U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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%
July 31, 2010 04:44 AM UTC
49 Comments
Thank you.
I don’t think Team Bennet is faultless. I think the leadership PAC thing and the Social Security thing are a little exaggerated, on Bennet’s side. Michael Bennet finally got tough and punched back after 9 months of Romanoff attacks and untruths.
I feel as you do, and I know many other people who do as well. We all wonder, “What happened to the old Andrew Romanoff, and who is this very angry guy that is so negative who looks like him?”
Romanoff took PAC money.
Romanoff stopped taking PAC money.
Romanoff speaks out against the influence of PAC money and special interests.
Obama took PAC money.
Obama stopped taking PAC money.
Obama speaks out against the influence of PAC money and special interests.
How are Romanoff and Obama any different?
This shady 527 that’s running smear ads against Bennet.
Refusing to take money from special interests is one thing. Letting them do your talking for you is quite another.
When is he going to denounce the push polls that have been received telling people that Romanoff is the same as Bush?
Or when will he speak out against the total BS that was is Social Security lit piece?
Or how about him fessing up and taking some of the proper heat for asking the White House to get Romanoff out of the race, instead of letting the truly innocent man be raked over the coals about it? That is disgusting, letting someone else take the blame for something you orchestrated.
Oh right, he doesn’t have to because Bennet is just a poor little victim who never does anything wrong, and just because he calls bloggers to kiss their heineys he must be some sort of angel.
You answered it with a series of question.
None of them comprise an answer to my original question.
Romanoff needs to denounce the 527 ads.
Or is there illegal coordination going on?
At a mnimum, he needs to take down and renounce his OWN ad.
Selling his house to pay for his looting ad is sickening.
My answer: I don’t speak for him, I don’t work for him, so I can’t say.
But my best guess would be when Bennet denounces the bullshit that his actual campaign has been doing.
That would be the right time if it was me.
So answer my question, when will Bennet be apologizing for the nonsense and lies that have come from his camp?
condemn the White House’s job offer to get Romanoff out of the Primary?
Bennetistas don’t feel that Bennet should ever have to apologize for anything, because he is the reincarnation of the great democrats of the past, practically perfect in every way.
You mean the job (actually, only one of MANY, MANY jobs) Romanoff applied for?
The one that actually wasn’t ever offered, just discussed, after Romanoff applied for a job in the administration?
Condemn what again?
the huge scandal that embroiled both PA and CO politics – the same scandal that involved Joe Sestak – when the White House was standing up for Arlen Specter?
Tell me you did not hear about it?
By the way, the offer was made by Jim Messina, supposedly, the same guy who told Shirley Sherrod to text in her resignation on the side of the highway – he is the fall guy apparently.
We are talking about precisely the same thing, Wade.
I think a Presidential endorsement is a great honor.
i am proud of Bill Clinton’s endorsement.
And the sitting President is chopped liver, I suppose.
Romanoff has two hands.
Romanoff has two feet.
Romanoff walks on his two feet.
Obama has two hands.
Obama has two feet.
Obama walks on his two feet.
I thought you were going to say Romanoff walks on his hands. That would be pretty cool. We know that SK2 and a few others think he walks on water.
Andrew does speak Spanish, you know. So he’s got that going for him. Maybe not as great as total consciousness, but it’s something.
a white Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish Democratic candidate who speaks Spanish? I mean, c’mon…. 🙂
Obama’s campaigned and governed based on a whole mess of issues (mainly around cleaning up from the last 8 years). Romanoff’s campaign seems to be about little else than PACs.
Obama’s move did not put him at a financial disadvantage. It was shrewd as well as principled.
started in 2006. That’s when Obama was a long shot – and he did not have that much money.
and what you are implying
is that if Obama had not won or gotten the money needed to overtake HRC, then he would have been some idealistic schmuck?
What do you say to Stan Garnett? Is he just being shrewd and political?
has to be examined on its own terms, not assumed to fit a generic pattern which it doesn’t. There are many key characteristics of the Obama campaign that cannot be generalized to the Romanoff campaign. And I have no intention of helping to draw Stan Garnett into this. At least one decisive difference between Stan’s candidacy and Andrew’s should be readily obvious. Stan, of course, has my full support.
Have you never heard of this thing called a campaign website?
It’s this really great place you can go that gives you all this information about how a candidate feels about many different issues.
He also does these things called “house parties” where you can talk to him about anything you like. Not just PAC money.
That’s just ignorant poindexter, if you think he campaigns on only one issue, you are not paying attention.
I’m well aware that he has positions on plenty of issues (I even know some of them!), but thanks for the condescension. But when every single piece of direct mail, phone campaign and TV ad that I’ve received has been focused on the PAC issue, then yes, I’d say he’s run a pretty single-ssue campaign.
The mail pieces and TV ads from Bennet are all based on lies, so really, what is worse?
I’d take a “single issue” guy over a liar any day.
He didn’t spread untruths about his opponent. He said he wouldn’t stoop to negative advertising and he didn’t. He cared enough about his party to not risk destroying it in the event he wouldn’t win.
What’s different? Obama never lost his moral compass in the heat of the moment.
He just lost it after the heat of the moment.
Romanoff has brought up some issues that, though you may not like them, don’t make them lies.
Answer the questions about minority Highschools, DPS loans, Anschutz corporate raiding, why he fundraised on a public option letter he had no intention of following through on, why he only signs on to be a cosponsor of a bill after Romanoff calls him out on it, why he and Udall change their votes etc. etc.
I thank Andrew Romanoff for making Bennet a better Senator. But if this is the best we are going to get, then I am seriously worried.
I think you summed up a lot of Bennet supporters feelings. I walked into the Senate race with no preconceptions about either candidate. It was the tone of Romanoff’s campaign plus his supporters/shills that ultimately decided for me.
The very first time I saw Romanoff speak was a debate with Bennet. Andrew decided that instead of talking about his own voting record or his own policy positions, he would go on the attack. Bennet on the other hand, kept his cool. He defended himself but mainly just kept talking about his own voting record and where he stood on policy.
It made a big impact.
I look forward to the debate this Sunday at 10:30 on 9News’ Your Show.
Virtually all candidates are driven by some combination of personal ambition and commitment to public service. If one of those two is ever missing, it is almost always the latter, not the former. So the fact that personal ambition is in the mix is not in and of itself an indictment of the candidate.
But when that personal ambition takes precedence over the political agenda with which it has articulated itself, then a very serious mistake has been made.
I think Andrew has made that mistake, but I hope that it is one that he recovers from politically. He’s a smart, charismatic, capable, and caring Democrat who has distinguished himself in a variety of ways, winning the fierce loyalty of many.
I can understand the feeling that he and his followers have that he had both paid his dues and proven his merit, and that there was something fundamentally unfair about his being passed over when the perfect opportunity arose to both reward him and put his undeniable talents to the best possible use. I simply believe that that legitimate perception has been trumped by other factors.
Having listened to both of them speak on numerous occasions, I perceive important differences between them that I think favor Michael, even aside from what I’ve already said about the folly of unilateral disarmament in the campaign finance wars. The most important one, for me (without meaning to exaggerate it), is that Andrew is a bit better at sounding sincere, and Michael is a bit better at being sincere. Michael gives priority to the complex and subtle realities of the world, and tries to convey them in ways that resonate with his audience. Andrew gives priority to resonating with his audience, to saying what his audience wants ot hear, and, either due to political calculation or what I would consider a slightly oversimplistic world view, gives short shrift to the complexities and subtleties of the world. Some might legitimately consider that commitment to a clear and simple progressive agenda, and a clear and simple message, the more important quality. I don’t.
(On a different topic, I’m going to quibble with you on one point, botw: being a “progressive” and a “moderate Democrat” aren’t mutually exclusive, as long as one privileges being pragmatic and effective over being a blind ideologue.)
You said:
I know this is the fantasy you Bennet Groupthinkers firmly believe, or want to believe, but it is a lie. Bennet has been calling Romanoff a “career politician” from the start and has in other ways mocked Romanoff and Romanoff supporters. For instance, portraying Romanoff as a crybaby who feels entitled to the seat when in fact Bennet is the one who acts entitled to this seat to which nobody has yet been elected. All Romanoff has ever said is, “Let the voters decide.”
We live in a democracy. Bennet and you supporters of his seem to have forgotten that. Obama does not appoint Senators. (It’s ludicrous to think he did not have something to do with this appointment.) And we are allowed to be critical of our candidates in this country, even the candidate you love unconditionally. Seriously, I think Bennet’s mother is more willing to criticize him than many of you.
As far as integrity, how does integrity fit in to hiding the truth about DPS finances from the people (via surrogate Theresa Pena), or speaking out against “backroom deals” when you are the product of the biggest backroom deal in Colorado history? Or calling yourself an “outsider” when you grew up in DC, have a very well-connected family, money is pouring in from the East Coast, and your brother is the editor of The Atlantic. Is that integrity?
And if Bennet is the nominee he should thank God Romanoff ran against him because it’s been a boot camp for his anemic campaign.
for so eloquently illustrating the differences between the two camps. I think you really have hit the nail right on the head.
I may have a new sig line by the way.
of denial, anger, and depression from the insufferables on the losing side becuse the winning side unfairly ruined their shining hope.
I hope their paychecks clear.
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
which is to say, a condescending bastard who thinks money buys nobility.
I have a thick skin.
Besides, in 10 days you’ll be out of a job and I’ll still be retired.
just a volunteer
Are you even allowed near headquarters?
You know we are on opposite sides of this primary,
BUT, I wish Trevor hadn’t said that as well. Despite all my criticism of the Romanoff campaign, they have come a long way on nothing but fumes. I give them a lot of credit for it. Seriously.
F**king recession!
Just to see everyone’s heads explode when he turns out to be a carbon copy of Michael Bennet.
Seriously. Between the people who’ll claim that he’s engaging in eleven-dimensional political chess and those who’ll ragingly denounce him as a sellout, watching the manic-progressives come to terms with who Romanoff really is would be fun to see, indeed.
but another incarnation of Alan Grayson – what will you do then?
His stance on renewable energy is the most progressive stance in the nation.
http://www.actblue.com/page/ee…
Seriously. I would be. But I’ve never been one to swoon over a candidate, unlike other people.
Even though I wasn’t a Dean supporter (I came home from Iraq too late in ’04 to vote for him), I’ve always believed in what Dean said, over and over again, in his campaign:
“You have the power.”
Part of what bugs me about the whole Romanoff campaign is that people like you are way too eager to give him a pass on his statehouse record and jump in bed with him based solely on him saying the right things, without having done any of them.
To me, it’s not enough that candidates play to the progressive bandstand, just so they can feed at the same old trough once they get to DC. And that’s the overwhelming impression that I get from him – that all this rhetoric is a means to an end, the end being elected to the Senate.
I’ve worked for progressive candidates in the past, and I’ll work for progressive candidates in the future. If Andrew gets elected to the Senate and winds up being every bit as progressive as his campaign is, I’ll be the first person to admit error, and I’ll proudly support him.