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 08, 2010 09:11 PM UTC
43 Comments
We were all a bit surprised on Norton’s really strong numbers, and contrary to what some may see, I think she’s got this race fairly wrapped up. Wiens and Buck are going to have to really impress in funding to remain in contention, especially since I feel they lack AR’s exuberance. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they have to match Norton’s numbers, but anything short of 400k is a death knell. And if those three can’t put an equalizing dent in the frontrunners’ coffers, then get out of the way.
I think Bennet’s people will recognize this soon enough and start to really focus on Norton as the opponent to face in the fall. And Huffpo’s already done that for him. God, every other day they have something on Norton.
for this quarter. Norton passed it but is also spending her money so fast it’s hard to see how she socks any away for the fall at this point. If Wiens is really willing to spend what it takes, I wouldn’t count him out yet, but I’ve also heard he had a really good quarter. Buck and Romanoff, you would think, would have announced their totals already if they were stunningly good.
Except their “message” is that money does not matter. Or is not that important. Or something.
So stunningly good or stunningly weak – it just doesn’t matter.
And while he raised peanuts 4th Quarter 2009, he’s had substantial independent spending on his behalf, so he’s got a little more wiggle room.
Isn’t COH the more important figure? If these candidates are raising millions but then burning 2/3 of it before April, who cares how much they raised total?
The problem with comparing cash on hand numbers from state to state is that it brings in other variables that are hard to match up. We don’t know what the nomination process is in Louisiana and Kentucky, for example; Colorado’s caucus system requires candidates to spend money in Q1 that they might not have had to spend in LA and KY.
that other campaigns might have to spend now to get voters to the polls.
Anybody who hasn’t announced their fundraising results by the end of next week probably didn’t do very well. If you have a strong quarter, you want people to know as soon as possible to help you raise more.
Do these figures include money either “contributed” or “loaned” to the candidates themselves?
I’m asking because I believe I read Wiens has contributed or loaned several hundred thousand to his own campaign, and has said he would put upwards of half a million into his campaign.
But in Q4, Wiens had loaned his campaign $540,000.
You can “contribute” to your own campaign, and you can make a “loan” to your own campaign. If you make a “contribution” then, of course, it is reported as a campaign contribution. A loan does not get counted in the contribution figures.
In Wiens’ case, he did both. The bulk of his self-funding came as a “contribution,” while the rest was as a “loan.”
In my opinion, raising the money is better than contributing it to your own campaign. Yeah it spends the same, but contributions give confidence to possible supporters an other donors, and people who have contributed to a campaign are more committed to and excited about the candidate.
So if we were trying to build sophisticated model (I know we aren’t) I would put in a discount factor for candidate donated money.
We were just trying to answer the question from allyncooper. Donating to your own campaign technically counts as a “contribution” as long as you categorize it that way and not as a loan.
Romanoff contributed $37,500 of his own money.
Of $728,418 in total receipts.
So Wiens outside funding is $87,168.
I agree with Tazistan that it all spends the same, and I would put more credence in a candidate that raises money from supporters.
I know a state legislator who has ran and won three times for the legislature and they told me they contributed a total of $100 of their own money. That impresses me far more than self funding your own campaign.
Jared Polis self-funded 6:1 over what he raised, and that didn’t seem to make a difference to CD-2 primary voters. At the same time, Polis was able to absolutely deluge the airwaves with 30 second ads.
Of course, if Wiens were contributing $6 million of his own money, then it would be a different story. You’re right that the figures as they are now make Wiens look weak.
Guess that’s why they call it “the big apple”
People like giving to winners, not losers. Donations follow the mob mentality of the more you have the more comes in.
I’ve said it before, I’ll type it again. the funds from a “loan” do not actually HAVE to be turned over immediately. A loan can be a second mortgage on the home, business or anything.
A “self-contribution” DOES have to be handed over entirely in an immediate manner for it to be reported to the FEC (and count in the press coverage).
Weins can’t do much more and his weaknesses will begin to be self-exposed.
There are several examples contradicting your subject line.
My point is that those examples are wrong when discussing a case such as this Senate campaign. Sorry.
While the Polis example worked for the Congressional race, that’s a case where a candidate threw down quickly with an overwhelming amount.
My point is when individuals, PACs, etc are evaluating a candidate to determine if they are a serious challenger or not they closely review these points. Everyone has a differently weighted scale, but “raised” is always more important than a “loan” or some other form or self-funding.
“Raised” shows that the candidate has a team in place – both on staff and a sufficiently well placed and active “finance board” – to raise the necessary funds.
Raised also shows the personal committment of a candidate to actually make the necessary calls, office/home visits, trips to non-CO cities (NYC or LA), etc in order to personally close the deal with people who have or can influence large amounts of donations.
Self-funding is good. If the candidate is someone like Senator John Kerry. Someone with BUCKETS of disposable CASH. Not a mortgaged home or business because sooner or later the “person” beats the “candidate” and says “Whoa! I need to pay my bills!”
Polis was able to dominate from the start. When donors are looking at those odds, just like folks betting in Vegas, who blames them for not throwing down?
But then who gives to the guy who throws down $6mil? Only those who “have” to. And only the smallest necessary.
Playing the “what if” game:
I wonder what Romanoff’s numbers would look like if he had tossed out the selfinflicted limitations of no PAC or other money groups?
I wonder if any of the money people will bother to support him as long as he maintains the self-limiting fundraising?
I wonder if any of the money people will break out of the Dem’s embargo of no contribute to Andrew if he wins the primary?
in my experience, candidates who rule out contributions from PACS or other money groups are making a virtue out of necessity, loudly trumpeting that they won’t accept money from sources that would mostly go to the other candidate anyway — in this case, the incumbent, Michael Bennet. I doubt that
Romanoff lost much at this stage by ruling out PACS — which are infamous for currying favor with incumbents.
Where this tactic bites one in the ass is in the general election, where, if he does win the nomination, Romanoff could expect big bucks from unions and liberal groups to fight off the GOP. SDo, I doubt the tactic cost him much at this stage. If nominated, however, it could cost him the election, unless he does an embarrassing volte face. That’s probably the main reason I’m supporting Bennet at this stage.
He’ll pretty much have to do a flip-flop on PAC money. How that’s going to play with his more, shall we say, ardent supporters who have pointed to his position on PACs to be a strong reason they support him… well… that’s just going to be very, very interesting.
not really.
“Not at all” is more like it.
Has anyone seriously considered how his platform would appear to a voter in the general? So far his biggest policy distinctions from Bennet have been cramdown, single payer and, of course, PAC money.
Fundraising wouldn’t be the only thing he would have to change! Does anyone on this site seriously think that platform is going to win a general, much less a primary?
What his campaign is stuck with is a stagnant message and no means to spread it.
Victories in the assemblies are something to be proud of, but the venue of this race is about to change.
I hadn’t really thought of that point.
contributions in the low tens of thousands from labor unions that endorsed him and offered contributions. Are there other PACs anxious to fund a primary challenger without discernible differences on most issues? Maybe, but Bennet only raised 18 percent of his 2009 haul from PACs, so a comparable share for Romanoff might have meant he would have raised another $120,000 … not enough to vault him into another fundraising league.
The cost of basic graft is so much higher there.
Or maybe it’s just for hookers.
n/t
will follow him throughout his life along with that stalking Pampers salesman.
http://draftstormy.wordpress.com/
Nice article, but you’re not making a proper and equal comparison.
Vitter is a sitting Senator running for re-election after SIX years of raising money and having a record for voters to rally around.
Melancon is a sitting Member of the House and HE has several years of raising money for his (every two years!) reelection efforts.
So they have a slight fundraising advantage over our candidates.
Kentucky, you ask?
Conway – Attorney General
Greyson – Sec of State
Rand – National figure for TEA Party folks and the son of the former Congressional member.
Mondiargo – Lt Gov
Each of them is in a sitting statewide office. There’s no comparison. They’re just different.
Mongiardo
If you are going to be a serious candidate for Senate, you should be able to raise the money to win. There’s no excuse for not being able to fundraise, because if you can’t do it, then you probably shouldn’t be running.
Tom Strickland wasn’t an elected official when he ran twice for U.S. Senate, both times raising a TON of money.
And when you look at Colorado’s candidates, your argument makes even less sense:
Bennet: No prior elected office, yet outraising everyone listed (including Vitter).
Romanoff: Former Speaker of the friggin’ House. You don’t think that should count for something?
Norton: Former Lt. Governor
Buck: District Attorney in Weld County; not a huge county, but fairly populous nevertheless.
Wiens: Former state Senator. The smallest office of the bunch (except for Bennet).
The candidates in KY and LA are raising 2-3 times as much as most Colorado candidates. There’s no innate reason that they should be that much better at bringing home the bacon.
Is how much Bennet is ahead. What if CoH was factored into this (as RSB mentioned)? Norton spent a bundle on those ads before the caucus, Buck’s last quarter netted 40k and Wiens is self-financing. Romanoff is working with an unconvincing 49% win at the caucuses. His past fundraising has been….lackluster.
I would ad to this that I think Bennet is going to bring in 1.5-1.8 mil. Norton’s quarter was strong enough to make money start to matter in this race but weak enough to be doubled by Bennet. Norton’s quarter was also strong enough, in my prediction, to be able to dwarf the (450k?) total cash Romanoff brings in.
If this trend continues into Q2…?
Is between Bennet and Norton. While the various other candidates have reasons to be iun the race, the question at hand is two-fold.
– Why the difference b/t Norton and Bennet?
– Why the difference b/t CO and other states?
And those are good questions.
I’ve GOT to get to work. I’ll think about those and if COLPOL wants to start a new and separate thread, it could be a VERY interesting discussion with contributors from each team and their supporters.
Now THAT would be juicy!!!
Not to mention Musgrave’s former campaign chair and heir to her machine, for what that’s worth.
Though I enjoy this diversion from work, I tend to focus on my kids on the weekends.
Ok….
I do NOT disagree with your contention re: “Raise money or get out of the way”. I completely agree with that. Especially in an environment where the race will likely be near $15 million – not counting the massive dollars spent by the shadow groups and national party organizations.
Each of the cases YOU originally cited, I googled. (Sorry while everyone knows Vitter and his “history”, I personally didn’t know the others except I knew Rand is his Daddy’s Boy. There are some important points to consider. Some points apply more strongly to some, etc.
– Each of them is CURRENTLY sitting in a valued position able to leverage donations. Even the Kentucky ones.
– “Carry over” from previous campaigns. Money in the bank from previous years helps that COH # from the start.
– Part 2 – Multi-year fundraising efforts means their team is slightly more “practiced” and established with clear lines of organization.
– Bennet v “the field” had the combined effort of Obama/Salazar/et al to focus the contributions. Especially the national and the DC based donations.
– Romanoff’s “issues”. Well, I’m sure their are a LOT of Ds around who have and will dissect that misbalance much more accurately than I. Going against Obama? No PAC money? Where’s our former Senator in this fight? Is his machine helping Bennet of Andrew? What about the entire Udall family machine? Without that insider info any speculation is completely “hot air”.
– Buck – While DA of an interesting part of the state, his position doesn’t really lend itself to the proper type of leverage.
– Wiens – uh… yeah.
—–
Now Strickland.
THAT is an entirely different case. 96 was a Presidential cycle so a LOT of money was thrown in. The economic times were a LOT different and Brown’s Senate seat was really a target by the Dems after 92 when CO went for Clinton (before my time here).
Thus in 96, we were one of the battleground states. Dole needed us to contend. Fights like that affect the other races. I didn’t follow politics as closely then, so forgive me if my memory fails.
In 2002… C’mon. Allard wasn’t exactly lighting fires under everyone, was he? And Strickland worked much more than a year if my memory serves me. Again, I wasn’t watching as closely, but I’m sure he worked a good part of those 6 years on raising money and establishing a base of supporters.
Again, I think this is comparing apples to oranges. Comparing our candidates to each other allows us to make clear comparisons. While we can compare our state to others in total dollars raised, etc. I don’t think those examples are that good.
I don’t know which would be… But I think those aren’t the right answer.