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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 15, 2010 12:52 AM UTC

If At First You Don't Succeed...Keep Beating Your Head on the Wall?

  • 49 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve discussed the problems with Democrat Andrew Romanoff’s campaign for U.S. Senate on several occasions in this space. We’ve long said that Romanoff’s biggest problem is a lack of fundraising that will enable him to go up on TV and counteract the millions that Sen. Michael Bennet has socked away for ads of his own.

But even if Romanoff was able to raise a significant amount of money, we’re starting to wonder if would even matter because of his campaign’s apparent inability to find a message that works and a refusal to accept when a strategy has failed. Today The Colorado Statesman takes another look at a story that they first reported a few weeks ago:

U.S. Senate primary candidate Andrew Romanoff’s campaign doubled down this week on charges that incumbent Michael Bennet failed to protect college students from predatory lenders.

In a stinging rebuttal signed by Romanoff communications director Roy Teicher and published in last week’s Colorado Statesman, the Democratic challenger accused The Statesman of falling for “a mosaic of near-facts, smoothly and cynically crafted by the Bennet campaign” to divert attention from an attack Romanoff unleashed last month in Colorado Springs at the second debate between the two candidates.

“Michael, you know, proprietary colleges are gouging students with predatory loans,” Romanoff said to Bennet during the final minutes of the debate April 23. “One of those colleges, Westwood, is even facing, now, two class-action lawsuits for fraud. Your committee, the Senate banking committee, had a chance to protect students from that kind of financial abuse, and you did nothing. You did take $2,400 from Westwood College three days before that bill came to a committee. My question is, is that just the way Washington works?”

Other diarists have written before about this angle of attack when it first popped up, but we hadn’t paid much attention to it until now. What seemed like a failed attack on Bennet — no harm done, every campaign takes shots that don’t hit home — has become a weird vendetta against The Statesman. And it’s a vendetta about something that is way too complicated and minute to really hurt Bennet anyway. Romanoff’s camp tried to make a big controversy out of this, but it didn’t work (for a number of reasons, including the fact that it doesn’t appear that the charge is accurate). But rather than moving on, Romanoff’s spokesman fired off an angry Op-Ed at The Statesman and the campaign keeps clinging to this like the last life raft on a sinking ship.

Here’s just a few of the problems with what the Romanoff camp is doing right now, and how it all comes back to their core problems from day one:

1. It’s not at all clear, as Ernest Luning has reported in the Statesman on two separate occasions now, that the charges coming from Romanoff are even accurate. As the headline from Luning’s April 30 story summarized, “Romanoff fires ‘Westwood bullet’ at Bennet, but record suggests it’s a dud.” Luning was apparently compelled to revisit the story, and here’s what he wrote in today’s edition:

A fresh examination of the controversy reveals a different story than the one promoted by Teicher.

Contrary to Teicher’s assertion, the kind of loan offered by Westwood College – and thousands of other private, for-profit colleges across the country – recently came under the authority of Regulation Z of the federal Truth in Lending Act, adding numerous disclosure requirements and other protections for student borrowers.

In addition, the Senate financial regulation bill supported by Bennet would regulate “gap loans” made by Westwood and other for-profit colleges, not leave them alone, as Teicher contended.

Moreover, an amendment sponsored by Bennet and adopted by the Senate banking committee adds particular protection for students borrowing from private schools by establishing a Private Education Loan Ombudsman – a layer of oversight beyond what was proposed in a House amendment the Romanoff campaign cites as its model for what Bennet should have done in the Senate

Maybe the Romanoff campaign is right, and The Statesman just doesn’t understand this problem after two long stories in three weeks. Or maybe the Romanoff campaign, in their zeal to find some sort of useful attack on Bennet, just didn’t quite connect all the dots. Either way, the point is the same: IT DIDN’T WORK! The Romanoff campaign wasn’t going to suddenly turn this attack back around, so they should have dropped it and looked for something else.

2. This whole line of attack is way too complicated to damage Bennet. You really can’t explain this charge in less than a couple of minutes, which means there’s no way an average Primary voter is ever going to a) understand, or b) even care if they do understand. Hell, we couldn’t even tell you in less than a few paragraphs what this is all about. This attack was never going to stick on Bennet, even if it was accurate, because there are too many nuances at play. The fact that the Romanoff camp doesn’t understand this is a big part of their problem in general. This is a perfect example of how “Policy-wonk Andrew” keeps killing “Politician Andrew.”

3. $2,400 is not a smoking gun. At the heart of this attack is the contention that Bennet took $2,400 from Westwood College and then voted on a bill that was of interest to the school (although a spokesman for Westwood has openly admitted that Bennet voted the opposite of how they would have liked). Even if Bennet’s campaign had taken this money, and then Bennet had done what Westwood wanted, you still have to try to tell people that a guy who has already raised $5 million would have sold his vote for $2,400. It just doesn’t seem like a realistic charge when we’ve heard stories about people like former Rep. William Jefferson keeping $90,000 in his freezer.

Sure, $2,400 may be a lot in “Romanoff money” (since he only has $500k in the bank), but it’s not even a drop in the bucket for Bennet’s campaign. If Westwood had donated, say, $100,000 through bundling individual donations or something, then this might have been a little more interesting. But $2,400? Eh.

4. The PAC attack isn’t working. That’s really what this all comes down to, because there’s no evidence that Bennet has been “bought” by anybody. You can’t just throw out a list of contributors and say, “See, this proves he’s corrupt!” Not only does that not prove anything, but most voters already know that incumbent politicians get money from a variety of different industries. This isn’t a shock to anyone, and that’s why Romanoff desperately needs some sort of connection like they hoped they had with the Westwood college thing.

The bigger issue in all of this is what it says about Romanoff’s campaign, which went months without a message at all before finally settling on the “Bennet takes PAC money, but I don’t” theme. That Romanoff’s camp won’t seem to let go of this essentially disproved, and virtually unintelligible, attack on Bennet shows either a campaign dysfunction or an unspoken admission that they this is all they’ve got, even if they know it isn’t working.

“The PAC attack” message in general hasn’t been the silver bullet that Romanoff thought it would be, so they need a new message, and quick. But unless he starts raising a lot more money, it won’t matter anyway; the message is just an internal memo if you don’t have a way to tell anyone.

Tweet
Share

Comments

49 thoughts on “If At First You Don’t Succeed…Keep Beating Your Head on the Wall?”

  1. I’ve donated almost as much as Westwood College to the Bennet campaign.  Michael voted against Westwood College’s position on the student loan legislation.

    At least I got a t-shirt, and I’m happy for it.

    1. Romanoff will win top line at state so he can feel validated. He’ll lose the primary  and this will all be like a bad dream.  His supporters will be too pissed at Bennet, even though all the trash is coming out of the Romanoff campaign, to support Bennet as strongly as they would have if Andrew had just quit this pointless exercise back when he could have with grace.  No wonder people assume Romanoff is so much, much younger than Bennet.  He really isn’t.  It just seems that way.  

      1. Romanoff never had a real political challenge. Run from a safe Dem district, smile, tell a few jokes and get elected.

        Then when the Senate seat that he felt he was entitled to wasn’t given to him, he pouted awhile then decide to run ” to give Dems a choice “. Makes you wonder what his response would have been if he had been appointed and someone would have dared to run against him. hmmmm

        Running such a nasty campaign and  his behavior in the dabates has been a real turnoff to many Dems.

        Perhaps maturity and dignity had a part in Ritter choosing someone other than Romanoff for the Senate appointment.

          1. Let’s face it these two are working their level best to provide Democrats a “strong liberal” glad-hander; all you do is bitch and moan about it.

            You should be celebrating the choice you have and the joy you’ll all have in helping to abort the weaker candidate.

            Bennet is up on the air trying to define himself … many have stated these ads are horrible, but who care the guy is pimping his children and the broken Senate presided over by Harry Reid. Hey he’s doing his best.

            Romanoff is working the crowd of union heavy delegates. Sure he’ll get top line. With a solid Dem turnout for the primary he’ll win.

            Bennet needs to drive all the moderate liberals to the polls; he cannot risk having only the die hard Party faithfuls show up.

            As Democrats you should be celebrating the choice and upcoming abortion you’ll be charged with performing.

            1. If Libertad thinks Romanoff is going to win, case closed.  AR may as well save his campaign what little money it has left and withdraw. Sorry Wade.  ‘Tad is like an idiot savant without the savant part.

              1. I was 66% right, then the libs came with their high priced lawyers and paid ofr supreme court to deny Clean Government to the citizens.

                High turnout of Party Dem faithful = AR to the general

                High turnout of faithful and general population = MB to the general

                MB needs to hope it rains so the lazy party faithful stay home, rent all the church buses so AR can’t and somehow inspire all the once in a while Dems to show up.

  2. You know, I wonder what AR’s message would have been if Bennet hadn’t been the incumbent, and instead, AR would have had a general Dem to campaign against.

    Experience, problem solver, funny…sure those are all generic, but even those are better than what he has put up so far. I agree that, whether right or wrong, the themes of his campaign have boxed him into being potrayed is petty and petulant.

    As others have said, the whole reason Colorado voters liked him as speaker was because of his likeability and ability to work with people…two things he may have lost along the way of this election.

    After this election, I’m not convinced his political career is over, I just hope we get to see the AR of old.

    1. When Romanoff first entered this race (seems like ages ago) and Bennet hadn’t been in the Senate for very long, fellow Dems I talked to who supported Romanoff did so, not because they had anything against Bennet but for two main reasons, besides liking AR.  1)They were still upset that he hadn’t been appointed in the first place and felt that he deserved it. 2) He was an experienced successful legislator and leader as House Speaker and Bennet wasn’t. They didn’t see particularly different agendas. They thought Romanoff would be better at helping the President and Dem majority congress move their agenda forward.  

      Since those days Bennet has shown himself to be a very impressive freshman Senator, had a high profile role in health reform and now he’s the one with the DC experience.  Maybe that’s why they  abandoned stressing Romanoff’s legislative, problem solving credentials and decided that the best way forward was to go as negative as possible.

      Certainly his supporters now seem more focused on bitterly trashing Bennet than on anything else and have convinced themselves that AR is the progressive in the fight, a fantasy requiring a truly Rovian level of disdain for the reality based world.  

      Since Bennet really doesn’t give them much to work with as a villain and the policy differences between the two centrists are so few, they keep getting caught making wild accusations with little to no basis in fact and looking mean, petty and silly. As Speaker, Romanoff was charming while commanding respect for his skills and accomplishments. As a challenger, he’s coming across more like a petulant teenager.  

    2. Further, Colorado voters didn’t like him as Speaker. He was voted up by Washington Park people and his peers elected him Speaker. The voters barely know who their Congressman or Senator is.

      In addition to his potential return to politics lets hope there’s a mother out there scheming to get this nice Jewish boy into her daughters pants.

  3. I had breakfast this AM with Shaun Donovan Secretary of HUD. He is a big fan of Michael’s. AR is still chasing the dragons oh sorry I mean windmills.

  4. Reading and re-reading each article about this, it’s still not clear who is right on this one. Have to agree with the Govs that this was just too complicated to get the underlying message through and it gets lost in the back and forth. Kind of a pickle Romanoff’s guys put themselves in though. If it had been a quick hit and gone away, that would have been fine. But once the Statesman wrote a long piece saying they were wrong (at least I think that’s what the Statesman was saying but I’m not even sure of that), should they have just let it go if they were really right? I’m impressed the Statesman ran that long of an article about anything. At the end of the whole story what I got was Bennet took some money from people that have engaged in some shady practices and it either did or didn’t impact his vote and they either were or weren’t affected by the new regulations or maybe they might be. Lot of ink to say maybe something might have happened and somebody might have been right or wrong.

    I do have a serious question for the Govs: Has there ever been a Govs generated negative story about Bennet on the front-page? I’m genuinely curious? Has he ran such a flawless service in office and campaign that there has been nothing to question or call him out on? The latest banking vote? His spokesman making a jack#ss of himself by trying to lean on Mario Solis and that resulting in three straight shows of Bennet getting mocked? Anything? Bueller?

    1. Yes, though not recently.  And most of the more recent negative hits to Bennet were polling reports – which the Govs don’t have much choice but to run with if they want any credibility.

      But there have been a few others.

      I’ve pretty much dismissed Mario’s ranting against Bennet over the past few days; it’s been clear to me that Mario prefers Romanoff despite his support of the special session on illegal immigrants, and considering how much he’s ranted on about Morgan Carrol’s single vote against the DREAM Act (on financial grounds) I would think that Romanoff’s support of that session would be worse.

    2. Worst kind of spin.

      It’s complicated and hard, I just don’t know what to believe.

      It’s not complicated.

      Senate Finance Committee, FTC, the student loan and private college trade associations and West wood college all believe that the kind of lending and financing discussed is subject to the Truth in Lending Act and is not exempt.

      Teicher and Romanoff claim the opposite in a weird attempt to attack Senator Bennet.

      The Statesman researches the deal – twice – and produces more sources aho all say one thing: Romanoff is wrong.

  6. Romanoff and Jane Norton constantly picking petty fights and campaign blunders with what even Republican pollster Frank Luntz calls “the best campaign ad in the nation” from Michael Bennet.  A professionally ran Bennet campaign up against amateur Josh Penry hitching his wagon to yet another loser will have Josh singing “I’m a man of constant sorrow” yet again this fall.  And will someone please show AR the writing on the wall?

    “I’m just like Sarah Palin, except I told my daughter about condoms.”  -Joan Rivers

          1. I think the current one in the rotation is the “small business” ad.

            I think I posted a while ago that boring or not, these ads are effective because they humanize Bennet and inoculate him against negative ads sure to come.

  7. This campaign could potentially be Romanoff’s undoing with some Democrats who work hard to elect the right people cycle after cycle.

    My wife and I supported Romanoff for years.  We were constituents and fans of his.  For years.  We told friends about him.  We helped him raise money.  He spoke at our home.  We sung his praises, quite publicly, for years.  We also happen to know and like Michael Bennet.  Our personal view — admittedly, purely a personal view — is that Bennet is extraordinarily capable, smart and honest and has done an outstanding job both in Washington and in Colorado.  Knowing them both, I personally favor Bennet for this seat.  But back in January 2009, I could understand completely why someone would be loyal to Romanoff and why that loyalty would carry them through to supporting him in a primary; he is extremely smart and capable, too.  But when Romanoff challenges Bennet in the personal, unfair ways he has in this campaign, and when he uses a PAC theme that is, frankly, a bit silly for those of us who know Romanoff’s past and his sensibilities about politics, he demeans himself.  Rather than make a case we all know he could make about experience or bona fide policy differences (though I personally know not a single meaningful policy difference between them), he makes baseless, unfair charges and attacks a good, decent, smart man.

    Knowing both and liking both at the start, though favoring Bennet, I now have a very different impression of one of the candidates.  And I continue to be proud of the campaign our Senator has run.  If Romanoff keeps this up, I will forgive Bennet for going after Romanoff’s approach, but in my experience Bennet hasn’t done it yet.  Charges like the Westwood one — among others — make me question Romanoff’s honesty and candor, and that is a hard thing to get back when you’ve lost it, even among people who genuinely admired you for years.

    1. I like both candidates and would have no problem voting for Romanoff but I am disappointed that he feels compelled to go negative over money issues instead of staying focused on providing his perspective on how to solve some of our most pressing problems.

      Stay classy AR and run an exemplary campaign.  This stuff is low brow silliness.

  8. But true that we all know how this escapade is going to end up. Andrew needs to quit this nonsensical race already. Rather than suffer the embarrassment of loss, he should concede this to the candidate more likely to win. Not for Michael Bennet, but for progressives state wide.

    What’s more important, your dignity or your cause?

    3. More like “vanity.”

      And vanity is the cause.

      Romanoff’s problem is that he keeps doubling down on the worst of bets in order to try and salvage the “cause.” This campaign is self-destructive in a very literal way. More than that, he will be utterly unelectable to anything when it is finally all over. And he can’t blame anyone but himself.  

    1. As someone says above, it’s shocking, absolutely shocking that Pols writes and frontpages another attack piece on Romanoff.

      It’s funny actually — The Bennet supporters on here keep attacking the Romanoff supporters for being so negative, but then every few days since October (though admittingly it’s slowed in the last few weeks) we see Pols runs yet another random attack piece on the Romanoff campaign.

      In all honesty though, I guess they do take breaks from attacking Romanoff.  I mean Pols wrote that top notch journalistic piece attack Jane Norton’s dog.

      1. More like Teicher shouldn’t have written that letter to the editor because he ended up getting Pwned by the Statesman.

        The Romanoff campaign created this by being negative to begin with. Do you not even remember that? It started out as an attack on Bennet. Bennet has done virtually nothing to keep this story in the news. It’s all been on Romanoff.

  10. Story after story posted here shows the same pattern:

    1.  Everyone likes Andrew and was surprised Bennett got the appointment.  

    2.  Most everyone (talking Dems here) is very impressed with Bennett’s brief period of service.

    3.  There are a few rabid AR supporters that really can’t point out any difference of substance and at most indulge in a bit of “I know you are, but what am I?”

    4.  All but the rabid supporters find AR’s campaign a total embarrassment.  All kinds of adjectives could apply, but petty and incompetent spring to mind.

    5.  Bennett supporter will not have any (significant?) trouble supporting AR if he were to win the primary.  The reverse cannot be said.

    So, it begs the questions, do they read Pols and are they teachable?

    2.  I hate to burst your bubble, but you don’t understand as much as you think you do. Why would an AR supporter, other than the handful who just like to mess with you,   care to do rhetorical battle with you, here, on the official, “We loves us some Bennet” website.

      Numbers 1&2 above, are substantially correct.

      #3. Why should we continue to tell you why we are voting for Andrew? You (collectively) discount every point made and treat ARs’ supporters with a snarly disdain that I am sure your candidate doesn’t approve.

      #4. You are just simply wrong here.

      #5. See #4.

      The answer is, yes they read Pols and are very teachable. What we have learned is that the Bennetistas are worried their appointed champion is going to get seriously creamed at the assembly (which, of course doesn’t really mean anything, right?).

      What amazes me is how you understand me even better than I understand myself. I am just one of those bitter, low-brow, ignorant voters that is so blinded by loyalty to our petulant teenager that we can’t see what a superior legislator your candidate is.

      See you in Broomfield.    

      1. Are not in the least worried about not making over 30% at state.  They like the op to talk to more non-delegate types face to face and get more contact info for potential volunteers and contributors for the primary and general. TV+ door-to-door=bye,bye AR.

      2. Duke – seriously, do you think is this an issue, either way? Seriously?

        It might have been an issue worth AR raising, if it AR’s claim and Teicher’s follow up were correct on the facts.

        But it was exactly 180Вє out wrong on the facts.  So CoPols is exactly right- even if AR’s claim was  true, it’s not a good issue for AR. Since AR’s claim is demonstrably false deceptive wrong, it’s just a bonehead move to bring it up again.

        Meanwhile- I know a few staff and faculty at Westwood and several students. They all vote D and they don’t really understand why AR would attack them.  Some have said they think it’s because AR teaches at another school. One student said he thought it was because AR want’s everyone to go to public schools and was surprised when I told him that AR attended private college and law school.

        As for assembly- sure , it’s meaningful.  But it’s not the nomination. It’s not the election. It’s not the end- it’s the beginning. Or at least it’s supposed to be.

        Say AR goes 70/30 next Saturday.  So out of the 800K registered D’s in Colorado, 2700 prefer AR.  Ok- primary turnout won’t be 800K- I like to hope half, but say turn out is 40% – 320,000.  2700 vs 160,001.  

        Assembly matters – but it’s the start not the end.

      3. I was asking about the campaign, not how you feel, nor other supporters of AR.  I think the most pejorative term I used for AR supporters was “rabid.” As in strong emotions.  Anything wrong with that?

        You describe yourself in far worse terms than I ever did.

        It appears to me that contrary to what you say, they are not very teachable.  Why does the campaign keep doing such immensely stupid things? Sort of like a leftward Both Ways Bob.

        Since I no longer live in CO I technically don’t have a dog in the fight.  But as I’ve observed, Bennet has done a great job, Romanoff just keeps bungling and hasn’t differentiated himself in any substantive terms.  

        I’ve always really liked AR and I thought he would get the senatorial nod.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

235 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!