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%
August 03, 2010 10:21 PM UTC
18 Comments
Why is Bennet running the shittiest campaign this side of Both Ways Bob? If you don’t have the skills or management ability to beat a guy who has to sell his house in order to compete, maybe you don’t belong in the US Senate.
…the Romanoff campaign tactics would be ineffective against a better run campaign? Or are you wanting a diary where you can lament Bennet’s approach?
campaign. Talk is cheap, we now know who not to believe.
because Romanoff has never run a clean campaign. You don’t hire Pat Caddell if you want to run a clean campaign.
I agree that Romanoff went hard comparative first. But there was a lot of trash talking of Romanoff from the day he declared by the Bennet campaign.
And a lot (not all) of Romanoff’s attacks have been on the issues. They’re issues where Bennet compares poorly, but those are the issues a candidate should bring up.
Bennet voted to cut a cost of living adjustment for Social Security? False. Bennet didn’t support the public option until Romanoff announced? False. Bennet voted for the Bush/Paulson bailout? False.
If all he’s going to do is lie, he will lose the general. The media stays pretty hands-off with regards to substantive claims during primaries (they are far more interested in the drama of the bloody fist fight than boring policy). They will not be so forgiving in the general. Andrew will have to actually base his attacks on reality or they will not stick.
The claim Bennet voted for the bailout was made by an independent PAC, not Romanoff.
As to attacks, saying Bennet takes PAC money and he doesn’t – true. Saying Bennet rolled over for the banks – true.
tout your experience in the private sector as an asset, then you sure as hell better be able to defend it when it bites you in the ass.
Maybe the campaign can only do so much. You can’t polish a turd.
First off, I think the ends rarely justify the means in the way the question is usually meant. On the flip side, in WWII we embraced total war killing millions of civilians because it was the only way to win. So in that case yes the ends justified horrific means.
Truly competitive political races are brutal. I don’t think we’re talking ends vs means here, we’re talking what is a fair comparison vs what is unfair. And many times that’s a difficult question because each campaign thinks the attacks on them are unfair while the attacks they make are totally legit.
The race was gentle (and an easy win for the incumbent, gentle always is). No question Romanoff made it rough (and competitive). But I don’t think we’ve gone beyond the bounds of what is common practice in a primary.
I think the important thing is for both sides to push back and for the media and others to call fouls where they see them in the ads and other actions. But just as a single foul in a basketball game does not mean that team is scum, a foul in political advertising happens – on both sides.
…I believe in forceful TRUTHFUL attacks. Romanoff’s most recent ad was not just spin, it outright lied.
I realize, from your previous comments, that you’re in the camp that says they all lie, so ignore the lies. But your examples consistently talk about someone lying about himself to make himself look better. Not someone making up lies about someone else to make him look worse. This may, for some, be a distinction without a difference.
To me it’s all the difference in the world.
I said from the start that I thought looting was a lie. I also think the robocall is total bullshit, but that wasn’t Romanoff.
And, honestly, I’m not trying to defend the lie, but I’m curious if anyone can provide a link to the Forbes article(?) the ad sites? Does it include the word “loot” in it?
This may have been covered in a previous thread, so I apologize if I’m repeating something. I just can’t keep up so I’m using the most recent Dem Senate Primary thread to bring it up.
Here you go:
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
Afraid I’m in the dark on what Forbes article you’re asking about.
I just had absolutely no interest in funneling through 268 comments of primarily bs, but trusty “ctrl f” helped me find all references to the word. Still can’t find the Forbes article, but I’ll contact the campaign for that.
Now that Andrew Romanoff has said he will take DSCC money raised by PACS, the entire premise of his campaign just came tumbling down.
He said he’d ask the DSCC to only use non-PAC money to help him.
I’m sure it’ll make him feel better–just like it makes me feel better when I write “for education only” on my checks to the IRS.
Now don’t you feel all warm and fuzzy about everything?
/snark
will he also insist the DSCC only use individual Colorado donor money to help him?