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%
June 15, 2010 02:52 AM UTC
30 Comments
I’ve said before that I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament when it comes to campaign finance reform, but unilateral disarmament in verbal belligerence carries no risks whatsoever.
because I’ve been called more names by you and received more insults than probably everyone else put together. Personally, I don’t mind the back and forth, but I just think this comment was pretty hypocritical.
It is a statement of fact, nothing more, nothing less. It was not directed at you, not about you, did not mention you, and, in fact, was completely focused on the topic of the diary, unlike your response, which was on the topic of me, a topic that no one else had raised.
Except for this post, I have stopped responding to you altogether. You, however, seem to need to mention me and respond to my posts to other people on other topics on a regular basis. I get your obsession; I’ve dealt with several others like you before (a fragile and self-deluded ego gets a mirror shoved in its face, and then needs to find a way to smash the mirror that, in reality, it can never break), but, my suggestion is that you stop cyberstalking me on this blog. Your call.
proving my point.
just an obnoxious need to be noisy about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
New to the blog, new to Colorado. Still, I couldn’t agree with you more. Too often politics gets emotional. Voters should have access to more healthy discorse on issues and ideas. A more diverse news media (like Pols) helps tremendously!
Politics is all about emotions. Money doesn’t matter, it’s all about message.
While I applaud Romanoff’s stance, it’s not like he’s the first to do it. Obama swore off all PAC money when he ran for president. By the time the general rolled around, he was doing pretty well for himself.
Not to sound like one of these people who thinks it makes them sound delightfully cynical to sniff at Obama’s every action…but as I’ve said elsewhere, he is (IMHO) a remarkable mix of idealist and pragmatist. The idealist part pushes him, but the pragmatic part leads. Therefore, I think he ordered up a boatload of potential financial strategies way way early, and was ready to take his bold stand…once he was 98% sure it could not hurt his chances.
Obama won because he had the most fabulously organized campaign machine ever, perfectly tuned to the Age of the Internet Grassroots. The presidential race was THE race, and if an Obama win was not the number one objective of every single person in the Dem party, it certainly was for the vast majority. He had support to burn, and then some.
Our 2010 Senate race is a different kettle of fish. There are dozens of other federal level races that the DNC, the DCCC and all the rest of the groups need to take care of. They don’t split up their help even-steven among all the races with a Dem in need, they pick their shots. AR may be counting too much on help from them. These groups will almost certainly do just as they have done in the past, assess which races are the most winnable, and cut the others loose. (Just ask Angie Paccione.)
Much as I admire and approve of Romanoff’s record, I fear that if he wins the primary, it’s going to be hello, Senator Buck.
Adding Senate seats to their roster is worth infinity $ +1 to the Republicans. They WILL pour out the dough from deep pockets all over the country, because they are playing defense–and also they are majorly ticked off to be out of power.
AR is already generally perceived to be weak in fundraising and campaign tactics. Should he win the primary he’s going to get a pat on the back from the big party funders, but zip in the bank. The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong…but as the fellow says, that’s how the smart money bets. And the big Dem players are smart money. That’s how they got to be big.
because there is one component that always seems left out. Romanoff has raised as much as the Republicans. A little less than Norton, but more than Buck. Essentially the 3 of them are similar in their fundraising ability. True the republicans nationally will want to step in, but they have to spread resources as much as the dems do — and Steele isn’t exactly keeping a low burn rate.
In other words, if Romanoff gets to the general, he will have the money he needs to win. The polling has also shown that Romanoff is the stronger election candidate.
To be clear NeonNurse — I respect your arguments. You actually make legitimate statements about the race, unlike many on here.
I enjoy our conversations.
He’s got nothing to do with RSCC spending.
which I’m not totally sure on (though you might be right), how about the rest of it? Romanoff has raised as much as the republicans. The Republicans have just as many seats to target as the Dems.
So if you saw solid* polling that indicated Bennet was more likely to keep the seat D, could you be persuaded to vote for him in the primary?
RNC and the RSCC and the D counterparts.
Romanoff already said he won’t accept the support of the “incumbent protection racket” nor other PACs and special interest groups. I don’t recall either Buck or Norton saying anything remotely similar.
I forget- have you ever acknowledged that you will suport the D nominee whomever it is?
*solid: large, well selected sample; clear and revealing questions, neutral and mathematically sound analysis
I know it’s popular over at the Bennet camp to make up quotes from Romanoff, but this has been said and refuted. You got a link with a quote from Romanoff saying he wouldn’t take the support of the DSCC, you bring it. In addition, most of their spending is independent — they run their own ads. I’ll save you the time though — you won’t find any such quote.
Doesn’t sound made up to me:
It seems like if Romanoff disagreed with the reporting, he would have gone out of his way to deny it being true–like he did last weekend with Dana Milbank’s article.
his quote is that he will have a lot of new friends. He said he’s not changing his message, but that he will have new allies.
As the piece goes on to say, the DSCC did a number of expenditures for other candidates…as they will again. It’s how they do things.
I see where you’re taking the insinuation from (the first part of the cited section), but I asked MADCO for where Romanoff said he would ask the DSCC not to run ads (or anything remotely similar). He hasn’t responded and you didn’t do that…because it doesn’t exist.
That if those new friends had problems with his positions, he would say thanks but no thanks.
I posted
Romanoff quoted:
The money shot:
“I don’t welcome the outside interference,” Romanoff said. “My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals,” …
Sure the DSCC is independent and they can do whatever, wherever they want. But show me where Buck or Norton said anything remotely similar to rejecting the NRSC, or PAC donors.
Which is what I wrote.
Yes, AR has raised comparable to the R’s so far. But he has said he will reject PAC and corp donors, they haven’t.
In short, dream on, dickhead.
and yes — he’s done it without PAC contributions. In other words, the only point you just made is that apparently Romanoff is a better fundraiser than the republicans. Thanks for helping the cause.
And both come before September/October when the BIG money will be required. The R nominee will have access to it.
Romanoff has not raised “as much as them” – he’s raised $1,015,691 as of the last quarter, considerably less than Norton, who reported $1,876,690. Buck’s raised less, $756,10, but he’s had a million bucks in independent expenditures on his behalf, bringing the total thrown his way into Norton territory.
Oh, and by the way, Buck hasn’t received any PAC contributions either — does that make him a better fundraiser than Romanoff?
It’s been a while, but it seems to me that at a weekend seminar about learning political activist skills (sponsored by someone in tandem with the early DFA?) I believe they pointed out that Time was an actual factor that had to be weighed in along with money in preparing for an election. So I think we have to figure in where everyone currently is in THEIR race to get a clear picture of how they are doing in fundraising.
It may look like a good omen that AR is even in funds with Buck and Jane, but there are other factors to consider. Jane was supposed to be the R’s darling, so she really should have a lot more cash in hand. That means her fundraising is going badly. Buck has come from out of nowhere to challenge her…that makes his funds relatively high, and indicative of an excellent chance of future solid support.
I can easily imagine the big money boys on the GOP side waiting to see how things pan out before they commit actual cash. Once there is a winner, they’ll make it rain.
On our side, AR is, basically, Buck. He is the challenger, the dark horse, the surprise entry. Jane and Buck’s funds are equal, and Romanoff’s SHOULD be equal to Bennet’s. Heck, if his base is actually as large and enthusiastic as the 60/40 numbers from the convention ought to indicate, he SHOULD have half again as much as Bennet has. But…he doesn’t.
Maybe if AR wins the primary he will work something out with the national Dem groups and all, and get more funding. I’m pessimistic about that happening, because I think that there is in general a tendency for those in the political game (whether on the team or in the bleachers) to smile broadly for the camera while hiding old burning grudges inside. Maybe the Party’s money fountains WON’T leave Romanoff to twist in the wind….
The GOP might wish they had better candidates than Buck or Jane, but they will probably see either as being a solid provider of one more vote closer to killing a Dem supermajority in the Senate, and that’s all they will care about. I expect this CO Senate race to be one of the most expensive (in terms of $$ spent per vote eventually cast) ever. I just can’t see that Romanoff can win in that scenario. I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong, of course.
As has been pointed out before.
Obama was very close to HRC after the first quarter of fundraising. He was blowing the doors off their own projections.
Not so much from the Speaker.
Pay our state reps and senators a decent wage and you might see a lot more candidates for office.
We offer half the state’s median income for a full time+ job. I applaud those that have been able to make the committment and still keep a family going.
One can make twice as much as Denver City councilor, probably why you see real races for these positions.
When a state rep has to bow out to run for county commisioner to support his family things are pretty sad.
I hadn’t thought of that, but you are probably right. Reps from out here on the plains and in the other far-flung parts of the state have a lot of travel expense that isn’t fully covered either, or so I have heard. There are probably many people who would be excellent in various offices who can’t take the cut in salary to run for them, much less finance a campaign.
Being in public office is now a full time job work load wise that doesn’t pay enough. Only people that have money to sit on can afford to take the time to serve. I agree pay them for the hard work they do.
We shouldn’t pay so much that people will run for the paycheck, but we should raise it to a respectable sum. In fact tying it to something like medium income would be an interesting idea.