U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser (D) Joe Neguse (D) Michael Bennet
50% 50% 50%
Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) Brian Mason

60%↑

30%↑

20%↓

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

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) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

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 19, 2010 10:35 AM UTC

Tuesday's Primaries Thread

  • 70 Comments
  • by: Raphael

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

I realize that we’re supposed to stay focused on Colorado politics here, but I thought it might be useful to have a thread specifically to discuss the results of yesterday’s primaries in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas. So here’s the brief run-down with commentary:

Kentucky:

Republican primary: Tea Party favorite Rand Paul defeats NRSC and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s favorite Trey Grayson by a hefty margin. Obviously a clear win for Tea Party fanatics, Ken Buck, and Democrats who are betting that a swing to the radical right by Republicans is their (Dems) best shot at not getting destroyed in November.

Democratic primary: State Attorney General Jack Conway ekes out a victory over Dan Mongiardo. In a reversal of the Republican primary in this state, Conway was the favorite of D.C. and party insiders to hold the seat (and the polling has generally backed this up). I think Kentucky becomes a clear toss-up if not a lean Dem now that the more solid general election Democrat gets to run against someone who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, and, well, government overall. (Hmmmm, sounds familiar….)

Pennsylvania:

Republican primary: Toomey wins. Duh.

Democratic primary: Sestak wins by a nice margin (53-47 was what I last saw) over Specter. Romanoff supporters, you may begin gloating and making false comparisons…. now. I really don’t know what this means for holding the seat for Dems, Sestak has been doing better in recent polling against Toomey but not by a whole lot, and Specter sure would have owned the center of the electorate so who knows. Still, I think Sestak is something like the highest ranking military officer to serve in Congress (or maybe who is currently in Congress, can someone throw me a bone here?) which isn’t bad to have on your resume when running in a moderate state.

Arkansas:

Republican primary: Boozman wins by a hefty margin. I don’t really know what this means for the race, if someone can fill in the blank here for me, please do.

Democratic primary: Lincoln and Halter are heading to a run-off, and again Romanoff supporters feel free to make any false analogies with this that you want. More to the point though, from what I read, the third candidate Morrison was taking mainly conservative votes away from Lincoln which would suggest that with him out that she would win easily; however I imagine that Halter’s more liberal base would be more easily GOTV’d for the next election on June 8th than Lincoln’s voters would, so I’m hesitant to make predictions. Also it seems that while Lincoln has shitty approval ratings in Arkansas (along with everywhere else that isn’t Ben Nelson’s office), Halter has done this well by swinging to her left, which I wouldn’t think would serve him well in the general via the median voter theory. So again, it seems that predictions become a 7-10 split.

Also of note, not primaries, but Democrat Mark Critz won the special election in Pennsylvania, interestingly enough in the only congressional district that Kerry won in ’04 but Obama lost in ’08. I’m not sure what that means exactly for campaign strategy and what it should be for the Dems, but certainly it is not good news for Republicans.

Finally, Richard Blumenthal, I apologize per PR’s response in the comments I have removed the portion of this diary that was quasi-libelous. I’m sorry I participated with those who took your comments out of context.

Please leave your thoughts and comments on mini-super Tuesday below, here’s a good link to election results and such: http://politicalwire.com/archi…

Tweet
Share

Comments

70 thoughts on “Tuesday’s Primaries Thread”

  1. We should be weary of viewing last nights primary results as an indication of what we can maybe expect in Colorado in August. There are several more between now and then to also use as a guide. These 3 had their own dynamics which do not apply to national trends.

    For example, Paul’s win in KY could be an indication of support of the tea party, or simply an result of name recognition; it’s too early to tell. And I think Sestak’s win can be chalked up more to the fact that, for Dems in PA, Specter has been the enemy so long, they were not willing to chance it with him now that he has changed side.

    I think the most telling race was MO. Blanche Lincoln being forced into a run-off can truly be an indication of the anti-incumbent sentiment that the news media has been working overtime to convince us is out there.

    We keep hearing from the media that there is a desire to “throw all the bums out”, yet in Colorado, all 7 of our US Reps, are in relatively good shape to get re-elected.

    I think by the end of June, we’ll have had enough primaries to really get a sense of the national trends, if there are any.

  2. (and that’s about as accurate as any analysis of last night’s results get…)

    The themes of the night seem to be trust and “it’s the economy, stupid”.  To me, all of these races do hint that there’s a trust issue with Washington, DC (as well there should be IMHO).

    Rand Paul was up against a state elected official in Trey Grayson, and he was up against the DC establishment to boot; I think he won on a combination of anti-DC sentiment, Tea Party (and FOX) support, and his family name.

    Similarly, the anti-incumbent sentiment clearly hit Lincoln and Specter.  Both were also beset by other trust issues, too, I believe.  Specter’s party switch was a huge issue in the race, and it’s clear his base wasn’t as motivated to come out in the rain to defend him as Sestak’s was to “clear the decks” of Specter’s rather shaky Dem past.  And I think Lincoln’s support for big business while in the Senate was a drag on her campaign.

    The win by Critz is more about the economy; Critz’s prior affiliation to the late Rep. Murtha was both a help and a hindrance IMHO, but in the end I think the district looked and decided he’d be the better candidate to continue bringing home the bacon in this relatively poor district.

    Where do the matchups lead?  In PA, I think ultimately Sestak is the better candidate against Pat Toomey; Sestak is no flaming liberal, but he’s a rational guy with great credentials going up against the former Club For Growth president.  I think PA voters are still tired of radical GOP Senators.  In AR, Boozman is definitely the GOP preferred pick, currently leading both Democrats.  Halter, I think, is the stronger candidate to run against him, as Boozman is a longtime Congressman and represents (GOP) DC thinking that voters seem to be pissed at.

    1. Last night’s results, IMHO, present the vision of an opportunity for Romanoff, but he shouldn’t take much comfort in them.  In order to reverse the apparent trend in polling, he has to stop shooting himself in the foot and start formulating an effective attack against Bennet, who seems to have a well-oiled campaign machine.

      His best opportunity may come up with the reform bill, depending on how the next day or so goes.  Some of the strongest reform amendments do not look like they’re heading for a vote; these include banning “naked” derivative trading (where the parties have no actual interest in the underlying commodity being essentially bet on), and I believe the re-implementation of Glass-Steagall (which I haven’t seen up for a vote yet).  Still on the menu for financial reform (but not yet voted on) is the Volcker Rule amendment offered by Merkeley and Levin.  If Bennet votes in favor of these provisions, (or in favor of getting them on the voting schedule and then in favor of the provisions), he’s going to be hard for Romanoff to assault.  If he votes against what are arguably the reforms most necessary to prevent a repeat of this last collapse, then Romanoff has a good opening.

      Are you listening, Sen. Bennet?  The people are watching.

        1. Sestak ran a killer ad that was the nail in Specter’s coffin. It was brilliant and it was deadly. He ran it a zillion times a day and why? Because he has the money.

        2. If Bennet goes soft on the final stages of financial reform and Romanoff can formulate a truly effective counter-attack, he will receive at least some money to begin a “real” campaign.  It’s possible.

          But I don’t see it happening; Romanoff’s campaign has so far been completely unable to set the tone and message needed to really generate the interest (and money) needed to keep him in the race and improve his chances in August.

        3. But for that, Bennet would have to be Specter, and that comparison is absurd. Specter soaked up both anti-incumbent sentiment — he was seeking his SIXTH term, not exactly on par with Bennet’s “newcomer to politics” self-portrayal — and rather pertinent concerns in a primary that he’d been a Republican until last year and loudly supported George W. Bush.

          (Not to put too fine a point on it here, but only one of the Democratic Senate candidates in Colorado supported the Iraq War. The other was an early supporter of Obama’s candidacy and short-listed for the Cabinet.)

        4. Pensylvania has 6 television markets, including the #4 market in the nation.  Denver is #16.  Of the remaining 5 markets, four of those are bigger than Colorado Springs / Pueblo, and all are bigger than Colorado’s third market, Grand Junction / Montrose.

          So comparing Romanoff’s $1 Mill-Plus to Sestak’s $6 Mill is a little unfair, as the television market landscape is vastly different.

          1. Romanoff doesn’t have a million-plus – he’s got, roughly, about $540K on hand.

            After Saturday, he’ll have 11 weeks till the primary. My guess is that he’s saving his money for an ad blitz, but that’s not how that works, really.

            The rule of thumb is that it’s better to really dominate one communications medium rather than scatter your funds across the spectrum. So, if you have a limited funds, and a choice between direct mail, radio and TV, it’s better to, say, send out a ton of targeted direct mail pieces rather than 2 direct mail pieces, 1 crappy TV spot, and 2 crappy radio spots.

            I could talk about this all day (it’s my area of specialty), but given his campaign’s performance so far, I fully expect Romanoff to do the latter rather than the former.

            1. Compare apples to apples.  I was responding to Pols when they tried to compare Sestak’s $6mill to Romanoff.  It wasn’t a question of COH, it was a question of amount raised.  That’s what you have to compare the $6m to.

              Indeed, to be even fairer, compare pre-primary amount raised to pre-primary amount raised.  It seems safe to assume AR will have raised $1.5 M by the August primary.  For a US Senate candidate in Colorado to raise 1/4 of a US Senate candidate in PA seems reasonable.

              1. Sestak’s burn rate was extremely low until the very end. Among other things, he severely underpaid his staff, and hoarded the vast majority of his money for media buys. Sestak’s burn rate resembled nothing so much as a hockey stick – he essentially spent 99% of the $3M he raised in the last six weeks of the primary campaign, and still has $2.9M on hand.

                Your assumption that Romanoff will hit $1.5M is safe, but that will make a difference only if he’s going to hoard every cent that he’s raised since the end of the quarter.

                The reason I’m skeptical is that if I understand correctly, he’s engineered his likely win at the state assembly without spending a dime…which then begs the question: what did he spend half a million on?

                Again, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying all along: fundraising isn’t the be-all/end-all of campaigns, but if you’re getting massively outspent (like Romanoff is), then you have to be very strategic about your resource expenditure (like Sestak was). So far, the jury’s out on whether that’s the case with Andrew – I’m certainly not going to rule out that he’s doing just that. I just don’t see any evidence of it based on spending patterns.

    2. Despite Conaway’s support by the establishment, Mongiardo is probably the candidate more laden with “anti-incumbent” sentiment; he’s been a perennial candidate and serves as Lt. Gov.; he’s got a very mixed record of supporting “the People” over special interests, and I (and the polls) think Conaway is the best hope for the Democrats to pick up this seat.

      (Ironically, I think Rand Paul is the best GOP fit to continue the tradition of the seat, being that its current occupant is the very contrary and sometimes crazy Jim Bunning.)

  3. Overshadowed by Specter’s defeat but no less important in the assessing the overall political dynamic heading into the November midterms was the surprisingly lopsided eight-point victory by Mark Critz (D), a former aide to late Rep. John Murtha  (D), over businessman Tim Burns (R) in the southwestern Pennsylvania 12th district.

    The Critz win marked the sixth straight victory for House Democrats in contested special elections — a streak that dates back to 2008. (In that time, Democrats have won Illinois’ 14th, Mississippi’s 1st, Louisiana’s 6th, New York’s 20th, New York’s 23rd and now Pennsylvania’s 12th).

    More importantly, it marked a clear rebuke of a Republican strategy aimed at nationalizing the race around President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). While Burns and national Republicans sought ton turn the race into a proxy war, Democrats kept their message tightly focused on jobs and made the race a referendum on which candidate was better able to deliver for the district.

    While Republicans can rightly note that the Democratic registration advantage in the seat made for tough sledding from the get-go, there’s no getting around the fact that the 12th district is just the sort of culturally conservative territory Republicans have to win if they want to make good on their promises of taking back the House this fall. (Always worth remembering: This is THE ONLY House district in the country that went for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 and then for Sen. John McCain in 2008).

    http://voices.washingtonpost.c…  

    1. The NRCC spent 1/10 of total cash on hand on just this race–$960,000 plus nearly another $600,000 from 527s’ and they lost.

      This district is never a given for Democrats which makes this win and the margin he won it even more interesting.  

  4. He’d be a billionaire

    “I do think we will reclaim the majority,” said Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. “But last night is evidence of the fact that we have a lot of work to do and we just can’t get ahead of ourselves.”

  5. is to read Redstate.com comments.

    Here’s a winner:

    In the big picture this really was an unusual election as all special elections are. Conservatives are winning the vast majority of races. Brown won after Hoffman’s disappointment, etc. But…

    I like how one out of nine is considered a “vast majority” to this delusional bunch.

    1. “Oh, and on Saturday, Charles Djou, a Republican, is going to win in a heavily Democrat district in Hawaii.”

      (No reason given, of course.)

      Dave, what say thou?

            1. This is a special election to replace an outgoing Democratic House member.  The party can’t restrict who signs up for the election, and there was a very strong split between the establishment/conservaDem interests (Case) and populist/local political groups (Hanabusa).  Since neither was willing to step aside for the other, this was the inevitable result.

              There will be a primary between Hanabusa and Case before November, and Djou should be ousted at that time, unless he becomes the sole sitting Congressional Republican to vote more with Democrats than do some Democrats…

              1. Joseph Cao is about to get crushed in Louisiana.

                But this Sunday will be a GREAT time to start making bets with Republicans on the site about who will control the House in January. You could probably get really favorable terms. They’ll have been so desperate for good news that anything will boost their confidence.

              2. He is pretty moderate – but by Hawaii standards (so still a strong liberal). Hanabusa is Inouye’s candidate and so she’s the establishment candidate. If Hanabusa was doing better than Case then Case would have had to drop out. But because Hanabusa is the establishment candidate, throwing it to Djou means Hanabusa can run again in the primary.

                Meanwhile Djou is quite moderate and a thoughtful guy. He’s probably still toast in November, but as the incumbent he might pull off a win. After all, the state elected Lingle.

                1. The establishment hates Case for what he did in 2006 and are backing Hanabusa big time. She’s a good candidate. I don’t want to take anything away from her. She’d be great. But there’s lots of infighting and juicy insider gossip going on in this race that most people are unaware of.  

                2. That seems pretty establishment to me.

                  I get the feeling that you like Case better, but that doesn’t mean you get to reassign the meanings of words. In this case the local party likes Hanabusa and the national party likes Case. The national party is more “establishment.”

            2. Ed Case was in the US House for a couple of terms (starting in 2002 in a special election) and left his House seat to run against Senator Akaka in 2006 for AKaka’s Senate seat. He lost to Akaka and fell out of favor with the party. Akaka is one of the few that voted against the Iraq Resolution; Case stated he would have voted for it.

              Case’s opponent Hanabusa has the backing of the state Party, both US Senators and quite a bit of the local populist ground support. Case wants to move up the political ladder and doesn’t care who he challenges to do it and has lost a lot of support from the party faithful because of it. He’s willing to split the party vote and watch the Dems lose this seat over it, at least temporarily, which is going to make him even less endearing to Hawaiian Democrats.  

              1. The party leaders don’t like him, but the voters sure do. Case is blowing away Hanabusa in the polls so it’s not Case splitting the party vote, it’s Hanabusa.

                He’s probably a bit more moderate than Hanabusa. But the Democratic machine in Hawaii is so corrupt that I’ll take someone a bit less moderate if they’re not another part of the machine.

                ps – I went to High School with Ed – he was a year ahead of me. (Don’t remember him though.)

                1. That’s why the DCCC endorsed him and spent money on him. That’s who the party leaders are.

                  Again and again you just make shit up. I wonder why you do this. Is it because you think being honest might somehow hurt your preferred candidate?

                  1. You know much more about Hawaii politics than me. And I was spewing total bullshit because a couple of comments on ColoradoPols will mean the difference between a win and loss for Ed Case.

                    I know you hate me because I supported SB-191 but really, this is ridiculous.

                    1. This isn’t about hating you. I don’t hate you. And the SB-191 fight is over.

                      I do find it really irritating when you change the commonly-accepted meanings of words to try to make a point. And you do this quite a lot.

                      And no, you are not the only one who gets to comment on Hawaii politics, any more than I’m the only one here who gets to comment on Pennsylvania politics. What a stupid rule that would be. Some things are just objectively true or false, no matter where their author grew up. You may be able to provide some insight about why people might prefer Case over Hanabusa, which is fine. But to say Hanabusa is an establishment candidate and Case is not is just outright lying.

                    3. Hey, check this out, it turns out Hawaii is actually part of a larger political structure called the United States of America. It even sends voting representatives to that country’s political bodies. I wonder if national political institutions have any influence in the state’s politics?  

                  2. The DCCC backed Case, the majority of state party backed Hanabusa as did both of Hawaii’s US Senators and the state’s unions. My friend is working on Hanabusa’s campaign and there are some really hard feelings towards Case among the rank and file due to his ongoing and constant quest for political office.

                    I know David knows loads about Hawaii. And I’m sure he’s aware that many, many people in Hawaii do not share his views on Case, which is why Case lost to Akawa for the Senate.

                    And one of the things I’m sure he is also aware of is that the DCCC has pulled all support out of the race and done what they should have in the first place–stayed out of this race.  

                    1. I think the DCCC went in for Case merely because his numbers were better. And when they realized that neither candidate was going to back out, they pulled back out.

                      I think Case lost to Akaka for two reasons, first Hawaii has high veneration for incumbents and elders. Second, because of his support for the Iraq war.

                      It really is a lot like Mike Coffman here.

                    2. They should know better and yet they consistently do stupid stuff like this and then wonder why everybody gets pissed off at them. 😉

                      Agreed on Case’s support for the Iraq War–that killed him.  

                    3. Case really is the more moderate of the two politicians, and is IIRC a self-funder to boot.  He’s also a former Congressman (in a different district, I might add…).  All of those seem to be fatal attractors to the DSCC and DCCC.

                      Of course, there are a lot of dynamics to the race beyond those; just one example – Hanabusa’s Japanese heritage is a plus to a certain segment of the electorate.

                      Perhaps I used the wrong term when I said ‘establishment’.  Let’s just leave it at “it’s a complicated situation” and wait for the primary to roll around.

  6. It appears the New York Times may have done some selective editing of its own when writing the hit piece on Blumenthal.  The Huffington Post and other sites now have up the full video of the speech in which the Times accuses Blumenthal of lying to an audience about his wartime military service.  In it, Blumenthal corrects himself, making it quite obvious that his misstatement was just that and nothing more.

    Shame on the NY Times, and shame on us for believing it and an edited YouTube clip on which the story was apparently based.

    2. It wasn’t only at that event that he “misspoke” and saying “during” instead of “in” one time is does not account for saying and allowing to stand so many misleading comments in different places, to different people at different times. Many Connecticut newspapers have, taking him at his word,described him, over time, as a Vietnam Vet and he has never corrected any of them. Never said, you know in that article you got it wrong.  I never served in Vietnam, just during the Vietnam era.  

      Nice try by Huffington Post and I’d love to be able to say Rs were unfairly making a mountain out of a molehill but I’m married to Vietnam combat vet. If you look at the whole picture, Blumenthal was clearly willing to allow the public to be mislead into taking him for a real live combat hero. That was an impression he liked to have out there.

      This is very, very bad for Dems.  Since he’s running against an actual Vietnam vet who will never let the public forget this for a second, my suggestion would be for the Dems to demand that he step down and find somebody else ASAP.  This isn’t just a matter of a seat. Every Dem pol making excuses for this guy will be tainted.  He’s radiocative and, outside of the friendly liberal confines, people will not be inclined to buy his lame explanations.  

      2. I think he should remove himself from consideration. There are so many examples of him leaving the impression that he served in active duty; they far outweigh one time where he corrected himself. If I lived in CT, I don’t think I could vote for this guy, in all good conscious.

        2. 2. If Blumenthal can produce extensive evidence that he’s been truthful, repeatedly, about his service record, it would be fair to ask whether the Times has taken one stumble or slip of the tongue and turned it into a page one story alleging, without really proving, a pattern of deception.

          If he can do that and do it very quickly and very decisively, I’ll reconsider.  If not, fair or not,  he needs to withdraw for the greater good because he’ll be toast and he’ll put every Dem who supports him in an  awkward, to say the least, position. I don’t think he can.  I’ve been wrong before.  

            1. Unless he has some completely unambiguous, glaring proof, in the face of what he admits are wrong choice of words on several occasions, failure to correct several newspaper articles. It would have to be video, or something in writing from the past with him stating clearly that he did not serve in Vietnam, correcting a reporter on that score, etc.  If he has any such video, audio, e-mail or written letter he might be able to reverse some of the damage by putting the evidence into an aggressive TV ad and carpeting the market with it.  If he doesn’t have anything that rock solid, he needs to fall on his sword right now, regardless of fairness.

               

              1. Actually, it’s Colin McEnroe, but it’s the same thing: the NYT basically got used and bused by Linda McMahon’s Senate campaign research department.

                Colin essentially destroyed the Times article – even Kevin Rennie, who’s a Republican insider, backed away from the allegations.

              2. He has two problems.  The first is trying to prove a negative.  No matter what video he comes up with, just because he didn’t say it there doesn’t mean he didn’t say it somewhere else.

                The second problem is a cliche I use all the time–when you’re explaining, you’re losing.  He can’t afford to spend money trying to refute the allegation, which will actually only give the story more legs.  That’s not getting out his message.

                He’s toast, whether the Times story is true or not.

            2. hardly a Dem hostile blog:

              Deep in the archives of Connecticut’s Stamford Advocate newspaper is a quote that lends more credence to the theory that U.S. Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal allowed the myth that he served in Vietnam to be spread unchecked.

              “I wore the uniform in Vietnam (my emphasis) and many came back . . . to all kinds of disrespect,” Blumenthal told the crowd at a 2008 Veteran’s Day parade, according to the Advocate. “Whatever we think of war, we owe the men and women of the armed forces our unconditional support.”

              This guy wanted people to think he served and suffered in Vietnam for political purposes.  The back-up is not flimsy.  As the spouse of a real Vietnam vet, I personally would not be able to vote for this guy.  Period. He can go to hell.

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

              1. The quote in the article comes from the same event that HuffPo posted the other day, where he made the above statement but also clearly stated he served “during the Vietnam era” without saying “served in Vietnam”.

                Apparently a lot of papers carried the quote but not the correct statement – mostly because they copied from earlier articles with the misstatement.

                Adding dozens of newspaper articles to the original video doesn’t make the allegation any worse.  The question is, did he try to push the false notion or did he misspeak?

                The extended video seems to indicate a misspoken sentence; one of the sources used by the NYT has refuted the quote of her.  All that’s left are a bunch of newspaper articles quoting the same misstatement from two years ago.

                  1. He’s had plenty of time since 2008 to say, hey, either I was misquoted or I mispoke.  I didn’t serve in Vietnam and apologize to all those who did if I ever gave that impression. He hasn’t, at least not until he was recently challenged.  

                    And if this kept being repeated in articles his staff would have to have known about it. They read articles about their bosses.  If they knew he never served in Vietnam they would have told him about it, as they would have known it could be a problem.  Maybe he let them think he was in Vietnam,too. I’m sorry. This stinks.  I would not vote for him.    

                    1. It’s not my choice of “most closely watched race”.  And his opponent is Linda McMahon – I’m not sure he’s “toast” yet.

                      I’m pretty much decided on watching that one from the sidelines and am content to let it sit for a few days to see where it goes.  CT voters are a bit closer to the issue, and I’m guessing this will either sink or swim based on their personal opinions of Blumenthal.

                    2. It doesn’t just go away.  His reaction so far has been defensive and self righteous. Trust me.  If he can’t put up video, audio or e or snail letters proving that he has long been perfectly honest about his service, he’s  in big trouble and so are all pols who back him up.

                    3. That’s always been the fun about negative campaigning – the opponent can come out and say “I didn’t”, and maybe produce some video (he has), but if the attack says “he’s done it elsewhere” and it has a hint of plausibility, then it’s hard to smack down.

                      That I haven’t seen any major news on it in the past day or so may mean it’s dying down because the waters are muddied by the rebuttals from other reporters and support by the Marine Corps and one of the NYT’s “sources”.  Or it could just be taking a breather.  From the sounds of things the McMahon campaign was the originator of the attack – they could try to keep it alive in campaign events.

                      If Blumenthal didn’t have the reputation he does in CT and wasn’t up 30-40 points in the polls before the story, I’d say he was done – stick a fork in him.  As it is, a forceful rebuttal may not be necessary – just enough muddying of the waters to detract from the story’s impact and “truthiness”.

                    4. They could be keeping their powder dry for the general.  A massive ad campaign featuring the serving in Vietnam stuff could still be very damaging and why drive a weakened candidate out now and give the Dems a chance to run someone else?  But he may be popular enough in his state to overcome it. I wouldn’t know.  It’s just very hard for me to accept that he’s innocent of leaving wrong impressions over time on purpose so I wonder how others will react when people start really paying attention in the fall. I certainly could be over-reacting because of my Vietnam vet spouse and WWII vet late dad and uncles.  

                    5. My dad never saw combat.  He was sent to the Aleutians after they were taken back as part of the occupation force. Never fired a shot at an enemy or had one fired at him.  He would never, ever would have dreamed of allowing people to think he had been a combat vet. He was always crystal clear and self-deprecating about that. Generally, the more bragging, the less substance.  

      4. and boy, is it a doozy. Essentially, it makes Ray Hernandez (who reported the original story) look like a drooling idiot:

        The flaws in the NYT Blumenthal story

        His conclusion:

        I realize that some readers will simply conclude that these journalists are either covering their asses for failing to report the story or are locked in a symbiotic relationship with Blumenthal or both. All I can say is that I know most them pretty well, and they’re straight-up professionals, much more committed to solid reporting than to the cause of any candidate. Some of them included in their remarks a desire to evaluate further the relationship between press institutions and Blumenthal to see if some critical faculty was missing from the coverage.

        But whatever mistakes any of us may have made, those are trumped by the overreaching by Raymond Hernandez and the New York Times in claiming that Blumenthal’s fictional service in Vietnam had become a widely embraced trope. It’s just not true here in Connecticut. Meanwhile, several aspects of that first story have crumpled a bit.

  7. I love all my friends who are supporting Andrew Romanoff but unlike Halter he does not have PCCC, DFA, Blogoshere,all the Unions, the Enviro groups and progressive groups running ads, knocking doors and flooding the state. They will not be coming for Andrew… so he is left with wonderful volunteers and no money to win with… Sorry folks. – Andy Szekeres

  8. Bennet is now up by 16 points in two polls Rasmussen and PPP and is obviously a shoo in.

    Specter had a 20 point win and saw that evaporate.  There are only 2.5 million differences between Sestak and Romanofff.  Sestak had millions to spend while Romanoff can barely make his payroll.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

57 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols