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%
August 01, 2010 11:41 AM UTC
41 Comments
My first thought is that television ad’s that (in the words of an editorial in the newspaper that shall not be named) “grossly distort reality” can have an effect. Same with radio ads that falsely claim Senator Bennet didn’t support COLA increases for seniors when, in truth, he did. Same with ten months of suggesting that Michael Bennet is bought and paid for, without a shred of evidence.
My second thought is that if he manages to pull this off — which I personally do not believe he will — Romanoff will be beholden to something much darker even than the PAC money he so hypocritically denounces.
My third thought is that the only poll that matters is close, but there is plenty of time to show that Romanoff and his quite despicable campaign and tactics do not merit your vote and Michael Bennet does.
The great equalizer.
Mike Littwin in the Denver paper today has a column lamenting the fact that Romanoff has sold both his house and his soul.
Is this the part of the show where we post random, immaterial information?
that in the Democratic primary Litwin wants the candidate that is closest to the Republican side. It’s like having Sarah Palin trash talk Romanoff.
David, you’re wrong. And suck at reading, I guess. Littwin is the liberal columnist. Maybe you’re confusing him with Mike Rosem? Either way, stop being deceptive like the candidate whose camp you’ve joined. Your defense of those tactics puts your soul on the line too.
I do think Littwin prefers the more moderate Dems. But yes, he is the liberal columnist.
Maybe he’s just not buying Andrew’s recent conversion to Huey Long Populism.
I am going to once again caution AR supporters not to get too cocky over these polls.
This year has a twist that is going to muck up any poll: all-mail ballot primaries. This is the first year we have done them in Colorado and definition of “likely voter” is going to be skewed by this fact.
There is a portion of the voting population who typically does not vote in primaries but at the same time will vote in any election where the ballot is mailed to them.
Polls will not reflect the thoughts of these “unlikely” voters.
i respect and agree with that assessment.
However, at this site,
there has been a repeated pattern
of trumpeting polls that have been favorable to Bennet and dismissive of polls or news reports that have favorable information about Romanoff.
(see the frontpage for instance or this story
that was carefully presented to exclude positive press on Romanoff: http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
If Romanoff supporters get cocky based on this and think they can slide into home from 20 feet, they will find themselves coming up short. No rest for the weary of course.
It is a good indicator for the campaign, but there are still 10 days and I’m sure both campaigns will be working their asses off.
For the sliding home from 20 feet part.
Yes, we all say we hate the negative. But it wins races. Bennet should unleash his war chest.
Bennet has been on TV since May – repeated commercials, polls, mailers – (like this dishonest one http://romanoff.3cdn.net/3ae1c… getting the President to robocall – that’s full on campaigning.
Bennet has been unleashing his warchest – and still is losing the message battle.
Bennet has been pushing his comparative (ie negative) ads big-time. They’re on a lot more than Romanoff’s. I think the problem is that what Bennet is selling the voters aren’t buying.
Sort of like doubling the ad budget for British Petroleum – it doesn’t sell anyone.
I only see the ones you guys put up here.
about once a week i watch the news with a friend – and at the nightly news on local markets – Bennet has been running ads since May – starting with the Washington County /Washington DC ad, followed by the one with his 3 daughters and wife, followed by the 2nd grade – and now negative.
But that’s really neat that you don’t watch TV.
Bennet has been on TV since before the county assemblies. There is no polling that suggests his approval has increased or been helped by anything he said or done.
Romanoff has been gaining at every stage with approval by those who get to see and hear him.
Which candidate would we rather have as our nominee in the general election.
That is opponent is a crook and a bad guy? That he is going to change how Washington works? That he is not going to take PAC money even thought he always did in the past? Give me a break. He might be winning but it is not because he communicated any coherent message. It is pure negative politics. Which regretabbly as we see in this case works.
supposed to dismiss this poll, I don’t. It worries the shit outta me.
Romanoff has been running a um…let’s just say “very tough” campaign. As mid-July drew closer he realized he had run out of money and was still losing. That’s when he decided to really get into the mud.
On the off chance Romanoff pulls this off though, what does this poll tell him? Does it tell him that you can win a Senate primary without having to take PAC money but only if you’re willing to get down into the mud?
Will his next primary crusade be all about taking a vow to clean up the inherent negativity of campaigns?
I don’t think Romanoff will win this primary and am still very impressed with what Bennet has done thus far as our Senator as well as a candidate.
I certainly do NOT dismiss this poll though.
and jack to what the Republicans will be pulling out of their bag of tricks.
If Bennet is withering in this heat, he definitely won’t survive a general.
Just very dissappointed in Andrew doing it to a fellow Democrat and especially after he lied that he would run an issues based campaign.
some mud slung in the primary can tank the party’s candidate in the general. Bob Beauprez was labelled “Both Ways Bob” by his Republican primary opponent, and that label was hugely effective in defeating him in the general.
Frankly, Andrew has hurt the Democratic party’s chances of holding this senate seat in the general election. We’ll just have to wait to see how much he’s hurt our chances.
If the primary opponent comes up with a label that works – and the general opponent wouldn’t have thought of it. But even there, the big problem for Beauprez was that he was on both sides of everything – he was damaged goods even if he had no primary.
Everything Romanoff has hit Bennet with the Republicans were already prepared to hit him with. This has been great training for Bennet. If Bennet wins the primary, he will be better prepared for the general due to this.
That’s not how it works, David. Rest assured, there is NOTHING the general opponents haven’t thought of about any of their potential opponents. The damage Holtzman did was getting it out there early from an opponent who’s supposedly on the same side, legitimizing it and making it an easy pick-up for Beauprez’ general election foes.
And you really think Jane Norton would have gone after Bennet for taking PAC contributions? Really? But Romanoff has gotten the notion out there that Bennet is corrupt, and you can be sure the Republicans will run with that one — why, even another Democrat said so!
But don’t you think the practice campaigning more than makes up for that? From what I’ve seen Bennet’s campaign has been really unimpressive the last couple of weeks. I think they need a lot of practice.
that it is very effective at suppressing the vote. When the turn-out is good, Democrats win. Romanoff has pretty much kissed our chances of victory off at this point, IMHO.
designed to discredit his opponent. Why would any of the Bennet supporters who know this invest one minute of their time to help him finally achieve the political ambition that caused him to be so unethical?
I won’t.
I have decided I will support him in words only. I can never volunteer for someone whose entire campaign has been based on a lie — the lie that Michael Bennet can be bought. There are dozens of lower level candidates that desperately need our help.
I don’t think Bennet has been bought by the financial industry. But I do think Bennet has voted mostly (not entirely) in the banks interests on the amendments for the financial regulation bill. I put it down to cultural capture but the result is the same.
But the thing is, am I right that it’s just cultural capture? Or is Romanoff right that it is in return for getting a ton of donations? Or is it that people do find it very difficult to see things that are not in their financial self-interest?
I’m just trying to point out that maybe it’s not as black and white as you say it is.
the problem with this cultural capture indirect accusation is if you tar one PAC accepting candidate/politician with the accusation you do it to all of them.
Are you willing to call into question every single vote Romanoff made while he was taking PAC money? Granted he has “seen the light” and is no longer taking PAC money, but was he voting in favor of his donors due to “cultural capture” for 8 years?
How about every other Democratic Colorado delegate?
This is exactly right.
Romanoff’s attack proves way, way too much. And the examples Romanoff has manufacture — beginning with the Westwood attack and continuing with the COLA votre for seniors –are completely off the mark and have been completely debunked as false.
Especially given that, by your lights, David, he engaged in the same practices for 8 years in the State House. And by the way, saying that because it happened at the state level and not the federal level is a distinction without a difference. If it was bad when Bennet did it, then it was equally bad when Romanoff did it.
Frankly, as I said to Wade on another comment thread, I’d be happy if Romanoff turned to be every bit as progressive as his campaign has been. Part of what bugs me about the whole Romanoff campaign is that people 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.
As I’ve said all along, I have no idea if Romanoff would be any better. He may turn out to be no better than Bennet. He may succumb to cultural capture. He may return to his DLC roots. And all that could easily happen.
I’m voting for Romanoff for two reasons:
1. He could be better. And could is much better than won’t. There’s a truism that expecting the same people to achieve different results is a form of insanity.
2. His win sends a clear message to other Senators that defer to the banks – that doing so can cost them their seat.
David, do you have a bunch of motivational posters on your wall and just throw a dart to decide which one governs your decision whenever you sit down to type?