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 19, 2010 09:01 PM UTC
36 Comments
…he spent it on those totally awesome and effective TV commercials.
Keep ’em coming, Michael – they ROCK!
Considering that awesome caucus night performance.
which the Bennet camp normally doesn’t like, they are working.
If Rasmussen is within 4, then the race is probably a dead heat in more centrist or liberal polls.
The purpose of TV is to build name recognition. Knocking on doors as a volunteer for various campaigns, I soon realized how common it was for people to have no idea who their reps and senators were, even among those who had voted in the past several elections, much less the names of those who were running in the election at hand. The reason there is such a strong correlation between spending and success in high office elections is because of the cost of TV and the fact that lots of TV means your name will at least ring a bell come election time.
Bennet’s ads may be dull but so far haven’t featured any out of state peaks, the wrong end of a horse in close proximity to the candidates face or anything that has made headlines for being blatantly false or offensive. Therefore, they are helping to get the job done and there can be plenty more, including some that might have a bit more pizzazz, because of Bennet’s fundraising prowess. I’d put a hold on the happy dancing if I were you.
has got to be one of the best most enjoyable self-inflicted wounds in recent electoral memory. Its so sad that it cannot be found on You Tube…
Too bad it’s a still…
In all of 2009, Bennet spent a total of $1.3 million, and still had an ending COH of $3.2 million.
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureS…
So, if he raised $1.4 million, but spent $1.3, that still puts him at over what he had in COH ending 2009.
Ergo, NBD.
but also for the general. Bennet needs to generate higher level name i.d. and I suspect his current commercials have a two-fold purpose. That’d be shoring things up as much as possible for the caucuses and the state assembly (where I’d be surprised if Romanoff doesn’t get top line), but also raising name i.d. for the long haul. So the “burn rate” is not just for the primary and local events leading up to it if you accept that view.
Bennet has never attacked Romanoff in his ads or done anything that will hurt in November. Thus, his ads not only help him in the primary, they build toward November. If you have the cash, that’s the way to spend it.
Have really appeared to be targeted at primary election voters. They have all been more general, “get to know you” type of ads.
I know it seems easy to say that Bennet is spending all this on TV, but his ads didn’t start running until after caucus. That might be a few hundred thousand he spent before April 1st on TV, but that would be about a million that he spent otherwise. A million dollars to lose the caucus?
I remember some Bennet supporters on here saying there was no way he spent over a million q1, and now this comes out showing he actually spent quite a bit more.
In other words, Bennet spent almost every penny he raised in Q1.
.
that might not be very interesting. You got a rebuttal to something I said, you post a counter argument. Your attacks don’t do the candidate you support justice.
since you have a habit of disingenuously restating comments, that I said I don’t believe he spent $1 million of caucus. And I still don’t. He’s got the bigger picture in mind and that’s getting to a wider audience before August.
For example, Bennet’s first ad began running the day after the caucus on March 17. But the money to produce the ad and to purchase the air time had to come first. In other words, the check for that ad was written weeks beforehand, most likely.
It’s also highly probable that they did the production for all three ads at about the same time, so the upfront costs there happened well before they first showed up on TV.
And as we said in other comment, none of Bennet’s ads seem to be targeted toward primary voters — they have all been more general messaging. Now, we didn’t think the ads were all that great, but the target is clearly the average voter, not the activist.
In fact I said that. He probably spent a few hundred thousand on his first TV buy. That still leaves roughly 1 million dollars he spent elsewhere. Just how expensive are their fundraising consultants? And better yet, how effective are they?
The point still remains that Bennet spent almost everything he raised, and he spent a lot of it going after a caucus win (direct mail, staff, paid phones, robocalls, etc) and lost it. That’s not a good investment.
…He was going after a caucus win?
They always conceded Romanoff had the party activists, but they were shooting for a respectable showing and the 30% needed to make the ballot.
Mission accomplished
The Bennet campaign knew he was not going to “win” caucus. They worked for a strong second and they certainly got it. They increased candidate recognition, made it clear they were in the race for the final in Nov. and finished better than any Romanoff supporter thought they would. I doubt they regret the “investment.”
We’ll all be able to see where the money went. That’s the fun part.
We all get to wonder what the fuck Romanoff is hiding.
Well, I was under the impression we’d be hearing about them before the FEC publishes them. Is it “next week” yet?
Until then, we get to gossip.
Speculate and insinuate!
n/t
…except that I don’t have the political experience from which to expound, I’m starting to think that AR is setting up a big announcement of a big $$ quarter! I’m not sure where the game of expectations lies at this point….
I’m still working on my speculatin’ in the mirror. It’s not quite where I want it yet, but I thought I’d give it a whirl!
always remember to smile and watch your posture.
..AR’s actual numbers, I think I need to re-double my practicing.
You see, it’s like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle–the mere speculation on the numbers changed them! They were spectacular, but when we started our insinuations and speculations, they dropped significantly.
I didn’t know my speculations had such powers. I speculate that I will be more careful next time.
That’s certainly a possibility.
….I find that real information gets in the way.
🙂
It wouldn’t make any sense to hold off on reporting a great quarter of fundraising, but you can speculate. Others have talked about AR’s pooly run campaign.