U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 16, 2010 07:39 PM UTC
54 Comments
Just sayin’.
It still makes me laugh.
He still has to get rid of that goddamned Thurston Howell III/Mr.Mackey inflection. Its so passive.
And PULL us out of the recession, not DRAG us out of the recession.
Overall though I think it is an improvement. Best thing to me is he comes off as sincere.
THIS
IS WHAT SEN. BENNETT SOUNDS LIKE
I noticed it the first time I heard him speak over a year ago. I’ve been trying to flick it out of my brain ever since.
the utter horribleness of his ads may be making me rethink that. Seriously, could someone help him learn to modulate his voice just for 30 seconds — or at least not mumble?
If his big edge over Romanoff is the money to run TV ads… well, is that really a big advantage if his TV ads are this bad?
But, someone should help him to slow down and speak more distinctly; it would help with his “believability” about the message.
I am sure that tapping into Senator Udall’s staff expertise has been discussed. What happened as a result is anyone’s guess; I am sure Senator Udall would be receptive.
Even in the lighthearted “Hide” ad, Udall isn’t exactly Daniel Webster.
What I would like to see from these ads is what I saw form Bennet at the first debate. Clear, concise, personable, and intelligent.
Also, the learning curve has been much steeper for Bennet. Udall had only been in one truly competitive race–against Bob Greenlee in 1998–but he didn’t have a primary opponent to have to deal with before taking on Bob Schaffer.
Andrew speaks passionately, leans forward and uses his pointer-finger a lot. I think that’s good delivery technique, in general. Michael Bennet always seems calm. That can be very appealing, too. The only issue I have with Bennet is he loves the word enormously … enormously. : )
They have completely different styles, that’s for sure. Bennet is rarely sarcastic. He makes fun of himself more than others, in a humble way. Andrew is great in groups; Michael is better one-on-one or in small gatherings. Andrew sounds like Don Rickles sometimes — I personally don’t think mean is funny, at all. I want a hard-working legislator, not a sarcastic one. JMHO.
…in person he’s very engaging and convincing.
Definitley needs a better media team.
I saw his first few ads prior to meeting him, and was expecting him to be a total ‘stiff’, for lack of a better word. Met him at the Denver assembly, the commercials don’t do him justice at all.
He is a nice and genuine person, and clearly very smart.
I think he could use some help on his speaking and delivery–works fine in small groups and one-on-one, comes across as very sincere–but needs to be more fired up for the TeeVee and rallies, IMO, which–I know–ain’t worth much.
I’ve always liked Romanoff too. But his campaign is a mess and 2/3 of his supporters on this blog are a significant liability in my book.
In all fairness, though, there are a few Bennet supporters that are a bit over the top too methinks. No politician is perfect and all deserve criticism from time to time. Certainly a political blog is a good place to have at it–but flame wars and transparent sockpuppetry are tiresome.
TV is everyhhing.
the other ads actually are working to bring his poll numbers up.
So they work, even if people don’t like them
mentioning Udall’s videos made me go back and look at some of his other ones too. Damn that guy was a good campaigner and had a good media team, Bennet needs to get them working for him and producing those quality ads.
Senator Udall had many years to practice, and surely some of the tremendous experience of his father and uncle must have rubbed off on him. Not too many folk have the political legacy of the Udalls, both Mark and Tom currently.
Would have been to vote for a Bankruptcy bill that actually helped Homeowners refinance their homes in Bankruptcy court.
Instead of the watered down bank/Credit Card Handout you actually DID vote for! Mr Bennet.
NO wonder You have all that cash from Wall street to run TV adds with.
Andrew Romanoff (your primary opponent) is not bought and paid for, Like YOU are.
That talking point might not work anymore after that. Just watch.
I really doubt Bennet will vote in favor of it.
unless of course it is written by and endorsed by Goldman-sacks, BOA, Chase and Schwabb.
So, you “really doubt Bennet will vote for” financial reform? Wanna put some money on that, or just wager your meager credibility on this site.
Let’s make this a litmus test for Senator Bennet. If he votes against the Dem supported financial reform package, you and the other Romanoff unicorns have bragging rights. But, if he votes for reform (like he did for health care reform), I demand that you, Norris and the other Romanoff delusionists STFU and call it a day.
Deal?
Senator Bennet does not come as either likable, capable or smart.
This race is Bennet’s to lose and he is doing his best to do so.
Others really like this ad. Shocker the Romies don’t like it. Shocked.
We’ll see if his team is disciplined enough to keep it
It must be hard to drop your first name because it doesn’t appeal to Republicans.
is saying “Ali loves [wherever]” after every campaign stop, even when he just wants to be friends.
for a long time, truly enjoys the title and status, has learned to go through the motions that the job entails, but just does not have a passion for politics and campaigning. No passion, no inspiration, little evidence of a truly caring connection to the average citizen, or connection to the great diversity that exists from one county to another in our 64. What is this guy selling? If he’s ultimately the Dem candidate, this does not trump even Jane Norton’s stilted, scripted ads.
You wrote your comment before even watching the video. You’re projecting.
I watched the ad twice before commenting – I had trouble understanding every word he was saying because of his style of speech. I tried to convey as accurately as I could the impression I got from the ad. And by the way, I have run for office four times, and I have experience writing and recording campaign radio ads (not TV). This was my conclusion – you don’t have to agree.
You just put an awful lot into your conclusion. With that said, I do agree that it’s a lousy ad.
That’s not a bad thing.
His last ads were so horrible that we’re all thrilled at the improvement. But put aside what came before and look at this on its own. It’s piss-poor.
when candidates conspicuously do not identify which party they are affiliated with in their campaign ads.
The ad is better the his others, but dude needs a speech therapist or vocal coach. Enuncination is not his strong suit. They say tongue twisters help.
Maybe…
Michael might meet more misfortune may he maintain his misguided methods.
Wow, that was actually pretty difficult to put together.
enunciation (I should have proof read before posting)
why people don’t like the ads. The demographic they are targeting does not read Colorado Pols, I assure you.
Is I have had a number of people who don’t follow politics ask me what the point of them is. Those are the people the ad is supposed to reach and it’s not accomplishing anything other than mild confusion with them.
But I see what the campaign is doing with the ads. They’re inoculating him against being the devil. That’s going to come in handy in the General.
I think there’s some method to the “lousy” ads.
To do it with well written effective ads?
You’re The Devil.
He’s just a guy who’s never run for office before. Ever.
Just a guy.
And more and more people know who he is and that’s he’s running.
The ads aren’t what I would do- but I think they;re him
She was the one who pointed out the mumbling to me.
She was the one who pointed out the mumbling to me.
Good message, although I’d insert some proposals or things he’s done to show he is doing “something” about it. Yeah, and he does mumble a bit.
…Bennet’s issue is that no-one (outside this blog) knows anything about him. He needs to make himself known to the people of Colorado and liked by them.
This mumbly high-information-density statement of principles doesn’t accomplish that.
If you’re a small business owner strapped by the credit crunch, it might mean something, but what percentage of the general electorate is that?
(Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment and Training Administration; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau; U.S. Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
And this from the Denver post last year:
Still too mumbly though.
I’m thinking “low talker”. Does that sound right? I have a couple of clients that qualify as low talkers and it drives me nuts. You know what I mean? Where you always have to lean in just to hear what the guy is saying and you still don’t catch half of it.
He’s gotta learn to speak up.
So, I don’t know how this one compares to the others. I thought this was fine (not wonderful, not bad, but fine). I don’t have higher standards for political ads. But, he does need to enunciate better at times.
that most people had seen the first two.
Here they are:
“This Washington”
“Wake Up”
Perhaps I was affected by the negative discussion of them, so I expected them to be horrible. I didn’t think they were so bad.
He is soft-spoken. It’s true.
or does he get all crazy like and just leave them on the rack ?
Just kidding.