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 30, 2010 06:37 AM UTC
55 Comments
Neither can distance themselves from their respective parties, regardless of how much they slam one or another.
November will be here soon enough.
My prediction is a Norton Bennet party run after August
At least Romanoff has the guts to say this himself, and isn’t having anyone else point out these inaccuracies for him.
n/t
..Romanoff’s responses won’t be very effective unless he’s on TV too. If he does ever raise enough cash to run TV ads, I wonder if he will follow Bennet’s lead and run positive ads about himself, or if instead Romanoff will immediately go negative and attack Bennet in the primary (ala Mark Holtzman v. Beauprez). If memory serves, Holtzman did a great job of tarring Beauprez with insults that the Dems readily picked up in the general election. That would be a ton’o fun.
I mean unless money rained from the sky over Denver Bennet is going to keep outspending by a lot — that’s for sure.
If he does his ad(s) right though, he won’t need to. Sometimes less can be more and one or two powerful well-timed ads can quickly even the score.
youtube “fast paul”
It runs a shot of Bennet, then words slamming him. Net result: a plus for Bennet.
I remember early in the Reagan administration some TV network did a supposed hatchet job on Reagan. They ran shots of him glad-handing senior citizens , then dull texts pointing out that, in actuality, the rate of increase in benefits for seniors slowed under Reagan, which the critics called “cuts.”
When the lady correspondent checked backed with the White House, she expected it to be furious. She was stunned that the flacks were delighted by the piece.
She pointed out the negative stuff in the text and they just laughed. The pictures counted for everything and only made the pres look good.
The flacks were right. This type of “Yeah, but” ad may help AR insiders feel good but I can’t see it hurting Bennet.
I agree with you. As a Romanoff supporter, I am not a fan of this ad, however accurate it may be, it is not effective advertising.
It’s not accurate. It’s a complete and utter distortion of the vote on the Sanders Amendment.
http://www.senate.gov/legislat…
spin much?
No spin here, Wade, only continued distortion from the Romanoff campaign.
The most recent Romanoff Distortion – should be a copyrighted term at this point – isn’t that Bennet voted against the amendment, Wade. He did vote against the amendment.
The distortion is that Romanoff’s video response says Michael Bennet is on the side of BP and he “voted to keep $35 billion in tax breaks for big oil.” That’s a reference to the Sanders Amendment and it is complete distortion and pure politics by Romanoff, yet again.
First, Michael Bennet isn’t on the side of BP. You are just MSU like both you and your candidate have routinely done in this campaign. Remember the supposed Romanoff gotcha on the Westwood contribution? It sounded sort of good when you first heard it, if you had no idea what it referred to. Then, it collapsed. Check out that Colorado Statesman article entitled “Romanoff fires ‘Westwood bullet’ at Bennet, but record suggests it’s a dud.” http://www.coloradostatesman.c…
Second, the Sanders Amendment would have gutted independent natural gas companies in Colorado, the very companies that both provide a great many jobs in our state and also are key to the new energy jobs, something Senator Bennet has been saying for a long time, including all the time that your candidate was applying for other jobs and sulking that he hadn’t gotten the one he now wishes he had. That’s because natural gas jobs are important as we move from oil and coal energy sources to clean energy. Better alternatives like natural gas (if done in a responsible way) bridge the gap, and Colorado’s small, independent producers are key, especially now and especially here in the state Romanoff wants to represent, snarkily.
Third, the Sanders Amendment (like a fair bit of what Senator Sanders does) was wide of the mark (here, the Big Oil target) in several key respects. That’s one reason it failed, with good reason. Who did the provisions hit, Wade? The small independent natural gas companies in Colorado, for one thing.
It’s easy to sit around and distort when, much to your chagrin, you have no job other than distorting for political reasons. I can only guess what distortion the former Speaker will come up with next. He breaks his own record with every wild swing.
Can you explain how this would have happened? I am genuinely curious. This word, “gutted”, seems pretty extreme.
if you think the American public will side with that vote go for it.
The fact is that 22 democratic Senators caved, including Bennet – despite this fact
http://www.americanprogress.or…
And of course, the oil and gas companies are going to loudly proclaim it is going to cost jobs and the Democrats who caved are going to use that as an excuse – but it does not excuse it.
Giving the most profitable companies in the WORLD multi billion dollar tax breaks during the worst economic cycle since the Great Depression and at the same time as the worst Oil disaster in US history is ludicrous.
And, it is even more ludicrous is that Bennet sent out an email for fundraising the day after the vote, proclaiming the need to close loopholes.
hypocrite.
“Michael Bennet wants to protect Natural Gas companies in Colorado”
Thanks for that Senator Bennet
or a hypocrite with his vote, as you seem to suggest, wouldn’t he have sent out the fund-raising letter before voting? It seems to me the timing of the vote and letter speaks to his belief in that vote.
That’s just my take on it.
I took some time off myself, but I occasionally rise to the abundant bait and have missed you.
Peace.
This round of smear with innuendo goes 10-9 Bennet.
It runs a shot of Bennet, then words slamming him. Net result: a plus for Bennet.
I remember early in the Reagan administration some TV network did a supposed hatchet job on Reagan. They ran shots of him glad-handing senior citizens , then dull texts pointing out that, in actuality, the rate of increase in benefits for seniors slowed under Reagan, which the critics called “cuts.”
When the lady correspondent checked backed with the White House, she expected it to be furious. She was stunned that the flacks were delighted by the piece.
She pointed out the negative stuff in the text and they just laughed. The pictures counted for everything and only made the pres look good.
The flacks were right. This type of “Yeah, but” ad may help AR insiders feel good but I can’t see it hurting Bennet.
I would bet this is partially to make Romanoff people angry about Bennet, but isn’t that the point before the end of a quarter? Think of it this way: the Romanoff campaign sees Bennet’s new ad, sees things they can attack in it, cuts a response within the day, and starts spreading it around. This gets Romanoff supporters mad and they want Romanoff on TV now, so they are more inclined to give.
Additionally, it’s a way to dispute points for the media — they can throw together these quick little responses (I mean all it takes is cutting apart a youtube and throwing in some research they obviously already have on hand), and get it out to see what happens.
This isn’t really about a general audience, and this isn’t a TV ad (I would assume). I would expect Romanoff to come out with his own in the next few weeks, and use videos like this one to respond to Bennet misrepresenting his votes.
It’s a quick, smart way to get a response out there. I think the Romanoff campaign has really stepped up their game since the early days; I for one think these moves are solid.
Just checked the YouTube site and only 75 people have viewed the ad according to the counter. I imagine that includes Romanoff staff, Bennet staff, and the ten or so people on this thread.
Point being. This doesn’t do anything. This doesn’t fire up any base and it certainly isn’t effective.
Romanoff’s run for the Senate was over a long time ago and the attacks that I see coming from him don’t help the party, him, or the issues that he, Bennet, and most Dems champion.
of the Democratic Party. He steers clear of any TV media except for uber friendly Ed Schultz where he knows he won’t be challenged. It’s actually genius of him. He gets lots of face time and good press with liberal/progressive viewers watching MSNBC without actually having to answer tough questions. He can sling attacks at Bennet without fear of any reprisals from Ed.
Romanoff SHOULD be doing better in the polls. He has all the time in the world to campaign around the state. He has no other job to take up his time right? So while Bennet is stuck in Washington, only able to campaign on weekends, Romanoff has free rein.
Why is he down in the polls? Not a rhetorical question. I’m really curious.
That doesn’t seem very friendly (I mean, assuming he’s not literally Sarah Palin).
By the way, did anyone see the latest Kathy Griffin show? She went to Alaska to stalk Palin and hang out with her BF Levi. Pure genius.
that I saw. When the Sestak story was breaking he suddenly was on Fox News fielding questions. It may make me shallow but when I saw a candidate claiming to be a “progressive” show up on Fox, it turned me off. It reeked of opportunism.
I totally saw that Kathy episode! I also saw her on the View a couple weeks ago promoting this episode and I swear I thought Hasselback was gonna have apoplexy from trying to hold her tongue. Elizabeth actually turned away and ignored Kathy for nearly the ENTIRE interview. Towards the end she acts like a bitch. I HIGHLY recommend checking that piece of professionalism out.
His name ID isn’t that good, and he hasn’t been in the news much in the last year and a half, except the occasional “political” story, which doesn’t attract that much readership.
He hasn’t been on the air with ads since spring like his opponents have.
Refusing “special interest” money isn’t as big an issue with many voters as some would have you believe.
His campaign didn’t really get into gear until a few months ago, leaving Bennet a full year to get ahead.
When it comes down to it, for a lot of Democrats, criticizing Bennet on the margins on health care, financial reform and a few other issues doesn’t offer a meaningful difference compared to actually voting for those things in the Senate.
Or maybe all of Bennet’s supporters have land lines and all of Romanoff’s supporters just have cell phones?
thanks – I’m always looking for new material!
In all seriousness though, you are right that Bennet’s name ID surely went up when he was on TV alone.
With the Romanoff campaign saying they are going up very soon (it’s all over their emails and website as a fundraising push), I think that voters will get a clearer idea of the two candidates soon.
(aka Trippi)
I wasn’t living in Colorado when he was Speaker so didn’t know him. But the way his supporters talk, I would’ve sworn Andrew (as former CO Speaker) would’ve had the name i.d.
It seems like Romanoff’s campaign maybe made a decision to go negative. So far it hasn’t paid off but there’s still time to change directions. Bennet should be congratulated for not going down that road. He has stuck to talking about his own voting record and his own policy positions. I wonder if people’s lack of knowledge about Romanoff’s policy positions combined with the negativity coming from his campaign has hurt?
It will be interesting to see what they do if/when they start rolling out tv ads.
Last week you were blasting Romanoff on twitter for going on Fox News. Now you say that he only goes on MSNBC. See the problem?
Check back in with Trevor over at the Bennet camp about how to stay on message; I’m sure he can remind you that Romanoff is a career politician or something.
Unless you’re not the EmeraldKnight76 on twitter of course 🙂
show cause he won’t get challenged. He goes on there and takes nice easy softball questions. Never once has been asked questions about what kind of legislation HE would propose as Senator. It’s all attacks aimed at his “opponent”. He doesn’t seem to like to even use Bennet’s name. He’s been on countless times.
The Fox thing was a weird, opportunistic anomaly. He’s been on twice that I was able to find.
or did you just forget your previous claims?
You’re calling me a liar because I didn’t point out to everyone that your employer went on Fox News as soon as he could? Or is it that I brought up how he only goes on Ed Schultz to take softball questions?
to anyone on this site who took my initial omission of Romanoff being on Fox News (twice) as a lie, I most humbly apologize. It is never my intention to intentionally deceive.
Happy Stryker? Can we get back to talking about how shady your boss is for going on Fox to begin with?
holy shit. What for? Oh wait…I get your insinuation. I’ve addressed that elsewhere…
You get so angry when people point out that you contradict yourself…
You’re right. I mistakenly contradicted myself and apologized then brought the focus back to Romanoff which is what this diary is about.
So did you wanna address Romanoff’s “progressive” appearance on Fox News or keep trying to shift focus away?
None that I know.
anyone who questions your candidate must work for this “Trevor” and Bennet’s campaign. ROFL Should we assume that your immediate and over-the-top defense of Romanoff means you work for his campaign?
Serious question though…
Who is Trevor, and why do the Romanoff sock puppets keep talking about him? Did he steal their birthday presents or something?
he sent out to try and smear Romanoff…I mean work for the Bennet campaign
what did he do for Rahm?
Are there other folks sent here from the White House to work for Bennet?
Yes.
know more about this Trevor than everyone else? Was there an article about him written somewhere or a press release?
lol