“I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside.”
–Morris K. Udall
UPDATE: Tweeted by the Denver Post’s Curtis Hubbard:
BIG BUCK NEWS: 8% of pcts reporting in GOP senate Buck 40.36% Norton 30.40% Wiens 20.29% Tidwell 5.98% #caucusco
Norton-Buck. With 16 % in, she’s back in the lead 37% to 33.5%. Question is, what if she doesn’t win plurality? #caucusco
Norton and Buck are deadlocked at 37 percen[t] with almost 90 percent of precincts in. Amazing night . #caucusCO
Romanoff in danger of dropping below 50%. Have to believe the campaign was hoping for a bigger margin of victory (Bennet at 42) #caucusCO
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: ParkHill
IN: Trumpflation is Here
BY: Genghis
IN: Why DNI Tulsi Gabbard Should Scare The Hell Out Of You
BY: Genghis
IN: You’re Gonna Need an Actual Opinion on Ukraine, Gabe
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Trumpflation is Here
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: kwtree
IN: Jeffco GOP Sure Knows How To Pick ‘Em
BY: harrydoby
IN: You’re Gonna Need an Actual Opinion on Ukraine, Gabe
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Jeffco GOP Sure Knows How To Pick ‘Em
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Trumpflation is Here
BY: unnamed
IN: Obligatory Lauren Boebert/Kid Rock Gossip Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
still don’t know if I will support Ali or JJ.
and the tally
10 to 0 for Romanoff
10-0 Bennet
Wade and I kick ass, apparently.
http://www.davidthielen.info/ (there instead of Pols because then I can do it from Word which handles intermittent Internet connections).
50% Bennet
25% Romanoff
25% Undecided
Bennet leading by about 20 delagtes when I left for the house district with about 90% counted.
My precinct Bennet 57%-43% Romanoff
But I won’t be live blogging.
so we understand.
In 2008, there was around 40 of us. This year, 6 so far.(CD1, precinct 516)
I just got home from my Mesa County caucus. There aren’t many Democrats in these parts to begin with, and our caucus usually gets 6-9 people. Two years ago it was more than 50. This year we were a back-to-normal eight.
We all voted for Bennet.
It’ll be interesting to see if the teabaggers, 9-12ers and the like turned up at the GOP caucuses around here.
Although, some Obama-maniacs did indeed show. Myself (first-timer in 2008) and a few people (first-timers) I met that cold February night were there again tonight.
I would suggest that the rabid Obama supporters have done the math and understand it doesn’t really matter whether or not they caucus.
Hmmm, let’s see… show up to say who you support at the precinct caucus, do the same at county and again at State. And then, well? Vote again in August; this time for real.
I know there are lots of people who think it’s a wonderful process, but — seriously — a process that wastes a minimum of 6 hours of time without anything being decided? I think not.
I say this as someone who helped organize the caucus in my county. I get that the party has to do it, but I can’t imagine a universe where people who don’t show up for this process are somehow inferior to people who do.
Oh, unless you’re one of those who showed up and you want to feel superior, of course.
no
Hopefully you’ll blow thru 40 on your way to 80. This is a critical primary for the Dems.
Of course not to close to 2 years ago but very strong.
A grand total of 10 for the Fighting’ 516th, delegate-wise we split 3-2 in favor of Bennet, splitting a half-delegate on a coin toss.(Coin-toss went to Romanoff.)
Fighting 516th. Love it.
from my caucus here in Arvada. We had 13 people in attendance for our precinct.
The result of the senate poll was 9/3/1 Romanoff/Bennet/Uncommitted.
We also had a straw poll in the SD 20 race between Dave Ruchmann and Cheri Jahn: the result was 10/0/3 Ruchmann/Jahn/Uncommitted.
The 13 turnout was significantly better than the last off year turnout in 2006 when there were only three of us there.
any more information from other precincts.
No surprise here, since this is Romanoff’s old legislative district and he organized it to the nines. My precinct thus sent 3 Romanoffs and one Bennet to Denver county. A lot of precincts packed into Moore School and, judging from tone and signs, etc., I’d guess it was at least 2-1 overall for Andrew.
My neighbor Ed Benton, Denver lawyer and, with the late Monte Pascoe, sparkplug of one of the epochal school board campaigns in Denver’s bitter busing era, said it best. Speaking of Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, he said both Bennet and Romanoff need to adopt it as do their supporters. Or get used to the sound of “Senator Jane Norton.” Most precincts had 20 to 30 show. My 601 has a lot of high rises and students and is hard to turn out. But my wife went last year and said there were at least 24 in attendance, led by Obama backers.
Not a single vote for Romanoff. All delegates go to Bennet and uncommitted.
120 in attendance–87 supporters for Bennet, 26 for Romanoff, 5 uncommitted.
25 delegates to Bennet; 8 to Romanoff; 0 to Uncommitted.
Estes Park–7 precincts
Excitement for Romanoff was in the air and an extremely high turnout for our conservative district means plenty of Romanoff delegates. A Denver school teacher kept the group focused on Bennet’s shortcomings and repeated more than once “Bennet is a snake in the grass”. I couldn’t disagree. And he convinced the only Bennet supporter to change his vote.
I’ll be one of many delegates for Romanoff.
You want us to believe that the sole Bennet supporter was persuaded (as opposed to irritated) by repetition of the juvenile slur, “Bennet is a snake in the grass”? Try that argument against and again over the years, Sharon — try “persuading” someone to change his/her vote by repeatedly insulting his/her candidate as a “snake in the grass.” It won’t work, which is why I don’t believe your Fairytale From Romanoffville.
told the story of Bennet’s sleazy dealings with the teachers union. Apparently he promised an increase in pay for teachers that taught in schools that were in some kind of deficiency mode. I wasn’t paying too close attention but the one Bennet supporter was also a teacher. Anyway once the union agreed to the deal Bennet changed the rules and the teachers never did get the raise they were promised for teaching in these deficiency schools.
That’s the way to go Bennet – screw our teachers, you know the one profession that deserves more than they are paid. But don’t worry he’ll protect his paymasters the banks as in voting no on the cram-down and making remarks about not pushing through banking reform because of unintended consequences.
Perhaps another Denver teacher remembers as I’m sure there was more to the story than I can remember from tonight.
Common trait with rabid Romanoff supporters.
n/t
those of us that have the common sense to support the better candidate – that is Romanoff?
I understand why you continue to live in a fantasy world. You’re like the tea baggers disconnected from reality and angry as hell. It’s too bad that your anger, like the tea baggers is misdirected.
Romanoff
57.90%
Bennet
43.62%
Undecided
7.29%
It those numbers hold up, The Bennet team will not be upset at all.
I predicted 55-45 for Romanoff in the caucu, and the opposite true in the primary.
The on ly topline winner in 18 years was Ben Campbell.
Remember that Romanoff was supposed to make Sen Bennet petition on the ballot.
That’s not happening
You would try and turn Bennet’s poop into silk if you could but it’s still Bennet poop and he lost by a rather large margin I might add even with all his millions from Wall Street.
Was from a Romanoff supporter – details here
in another precinct who ranted against Bennet so hard, they swung 3 votes to him. Major backfire there.
Other than that, we were all pretty nice to each other–we’re too small a town to behave otherwise; we can’t afford not to be civil since we all know everybody that attended and will run into each other at the Post Office tomorrow. And plus, we pretty much all genuinely like each other.
When we had one woman go off into cloud cuckoo land about wanting a request for a “real” 9/11 investigation, I kept my mouth shut.
Andrew’s Mother was present. She’s a nice lady
I understand and appreciate the need for debating the party platform…I really do…
At the same time, I learned so much more about instant-runoff in 2008 then I ever wanted too.
The hardest part was explaining to my significant-other why I was an hour later then her to the Obama after-party at the Ogden.
“You see, you start by ranking candidates by preference…”
n/t.
29 Romanoff
8 Bennet
4 Undecided
If not for that, I would have gone and voted for Bennet, unless a particularly persuasive Romanoff supporter talked me out of it. I didn’t feel bad about missing the caucus, because I like both Bennet and Romanoff a lot and will vote for whoever wins the primary.
And PS, the Broomfield High Eagle Jazz Band killed!!!
This is my first year caucusing at my new address, so I have no idea how to judge the turnout. I got the sense that it was slightly higher than normal in off-year terms. We split 50/50 between Romanoff and Bennet so we’re sending 4 delegates each to county
23 for Bennet, 5 for Romanoff. Four delegates for Bennet; none for Romanoff since none of the 5 supporters could make County.
We got 4 Bennet delegates, and I pleaded with folks to volunteer to be alternates, which convinced 2 folks to sign up as alts. Not filling up the slate at county can make a difference…
there is no county- caucus was the victory!
the end.
Some of the newcomers from ’08 did come. Of course there we far less than half of the toal number of attendees.
Lake is so worried, chronically, about pissing off the potential winner that the Central Committee decreed they were going to remain uncommitted. When folks are seeking to be delegate to County Assembly they just look around and make eye contact and vote for each other. Only one person who is not part of the party faithful was selected for that role and they are all uncommitted. Lake County chose 56 and they are all uncommitted. They did this with Salazar/Miles also.
Since the fourth and fifth were both breaking up by the time I got there, and the sixth was the furthest out, I just headed home at that point. The numbers of attendees were comparable to what’s been reported here by others. I don’t know the Romanoff/Bennet break-downs.
I accidentally walked into the Republican caucus at one of the locations. Since I was already in the room and had their attention, I mentioned my newly established non-partisan South Jeffco Community Organization, and the volunteer tutoring and mentoring project that I am implementing through it. One of the Republican attendees caught me as I was leaving the building 10 minutes later to ask me for my card because she wanted to get involved in the project. Now, that’s what this country needs more of!
Precinct 6, south Jeffco
Wiens 20%
Tidwell 5%
Other 5%
Norton 30%
Buck 40%
McInnis 60
Maes 40
Wiens 20
Norton 36
Buck 35
Looks like this section of HD 7 went about 66% Bennet for 33% Romanofff according to HD 7B chair. Roughly 10 Denver precincts at this site. A little surprising as this is Romanoff’s backyard literally.
Romanoff lives in Wash Park.
Precinct 8 in Adams Co. ( W. of Sheridan, south of 64th Ave.) went AR 8, Bennett 1, undecided 2.
we had 15 people show up in our precinct. I’ve moved, so I can’t really compare the 2008 turnout, but in the precinct I lived in before there were over 100 people who showed up.
10 for Bennet, 3 for Romanoff, and 2 uncommitted (I was one of the uncommitted). We considered doing a revote, but it wouldn’t have changed the delegate split, so it didn’t matter. It was weird, I would have expected more Romanoff support there. It was an older crowd though.
If my vote would have affected the result, I would have gone for Bennet. The Romanoff supporters turned me off, by either talking way too much or saying things that just weren’t true. There was one thing that seemed false from a Bennet supporter (that most of his events are free and just opportunities to talk to him), but the Bennet side was definitely more appealing.
The strangest thing was that someone asked what votes Bennet took that Romanoff would have done differently, and the Romanoff supporters couldn’t answer the question. I had to answer with a brief cramdown explanation. (I didn’t remember Romanoff’s threat to filibuster health care reform until later, but I never took that seriously anyway.)
60% Romanoff and 36% Bennet
Denver Post
Common trait with Bennet supporters.
And oh yeah, I’m rabidly angry that, according to the state website I looked at moments ago, AR is leading in total delegates.
But it is weird how much the different counties see-sawed between candidates.
And Bennet did a good job getting his people to caucus in District 8 of Denver County. But many of them were clueless about the caucus and didn’t even know their precinct numbers. And they seemed to be concentrated in the southern areas of the district [the moneyed areas]. I wonder how much staying power they have. And I was very surprised at the white-ness; even during Kerry’s run, it seemed that the percentage of whites was much less in comparison to tonight.
AR is on the ballot. One hurdle down–but a lot more to come.
I caucused for Romanoff and, frankly, I’m embarassed by your antics on this site.
You are not helping our cause or our candidate in the slightest….in fact you’re harming him. If Romanoff wins the nomination, these Bennet people you are ragging on are going to be the same people you are going to be trying to convice to support our guy.
7 Romanoff
7 Bennet
54% R and 43 B
(from memory)
9 precincts, 119 attendees. 54 Bennet, 52, Romanoff.
This is in Lafayette, at Angevine.
About 54% Romanoff to 37% Bennet state wide. Big counties still out:
Adams
Boulder
El Paso
Jefferson
Larimer
Pueblo
Weld
58 B 34 R
Here’s the link:
http://www.coloradocaucus.com/
TOTAL 3,247 2,650 20,285 10,327 8,581 1,353 50.91% 42.30% 6.67%
50.9 Romanoff 42.30 Bennet
Within 10 points and I figure Bennet cruises to the nomination
We had 23 show up (vs. about 67 in 2008), so I’d say it was a pretty good turnout.
This is Romanoff country, naturally.
17 for Romanoff, 6 for Bennet
2 Romanoff Delegates to 1 Bennet, plus an alternate each.
There were no undecideds, and little argument, and no switched votes (I did that a few weeks ago, sorry Andrew).
Do different counties do wildly different amounts of delegates per person? We had 5 people at our caucus, and 5 delegates apportioned to us; so we all became delegates. Then I hear other people with much larger caucuses talking about how they sent two or three delegates…
So just means lots of party memebers did not show up.
Thanks for the explanation. I was a party member back in 2008, but lapsed. Now that I’m a Bennet delegate, may have to fix that.
They’ll let just anybody do this, won’t they? 😉
Yanked but not convinced…
What do you mean?
Dues paying DNC member vs. registered Dem?
I was the former, always been the latter.
Maybe this weekend I’ll diary about why I switched from Romanoff to Bennet, if that’s what you’re asking.
There’s a dem performance weighting as well.
not how many show up.
and is pretty different between Dems and the GOP.
For the Dems, each county comes up with its own forumla, but they are all supposed to take into account some combination of “Democratic Strength” and Population. The argument about the best ways to measure (or even define) these two parts has been waged most of my lifetime (my 39th-with-years-of-practice birthday is Friday).
There is also the issue of precinct size. This is also determined by each county, typically by their board of commissioners. (Parties do not draw precinct lines contrary to popular belief). There is a statutory range of how big a precinct can be based on the number of active registered voters. Some counties choose to keep their precinct size near the bottom end of that range (like Denver – hence the 429 counties we have – ack!) and some closer to the top of the range (I belive Adams does this).
In the Denver Dems we adjust caucus size each cyle based on the race governing our preference poll. If have a lot of candidates running for the highest office (like in 2008 for Pres.) we hold a larger county assembly (over 3000 delegates in 2008) and elect more delegates from each precinct to better accommodate adequate representation of various preferences in that race. This year there are only 2 candidates for the top office (US Sen) so we went for a smaller county assembly (it’s still over 1700 delegates). I have no idea how much similar adjusting other counties do.
How this helps illuminate the process, may be more than you wanted.
Roughly 2:1 for Bennet (with about 10% going uncommitted).
Wow.
Oh yeah, we have Hillary Hall running things.
Anyways, the big numbers still not in are Boulder, Adams, & Pueblo. From the reports above it sounds like Boulder went heavily Bennet so who wins may come down to the wire.
I would guess that in a case like this there are a lot of educated people wanting to make their voices heard about a lot of issues and vote on them. I know that our precinct takes longer than it has to because we start discussing and quibbling about things for the platform rather than just giving each an up or down vote.
apologize to Hillary. 🙂
You beat 3 other large counties – that’s a wonderful improvement.
I remember waiting DAYS for Boulder county results in some years.
Have you ever been involved in organizing a caucus? When the numbers get reported has pretty much ZERO to do with the county clerk.
Perhaps you, in your infinite wisdom and back seat driving ability, ought to help with doing the numbers for Boulder’s Assembly.
Just so, you know, there might be some actual information and effort behind your snark.
PS I am far from Boulder County, but my talkative/argumentative/indecisive group made our county’s numbers “late” too.
on the caucus night and at the Boulder County convention. I will admit that I assumed she was doing so again tonight. If I’m wrong I apologize.
And I realize her running the counting has nothing to do with her being the county clerk.
…you’re saying someone volunteered her time to help make the caucus/convention process work and you’re dissing her?
Yikes, ignorance would be a better defense.
Seriously, dude, try doing the work before slashing the tires of someone else who’s doing it to make your cushy just-show-up-and-complain life easier.
Has been the poor job they have done counting the votes in the elections when she has been in charge. Boulder has almost always been last reporting to the state under her command.
And tonight I’m truly thrilled that 3 other large counties were slower than us. That’s real progress.
…he responded, “what are my other choices?”
I think you and he have a lot in common.
and you are right, that is not a good thing.
.
Clerk and Recorder counts votes in actual elections; County party counts partisan straw polls.
Yes, the same person is often involved with both, but they use different staff, procedures, technology, &tc.
There are different standards, as well.
.
each precinct would have a pair of credentials for the 2 leaders – one would log in and enter the numbers, the other would log in and verify. It would then instantly display running totals.
They never called me back after the initial discussion. So I tried to help. And that approach would have eliminated any choke point that the numbers were fed through.
We could have used it for reporting on election nights too – not for the official counting, but for the reported results out of each county.
…after all, you seem so open minded and ready to help. As opposed to those who see one problem and harp on it forever. (See your response to Udall, et al.)
Consider the possibility that when your pals at Microsoft said you were brilliant more data might have been helpful.
Bennet has strong support from rural counties while AR is strong in Denver. Based on these results, Bennet will be a stronger statewide candidate while all of AR’s support is in Denver. Bennet will have no problem getting the Denver voters, but his appeal in rural areas will get a great asset in the general.
Alternatively should Bennet be the nominee there could be an enthusiasm gap. If the base does not turn out strongly in Denver then Bennet will loose no matter how well he does among rural Democrats and Independents.
I’m not saying that Romanoff should be the nominee. I’m uncertain about that, myself. However, while I certainly will vote no matter who is nominated not everyone will. People can and do stay home and in a state where 50.7% of residents live in the Denver-Aurora-Broomfield MSA this is a very large part of where elections are won or lost.
I will say that Romanoff can’t rely on enthusiasm alone to win the primary. His next quarter report needs to reflect an ability to build some infrastructure on top of that good will.
And I think all but the most masochistic Romanoff supporters will avoid the PUMA route.
I’m sure that very few Romanoff supporters will go PUMA.
I agree that Romanoff needs to show that he can build a campaign that will work or win to continue. I think that should Romanoff fail to give a credible show that he’ll certainly lose the primary and so the system works.
The problem is not in being damaged by the primary (which so far is shaping up to be largely civil and realistic on both sides), but failing to catch fire.
I’m voicing my fear that even if Bennet is the better choice of the two that he may still fail to win the general election due to an enthusiasm gap. I worry though I’m going to do my best to turn people out that I won’t have a great deal to say that will actually get people to go to the polls even if they agree that Bennet is a perfectly good Senator.
Thanks for pointing out that there’s a big difference between unenthusiastic and full-on PUMA.
Bennet has a lot of work to do still, but I think he’s done a good job up to this point. If someone had told me in December-January of ’08/09 that he would get to 42% at caucus with 91% of precincts reporting like he is right now, I would have laughed in their face.
to compare expectations for someone who had never been involved in Democratic politics in Dec-Jan 08/09 to the expectations for an incumbent Senator of 2010. You are setting the bar pretty low.
You’re mistaken on that. He hadn’t been elected, but there’s no way in hell he would have been appointed by Ritter if what you say was true. You might want to educate yourself on the man’s bio before making shit up.
Anyway, my very point was that Bennet had such low expectations. People were expecting him to get walloped in the caucus back in ’09–myself included–incumbency or no. There’s no way in September of ’09 when Romanoff first announced that I would have believed he would have gotten just below 51% at caucus.
Also, just a tip, but Bennet will have almost two years of experience in the Senate to run on in August. That whole “no political experience” line is not going to get any more true the more you keep repeating it.
I should have said, no electoral Democratic political experience in Colorado. Also, I know being school Supt. involves politics to an extent. And, I know he worked in DC.
But to accuse me of “repeating” the “no political experience” card now is putting words into my mouth that I did not say (others on this site may make that argument but I have not) and you are reversing your own argument. My point was that Bennet does have political experience now–he’s the incumbent!–and therefore should be expected to do well, while you were lowballing expectations.
My point remains that your comparing caucus expectations of the Bennet of 08/09, who was not running for office and no one had any thought that he would, to the experienced incumbent Senator of now is placing the bar quite low–and I think that is spin.
I misunderstood what you were trying to say. It’s been a long week already.
My measure of the caucus was always based less on Bennet’s incumbency than Romanoff’s popularity. That’s why I always predicted Romanoff would win. I just thought it would be by a larger margin given how well-known and well-liked he is.
Either way, the caucus is over, but the campaign has barely begun. It’s going to be a long, hot summer.
This is why I think the current Senate primary is damaging to our party’s prospects. When you have a campaign and their supporters essentially calling Bennet a crook, over time these supporters will begin to believe in the messaging and will not be too happy about supporting Bennet. Some have said on Pols that primaries are a good thing and that AR has kept it clean, however I would differ, saying someone is inherently a crook because they accepted PAC money is a huge accusation, one that can’t be changed when the general election comes around.
Buck vs Norton is going to be decided by Arapahoe & Larimer County. Norton’s a bit ahead but none of Arapahoe is in yet and only 30% of Larimer. And it’s 38% to 34%. I’d say Buck is back in the race. If he can show decent $$$ for this quarter, they have a real primary.
In Maes vs McInnis, everyone will say 70/30, McInnis has it and it’s all over. He almost certainly does. But… When someone with no political experience, no money raised, no orginazation, no nothing – gets 30% – that’s not a positive sign for McInnis.
almost tied
Plus a decent chunk of JeffCo to go. Romanoff has enough of a lead he’ll probably stay in front, but it could flip.
And kudos to Boulder for not being last for once!
Everyone spoke positively about both candidates. One Romanoff voter who had been unsure about Bennet said she felt much better about him after we all had our say. Most importantly, every one of the people in my caucus said they would support the eventual nominee no matter who it ended up being.
My results: Romanoff got 5 delegates, Bennet got 3.
Ditto, only in my precinct it was 3 Romanoff delegates and 1 Bennet delegate with all of us being polite and trying to make sure we all felt positive about voting for the other guy in the fall.
As the party rep read the rules at the beginning, it sounded like one precinct off to the side devolved in an argument that started getting a bit loud(not even sure it was senate, I think it was state house, actually).
All it took was an anonymous woman to say “we’re all Democrats” to bring the entire room to applause. Even the arguing parties.
Here’s to more of that.
but looks like they are also going to Bennet. Stunning. I just can’t believe some of these totals. Four weeks ago, AR supporters are claiming Bennet will have to petition to get on the ballot, that he wouldn’t even hit the 30% threshold. Now Bennet’s pulling 43%. Unbelievable.
And what a dogfight on the Repub side. Right fucking on. It’s about time they join in the fun of a real primary. Go buck go.
Okay, I can’t blog and drink at the same time so no more blogging.
I saw low guesses at 15,000. It’s well over that now.
despite your efforts at spin.
Bennet has been robocalling and sending out expensive literature, plus he has the advantage of a lot of organization staff and a lot of of $$. Bennet had to have paid much more per delegate than AR. And Bennet had to have spent many more man-hours per delegate than AR.
What’s amusing is that I hardly had time to work on AR’s campaign–I called my list once with a couple of follow-up calls. Since I’ve been working so many hours, I couldn’t contribute much time to AR’s campaign. And I know another PCP who also wasn’t able to campaign for AR in her precinct. Both precincts went about 50/50. So I’m quite pleased [now, unless something changes as more results come in].
Considering that the big names support Bennet, and considering AR’s limited $$ and staffing, the results are good.
Bennet failed at keeping AR off of the ballot.
Because if this is the spin from AR’s camp this a.m., I have GOT to forward this to folks. It will make their day. My, how the mighty have fallen. I this is the new expectation?
Oh and sweetie? I got 3 robocalls and 2 lives call in the last week–from Romanoff’s camp.
Even with all of Bennet’s Wall Street money he won’t win in the general election. You should be happy Romanoff is in the race to stay.
My email’s in my profile. Why don’t you drop me a line and maybe we could meet for coffee and you could persuade me. I’d love to meet you. Love to.
Damn!
Ok, it’s now 50/40 Romanoff. Probably not going to change much from that. Only place left of any size is Pueblo and they’re not that big.
Yes I think the primary is good for Bennet, but I also was hoping for a win for him tonight. Oh well, it’s still a really good show for someone that many thought would pull under 30%.
Adams County/Thornton HD34. 3 people.
1 Delegate Bennett
1 Delegate Romanoff
1 Delegate Undecided
There were 9 of the 36 precincts in HD34 at Hillcrest Elementry near 104th/Pecos.
Romanoff: 21 (6-0 Romanoff Precinct 60)
Bennett: 20
Undecided: 1
When I left headquarters an hour ago:
Adams County totals approx.
Romanoff 60%
Bennet 40%
http://www.cologop.org/
McInnis in a truly unimpressive showing. Compare this with the way Bob Beauprez mopped up Marc Holtzman four years ago. Scotty now faces a primary.
Tom Wiens will likely withdrawal and support Ken Buck
An impressive showing for Andrew Romanoff winning almost everywhere
Earlier I thought I saw 70/30 but it now looks like 60/40. Considering that Dan Maes is a one man operation with no staff and no money, 40% is huge. I think McInnis has a serious challenge here.
in those precincts where the job is shunned
not a bog win…..less than 10 points is a Bennet win
they’re both on the ballot, so we’ll know who wins after the primary.
not really.
That doesn’t happen until May. It looks like they will be- but a lot can change between caucus night and state assembly – ask anyone who recalls 2004.
Almost all the numbers are in and they are tied. I don’t think Jane Norton will go around bragging that she won – by 0.59%.
I’d say they have a very real primary on the GOP side. Especially when Wiens & the others drop out – Buck will get the majority of those.
Romanoff may end up with slightly over 50% statewide. Not even close to a grassroots blowout that was predicted a few months ago.
Bottom Line: No one is going to pull out their wallots to fund Romanoff’s campaign after tonight’s results.
Bennet goes on TV starting tomorrow and every month thereafter. When will Romanoff’s TV ads air? Never.
Bennet will be the Democratic nominee, can ignore Romanoff, and will begin to focus on the GOP opponent.
In my caucus it was Bennet supporters who want to see the primary continue to get Bennet trained in a campaign. That’s a single datapoint, but I can easily see Bennet supporters voting undecided tonight.
But I don’t see how anyone who is even considering Romanoff would go undecided – tonight was make or break for him. So that undecided block may be almost entirely Bennet supporters.
Seems the logical conclusion would be that the undecideds were, well….undecided.
Now politicians might vote a particular way for any variety of reasons, but I find us common folk who go to caucuses usually just say and vote what is on our mind.
Pre-Obama, my caucus usually drew 3 to 5. In 2008 it was 40. Of course it was not 40 tonight in an off year, but it was 11, half of whom were first-timers in 2008. People still want change. They were energized by Obama and are not going to forget how that felt easily.
I also picked up results from all of HD9 and it was closer to 3-to-1 for the whole house district (54 precincts).
Bennet’s moves in the last few months have obviously been reassuring to caucus-goers. One wonders if he would have acted differently if Romanoff was not in the race.
I believe that is a final tally.
How is it that Bennet can lose the caucus by 9-10 points, yet this isn’t seen as a major setback? Especially with AR holding on to more than 50% ?
What is the history of candidates losing in the caucus by ten or so points, yet coming back to win?
Have AR’s chances of an ultimate win now improved? In hindsight, did the AR’s several missteps prior to the caucus seem to make any significant difference?
And finally, who would Dems rather run against (Norton or Buck)?
Well, really the Caucus only decides one thing in regard to the Senate race. Who gets the top line on the primary ballot. This is largely a beauty contest and given the money involved Romanoff may be perceived as “prettier”, but not nearly as attractive as the rich heiress.
This, this was nothing. The primary ballot in August is everything.
It will likely match today’s totals, but it can flip as delegates change their mind and some don’t show up.
This could end up being like Udall vs… what was his name? It was all over even before the State Convention when Mike Miles dropped out of the race and so Udall ended up winning even though the county assemblies had many more Mike Miles supporters and Udall supporters.
In 2004, MIles won top spot on the ballot, as I recall, but Salazar won big time in the primary.
In 2008 he ran against Udall and pulled, as I recall, more delegates to state from HD-8 than did Udall. I don’t recall about the rest of the state though. And after a diligent search and I cannot find any archived results.
I ran my county’s 2008 caucus/assembly/convention process and I was a Miles supporter when he ran against Salazar. He did not run against Udall in 2008 to my knowledge, and I think I would have known.
.
then coming back and winning the primary and general elections.
Feb/May 2008 caucus/assembly
Joan F. 62%
Jared P. 38%
(this was viewed at the time as a win for Jared. Most insiders were expecting a 70-30 victory for Joan)
Primary Results:
August 2008
Joan F. 38%
Jared P. 42%
Will S. 20%
.
I was expecting to see a fight between GOP loyalists and Tea Partiers.
I was introduced as a non-Republican, independent guest.
When it was almost over, someone asked me why I came, and I said I wanted to see how the challenge posed by the Tea Party insurgents to the party loyalists went.
I added that I was surprised that the caucus was 100% party loyalists, and no T-Party sympathy.
Wow! 5 of the 11 in attendance shouted in objection that they WERE the 912/ T-Party movement, and that I was all wrong. That was after more than 90 minutes of consensus that the Republicans were the nation’s only bulwark against the tide of progressivism and national decline.
Here’s my interpretation:
GOP loyalists acknowledge that the party is corrupt and not true to its principles,
which explains the identification with Glenn Beck or Dick Armey potemkin organizations,
but still believe they are going to “take back their party” and fix it from within. Hope springs eternal ?
To them, the problem with the Republican Party is that individual elected politicians aren’t conservative enough. Oddly, they defended every single local GOP pol as being a true conservative, so I have no clue who the RINO elected officials are that they want to purge.
They believe that there’s nothing wrong with their party that a severe chastening can’t fix.
I am less sure of Constitution Party prospects now than I was 5 hours ago.
Buck over Wiens, Tidwell and Norton, 6 to 3 to 1 to 1.
McInnis over Maes, 8 to 3. Most thought that was local pol Mays.
Both straw polls had candidates I’ve never heard of.
Closing note: The 2 people running the caucus had evidently run it for 35+ years, and nobody challenged anything they said, no matter how false or misleading.
.
You mean the Tea Party movement was never actually an independent movement, just a stunt by Republican Party insiders?
That is more surprising than that porn movie twist ending I saw, where the guy comes to repair the woman’s TV, but then they have sex instead!
Well, it didn’t say UPS, but he was delivering a package and dressed in brown shirt and shorts….
Great report!
Did you get the sense that the 5 Tea Partiers in attendance were new to the caucus system, or were they stalwart Republicans who had also joined the 912/Tea Party movement?
Thanks a ton brother!
.
were traditional GOP folks. 10 of the 11 attendees had been attending these caucuses together for years and years. The one new guy was there in order to get a spot at the state assembly, where he wanted to support someone who is thinking about a run for LT GUV.
He wouldn’t say who, but its a local former County Commissioner.
They were able to fill 5 delegate spots to county, but named neighbors who weren’t in attendance to fill the alternates. Its not clear that those alternates are interested, or even that they will be notified that they were selected.
The only real contest was to be a delegate to the state assembly.
I was surprised that there was a $20 fee to be a delegate.
.
Are caucus rules party rules or state law?
In the caucus I attended, the chair made it clear that alternates had to be present and that to be seated at assembly, one had to have been in attendance at caucus. Maybe she was wrong- I have no idea what the rules are about that.
Being an alternate is not at all different than being a delegate except that you don’t cast a vote unless a delegate cannot fulfill their responsibilities. It’s like getting all of the boring, without any of the fun of actually being on the floor and voting–unless a delegate doesn’t show.
I should know, I was an Obama alternate for CD-1 in 2008. I didn’t get picked.
Some counties say you must be at the caucus to go to the County Assembly, others say need not be present to win if there are delegate vacancies.
But no one is supposed to get added post-caucus.
that you didn’t have to attend the caucus to be nominated to the assembly. That’s in Boulder.
where I caucused, if there aren’t enough people present, then the delegates are considered “lost”. I had to convince two or three AR supporters that it would be in their candidate’s best interest for them to go to assembly as delegates.
I know it there was no fee to be a county delegate but was unaware that the state assembly assessed a fee.
I don’t know about the R’s, but I have never heard of a fee for a Democratic assembly. Doesn’t seem democratic, does it?
Granted it’s 0.12%, but it’s hard for Jane Norton to claim she’s the single clear candidate when she came in second. I’d say this is now a very even primary.
And to all of you that said Buck was toast and told me that I was on drugs when I said I thought he had a real chance – TBHTTT 🙂
By primary it will be Conservative vs Norton and she will lose.
Buck could still lose the conservative spot, but not likely
I think he’s the big wildcard. 40% is gigantic for a guy who had nothing behind him. If he can get money and a decent team, can he turn that into 50% in August?
Unlikely but I would not say impossible.
On the Dem side – Cheyenne, Eagle, Jackson, Kiowa, Moffat, & Pueblo.
The others combined only add up to 58.
Either way, I’m guessing it’s highly unlikely the remaining counties will make much difference in the overall numbers.
I thought a couple counties stood out: Hinsdale had 100% support (16 uneaten Democrats who spawned from the two that remained) for Bennet, and Mineral County, where all 45 Dems who caucused voted undecided.
I considered under 10 a Bennet win.
NOw we will have to see if AR can raise any money. Bennet will start spening on air tomorrow.
…this was exciting to read!
6AM by God’s Daylight Saving Time there.
I’m anxious to see Barron or other R’s expand on the TP (Hmmmmmm) vs. Traditional Pub fracture. Or not.
we had four at our caucus and only one had gone to a caucus before. But the none my family (2 people) were undecided walking into the room. But they were very conservative and said they wanted the most electable conservative. By looking at Norton’s literature they immedatly saw her as “Washington”. However they had done the caucus Wyoming (party “insiders”)
Rasmussen keeps telling us they are excited about the election, but from what I can tell Republican turnout was worse than Democratic turnout. Not sure where to find all the numbers though. (I know Morgan Carroll posted the Dem site, but where is the Rep site?)
Just saw RSB’s post below. If people showing up to caucus is in any way representative of people who will show up to vote, it looks like Republicans have a slight advantage, but not the huge advantage they keep claiming.
Rs had more contested races. For Dems it was just a matter of Romanoff or Bennet and many Dems are either undecided or willing to support either. So, while we certainly aren’t going to see all the energy provided by all those new in 2008 Obama supporters, we should still be pretty competitive with Rs in motivation come the general. Especially if by then important legislation has been passed and some of the younger voters are feeling less disappointed and remembering that they really don’t want to see Republicans back in power. Also, Rs may have a little motivation problem of their own with their picks for Guv and Senate not exactly setting their base or tea party wing on fire.
The Republican numbers I posted below are unchanged AFAIK. The total Dem votes in the US Senate preference poll is now up to 21,693. Pueblo still has yet to get posted, and that’s 131 precincts, but this means that the estimates of 22,000 for the Dems is probably pretty close.
Either way, the if turnout is an indicator of excitement, then, as SXP points out, the Republicans have a slight advantage. However, I think it’s less than what Dick Wadhams was hoping for in his heart of hearts, and it’s not as much as some were predicting. Perhaps given the results, the tea partiers and activists came out in force, but the establishment GOP is less than excited. Republicans will need both to win in November.
including that a good deal less than the motivation advantage hoped for by Wadhams will materialize.
Also, it takes something very compelling to get 20 and 30 somethings to caucus. Obama provided that extra special something. Once again, both in my area and probably in general, caucus was almost devoid of those younger voters but it’s a lot easier to vote than to caucus and many more will continue to vote than can be expected to return to caucus, especially in an off year.
That said, the Obama machine had better crank up a huge effort to win back disappointed youth. Too many now feel that after making all that effort they don’t have nearly enough to show for it. I hear from young people particularly on issues like warrantless wire tapping, extraordinary rendition, black prison sites, Gitmo, military tribunals, ending the wars, etc. that they just don’t see any change.
It’s going to be hard to get much of that improved 2008 youth vote out for Dem candidates in 2010 on the basis of enthusiasm for supporting Obama if that enthusiasm isn’t rekindled.
By 2012 the first time Dem voters of 2008 and newer first timers had better feel that they have something worth fighting for. Jobs, more affordable healthcare and education and evidence that the darkest aspects of the Bush regime have been banished had better make their appearance in time for 2012.
I’m 25. But I’m one of those returning Obama caucus goers, so maybe all hope isn’t quite lost yet. I will say that the older people in my caucus were very excited that someone my age wanted to be a delegate and PCP.
You are worth your weight in gold. Most of your cohort didn’t return this time. You may have brought the average in your caucus down to the mid 60s! I was one of the youngsters at my first caucus in 2004 (Bush/Kerry seems like another life) at a mere 52.
We need people between your age and 40 to come in so we won’t be down to next to nothing in 20 years. Maybe we just won’t have the caucus system anymore. What are your friends saying about politics these days?
None of them are as politically engaged as they should be, but most, if not all, vote in the general election. I’m trying to convince them to become more active, but they’re so fed up with the process, they’re tough to convince.
Policy aside, there’s not that huge of a difference between them and the Tea Partiers. They’re all sick of politics as usual.
And then if you include the advantage Republicans have over Dems with respect to registered voters, Dems look to be in good shape
Arapahoe County. Still tons of indies. Many Rs who got disgusted switched to unaffiliated rather than D.
went 10 to 4 Bennet so we got 2 delegates for Bennet, 1 for Romanoff. From what I heard from others of the 25 precincts at my site, it was a mixed bag but no landslide for AR. Dan Slater’s Dem Notes e-mail has this interesting info:
With over all results roughly 51% AR, 42% Bennet and 7% uncommitted, seems like a night on which Bennet goals were pretty well reached and AR failed to achieve a game changing victory. The fun continues and we have to listen to Sharon a while longer.
Just trying to get a sense for the strength of the differing party base.
91% of precincts reporting for Dems: 21,566 votes for US Senate preference poll.
94% of precincts reporting for Republicans: 25,341 votes for Governor preference poll, and 24,628 votes for US Senate preference poll.
Meaning Republicans got more people, but they also had more contested statewide races. I would say the turnout numbers are fairly close given the fact that Dems were only voting on Romanoff v. Bennet.
Things are looking good for Dems