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%
April 03, 2010 02:41 AM UTC
149 Comments
He has the money to pay crews to do so and it will raise his name ID, tag thousands of supporters to turn out in the primary / general as well as net volunteers.
He does have the money and it will id people BUT if he can’t even hold his people to turn out at assemblies, how effective is his machine going to be at GOTV? Money certainly helps but it takes passionate boots on the ground not just a bus from Philly or Chicago carrying paid canvassers.
I will give Kincaid credit for dumping this on a Friday at the end of day and giving it to a secondary market so it breaks and hopefully for them dies quickly before getting much coverage
How does this not make Bennet look like a weak candidate? Has a sitting Senator ever had to petition to “ensure” he is on the primary ballot? If the strategy is to make it look like he is an underdog it is going to backfire.
Yes it does make him look weak but better to be safe than sorry. The process of caucus is such a sham because it depends on who can make it to the convention. I just never sign up to go beyond caucus because I cannot commit to go all the way.
Anyways he can do this and collect a good field start over Andrew and hell with no / little tv. People will be like Andrew who? I only see the guy with the bad ads on tv.
Just cause you don’t like it, doesn’t mean its meaningless, i.e. a sham. The activists that show up are the ones that will help to pound ground in the general. If they aren’t doing it for you now, they aren’t going to. Not an effective use of money to have to hire people to advocate for you.
I can disagree all I want. Hmmm what do you think field staff are? They are paid advocates. Paid canvassers, Paid field staff, Paid field directors. That is what they do for a living.
Unless Bennet is lucky in his hiring, paid petitioners tend not to add much to a campaigns’ message except signatures. If he tries to pull it off with field staff coordinating volunteers through a canvass operation, that would build campaign infrastructure in a good way but clipboards outside the grocery store won’t. I don’t know the extent of his field operation, but an inability to get enough signatures in Yuma county or anywhere else would be seriously embarrassing.
It rained today, therefore Bennet….
I’m sure the strategy is to win the primary.
But you’re right – petitions are meaningless and your work is done.
in how to have zero credibility.
If, in a debate between two sides, a participant never acknowledges any validity of any kind to anything the other side ever thinks or says, then that participant has essentially renounced his own humanity, and opted instead to be a simple rote algorithm: “If Bennet is mentioned, denounce.” Given that if the statement were “Bennet devises and implements plan which has already solved X, Y, and Z problems without any unintended consequences” your algorithm would still lead to a denouncement, you (and those several others here who have adopted the same algoithm) have opted, by virtue of that algorithm, to have zero credibility.
you’re so right on! Especially when you get there in one paragraph. Two’s not bad. Five, one tends to nod off (just kidding, had fun in the other thread).
(insert 3000 words here, rinse, and repeat).
So glad someone is sane and rational here on BennetPols!
Those canvassers from NJ were so annoying. What’s the “Situation” with his campaign? Seems like its falling apart at the seams with this petition deal. This isn’t strategy, its WEAKNESS.
You and I know that the caucus is the real test of any campaign and WE are the ones carrying our oxygen tanks to every JJ dinner, house district meeting and caucus.
And “special interests” must not apply to us, because I haven’t been catered to NEARLY enough. Someone doesn’t care about the grassroots, an its showing….
CONCERN CONCERN CONCERN
he is playing it smart, but it shows his weakness as an incumbent
As has been pointed out many times here on CoPols and elsewhere- he’s not really the incumbent in other than a grammatically correct, technical way.
So, yes, as “incumbent’ he’s weak.
But I agree – it’s smart. When will Andrew start his petition?
.
That would be … um, who’s in that seat today, anyway ?
Who gets free TV and press and C-SPAN and plugs on TRMS ?
.
He was never ELECTED
.
that the word “incumbent” has a new definition developed specifically for use on this blog that specifically excludes someone appointed to office ?
Because the “old” definition, in currency until this campaign season, contains no such qualifier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I…
You are free to use any word to mean anything you want. Jabberwocky, twas brillig. It’s a free country. But to engage in meaningful dialogue, there’s this social contract that says WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.
ps: everyone has their own style, including you. You’ve outed yourself by staying true to form, except for the obscenities.
.
http://dictionary.reference.co…
It’s about time.
I found this announcement surprising, and my first reaction was to worry that someone on the campaign was giving bad advice. This is not how you are ‘supposed’ to do things, right?
But on reflection — why not? One of Bennet’s best assets is his skill at thinking outside the box for problem-solving. It doesn’t really matter if he thought of it, or if someone else did and he approved it. It can’t hurt and might help.
You might recall seeing articles and blog posts about the extreme drop-off in Dem activity when you compare this year to 2008. People have postulated a lot of reasons; burn-out, a feeling we won so we don’t have to do anything else, disappointment that all our problems weren’t solved on Jan. 21, 2009…. This is just not a normal year, even for a mid-term year.
Just between you guys and me, I have been a little cranky at my county peeps this week. I need to give our assembly place a head count for dinner on Monday, and I sent out a nice cheerful email explaining that. Last week. As of this morning, I have gotten RSVPs from THREE people. So several of us are going to have to call all the delegates to urge them to come. MOST of whom are Romanoff supporters.
It’s not a normal year.
Personally, I expect Bennet will do fine at State. But now that I think on it, it seems to me that it’s pretty smart not to put all the Bennet eggs in one basket, and get a good early start on petitioning. Just to be on the safe side.
Does that mean he beats expectation by not losing horribly?
When I said I thought he would do fine, I meant I think he will end up well above the 30% threshold.
YMMV. As Mark Twain said, “It is difference of opinion that makes horse races.”
Downside: having concern trolls post diaries like this
Upside: creating a grassroots network, list building, testing field program, visibility.
Just my opinion.
I still think AR has a chance, but MB will have a chance to “talk” to the voters as he petitions.
There will probably be a few Dems turned off that he is petitioning on, but they are so small they won’t have an impact on the final vote count.
I would have been surprised if a candidate didn’t petition.
n/s
in 2008.
when was the last time an incumbent Senator petitioned on and won?
but just because it hasn’t happened, doesn’t mean that it’s a foregone conclusion that Bennet will lose.
From a field organizing perspective, I’d prefer to gather signatures rather than go the caucus route, because you’re building an organization across all seven congressional districts.
Granted, as I’ve said, maybe the caucus participants will be offended, but to me the caucus process in Colorado is rather meaningless, since all it decides is ballot placement – something that could be done by drawing straws at the Secretary of State’s office.
that sums it up pretty well, from ‘he’s the incumbent we should support (especially here on this site) to this lukewarm defense of
its not a ‘foregone conlusion’ that Bennet will lose – although you can bet that if he were the General Election candidate, his peititioning on the ballot would be fine fodder for republican attack ads.
Wade, please don’t take my statements out of context.
People were assuming that because no incumbent senator had petitioned onto the primary ballot, that was prima facie evidence that Bennet is doomed to lose. My response is that just because no incumbent had done it, it doesn’t mean that Bennet is in desperate straits.
And I don’t see where petitioning onto a ballot is “fodder for republican attack ads”; this whole thing is a pretty baroque process argument anyway, which never plays well among the greater voter population.
For better or worse, this election is going to come down to how well the economy is doing when Election Day comes. All these other issues that we’re hashing out on a Friday night are going to be pretty immaterial.
Ken Salazar?
yet I still don’t see why it matters. The point is, petitioning on to the primary ballot isn’t very new here. Perhaps you should ask yourself, when was the last time Colorado had two Dem Senators to begin with?
He just didn’t get top line out of the assembly, but he did get nominated at the state assembly. But the rest of what you say is worth repeating. It’s not that big a deal, and it’s been a long time since there were two Democratic senators.
(The last time was 1978, before Bill Armstrong defeated Floyd Haskell, leaving Gary Hart as the lone Democrat.)
That was my error. Miles got trounced at the caucuses even though he said he would quit if he didn’t get 30 percent, came back to win the state assembly (which represents the caucus faithful anyway, hence my confusion), but Salazar won the primary.
Salazar had won statwide elections, Bennet has not won any open election, let alone run in one. Two, Miles was not the Speaker of the House or had won 4 consecutive elections in the largest media market.
This is not fantasy baseball stuff…it is real politics.
Bennet is doing this because he fears that he will not make the 30% threshold and then be left to gather signatures in 4 days.
He has money to burn…and will do it but his staff is not pavement hikers, they are operatives….lot of show little roots.
I truly see this being like WI, IL (2) when the establishment monied candidate lost the nomination and a new independent won the whole thing.
but, since he has not been part of the party structure why should he feel bound to follow the “old” rules? It makes sense to me that contacting folks for a signature, following up with them, etc only further enlarges the pool of those likely to vote in the primary and for him. If his strategy proves effective you can bet that ohers will utilize it in future.
but, since he has not been part of the party structure why should he feel bound to follow the “old” rules? It makes sense to me that contacting folks for a signature, following up with them, etc only further enlarges the pool of those likely to vote in the primary and for him. If his strategy proves effective you can bet that ohers will utilize it in future.
When was the last time the governor appointed a Senator to fill a vacancy for an elected seat and appointed someone that hardly anyone knew?
But my point is the caucus is not the primary. I don’t understand why candidates would ever not do both. Unless they are so late they just can’t caucus.
Except this is Colorado, and there is a Colorado way. If this wasn’t it before – oh well.
A sitting senator is so worried about making 30% at state that he is petitioning onto the ballot. That should send up red flags like crazy. It’s pathetic that he doesn’t think he has even that small slice of the base behind him. Defending this as a “smart move” is pretty sad.
And yes — putting this out on Friday night is the Bennet camp’s attempt to ensure that people don’t see this story.
Romanoff is ahead in the general election pols; Bennet is dumping money into bad TV ads. The dems’ only chance of holding the seat is ditching Bennet like a bad eharmony date.
I’ve seen the opinion put forth that Bennet is sort of a senator with an asterisk by his name because he was appointed, not voted on by the whole state of Colorado.
Now in this thread I see people who seem to be saying that to get into the primary by appealing to the general voting public rather than attempt to curry the favor and appointment of the caucus-going insiders is WRONG.
One would almost think that people are less interested in a fair contest than in beating Bennet with any old stick they can find laying around.
it would look different. Bennet could have said at the start that he was going to skip the whole caucus process and petition, and he could have more clearly made the argument that he wanted to appeal to a broader base.
Instead, he spent a whole lot of money trying to beat Andrew at the caucus, failed, and then started spending a whole lot more on bad TV to keep people at assemblies, and failed again.
Now, he’s going to spend even more hiring petition signers all over the state.
He’s been a prolific fundraiser: that’s for sure. The question is how much he’s been spending just to get his name on the ballot, and whether any amount of money is enough for him to get the support needed to win this.
that said, I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that he spent a ton of money on the caucus, since the latest fundraising numbers haven’t been released yet. While he’s spent a decent amount on TV, neither of those ads were oriented towards assembly attendees; if anything, they look like run-of-the-mill basic definitional ads (where the candidate tries to define himself).
As for the “petition signers”, I’m guessing that those hires are going to be basic field organizers. Those are hires that would be made anyway, regardless of whether he would petitioning or not. Romanoff’s got to make the same hires, so I don’t see where that’s a negative.
you’re right: I don’t have any insider knowledge of what is going to come out for CoH for the campaigns.
I did, however, see a lot of direct mail (which sure isn’t cheap), a decent sized staff, and RBI isn’t exactly known for being thrifty.
CoH – cash on hand — what the candidate actually has available to spend in the election.
RBI is one of the firms Bennet uses for their senior staff/consulting. It’s been joked that their name actually stand for “Rapid Burn Index”
I don’t know – but I always assumed Bennet would collect petition signatures in addition to caucus.
But you’re right- your work is done.
Shitty base polling does not matter. All the folks who caucused for Andrew turn out.. he still loses as bad as mike Mikes. Why because he has no money for TV, Radio and Mail
Because he is tied to Denver. Outside of Denver, few people have ever heard of Andrew Romanoff, except a handful of party insiders in each county. He is a good guy – definitely, but does not have the following Michael Bennet does on either a state or a national scale.
peacemonger — I know you like making assertions based on how you would like to see reality, but would you care to back any of this up?
Why don’t you think Romanoff is known? As Speaker he traveled extensively, was in the media talking about issues, and otherwise proved to have as solid of a statewide presence as possible.
Why do you think Bennet has any following at all? He was completely unknown when Ritter selected him (apart from DPS teachers who have been coming out against him). Then Ritter took him by the hand around the state to meet his new constituents. Now he has two bad TV ads running that don’t actually say anything about him.
Also, you might have noticed that the polling actually shows Romanoff winning against the republicans…I would say when an early poll shows that much strength it’s a clear indicator that people have some idea who he is.
But please — on what basis do you make your claims?
The guy does have a point – to the degree that one is known and one isn’t, I’d have to assume that Romanoff has greater name ID than Bennet, and was probably as well known statewide as any state legislator could be.
That said, as I and others have mentioned, the general election polling shows how well Romanoff is doing without being tied to this Congress, and without having sustained any negative advertising. What would be more dispositive is whether he would still be leading the Republicans after that. The concerns about Romanoff’s lack of funds go directly to that point – will he have enough money to define himself to voters, and then to respond against the inevitable negative ad barrage? It’s not an idle question.
Thanks RS — I appreciate the compliment.
Of course the current discussion is about Romanoff v. Bennet because there is this little primary thing before the general, but insomuch as we can look ahead, it’s interesting to look at Romanoff and Norton’s fundraising situation.
Romanoff and Norton have been raising a comparable amount — Norton a little more, but not much. Norton has been spending quite a bit on TV, and with Buck picking up the Repub grassroots support she will have to keep pounding TV through the primary.
Also, TV is starting to slip in importance. TEVO type devices were once rare, but now more and more people aren’t getting their TV live.
Take a look at Bennet’s ads on mute and/or fast forwarded. The first has that kind of funny ‘ban bennet’ phrase, and the second just jumps. No message penetration.
And you’re welcome. To your earlier points, I’m not saying that Bennet skimped on caucus materials, just that we don’t know just how much he spent on that effort. It’s not necessarily a waste of money to spend money on direct mail, since studies have shown you generally need at least 5 pieces of direct mail in order to make an impact on voters.
Moreover, the money advantage allows Bennet to achieve message medium domination. If he’s spending more money than Romanoff on radio/TV/direct mail and other forms of voter contact, that makes it harder for Romanoff to get his message out.
I’ll keep on emphasizing this: the money advantage doesn’t mean Bennet will win; it just gives him a larger margin of error. I’m sure that Romanoff would gladly trade places, money- and job-wise. Romanoff could totally win, but he’s got to be smart about how he leverages the resources he’s got.
Wow, that is really delusional.
Did you really say that TV ads aren’t important because of TIVO?
Last time I checked, Norton was beating Romanoff in fundraising outright. It is also hilarious that you mentioned every candidates’ fundraising efforts except the one AR is facing in a primary.
Try to downplay advertising all you want, but Bennet is on TV, has been on TV and will be on TV. Is AR? When is he going on the airwaves? How is his CoH looking after the caucus?
How can this not play out like Miles/Salazar?
We’re not going to nominate or elect Ken Salazar.
Just sayin
Two things come to mind:
1. My belief was that you could either go the caucus/state assembly route or the petition route, but you couldn’t do both.
2. If #1 is true, and I’m not clear that it is (somebody page Dan Willis or Dan Slater, quick!), then going the petition route is a smart move for the reasons that NeonNurse and TheDeminator pointed out (voter ID, getting started on field organizing, etc).
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’m not clear what Bennet gains from the caucus process. Romanoff supporters aren’t going to drop their allegiance until after the primary (assuming Bennet defeats Romanoff), and it’s not like the caucus process decides the nomination (otherwise, we’d be talking about Senators Mike Miles and Gene Nichol).
You can argue that caucus participants represent the base, but I’m not clear that’s the case – I think it’s more accurate to say they represent an important component of the Party, but not its entirety.
At any rate, does this make him look weak? Sure, but I still think it’s a bit early for folks to categorically say that Bennet is cooked. I think we’ll know more in late May, June and July, once the caucus process is over.
.
If he polls 30% or more, he’s on.
If he polls 10% < x < 30%, he can petition.
If he polls <10%, he’s out.
.
And there is nothing in law preventing a candidate from gathering petition signatures while he is going through the assembly process. If he gets 30+% at assembly, he simply does not turn in the petitions.
In the case of US Senator (or other statewide office), a person who was concerned about not getting to 30% would almost HAVE to start getting signatures well before the state assembly because the deadline for submitting the petitions is less that a week after the assembly.
These comparisons that are not even remotely appropriately applied to this race. Rogue, I know you’re not the one who makes them as much (others do as a way of dismissing Romanoff’s caucus win), but… three important differences that make the two primaries nothing alike:
1) Miles had never held office and had no statewide i.d. or history
2) Neither of them was an incumbent (whether by appointment or election)
3) Contrary to what everybody keeps repeating, Miles did not win the caucus. Salazar won the caucus. Maybe Mike (Bennet) was hoping to pull a Mike (Miles) and turn it at the convention but has realized that was not in the cards for him.
In any event, comparing this race to Miles/Salazar is just silly. We can debate the importance of caucus or convention and that’s valid. No doubt, the Bennet crowd will now chime in about how the “party activists” were behind Miles just like much of the base is behind Romanoff but those two crowds are much different and the two races couldn’t be more different.
Now, open the floor to the Bennet crowd to continue to spin that this is a good sign and for certain editors and posters on this page who tried to get jobs with Romanoff but couldn’t to go about bashing his lack of the campaign they think he should have (and in some but not all cases, it is true that he has not run the best campaign).
Just as parts of Romanoff’s campaign have bordered on comical if not sad, so also is some people’s complete unwillingness to see any flaws at all in the great Appointed One. Equally ironic for those who know many of the players is to watch the bashing from people who either haven’t a real clue or who proclaim their political genius but either can’t get a job in politics or have been run out of more campaigns than they have been allowed to stay in.
Everyone I hang with (on both sides) said this race is so much like Miles/Salazar, it is spooky.
I was only making the Miles/Nichol references because I think a lot of folks are overvaluing the caucus process to the detriment of the primary process. You’re right in saying that the two situations are very different. To the degree that a majority of party activists were behind anyone, they were behind Salazar.
I think people are focusing on the caucus process because, so far, that’s one of the three head to head metrics that we have for this race – the other two, of course, being polling and fundraising.
Romanoff supporters are emphasizing the caucuses & assemblies because that’s the metric where their guy is beating Bennet. If you look at polling, the only head to head primary poll had Bennet beating Romanoff 40-34, and we all know the story so far with fundraising.
I know that Romanoff’s folks here are going to mention the general election polling, but as I and others have said, it’s too early yet to weigh those polls as much – otherwise, we’d be talking about visiting the Dukakis Presidential Library in Brookline, MA.
That’s not to say that Bennet’s team is error-free; saying that online audiences aren’t real voters, for example, was a real doozy. Online outreach is a major component of any campaign, and Bennet’s folks harmed themselves there.
But what strikes me is that even after being gifted a gaffe like that, I haven’t seen any organized activity by Romanoff’s folks to capitalize on that. I don’t see them doing any online advertising, and their email asks have been uniformly weak (though they have been getting better). That was a real opportunity, it really got wasted, and it could have been leveraged for real fundraising and organizational purposes.
I’m not saying this because I support one over the other. I’m saying this as a professional who does this for a living. Winning the caucuses and assemblies is an accomplishment, but once that process winds up on May 22nd, you’ve still got 11 weeks and 3 days till the primary. That’s a long time, and my concern is, after all that is over, will Romanoff have enough left in the tank to make it to August 10th and win?
What I don’t know is if an organization that’s designed to win at the caucuses and assemblies can also win a primary fight on the ground, because the two are pretty different. Petitioning across the state forces you to set up field offices in each congressional district, essentially jumpstarting your field campaign. In contrast, you can essentially run a caucus & assembly campaign from one location, since you only need to send staffers & volunteers out on the day each assembly is held. Furthermore, in a caucus campaign, your voter contact universe is artificially limited to a pre-selected list of your delegates – your main task is making sure yours show up, and hoping the other guy’s don’t, which is easier than collecting signatures and making sure that those signatures are valid.
Again, I’m not saying that either Bennet or Romanoff are cooked. What I’m saying is that I don’t know if Romanoff can pivot and match over 11 weeks what Bennet will likely be doing over 19 weeks. The most precious resource in any campaign is time, because once it’s gone, it’s gone. A lot is going to depend on that pivot. We’ll see.
I would have to disagree with you on caucus organizing. Both campaigns have had field staff out in the areas working the crowds (Bennet more staff I’m sure). Caucuses require campaigns to run phone banks, organize events, and nearly everything else that goes into a primary election.
Honestly I don’t see petition drives as a helpful organizing tool. I haven’t been involved with one personally, but from what I understand they mostly just hire people to stand outside grocery stores asking “Hi are you a Democrat? Please sign this”
For me the interesting point about Bennet losing caucus/assemblies is twofold:
1) They really went after it. I mean they didn’t go at it half-assed, but sank a lot of resources into winning it.
2) Slipping support. They have been losing a lot of support at assemblies, partially because their people aren’t showing. Given point 1, I can’t imagine they aren’t trying.
Petition drives, at least effect ones, are not run by he campaigns themselves. They are outsourced to a firm that does that. So as an organizing tool, petition drives simply aren’t.
Again, just because traditionally in Colorado they’ve been outsourced to firms that do that for issue campaigns doesn’t mean that that’s the way it’s got to be done, forever and ever, amen.
Without putting too fine a point on it, I’ve worked for campaigns in other states where we’ve handled the ballot petitioning in house, and done it quite well. So it’s quite possible, from my experience, to use petition drives as an organizing tool.
I can’t compare this to any other election.
It has some components that are similar enough that comparisons matter.
The Miles/Salazar comparison is interesting in several ways. Caucus turnout was a lot lower than 23,000. And while Salazar “won” caucus nght, Miles “won” the top line at State. And yet-with all that momentum and assembly/convention juice Salazar won when it matterd in the primary. Conclusion- the caucus isn’t as important as it thinks it is.
Another illustration from 2004: after the primary the D’s came together and supported Salazar. I’m not feeling that kind of unity in our 14-15 week future (when the mail in ballots are in the kitchen). If we don’t come together by then- all of this caucus/primary/petition/PACman/etc is just so much lessons for 2014 when we can try and hold the other seat.
Senator Bennet has flaws. So does Romanoff.
The petition is what it is – and if 700,000 votes are going to be cast in the primary I can’t see why more than 4 or 5,000 are going to care how the candidate got on the ballot.
that the nastiness is far worse for the R’s and the teabaggers can force the R candidate to take unwinnable positions – like Norton finally demanding repeal of the healthcare bill.
MADCO-
I know I (and several others) have talked about this, but the loss at caucus and the continued losses at assembly show a lack of ability to organize on Bennet’s part. If Bennet can’t even get their delegates to assembly, why would we think they can run a GOTV effort? As people on here love to say, the delegate crowd are supposed to be the people who show up at everything.
I asked you this over at S2 too, but where does 700K come from? Last time I looked at numbers, I thought there were less than 900K registered dems in the state. we don’t get 80% turnout for the general in presidential years, let alone primaries in off years.
I’m not saying the only primary voters are the 22K caucus goers, but I’ve heard numbers in the 200-400K range — so caucus goers are 5-10% of the primary voters — and they are usually the well connected ones who get others out to the polls.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pub…
total registered voters in CO
3,228,254
D’s
807,781 (“Active”)
251,357 (“Inactive”)
Total D’s
1,059,138
I’d estimate that D’s who have already chosen Bennet or Romanoff won’t change just because Bennet is collecting petition signatures. So that leaves 1 or 2000 caucus goers and a few thousand likely primary voters who may care one way or the other.
As for the caucus goers being the party core energy – agreed. And we’re going to need all of us to GOTV. As I said above and elsewhere if we don’t come together in the next 4 months and GOTV for whichever candidate is the nominee, we’re going to be commiserating about the R seat we can’t get back until 2016.
If Andrew is the nominee, he’ll have my support. Will you same the same about Bennet?
Even at about 1 million, I still can’t imagine turnout being anywhere near that high. You’re still looking at 70% of all dems (including the inactives) to turn out for an off year primary election.
Don’t get me wrong — I would love to see every person vote in every election; I think our nation would be better for it. It just doesn’t happen though.
I’m not making the argument about pissing off the base by petitioning (though I do see some merit in it). What I’ve been saying is that Bennet seems unable to actually run an organized campaign. Yes, they can throw a lot of money at it, but when it comes time to turning out even a small amount of the most active voters, they keep failing. The fact that they can’t get a small number of really active supporters to show up to support their candidate is an indicator of one (or both) of two things:
1) supporters are not enthusiastic and therefore are not motivated to organize for him.
2) his campaign doesn’t understand or isn’t able to actually do even a tiny GOTV effort
This isn’t about me or who I’d vote for. It’s about whether a candidate can get a whole lot of others to vote for him or her. I’m a democrat. I’ll support our nominee; we have all held our noses and voted before. Regardless, I don’t believe Bennet can get the critical mass of voters out that he needs, and the last few weeks have only amplified that concern.
Let’s not overstate things here.
In the preference poll that found Romanoff leading Bennet 49.91% to 41.85%, Romanoff won by 0.56 votes per precinct. This is not some monumental fail to turn out supporters, it’s extremely close.
And as far as turning out supporters at assemblies, it’s not like Bennet delegates are staying home en masse. Romanoff is winning more of the uncommitted delegates, but not by that much. In the group of counties that assembled during the past week, Romanoff has 54% to Bennet’s 44% (with the rest still uncommitted), which is hardly a blow-out, and show both candidates are picking up uncommitted delegates.
The spin from Bennet detractors seems to be that Bennet petitioning is some kind of desperation move because he can’t motivate “the most active” Dems, and the facts just don’t bear that out.
I’d only add – that if 60 or 70% of the Romanoff supporting caucus attendees join the GOTV effort for Bennet if he’s the nominee, the organizing and energy issue goes away.
He’s run a horrible campagin and I never tried to get a job with his campaign.
Pat Caddell, his telling Donovan Odell that staff doesn’t matter (while his staff slanders anyone that opposes him), suggesting that pac money equals corruption while haviing his own personal pac open, claiming a civil rights career off a 3 month internship when he was 20 (while at the same time having a horrible record on immgration,) screaming he would not vote for health care, then acknowledging to Mike Littwin that he would,not deciding what office to seek (SOS, Lt.Gov, GOv or Senator) His lack of campaign organization (loss of manager, and missing in action manager),claiming to be a non career politician when all he has ever done is be a politician, not talking about issues. The list goes on and on. Attacking the President on a regular basis and then presuming that if he wins he’ll get the same committee assignments that Sen Bennet already has.
It’s the most devisive campagin run in recent Colorado Democratic pollitcal history.
If Bennet were to drop from 43% to 29% among a group of a few hundred party insiders that would mean he lost a democratic election fair and square, but if he were to then collect the valid signatures of 1,500 registered Democrats in each of Colorado’s 7 Congressional districts that’s “weakness” and “thumbing his nose” at the “rank and file.”
All righty then. Just so we’re clear about that.
You have been warned before about being calm and reasonable. You…. you….. reasonablist!
Stir it up or stay on the porch or something.
I’m clear.
trying to insert facts n’ all.
BTW, I’ll be really interested to see Romanoff’s new fundraising numbers. I assume, by what I’ve heard from the campaign, he will have hundreds of thousands of dollars, all coming from the “grassroots.” I guess we shall see.
The main reason he is petitioning on is that he is WEAK. I mean, it is soooo obvious.
Whatever Rogue, this is about the grassroots. If Bennet can’t win with these 4000 people, he can’t win no way no how! I mean, he has millions of dollars of evil PAC money, why can’t he win?
And those are the only people that can make phone calls and stuff. And walk their neighborhood to share how Andrew is going to pass Single Payer in the senate.
It is becoming so obvious to Bennet that he will lose the State Assembly that he has no choice but to try NOT to get knocked off the ballot.
but you’re right. Your work is done.
Let’s all get together for the general- the picking is over.
but otoole still narrowly edges him out in the crazy, illustrating that some things just can’t be parodied!
At least he admits he is a sock puppet.
He’s so honest about his motives that I won’t even rag his ass out for only registering today.
Now if he starts boldfacing shit at random, I reserve the right to accuse him of being as weird as Liberturd.
There are too many old talking points (single payer) for that to be a real post.
Just my 2 cents. I thought it was hilarious.
His wife and a staffer said, “We might as well petition just in case. We have nothing to lose, and only more supporters to gain. Why not do it?”
I think they are right on.
I also have to tell all of you that I sit back and just laugh at these posts from Wade and Toole and Jeffco TB. You think Romanoff is so far ahead. Sure, he is ahead to the 2000 people like us who blog on Pols and hang out at the Capital for fun, but we are a teeny, tiny, microscopic percentage of the real world out there. Coloradans all over the state are watching his commercials, looking at his votes in the newspaper and saying, “Wow. I really like this Bennet guy. He is a regular person like us. Worked in business, has a family, says he will spend our tax money wisely, etc.”
When it comes right down to it, Michael will be on the ballot in November, will win over all the independents and a large portion of the Dems, and will continue to be our (great) Senator. That just makes Romanoff loyalists crazy, I know. Fortunately, he will continue to be an excellent Senator for all of us — even you.
Do you have any idea how much you sound like a drug-induced cult groupee sometimes? And it REALLY detracts from your candidate.
No candidate is going to get all of the independants. Whoever the Dem candidate is in November will get most of the Dem votes and a smaller portion of the independants. The mark of success will be if he gets more independants than the GOP candidate.
We are still 7 months from that election. The average voter is only vaguely aware that an election is coming in November and generally does not know what they are voting on yet, because they simply don’t care enough to have put any thought to it. They don’t start paying attention until late Sept. So they are not watchcing the Bennet ads, they are either going to bathroom, or flipping the channel because a commercial is on. The only people paying attention to political ads at this time of year are those of us who already have our minds set on who we are voting for.
Oh, and the average voter doesn’t even know congressional votes are in the newspaper.
with all due respect, as far as the blogger war regarding this primary go, the drug-induced cult groupee award has already been completely wrapped up for some time. The votes are in, the judges have decided, and the trophy is on the way. We’ll just have to buy PM a nice gift certificate to The Italian Garden as a consolation prize. 🙂
I like Johnny Carinos best.
…are high dudgeon. Or, perhaps, low camp?
high dudgeon – a feeling of intense indignation (now used only in the phrase `in high dudgeon’)
low camp – nonsense, absurdity, satire
(I confess to the “in high dudgeon” at times.)
..being in high dudgeon is utterly appropriate!
Yes among those of us paying attention right now it’s a slight negative – but we’ve all made up our mind already. For everyone else – they have no idea we have this complex primary system or what petitioning means.
On the flip side, he’s getting practice time for the ground organization and collecting contact info from a ton of voters who are at least willing to consider voting Bennet.
If you have the money, why not do it?
Practice time for the ground organization? It’s only four months until the Primary. I just do not understand why, after more than a year in office, Bennet seems to have so little functioning organization around the state. He needs an army. Can he get one fully organized in four months? I don’t know.
The guy does have any army. They are everywhere and they work hard.
David is 100% right. There is no downside to petitioning for Bennet.
And you have clearly never worked on a campaign before if you scoff at “practice time” for a field organization. Smart campaigns always try to do dry runs before Election Day.
And with all due respect you are wrong on all counts, by a long shot. [And I didn’t even have to say “what the hell.”]
I meant to say after he wins the primary, he will get the Democratic vote and most of the independents, not the other way around. You are on your toes.
I would not assume Bennet’s petitioning will be outsourced. I have not heard that. I think he can easily get the signatures through the course of normal events that his staff does, for the most part. I could be wrong.
Where did this come from: “saying that online audiences aren’t real voters, for example, was a real doozy. Online outreach is a major component of any campaign, and Bennet’s folks harmed themselves there”. I have been paying pretty close attention, and I have no idea what you are talking about.
When I ask Dem friends who vote sporadically, they have heard of Bennet somewhat but cannot tell me which office he holds, but have never heard of Romanoff. These people live in the suburbs, not in Denver. Denver is a whole different universe, and I mean that quite literally.
Many of the people on POLs live or work in Denver. I stand confident that outside of Denver, Romanoff will look too urban to get any serious attention from the Independents in the general. And as much as I think it shouldn’t be true, the Republicans will notice he doesn’t have a family. (I know I will be crucified here for saying that.) The Republicans can be nasty sons-of-bitches. Anyone remember Musgrave vs. Paccione? They were pretty close to burning Angie Paccione as a witch, if you remember. Why? She was seen as “coastal” (not Western enough). If Andrew can’t raise enough money, how is he going to fight back against a very large, very ugly Republican machine, especially one that will motivate Utah to get involved because of egg-mendment 62?
I have noticed that Bennet’s campaign has always had an eye to the general, not the primary, as opposed to Romanoff’s that is all about the primary only. I am very concerned, if Romanoff wins the primary, we DEMS are sunk. Norton will bury us in money from PACS. I respect Andrew as a person and as a legislator through 2008, but not accepting PAC money was foolish and arrogant, in my opinion. You can’t win a Barney-purple state on wishes and fairy dust and tap-you-heels-together-three times. You need cash –mountains of it. A lot of Obama’s donors were in urban areas all over the country. This is still a pretty rural state. Andrew is not known outside of the state, so getting contributions from national Dems would be very difficult for him, as well.
If Andrew wins the primary, he is going to need many times the amount he has now, and very little chance of getting it. He is confident Bennet’s donors will all come flocking to him, and I don’t see that happening. If anything, they will donate instead to defeating the egg-mendment. Andrew has managed to piss off potential Dem donors all over the country with his push-the-amendment-even-if-it-kills-the-reconciliation-bill-and-results-in two-million-more-Americans-not-getting-health-care media blitz using David Sirota and Jane Hamsher. Sirota and Hamsher are not exactly mainstream Dems. Moderate Dems who are paying attention at this point, IMHO, see him as “Denver’s Andrew Romanoff against the entire Democratic National party”.
Andrew has pissed off Bennet supporters, even those who once respected him, with his unnecessarily negative campaign emails (especially the one where he used the words “curiouser and curiouser”), being completely absent on health reform, and the nasty rumours spread by his most ardent supporters. (A certain school board member goes around telling people he diverted funds to her campaign opponent (no evidence), and the wife of one of his staffers blames Bennet for getting fired from her job (again no evidence). When I asked some staff members about these rumors early on, they just laughed and said, “Seriously? Wow — that’s insane.” Supporters who hear these tall tales and crazy accusations come to me and say, “Sign me up for Michael Bennet. Those people are irrational.” The venom and vitriol that is inherent in these rumours have turned off many Bennet supporters I talked to from ever supporting Andrew. Bennet’s supporters are largely Obama Dems –they didn’t like dirty politicking and scapegoating in that election, and they don’t approve of it now.
That said, there are decent, rational, hard-working, ethical people working for Andrew as well. It’s just the five or six crazy ones who muddy their well. It is a shame, really. (Wait five minutes to see who they are — the shills will post right after me and call me “coward” and other less-flattering things as they have done elsewhere, because I speak what they do not want to hear.) I challenge them to argue with me without name-calling. If they own the truth, they should be able to quell my concerns with reason and logic.
Rational people who meet Michael or follow his record know he is a committed progressive, no matter how the Romies spin it that he is a “banker”. His record is 92% at the moment— just about tied with Mark Udalls’ .
CO is still a very, very, very red state outside of Denver. Independents here are different than Independents in other states, IMHO. They are not waiting for a union to tell them who to vote for — they go with their gut. Commercials will play a key role in getting the image and messaging right.
I also know Michael Bennet is a lot like Barack Obama in that he may start out looking like he has no strategy, then finishes strong. Michael is learning from the best there is. JMHO.
My truth is this: I respect both candidates very much, as people and as legislators (not nec. some of their more vocal staff members and supporters). I don’t believe Andrew Romanoff can win the general election, unless he first wins Powerball. I wish he would have listened to the advice of people who told him, “This is the wrong race for you, Andrew, and you jumped in too late.” It won’t be long before Andrew runs out of money and drops out of this race. I sincerely mean it when I say, I hope his reputation hasn’t been ruined forever — we need him running again here in CO.
Sorry my post is so long! I need to go back to bed.
let’s see if we can get to some of your points (I’m ignoring the attacks you are making on particular people you don’t name).
1) Bennet camp insulting the netroots: FireDogLake has a link to the news clip here: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c…
2) Repub personal attacks on Andrew. Sure. Some repubs will try to make hay out of the fact that Andrew is single. Those same ones will whisper about Bennet’s wife not taking his name. I don’t think either of these would have any merit to the broader electorate and frankly the people who would care aren’t voting for any democrat anyway. Angie’s campaign was mismanaged. I think she would have been great in congress, but it’s a simple fact that a lot of mistakes were made. Many of those same people are involved at high levels with the Bennet camp.
3) PAC money. People seem to forget that Obama didn’t take PAC money throughout his campaign, nor did he take money from federal lobbyists. He raised more money than any presidential candidate ever.
4) viability outside Denver. I agree with you that this is huge, and it’s precisely one of the many reasons I’m supporting Romanoff. Bennet wasn’t known at all before Ritter appointed him, and then Ritter had to take him by the hand around the state introducing him. Tracking pols have shown that the more people have began to hear about Bennet the less they like him — not more. Andrew, on the other hand, has spent a lot of time campaigning around the state. Whether it was as Speaker helping democrats get elected, working to pass Ref. C, or the countless other progressive projects he’s worked on, people know Andrew. I think Dan Slater sums it up well in his blog this morning: http://demnotes.com/
I think that sums up your arguments. Anything else?
1. “ignoring the attacks you are making on particular people you don’t name” – not attacks, just statements of fact. There is no evidence and these people pass around this gossip freely. If they think they have evidence I would like to see/hear it. My (very credible) sources say there is none.
2. I completely agree — Angie would have been great. She is an amazing person. I was not paying attention to politics at that point in my life. I just know from being a regular Coloradan she was creamed on television and the Republicans had absolutely no conscience whatsoever. It was horribly painful to watch. When I did finally meet Angie years later, I wanted to console her, I felt so bad. She had already bounced back and was off doing an amazing job at life — truly an inspirational woman!
3. PAC money — First, Obama got tons of 5-20 dollar contributions from all over the country because even the poorest people hated George Bush and were desperate for CHANGE. People like Michael Bennet or don’t know who he is — the motivation is just not there to unseat him. Second, we don’t have the army of non-profits helping in this race, like the did in the 2008 Presidential race. Third, much of Barack’s money came from Democrats who were invigorated to get involved — people who were lazy D’s in other elections. Since there are more Dems in this country than Repubs, it all came together. Colorado is just barely more Dem, but the Dems are lazy and need to be motivated. I don’t see anything in this race to motivate them much yet. Our internal party structure is not great at GOTV, IMHO. I think the reason we won in 2008 is we had a lot of help from out of state. Four, I will check out Slater’s argument.
Thank-you for the civil discourse.
Re: Firedog lake.
The fact Michael Whitney posted it on FiredogLake is proof of what Michael Bennet is talking about. This is all just chatter on the radical fringe-left. FDL lost a lot of credibility in the last two years among main-stream Dems, IMHO.
FDL is one of many places that posted it. Are you arguing that the quote from the news isn’t legit or that you agree with the Bennet campaign that bloggers aren’t relevant to the dialogue? You said otherwise above.
I think bloggers are relevant, in that there are many pieces to a campaign. This is one of them, or else you and I wouldn’t be here on a beautiful Saturday morning at our computers.
But the biggest task at hand is knocking on doors and talking to voters. In the Obama camapign, it was called, “Signs don’t win elections, people do.” The percentage of people who read FDL is microscopic compared to the number we need to reach door-to-door and through tv ads. That’s all I am asaying.
I do think the quote was spun that way by Fox news, and was not the way most people I know would interpret it. Consider the source — it is Fox news.
It’s the news department at the local Fox affiliate, Channel 31. It’s not the same as Fox New Channel and suggesting otherwise is wrong, peacemonger.
It’s not as bad as Fox news national, by any stretch, but it is still mainstream media.
I am sorry if I offended you.
I see television coverage in general a little conservative-biased after last summer. Every time there was a tea-party rally, all of the affiliates — 2, 4, 7, 9, gave equal billing to both sides or made it about the “conservative uprising”, even if the tea-partiers were outnumbered 10-1. I am not bashing our Fox affiliate so much as just pointing out television news sells soap.
Again, I am sorry if I offended you, Red.
Just pointing out that lumping in the local Fox affiliates with Fox News Channel is way misleading. You might not know, but a while ago, the Channel 31 and Channel 2 news departments combined a lot of their operations. They’re local channels, they’re not local versions of the cable Fox News.
They also have one of the more enterprising political reporters chasing down stories in town, and I think any knowledgeable observer of local news would laugh at your statement:
If you’re just talking soap sales, I must have missed it, that sounded like a charge of ideological bias.
I like Dan’s blog diary. It is thoughtful and reasoned. I can tell him with certainty though, no disrespect was intended. I was there caucus night when they were talking about petitioning. Bennet is doing the petitioning for two reasons — one because it is being extra-safe, and two, why not? As long as staffers and volunteers are out talking to voters, it is not a big deal to get them to sign something. If he’s got the money to spend on it, why the heck not? I think the fact that he is petitioning shows how much he does respect the abilities of the party structure regulars who know Andrew well and will work for him. Michael is not underestimating their talents. He just wants to include others in the process as well.
I mean Romanoff winning caucus by 1% less than initially reported was newsworthy enough for Pols to not only frontpage a piece but for them to write a piece about how it shows it wasn’t really a win…or something.
Bennet making a large tactical decision about the shape of his campaign for the next 2 months is nothing compared to that (regardless of the reason behind it).
Oh…because I lose some people, yes I’m being sarcastic 🙂
In his DemNotes blog, Dan Slater summed up perfectly my thoughts (and many others I know who share them) about this. He also wrote an excellent explanation of why he is supporting Romanoff and has decided to do so publicly.
http://demnotes.com/?p=482
Many paragraphs follow about his support for Romanoff that are well worth reading, but on the petition move and the dismissive comments by Hughes and Kincaid about caucus attendees, Slater writes:
And he does a really nice job summarizing his support . Best I’ve seen yet from anyone anywhere.
But I think he gets Bennet’s motivation wrong.
I believe Senator Bennet always planned to petition. I know he always planned on running for every voter. I see the potential for the petition process to be even more useful and more respectful than the caucus. I know dozens of D voters who couldn’t caucus for various reasons – all of them can sign a petition.
And I Believe Senator Bennet sees the petition process as completely serious. Maybe I’ve got a whole different political experience and background- but I don’t see how it changes the expectation at all. Romanoff is going to get top line, both will be on the ballot. Nothing new.
And there’s no way that collecting petitions disrespects the caucus goers nor the caucus process.
To be clear- it’s a process I personally have disrespected – why do we have a preferance polling caucus and then the voting primary? It’s a weird hybrid. But I fail to see that collecting signatures is anything more than …collecting signatures. Additional organizing and more outreach – all good.
But I’ve never heard Senator Bennet say anything disrespectful of the caucus. Including announcing he’s going to collect petitions.
Dan Slater did the best job yet I’ve seen yet in the bloggosphere of stating support for Andrew, and I’m relieved to see it! Andrew’s supporters on this site who have associated Andrew with their arguments and attitude have done him a huge disservice.
As I’ve always said, I will gladly and enthusiastically support whichever of the two becomes the Democratic candidate. Sometimes I wish I had just left it that, as I had for so long!
I already praised Dan’s article above. That said, he makes a lot of assumptions that are frankly, not true.
1. He is assuming a far-out motive for Michael Bennet which he has no evidence for. MFB doesn’t see this as a game. That is insulting and slanderous. Dan should know better.
2. Disrespecting party officials? Really? I’m a party activist and officer, and I’ve never felt disrespected by Bennet. But I have by Romanoff. He assumed I would support him, and that to me, was very arrogant.
Dan, and many other local Dems can keep saying “the people” are for Andrew, but in my last year of supporting Michael Bennet for Senate, I’ve met a whole lot of “people” who think Michael is the better leader — some of them are Dem party leaders, many are local activists, heads of non-profits, Obama leaders, etc. If anything we, as a group, have been disrespected by Andrew Romanoff.
When Andrew runs out of money and is forced to quit, these kinds of things are going to hurt him in the long run. I hate watching it happen, because I really hoped he would win in the right race (not this one).
When AR has to quit? You are in a fantasy world. No matter how much Bennet raises/spends he is getting embarrassed right now. The Democratic base – which I am assuming you consider yourself part of – is the building block of every campaign and these people organize and raise money. Bennet turned his back on the public option. Got beat in the caucus and is getting destroyed in the assemblies. Now he is telling his delegates they do not matter.
I know Bennet has never run for office before but he has some of the best political minds running his campaign and it still is not working.
Romanoff, on the other hand, it taking on the Democratic Party machine and is winning. At some point in the next few months the National Party will take notice and Bennet will be on his own.
To recap: you post on 2/25 that Bennet is lying in claiming co-sponsorship of this one bill; I then cite govtrack to show that he is a sponsor and that you are a liar; you then say he became a bill 2/26 the very next day after your post; I think show a 2/9 article noting Bennet’s sponsorship, again making clear that he is a sponsor and that you are a liar.
It’s like we’re bunkmates in prison, and yo’re my bitch.
I really need to stop responding to you but I am enjoying the train wreak that is raymond1. But you sum up the Bennet campaign well – one thing that has been shot down but you keep on going.
By the way – do you think you know who I am?
And the self-absorption behind your “do you think you know who I am” is laughable.
Once again: note that Otoole has no defense of his latest lie, the “Bennet wasn’t a sponsor til the day after my post, even though his sponsorship was documented weeks earlier.”
Destroyed? How do you figure?
And your OWN supporters are flipping sides – You are getting destroyed (raymond1 – this is what us sane people call an opinion).
So by that logic – you disagree with Dan Slater. Dan claims that Bennet must be petitioning as some sort of gamesmanship, that in the assemblies “Bennet’s numbers haven’t dipped much”.
But by your logic Bennet must petition lest he be crushed right off the ballot.
It makes no sense to me either way – I don’t see why collecting signatures is anything more than …collecting signatures. But at least I know your real conclusion – Bennet’s real mistake is in not dropping out right now.
A lot of noise that serves Republican interests.
I am going to support, heart and soul, whichever candidate becomes our party’s candidate. All those who care about advancing progressive policies should all be quick to make the same pledge. All those who are posting for other reasons should just cut to the chase and join the Republican Party.
And it makes no difference to me whom you support in the primary, or how vigorously you argue in that candidate’s favor. Just don’t serve the interests of the Republican Party while doing so, okay?
(obviously, MADCO, those final comments aren’t addressed to you).
I don’t get where collecting signatures demeans party activists. If it’s such an insulting maneuver, Dan can make a motion at the next state central committee meeting to amend the process so that candidates have to choose one or the other.
Not to cast aspersions against Dan, who’s been a great vice chair, but to me, this sounds like a pretext to come off the sidelines. The caucus process isn’t representative of the party, just like I’m not representative of Democrats as a whole. It’s not disrespectful to say so; it’s just stating facts.
By Dan’s logic, people who don’t participate in the process are worse Democrats than those who do. It’s a funny stance for someone who supported Obama in 2008 to take, given that Obama was turning out precisely the opposite kinds of voters to the caucuses that Romanoff is aiming for this year. Is that really what Dan wants to go on record as saying?
Again, not to harsh on Dan, but it’s certainly an inconsistent stand on matters. Either it’s all the one or all the other, but it can’t be both.
No, no.
All Democrats are equal, just some are more equal than others.
there are many hundreds of party officers all over the state if you count county officers, house district chairs, senate district chairs, precinct captains and super-captains, etc. For camp Romanoff to honestly believe they “own” all of us, I find that insulting.
That people support Romanoff? I support him because I believe he would be a better Senator than Bennet. Bennet had a year to prove to me that he was the change Washington needs. If he had done that I would be advocating for him just as hard as I advocate for Romanoff.
Clearly I am not the only one who thinks this. Why is that so wrong in your mind and you still have not told me why you personally, sans talking points, why you support Bennet. I am tell you I have far more respect for someone who can answer that.
You asked PM “Why is it so hard to believe that people support Romanoff?” PM never said it’s “hard to believe” Romanoff has supporters. So spare us the dishonest straw man.
So sad that you don’t have the self-respect to leave when it’s clear you’re the village idiot around here.
peacemonger can’t do it alone so the pawn of Bennet has a pawn too! This is going to be fun.
I don’t know PM, and I don’t know you, but PM seems like a reasonable sort, whereas you just tossed more dishonest BS his way. That’s my only horse in any otoole/PM spat.
It makes me feel better knowing there are some sane people left here.
You come on here and trash Bennet 87 times a day and trash me 298 times a day. There is little actual content to your posts, except hate speech — the likes of which I had not seen since the last tea-party rally I attended. I have to come back again and again to defend myself against your slander. Why is that? What have I ever done to you?
I fight hard for the candidate of my choice, Michael Bennet, and have said respectful things about Andrew Romanoff, all along the way, whether he deserves them in my mind that day or not. You have done no such thing. You are not a blogger, you are a hater. Andrew Romanoff should be ashamed to have you on his team. You add nothing to the debate except divide the Democratic party in CO.
I was struck at the caucus I attended by two dominant themes expressed by Romanoff supporters. First, the repeated claims that Michael Bennet is somehow in the pockets of “special interests” (would someone PLEASE define that term once and for all)because he is accepting donations from outside Colorado. Nary a bit of proof was offered; no demonstrative evidence linking a vote of Michael Bennet’s to any specific contribution. Just more smearing tactics that frankly get little respect from me, or I hope, any voter seeking facts and reason in choosing a candidate. I was disappointed to see those tactics used within our own party.
Second, they were furious that Michael hadn’t changed Washington in a year of being there; that somehow he was some sort of Svengali who could change arcane, entrenched methodologies of doing things in the Senate merely by making a speech on the floor. And related to that, they somehow were angry at Michael because of the process Bill Ritter used to select someone to fill out Ken Salazar’s term. If the Romanoff supporters are angry at Ritter, then take those complaints to the Governor. Don’t tar and feather Michael Bennet for something over which he had no control. If you bother to go to Michael Bennet’s website and check out the committees he has been appointed to, the leadership he has shown for a freshman Senator. He is well respected by the old bulls in the Senate, and that is rare after such a short period of time in service for all Colorado residents. His ability to work with these senior members bodes very well for Colorado in the future. That is something that shouldn’t be dismissed because it is currently “in vogue” to want to clean house of incumbents regardless of the damage.
Remember, it was this kind of rampant, self-focused attitude that led to Nader’s supporters costing Gore the Florida vote in the national election, and gave us the beginning of the worst Presidency in the history of this country. Let’s not repeat that mistake. Evaluate Michael Bennet based on his votes, his statements of policy,and his conduct as a Senator.
I would hope as long as this conversation about Romanoff and Bennet continues, that it be conducted with facts, not implied character assassinations or misdirected anger at a much larger problem–that DC has been broken now for over 25 years, and until we all focus on fixing that, Congress may be as vexing and as stuck in a rut as it is now. Change takes time, consistent effort, and adaptability, as President Obama has shown, and I believe Michael Bennet has shown as well in his tenure as a Senator.
and if you continue to be reasonable, I look forward to your future posts.
It’s going to be a tough election season (about 22* weeks left) for incumbents, elected and appointed. It’s going to be a tough election season for anyone in the President’s party, or Pelosi’s and Reid’s.
It’s going to be an even tougher season for the Colorado senate race.
*the mail in ballots for the primary go out in 13 weeks, and the mail ins for the general about 10 weeks after that
I certainly draw the line at pejorative and personal attacks; I see no value in that kind of discussion at all. I can see strongly advocating for a point of view, or asking tough, or thoughtful questions relative to a candidate’s position. What troubles me at times is the emotional hyperbole that strong debate can engender, especially in this Senate race. When in doubt, the truth and the facts relative to any situation always seem to come to the top..or that is my hope anyway. ;*)
If you have money, you can do anything you want. If you have no money, all you can do is whine about what the other guy is doing.
I was hoping for more of a primary than simple whining.
Oh well.
I hear Bennet has hired the firm that got Mark Holtzman on the ballot.
Bennet begins to look like a rich guy pissing away money.
Ask the Bennet camp how much money they have in the primary account.
Bennet did the same. I’d rather see YOUR email re Holtzman than one from someone saying he hired a firm without success. If Andrew was petitioning I would hope he had a successful outfit helping him.
The firm he hired to get signatures did a lousy job and he nearly didn’t make it.
With all of Bennet’s money, I would have thought he would hire a firm with a better track record, especially now there are several new rules in place for petition circulators.
Where is Holtzman these days?
a guy with money (which he started asking for over a year ago, like, you know, he wanted to win in 2010), with fire in the belly, who knows that to win the game you’ve got to cover all the bases.
the caucus was a loss for him. Yes, Romanoff could have done stronger, but Bennet did not win the night and this proves it
Bennet is petitioning on because he can. Period.
The most striking aspect of all of the Romanoff-Bennet threads is that they are bursting at the seems with various posters (not all) striving desperate to convince themselves and others of…something. It’s eerily akin to glassy-eyed religious fanatics assuring you that their gospel is the gospel; that their sacred history is history; and that their revelations about the future will come to pass, because they are ordained by God.
Folks, get a grip. We’re talking about a Democratic primary between two politicians. Okay? IMHO, they’re both good people, either of whom would serve us well in the senate, but that’s almost beside the point. Even if it were not the case, this is how it works, candidates and their supporters compete for electoral victory. Neither of these two Democratic candidates is the devil incarnate, or even George W. Bush lite. It’s okay. It’s all going to be okay.
And those of you who think you’re convincing anyone of anything by being wild-eyed religious zealots: Not so much.
I gues that means you don’t want to buy any of our beads or alter cloths? lol
if you have one handy. (Actually, I have a very nice illustrated copy given to me by the Hari Krishnas of Southern Illinois over 30 years ago. See, those crazy cultists are good for something!)
PM, if you are one of those “wild-eyed religious zealots,” you are by far the most loveable of the bunch! 🙂
Thank you for putting your finger on what I’ve been trying to articulate for the past couple weeks.
Bennet is a throrough and competent man.
If AR’s Pat Caddell’s incident is any indication, I cannot say the same about him.