appointment [or anointment, depending on which thesaurus you use] back in December ’08.) There are too many county party officers to count on this list:

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/1978…

          Or are you just saying that OFA (which is technically an arm of the DNC, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking it really is the DNC) shouldn’t be doing GOTV support for Bennet? The e-mail from Baca and Martinez falsely states that OFA volunteers and staffers were telling Coloradans how to vote–when, in fact, they were asking whether people had made up their minds who they would be supporting at caucus, and to remind them to go out on March 16th and vote.

          1. County chairs aren’t the Party.  County officers aren’t the party. The Party is the Party.

            And OFA is essentially what the 50-state strategy turned into, so there is no technicality — they ARE the DNC!!!

            And the email isn’t false.  I’ve gotten phone calls myself from OFA asking me to caucus for Bennet.  I’ve gotten emails from OFA, paid for by the DNC, asking me to caucus for Bennet.  

            Don’t be so careless with the truth. OFA is doing a LOT more in this race than simply voter ID, and you know it, RSB.

        2. Something to consider is that Bennet is an incumbent. I don’t see a problem with the party backing Bennet in order to keep the seat blue.

      2. announce his endorsement the day after AR officially enter the primary

        This is on 9/17/09 the day after the announcement.

        http://www.denverpost.com/news…

        The direct endorsement of a president still enormously popular among progressive voters is perhaps the biggest hammer that national Democrats can bring to Bennet’s primary battle against former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, and they wasted no time in wielding it.

        He has endorsed U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican-turned-Democrat who is facing a primary from a more left-leaning opponent. And he came out in favor of U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand when there was a chance that the Democrat picked to fill Hillary Rodham Clinton’s New York Senate seat might be challenged from within the party.

        at least he waited one day, unlike his endorsement of Blanch Lincoln over Bill Halter in Arkansas.

        And Kennedy’s and Caroll’s endorsement was not ‘long before’ Obama’s endorsement it was the day before – 9/16/09 – because how could they endorse a candidate who has not officially announced?

        http://www.squarestate.net/dia…

                    1. No problem, Wade. And thanks — again! — for encouraging Andrew to run! It’s been so good for the civility in the Democratic Party!

                    3. I was talking about civility, Wade. But you’re right, it would make Bennet a stronger candidate if he had a good primary challenge, instead of this amateur-hour embarrassment.

              1. you said


                  Yes, the whole world waited

                to do anything important until Andrew declared.

                i was pointing out when people made their endorsements, and factually, you can’t formally endorse until someone declares for a race.

                what are you talking about?

  4. I guarantee some prominent Andrew supporters made public comments trash-talking Udall, Salazar, and Ritter, et. al. for not playing in the presidential primary and using their magical super delegate powers to sway caucus goers.

  5. It’s well known that the only thing keeping Andrew ROmanoff’s campaign viable is his network of state prarty officials, many  that have brokern the rules and openly endirsed him while still serving as party officlals.

    Many party meetings have turned into Romanoff fundraisers as Bennet supporters have been harangued and discouraged from participating. It’s ironic that former his advisor Pat Caddell called union member thigs, and environmetalists communists while his most staunch supporters, several who have paid postions, attempt to bully the opposition.

    So apparently some party members that break the rules for him are not corrupt, but those that oppose are labled by the Speaker incumbent election racketeers.

    The whole campaign appears to be an excellent display in double speak.

    I heard him say at a gaterhing that if he loses he will leave Colrado and go to work in Europe  and Africa. He’ll be paid very well, and he will leave the citizens of Colorado who have lived here their whole lives to live to pick up the pieces of his negative campaign tactics.

    He has nothing to lose.Colorado does.

    I don’t call that caring about Colorado.

    1. Which State Party Officials have broken the rules?  Which State Party Officials have openly endorsed Romanoff while still serving as Party officials???

      I’m interested to know that.  Because, as far as I know, we’ve all remained neutral in this race. And I’ve seen the same neutrality in CDP staff, too.  So I’d like to know where the bias from the State Party is coming from.

      You’re making some pretty big allegations here.  I’d be interested in some details, because if not, you’re just blowing hot air.

      Have COUNTY party officials endorsed?  Yes.  And they are well within their rights to do so. Have district officials endorsed?  Yes. And they, too, are well within their rights to do so.

      But if you can’t come up with examples of STATE Party officials endorsing, then don’t go throwing around that accusation.  It is very dangerous.  And, I’d suspect, it doesn’t do your candidate any good, either.

      1. Have COUNTY party officials endorsed?  Yes.  And they are well within their rights to do so.

        I thought that they had endorsed Romanoff for the appointment process, but that the Romanoff campaign was continuing to use their endorsements for proof of his statewide support.

        My questioning of your statement comes from this Pat Waak quote from the Denver Post the day Romanoff filed his paperwork:

        Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party, said several county chairs for the Democratic Party asked for clarification on whether they can endorse in a primary. She said the party’s rules bar such endorsements in primaries and that she sent a copy of the rules to all of the county party chairs to clarify the issue

        http://www.denverpost.com/poli…

        1. And several county party officials have endorsed one candidate or the other.  

          There is a somewhat academic debate about whether an individual, in announcing their own endorsement, can use the party title in that announcement.  But I don’t think any rule stops another person (i.e., a campaign) from mentioning that title as an identifying factor in a list of endorsements.

          1. I think it’s the same logical process as Obama making the endorsement, rather than The President.

            But I think that you’re right that it’s an academic debate. For me, there’s not a real difference. It seems more like figuring out the loopholes in the party rules.

            But my point was that both candidates have used these types of endorsements. IMHO, the only reason it’s being made into such a huge deal is because of the boots on the ground that came with Obama’s endorsement.

            1. But, I’ll repeat what I wrote above, because your point is not what the topic of this post is about.

              The letter wasn’t about Obama endorsing, although it mentioned the endorsement.  The letter was about the DNC — the Party itself — endorsing.  That, I think, is fundamentally different.

              I guess we just disagree on that point.

              1. It is inappropriate and unacceptable for national Democratic Party officials and the President of the United States, who is the titular head of the Democratic Party, to engage in Democratic primaries.

                They briefly mentioned the money, and the calls, but it was mostly directed at Obama. They quoted several party chairs, and they all were upset with Obama’s “interference”. One party chair put it like this: “The President needs to follow our Colorado rules.”

                In fact, if they had focused on the points you’re making here, then I think they might have had a better case to make. I think it would still be a losing argument, but it would be more than just arguing about semantics–which is what I believe is being done right now.

                1. I agree there was too much quoting from others about the President, but this was the “meat” of the letter, in my mind:

                  We are alarmed that this long standing tradition has been violated by the current National Democratic Party and our current President, whom we both supported for election.  It is inappropriate and unacceptable for national Democratic Party officials and the President of the United States, who is the titular head of the Democratic Party, to engage in Democratic primaries.  Colorado Democrats have the inalienable right and intelligence to select their own candidate for the highest political position in the state without interference from our Democratic leaders in D.C. who are supposed to be supportive of our local parties and candidates.

                  We are further distressed by the thousands of phone calls coming into our state from people hired by the DNC Organizing for America (OFA) group who have been given phone scripts telling Colorado Democrats how to vote.  Colorado Democrats have the knowledge and wisdom to think for ourselves and make our own decisions without someone who is not a Colorado voter telling us how to vote.  We resent the fact that money we have contributed to the National Democratic Party is being given to OFA organizers to interfere in our U.S. Senate primary.

                  The “Preamble” of the charter of the national Democratic Party, states, “that a political party which wishes to lead must listen to those it would lead, a party which asks for the people’s trust must prove that it trusts the people”.  We urge you to trust the people of Colorado, without influence from Washington, D.C., to select their nominee for the United States Senate.  We respectfully request that the President and other Democratic Party entities, specifically the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the DNC Organizing for America, cease their actions in the Colorado primary for the United States Senate.

                  I take that as an important argument about the DNC taking a stand that violates the Party rules and the Party history.  I guess one just reads these things with the filter one arrives with.

                  1. You make a good point about the filters we all have that create our differing opinions.

                    But hey, at least we’ve been talking about this for a few exchanges without resorting to personal attacks or name calling. Maybe there’s hope for the Democrats yet. 🙂

  6. Just like focusing on whether or not an 18-wheeler should be in your lane when it actually is will get you squashed like a bug, focusing on whether someone should be involved in a primary when they already are is a losing tactic.

    Come on, team Romanoff, tell us why the Pres would endorse you if he only knew you. Give your supporters concrete points with which to convince their neighbors. It’s not that complicated. Remind people of how effective Romanoff was at the statehouse. And please stop pretending he’s a political outsider. Don’t you see that playing the (false) outsider card erases Romanoff’s biggest distinctions with Bennet?

    Of course logic and substance don’t seem to be a focus of this campaign. What a shame.

  7. Regardless of what is fair, by the rules or who is endorsing whom, it boils down to this: The Romanoff campaign’s main selling points seem to be 1) I should have gotten the appointment and I didn’t. Unfair!  2) Obama shouldn’t be endorsing Bennet.  Unfair! and 3) Bennet takes PAC money while voting the same way would vote and I don’t..anymore…for the time being. This is not a winning platform for a primary  challenger to a sitting Senator.

    Mike Miles, a candidate pretty far to the left of his primary opponent, unlike Romanoff, ran on legitimate differences on important issues.  Romanoff is not going to get elected running almost exclusively on grievances. Period.

    1. Should Obama or the DNC or the Party get involved in this race? Maybe, maybe not – that’s not our point.

      The issue here is that Romanoff can’t be successful while using this as one of his main messages. Voters don’t care about this insider baseball stuff.  

  8. This complaint about Obama’s involvement would be a lot more reasonable if there were significant policy differences between the candidates.  But, that is not the case.  

    In fact, since he stated that he’d have voted against the Senate health care bill, I don’t think Romanoff can be trusted to vote for the Obama agenda.  So, I can understand why the President would endorse Michael Bennet, who is a reliable Obama supporter, especially when it counts.

    I guess Romanoff is left opposing the President.  Good luck with that.

    1. than Obama was willing to fight for. For that he is “left opposing the President”? Different approach, different tactics. Argue if you want that it is unrealistic. But “opposing”? No.

      If that is your standard, I “oppose” damn near everything the state and national Dems are doing because I don’t think they are progressive enough. But I don’t think my pushing them all to be more progressive makes me the enemy.

      2. Romanoff’s stated that he would have killed the Senate health care bill because he didn’t like the deals offered to Nebraska and Louisiana (such deals since retracked).

        That is no different than Bart Stupak’s position that he would kill health care because of the abortion issue.

        You are not a “friend” if you are willing to kill legislation because it’s not “perfect”.

    2. That doesn’t change the truth of the message.

      Rather than pull the bias card, why don’t you explain to us why we are incorrect here? Why is this message from the Romanoff campaign a winning approach? Please, tell us.

      1. As I and others pointed out in the “Romanoff does Fox News” thread, you deliberately left out critical parts of a question and critical parts of the answer in order to twist a criticism of Romanoff. It is interesting that you jump on me here for “pull[ing] the bias card,” but you never responded to my specific comment to you that illustrated your bias.

        I have acknowledged there are legitimate issues with the Romanoff campaign. Still, you have a bias. Both statements can be and are true. The credibility of this site will suffer if you are blind to that.

  12. I’ve had to work all day so I’m just now seeing all this. I have to agree with the Romanoff supporters (all 3 of them) that this site just piles on Romanoff day after day.

    My guess is he won’t win in the upcoming caucuses and we then give him a couple of weeks to quietly drop the campaign. In the meantime, can we not take every single opportunity to take a shot at him? At least not on the front page.

        1. dang it.

          No really – at what point does someone get to notice- hey! you got no money to buy media! Sure the staff and consultants keep showing up- but you’re gonna need media, BIG medai and you can’t get it.

          Sure, there other issues and stuff….yada blada yada

          You can’t win without media.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

123 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!