CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Bob Gardner




CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 20, 2010 07:08 PM UTC

Romanoff Fundraising Numbers

  • by: Colorado Pols

The Q2 fundraising numbers for Democrat Andrew Romanoff are out. Romanoff raised $619,814 in Q2, spent $657,454 and now has $464,340 cash on hand (compared to $2.6 million COH for Sen. Michael Bennet).

These are decent fundraising numbers for Q2 for Romanoff, but his low cash on hand figure is no doubt why the campaign was refusing to release numbers on its own. From what we hear, Romanoff has spent at least $300,000 on television, which means he’s going to be spending every cent as he raises it from here on out (considering that he’ll still need money for office space, staff salaries, etc.) And while Romanoff’s Q2 haul was good by his own historical standards, it’s probably not enough to get him the kind of TV time he needs to defeat Bennet.


47 thoughts on “Romanoff Fundraising Numbers

    1. …you and MOTR and peacemonger and Ray Springfield etc have all fought harder for Michael Bennet on this blog than Michael Bennet has ever fought for any issue in the U.S. Senate.

  1. I thought I remember reading about it but now I can’t find the diary.

    I would say this is probably expected.  If I remember correctly it’s more money than Romanoff has raised previously, his cash on hand is about the same as it was previously.  Television is expensive and that added to his other campaign expenses (staff, offices, etc).

    No big surprise here; I don’t think this is a game changer either way.

    1. But with Romanoff down 16 points in the lastest poll from That Which Must Not Be Named, he needs a game changer.

       It reminds me of when I was covering the Broncos-Raiders for UPI back in the Lou Saban Era.  Oakland fumbled the opening kickoff deep in its own territory, Denver recovered, and ran its patented pattern of Floyd Little right, Floyd Little left, Bobby Anderson up the gut and had to settle for a field goal.

        About two minutes into the game, Denver had a 3-0 lead over the hated Raiders.  Suddenly a fan yelled:

      “Run out the clock, Saban!”

        The whole stadium erupted with laughter.

       But right now, I’m betting Bennet can run out the clock without going negative on Romanoff and thus lead a fairly united party against the R’s (probably Buck) in the fall.

      1. Craig Hughes would not have sent out that whiny email complaining about of all people Ken Gordon if Bennet were still up 16. Bennet has changed his message more times than Scott McInnis has changed his mind.

        Panic seems to have set in Bennet land and Romanoff has enough money to do a competitive ad buy.  

        Just not being the incumbent may be enough to win in this crazy year for office holders.  A month ago I would have said the chances of a Romanoff win were zero.  Today I’d call it a toss up.

        1. As I recall, you called the Titanic v. the Iceburg a toss-up!

            (Don’t feel bad — I took the Titanic and gave six points…)

             You’re an ardent AR guy and more power too you.  But you’re letting the wish be the father of the thought.  Even the tiniest of straws that you grasp, Rasmussen, shows Bennet beating AR.

           No, this isn’t a game changer and it’s not a toss-up.  I’d guess Bennet 58-AR 42 when the votes are counted.

          1. If your candidate is up by double digits why does did Craig Hughes send out such a whiny email blasting Ken Gordon.  BTW Senator Gordon dropped a lot of money getting the same bad advice that Craig is now giving Bennet

            1. explain your candidates increasingly desperate and negative attacks on Bennet.  And while you’re at it, explain why a pissinhg contest twix Hughes and Gordon should concern me.

            2. Gordon, among others, has been no slouch in handing out bad advice either; to Romanoff. Gordon’s holier than thou shtick wears thin. People are more interested in who’s likely to get decent, useful stuff done than in who is the most self-righteous. Most people take self-righteousness from pols wih a grain of salt.

        2. A year ago, I would have said Romanoff has zero chance. He has spent almost every penny of his campaign money and it took him right up to the primary. I’ve always liked Andrew and am impressed by how far he has come in a year. He deserves a lot of credit for fighting a very good fight.

          That said, his unwillingness to take PAC money would be the kiss of death for Democrats; if we allow him to win this primary, we lose the seat. US Senate races require a ton of commercial time, which is extremely expensive. The DSCC will never get behind a candidate with such dismal fundraising sense, and so few national donors to Bennet(you know, the ones with deep pockets) and Michael’s law school buddies and business colleagues, would never make the switch. They don’t believe in Andrew Romanoff; they believe in Michael Bennet. Heck, the vast majority of them don’t even know who Andrew Romanoff is. For them, they would rather put their money on a known candidate in another state.  

          Andrew’s resistence to take PAC money started out to be a way to differentitate himself from Michael Bennet, especially because he had no problem with doing in his previous four elections. If no one is offering you PAC money, a great way to spin it is that you would have refused it anyway, and turn it into a strength. I think Romanoff actually started to believe it was possible (after awile) to win that way.

          Needing PAC money to win a US Senate race is a horrible reality.  None of us like it. Unfortunately IT IS a reality. Michael Bennet is very, very good at it, and Andrew sucks at it. That is the honest truth.

          I can’t think of a single Senator who has ever done what Andrew is trying to do and WON.  It’s la-la fairy tale land, and he is taking a whole lot of our best Dems to fairy-land with him. It makes me cringe just thinking about it. Yes, this race is closer than I thought it would be 10 months later, but I still feel exactly the same way I did last fall about it.

          When the rest of you want to live in the land of reality again, come on over. The water is fine.

  2. Granted, only twice as much as AR (better for AR than three times as much as has sometimes been the case in the past) but, big deal and the cash on hand disparity is enormous.  Game over no matter what Wade Norris may have to say.

    1. With voting beginning today, how does Michael’s cash-on-hand advantage mean game over?

      If Andrew wins the primary, then Bennet’s COH is meaningless.

      Andrew just has to hang in for 2 more weeks and win the primary.

        1. signal a major sea change in the race. At this late date, that’s what it would take. Game over.

          The reason I also referred to cash on hand is because that contributes to Bennet looking like the more potentially successful candidate, a consideration with many of the voters I talked to phone banking for Bennet. Many said they thought both were good candidates and planned to decide based entirely on which would be  most likely to beat whoever the Rs put up.  All the numbers including polls, fund raising and cash on hand made it easy to make the case for Bennet to that type of primary voter.

    1. I doubt he raised much money for AR, at least in this quarter.  A good job by AR’s team of dogged idealists.  Give them their due.  But they still face an uphill battle.

  3. He’ll burn through all of his COH to GOTV. It will help, but won’t be enough though. I bet he’ll pull within 5 points of Bennet.

    Hopefully Romanoff won’t go too negative over the next few weeks. So far everything that’s been anti-Bennet could be considered pro-Republican, meaning it won’t effect opinions in the general. As far as I know, and correct me if I’m wrong, Romanoff and company haven’t said anything that could be used against Bennet by the GOP.  

    1. who eschewed negativity and rose above the fray.  He is one muddy puppy right now.

      I am very disappointed in the tone, direction and content of the Romanoff campaign.  Nasty and negative unnecessarily.

      You have to figure your campaign is anti-Democrat when you have David Sirota in your corner.  Everyone notices when the nut jobs attach to your campaign.

    1. In the general.  He has produced a series of positive image ads that show a thoughtful candidate.  Compared to the crazy ads the Republicans are putting up, he looks like the sane one.  When the general gets going in earnest his early ads will be an asset.

  4. Let’s see if these words ring any  bells.

    Hypocritical (as in I was for PACs before I was against ’em.  But it’s convenient to be against ’em this time.)

    Selfish (I’m term limited and couldn’t get appointed to any of the jobs I tried to get so I’ll try to upset the applecart, damn any potential consequences.)

    Wimpy (as in I’ll pretend to run a positive campaign but send out Weissman, Gordon and others to do the dirty work.  Also see Duplicitous.)

    Those might be used to describe many in the current crop of GOP candidates.  They came to mind as I was trying to decide whether to support someone I’ve known since before he was campaigning for the DNC and later worked with vs. someone I’d known only a few years but also admired and respected.  The decision, unfortunately, was easy.

    At least in the general, whether it’s Bennet v. Norton or Bennet v. Buck, there’ll be some real differences on issues and clear vs. manufactured differences.

    1. He’s never had to run a close campaign. This campaign has not had the maturity or leadership that you would hope for in a senator. He’s found out that not all Colorado Democrats think that the party couldn’t exist without him.

      I guess he is willing to be remembered by the way he has acted in this latest campaign. He better also remember that it cuts both ways. There are many Colorado Democrats who will not forget this and will be unwilling to support him for anything in the future once he loses in the primary.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

44 readers online now


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