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 15, 2010 05:52 PM UTC
29 Comments
that this will be a lot more interesting to talk about when the numbers come out. I know I’m already tired of the guessing game. I’ll give it to the AR campaign, they have really built the excitement and suspense around this announcement.
money is unimportant.
YouTube and Facebook are free. Oxygen is free. Earned media is free. And since the turnout is going be so low, actually reaching primary voters is practically free.
Money just doesn’t matter.
who was a party insider and well respected and had the endorsements of the unions but the other guy had a lot of money and a passion for progressive positions and he scratched his way onto the ballot and used his money to heavily promote his positions in mailers, ads and online and guess what? Jared Polis becamse the party nominee over Joan FitzGerald. Joan was/is a great person but Jared was really strong on his positions regarding the war and the economy and he spent his fortune on his race. If you think money doesn’t matter in politics MADDOG 🙂 you need to take a refresher course in 21st century politics.
But team Romanoff convinced me othwerwise.
I mean if money mattered, how could AR win 50% at caucus? or increase his delegate counts at assemblies?
If winning at the caucus mattered or if top line mattered.
Neither one does.
TV matters. It costs money.
How can that be true?
Caucus and assembly and …and…well, everything!
Just ask one of Romanoff’s fevered supporters.
You got me again.
REALLY subtle.
You have to have a feel for the subtlety.
I really enjoy it.
If money matters then what is going to happen when rich corporations start attacking poor but principled politicians using every media outlet available. The Supreme Court decision is going to have an effect on Colorado races and those with no dough are going to be faced with a big mountain manipulated public opinion to climb.
Between Republicans and corporations investing in taking away this Democratic held seat how much money does a principled politician of the highest ethic standards need to succeed or are we just fighting for the honor of losing with moral purity on our side? Can you say Senator Buck without a nauseating gag. Money matters maddog if not in August then definitely in September.
What’s become clear is that winning 50% at caucus and gaininig at assembly doesn’t take much money.
Money is only ok when it coems from small, local, activist donors. Otherwise, it’s tainted and therefore the candidate cannot be trusted.
We have examples – Representative Fitzgerald, Senator Miles, and others. Top line is critical. How else will voters know who to vote for in the primary?
and by the looks of it, there will be a bunch.
A well known Democrat has sworn off that support, though.
I guess when and if the ads roll in we can have a big singalong of Kumbaya and the sound of it will carry over the rockies and up and down the front range.
we’d be calling it the “purple mountains majesty” not the front range
I suspect it has bells on. 🙂
If it is a put down then it went over my head. Either I’m naive or I don’t care. Your call.
The issue is whether the historical patterns of the 21st century where the candidates who receive a lot of funding like Barack Obama win a larger percentage of the elections or can an electric candidate with a good message and a pledge to avoid pursuing dirty campaigning and personal attacks win by being principled. My bet is the better funded candidate wins nine times out of ten unless the principled candidate devolves into petty personal attacks and wins by going Rove. Is that how you want to win without money?
I came out for Bennet about a year ago.
I said in Sep when AR was rumoring that it was too late – that he wouldn’t be able to raise real money and without it he couldn’t win. I’ve been saying that every FEC reporting period since.
I recently said he needed to put up a large number this quarter to prove his viability.
I don’t understand how anyone could not see it –
2008: Udall had huge coatails and all that D energy and turnout, Bush fatigue and R apathy and he still spent $15million (btw, he had a larger PAC % than Bennet) to win more narrowly than Obama.
2010: no tails to speak of (Hickenlooper can help a little, one or two of the intiatives may help a little) and to hold the seat we’re going to need $15mm+. Romanoff has not demonstrated he can get there. We’re in firefight with the R’s and we’re arguing about who’s a real dem and why we couldn’t get single payer and how to prounounce Baca or Washington or something. If we are not careful we could show up to the gunfight that’s coming with a knife.
This whole purity contest is reminiscent of what the Republicans do when they kowtow to their extremists. Who’s more liberal isn’t the issue. Both candidates support a progressive agenda. The bigger issue is who has the resources to win in November.
My take on it is that Romanoff thought that the Obama agenda was going to sink with health care and rather than let the Republicans win with a “throw the bums out” message he was going to co-opt it with a “we already threw the bums out so elect us because we’re better than the bums” message. Essentially he bet on the Obama agenda being unpopular enough to get him into the general as the change candidate. He got in before health reform passed. It looks like the economy isn’t going to be the disaster at election time that was predicted when he entered the race so he doesn’t have a lot of good options in an election that should be stressing continuity of policies that are working. This is not a change election for Dems.
I’ll post it later- but I think it’s even worse than that for camp Romanoff. I think he’s realized that even though he should be, he’s not electable in the general.
example- Ref C & D.
He called it a big step toward-de-Brucing the state, ie, killing TABOR. That plays well in the primary- it’s not a winner in the general. Not for nothing “killing TABOR” was exactly how the opposition opposed Ref C back then.
I know him MADCO off-line and I fall for it all the time.
I just thought MADCO was joking, pretending to take the opposite side from the one they actually believe.
My response was a version of a response when you think someone is ‘pulling your leg’. I think maybe it’s Brit in origin, “Pull the other, it’s got bells on.”
I think you are dead on in your analysis re Jared’s race, btw.
I’ll have to remember your dry wit is part of your writing skills.
As an addenda I don’t think Polis would have won even with his money if he had run the same campaign as Will Shafroth. He has made learning mistakes in his first term but I by and large believe he has maintained the progressive positions that he championed during his campaign.
For Romanoff. Buck will be lucky to get 300k. I don’t think suspense is a good thing when it comes to FEC reports.
Buck will have the advantage of good press at the assembly and ads running. Romanoff, on the other hand, has this Photoshop story and his FEC reports coming up.
If he comes up with what I estimate, things aren’t looking good for Romanoff. And Buck absolutely has to convert Norton’s petitioning into dollar signs.
Not if you take his personal loan out of the equation.
And now that AR is stalling on releasing his reports, it seems that I overestimated!
Still no Romanoff numbers?
It reminds me of how long Mike Hamrick permitted voting to change at the assembly. I didn’t make a fuss because we were making threshold.
Two of AR”s supporters thanked me for that.
Like they are for US House, it sometimes takes a little while for the FEC to report them on its website. The moment is fast approaching when Romanoff has to decide to release them and do damage control up front if they are bad, or just let the wolves have at them when the FEC posts them.