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%
July 07, 2010 06:44 PM UTC
97 Comments
Loading ...
I think the anti-Washington stuff is a good message, but I’m not sure that this will stand out, or really be able to layer enough (or run enough times) to really stick on him. Bennet has run many many more ads that do the same sort of environment-setting that this is trying to do in a much shorter time with less money.
This stood out to me too…
It does not redefine the candidate. It does not distinguish him from his opponents in an electorally meaningful way. Perhaps it’s not intended to.
Is it really on tv?
I mean how many points are we talking about?
If more people see it on you tube than tv- it fails.
If it gets buy of 1000+, then it helps.
Cable, anyway.
I saw it on “The Ed Show” this afternoon.
I can’t say the ad blows me away but I think it’s just as effective as what Bennet has been running. Both of them are targeting voters who haven’t been paying much attention and tend to get their info from the t.v. Bennet is saying he’s a reformer and outsider who is fighting Washington. He’s actually from Washington and isn’t fighting it any more than anybody else there. Romanoff is running as an outsider and wants to tell voters they need an outsider. Both candidates ads get their message across and will probably be taken at face value by those voters who aren’t really tuned into the race.
Oh yea and I’m absolutely shocked that Madco and catfuzzle don’t like the opponent’s ad. next Ray will say Romanoff is mean, peacemonger will say he’s nice but shouldn’t run and Nancy Cronk will blog about how nice Susan Daggett is. In other news, the sun rose in the East.
What I really don’t understand is WTF the point is of Bennet’s new ad. “Hi I have a learning disability so vote for me”? or “Sorry it was the dislexia that made me raid your pension and close your school”? Yea I know it’s supposed to be the sympathy and triumph over adversity but if you’re gonna knock the production value of Romanoff’s you have to hit Bennet for recycling the same stock photos onto the 3rd or 4th ad
I never said I didn’t like AR’s ad.
This is the first ad from Bennet that is actually good.
And I am SHOCKED Nancy Cronk said someone is nice! How awful! Doesn’t she know that being engaged in CO politics means we can only say nasty things about other people? The NOIVE.
Well, we should all just shoot off a memo right now. Will you send it to her Jeffco, since you are facebook friends and all?
is that it should be in third person, not second. Other than that, I think it is effective.
I like Romanoff’s too.
Guess I’m easy.
Both of the ads on here are not great. Look folks people do not know who the hell Andrew is outside of folks who are hyper dorks like us. I did an informal poll of my friends and half who vote in primary elections did not know who Andrew was. He needed to highlight his career, 5 bucks says this is light on broadcast and heavy on cable.
This isn’t a bad TV ad, but Romanoff’s biggest problem is that more than 40% of the voters don’t know who he is.
This is the problem when you don’t have enough money to do a lot of TV — you have to make choices about which ads you can run, because you can’t create a full-fledged ad strategy. Ideally, Romanoff should have started with some profile-type ads that introduce him to voters, but he doesn’t have the money for that.
I agree that he should have highlighted his history because a lot of the primary voters won’t know who he is.
I don’t think this ad is horrible, but it could have been a lot sexier, that’s for sure.
how he wasn’t a progressive. Or remember some of his “lesser evil” votes. Like the immigration debacle. Also doesn’t help his “outsider” image.
Can’t you see the plan would be to remind everyone about those things in the general. Not now. shhhh
This morning, your newest editor promoted this diary to the front page, top story.
I come back in the afternoon, and you, the editors have bumped the story, not once, but three times – and one of those ‘more important stories’ that you bumped this for, was the campaign theme song of some dude who is a
“candidate for County Executive in Maryland”
Geez, you’d think the democratic primary might be important to readers here.
By the way, where is you poll showing that 40% of the voters don’t know who Andrew Romanoff is?
And what did that poll say about Michael Bennet?
or did you just pull that out of thin air?
Do you ever post anything that is worth reading?
Just askin’.
not you
and no one has responded.
…it looks like Andrew did it on his Mac in iMovie. The concept isn’t bad, but bad animation and cheap graphics drag it down.
I also don’t like the gratuitous type animation in the Bennet ads – just because you have that plugin on your editing system doesn’t mean you should use it.
Does this mean we’re following the trend of the super-cheezy Udall attack ads? We’ll make a bunch of bad ads and play them a lot? Considering how we’ve had some really high production spots like the Hickenlooper ads or the anti-Musgrave spots, I hope that the campaigns can pick it up later in the year….
It might have at least been done in Final Cut Express . . . 😉
At least he’s on TV now, but far too little too late.
As far as fundraising, I’ll guess AR will post $325K.
Romanoff 1.0 was the version that took PAC money in the state legislature, and even had his own PAC until just this January.
But, Romanoff 2.0 now doesn’t like PAC’s and says it makes you corrupt.
Hmmm, I wonder what Romanoff 3.0 would do. In fact, that’d make a great bumper sticker:
WWR3.0D?
(A h/t to Wade Norris for educating us about the various Romanoff iterations. Thanks, Wade!)
ROTFLMAO.
About half way through the ad, he looks down, like he was checking to make sure the red “recording” light was on… From that point on I couldn’t help but wonder if he recorded it himself.
True, no one would ever mistake me for a fan of AR, but it looked like a DIY You Tube video. Bad eye contact with the camera… that time when he looked down… and I just didn’t get the feeling he really cared about what he was saying. If he actually paid someone other than a relative to make that ad, he should really get his money back.
Not a bad message though, and it came off much better the second time I saw it. Much better than Bennett’s message of “He’s such a great guy! He flunked 2nd Grade! So he’s really a loser just like you!”
I went to one of his events a few months ago, and to me, it seems like this campaign has taken its toll on Andrew!
Maybe its from the stress of every poll showing him down by 20 points, or lackluster fundraising. Or maybe its a sign a of maturity. I’m not sure.
Whatever the case, Andrew’s seemingly rapidly greying hair is remarkable to me!
He actually started graying before me (we’re the same age), but it was a much slower progression for him. My beard went gray almost overnight and snow on top is now catching up.
I tell people its because I have kids, Andrew has a dog.
I was expecting a standard poltical ad heavy on graphics and animation. What I got was an ad that would warm me up to this guy.
It is not a great attention grabber, so it will have to run a lot for it to sink in. ON Romanof’s budget that means running it a LOT during local news (one of the cheapest air times). But once you notice it, it does kind of pull you in. But, I am kind of partial to ads where the candidate talks directly to the people.
As for the issue of Romanoff taking PAC money before but not now, if Bennet does not make an issue out of it in his ads and mailers, the undecded voter won’t even know about the issue.
Those people who are more or less political aware have likely already made up thier mind who they are voting for so any ad is useless on them one way or the other. Ads reach out to the undecideds who won’t even think seriously about the primary until they receive their ballot in the mail.
Not great, nothing new. But he needs to be on TV, so good for him. It’s definitely not a detriment to his efforts, overall. It’s not enough however to move him too much, if at all. Bennet’s been out there a lot more. Andrew still has catching up to do, the imagineering of some of his more ardent supporters notwithstanding.
I still want to hear from AR’s camp why taking PAC money when he had a powerful post is OK and taking it when he will only be a Jr. Sen among 99 others is suddenly terribly corrupt.
I get that many voters don’t follow things as closely as we are likely to, so maybe it’s all about that populist message but it still strikes me as a bit disingenuous.
is why Romanoff spends so much time talking about the evils of money when he could be talking about his legislative accomplishments such as Ref C and his experience setting a legislative agenda.
He should tout his expertise in crafting legislation that advances progressive causes while being pragmatic and fiscally responsible. That is what Democratic voters want to hear.
As it is, his throw the bums out because they take legally approved money is the sort of thing you could hear at a Tea Party rally. He is messaging the wrong crowd and weakening intra-party trust.
I wish he would get a clue from Jared Polis and talk about Democratic solutions to contemporary problems and advance the understanding of Democratic values.
I think Dems should not mistake Tea party populism with the form they should be selling. He would do better to propose solutions–if he wants to distinguish himself from Bennet, which he should–then he should talk about how his solutions would be better, that (Primary) voters deserve a choice in an election between two sets of solutions/approach to problem-solving.
I just attended a fundraiser for AR in GJ and he talked about:
this kind of stuff.
Andrew likes to talk issues with voters and does so often. The Pac money thing gets attention (good or bad), but AR is anything but shallow when it comes to Dem politics.
I’m not trying to start a debate here…just saying that when I have heard him speak to constituents, the Corporate Money thing doesn’t dominate the conversation.
He concentrated nearly the entire time talking about “his opponent” and how “special interest money” was corrupting him. It went on in this vein for 30-45 mins. When it was over, I knew all about how Andrew felt about Bennet but nothing about where Andrew was on the issue and absolutely nothing about what he would do for Colorado.
That was quite awhile ago and Romanoff may have changed tactics since then. It’s too bad that on his first TV spot he still didn’t take the opportunity to tell us what he would do for Colorado.
and if I get the opportunity, I will make your point to him personally.
While many of us know Andrew and are very well aware of what he can do for Colorado as a Senator, I see that he needs to swing his focus in that direction for the benefit of voters who don’t know him.
Just saw a tweet go out from Ed Schultz that Andrew would be making his umpteenth appearance on his show. Maybe someone “in the know” can let me in on a secret…What is the point of focusing all your media presence on one host? I would think after all these many visits to either his radio show or tv show, he’s either won or lost the Schultz crowd by now.
Why not go on Countdown or Maddow or Hardball?
Has been since day one. And this ad does nothing but appeal to the people who are already supporting him. He needs to reach those who don’t even know his name–including U’s, since presumably he wants to beat the Republican in Nov.
Easy to not take what is not offered.
they tend to write large checks. Romanoff made a sacrifice to take a principled stance.
Why did his principles suddenly change? No one has convincingly explained that one to me yet.
This whole AR2.0 WWAR3.0D? – got me thinking of Windows 7 – like Vista only doesn’t suck as much.
It’s easy to refuse that which you are not offered.
So I voted yes because any TV ad helps for name rec and, unless you’re standing by the wrong side of a horse, should do some good but that’s about it. Don’t expect it to be much of a game changer. The absolute unadorned simplicity does seem to signal continuing low funds rather than an artistic choice.
Because in some cases, exposure is something you die of. This ad might prove to be one of those cases.
I’ll maintain that his best hope of being elected on a platform of necessary change died when Health Care Reform passed. If it had failed than the Obama Administration would have been branded as failures and change would be demanded. Passing health care reform and moving forward with a progressive agenda moves Bennet back to being the team player who is helping reshape our national politics. All Romanoff can do now is decry the corruption of money and offer some proposal which I am not aware of for substantial campaign finance reform that all Republican senators will filibuster. Not much meat on that bone.
Road kill might be too tough a term but this is a continuity election for Democrats and a throw the bums out message is not what primary voters want to hear. That’s the message coming out of the other party.
though I don’t expect it to do nearly enough to allow AR catch Bennet. But on second viewing, he looks so sad and somber, you might be right. People like sunny and they like tough in their politicians. Sometimes, when they’re angry, they like an angry attack followed by can do cheerleading. Don’t know about how they like a pol who just looks so bummed.
Both of them present very well in public. Neither presents particularly well on TV.
Bennet has put out enough ads now that his are getting better. Romanoff isn’t going to have the money to learn by doing.
This ad is far better than anything Michael Bennet has done so far.
It hits the bailout crisis on the nail real hard and I think most Dems are against that policy
If he has enough money to get this up in a lot of places then he can take the primary
for Romanoff to bridge the gap is in some serious denial. Regardless of how “super duper star spangled” fantastic you think it is, it just isn’t enough. Now, if he can afford to run it enough and on the right channel at the right times, and if Clinton campaigns for him, and if Colorado Dems care about Clinton enough to care, and if Obama doesn’t campaign for Bennet, then Romanoff can win.
One good message, repeated frequently, could win that primary
AR’s message is excellent, he looks confident, and he sounds sincere – just play this ad, over and over, again
he runs a new ad every few days, it only airs for a few spots, and none of it has a message.
A new ad every few days?
Do you have a source for that, other than your own ass?
there were those initial 3, starting with him looking groggy (titled “wake up” I believe) going on to the terrible “this washington” ad and ending with the one with his kids.
Then he moved on to 2 or 3 others that cycled very briefly (they are all on youtube if you really care to look them up) before he went off TV for awhile, and now he has his new “I failed the 2nd grade — vote for me” ad.
that first one you hate so much was the number 1 rated ad they saw.
Still not source for your made up claim that Bennet has a new ad “every few days.” Nice.
yeah…that’s a pretty crazy turnover rate of shit ads, given he went off TV for awhile in the middle and relied on a 527 to do his work for him.
I loved the one with his girls from the first time I saw it.
…is his inability to come up with a message and stick with it
The small business ad was a strong one – why ditch it for the ‘college honors’???
was “Wake Up”. It’s on the Bennet website.
they would be Republicans but thanks anyway for the concern trolling.
Wouldn’t work for me, though, since I no longer trust Andrew. Anyone who stoops to trashing a good man like Bennet the way he does cannot earn my trust. Trippi and the other attack dogs poisoned my taste for Romanoff office a long time ago.
Andrew’s new found self righteousness in regards to not taking PAC money is a result of the fact that he would not get much if he had chosen to accept it. Easy to not accept what you would not receive in the first place. PAC’s are not going to go against an incumbent in a primary unless there is some dramatic policy issue difference between the candidates (there is not in this case) or some controversy with the incumbent (there is not in this case). It is purely moral grandstanding on AR’s part. It will be over for him soon.
no policy difference?
Cramdown
Too big to fail
EFCA (Bennet apparently has no stance)
BP tax breaks
Single payer healthcare
how’s that for a start?
Romanoff was NOT a single payer guy until quite recently. Do 8 seconds of googling and find the lame Ben Nelson-like health care “reforms” he was advocating when he was “DLC New Dem of the Month” (or some such DLC title) in 2008.
You’re a sucker and a stooge if you really think Romanoff will be some sort of progressive icon in the Senate.
that’s why he has none. How would he afford to run a campaign in the general with no cash and no ability to make any? Seriously. Please tell me.
A senator from Illinois didn’t take PAC money last cycle…it seemed to turn out pretty good for him.
I don’t know why this is so hard to get, but Romanoff has raised money on par with the Republican candidates and had a solid cash on hand end of Q1 (which he is apparently now using on TV).
This “no money” thing is a crock.
Why did AR change his position on PAC money? Why is it principled now? Should we think he was unprincipled before when he took PAC money? I believe it is pure political opportunism. He can not differentiate on policy so he has to find a wedge issue.
ok now I’m pretty sure you either don’t read responses to your own comments or you just like repeating tired arguments. Read the response to your comment upthread — it’s a list of policy differences.
… as my follow-up comment shows. No Romanoff supporter has ever tried to answer that comment by me, tellingly.
you might find people don’t want to talk to you
… or go ahead, as I’ll say again: if you actually feel like I made a serious physical threat, report it to the police or shut the fuck up and stop pretending you’re actually the victim of a crime or something.
The best thing you have going for you is that nobody takes you seriously.
Let me know how Texas and Washington work out for your guy.
Romanoff vs. Bennet. Dead heat. Bennet supporters will talk a good game but none of them will give odds that their boy will win.
Scooter vs. Huckster Maes. Dead heat. Scotty is ahead but is not on TV. High turnout by the Tea Party group could end the Scooter comeback tour,
Norton vs. Buck. Dead heat. Jane Norton is an airhead but she has a lot of cash. Jane may lose but she will certainly not go down without a fight. Buck is ahead but lacks the cash to close the deal.
Can anyone remember any state any time having three such contentious primaries all on the same day?
is right.