Senator Michael Bennet, Well and Truly

The Denver newspaper called the race moments ago on a margin of just under 7,000 votes.

UPDATE: 9NEWS’ Adam Schrager Tweets the word from Ken Buck’s campaign: “We will have further comment later today.”

UPDATE #2: The Associated Press now calling the race for Bennet, still awaiting word from Buck.

UPDATE 3:35PM: Schrager Tweets that Buck has called Bennet to concede. Statement:

Buck Congratulates Senator Bennet

DENVER – Ken Buck said he called Senator Michael Bennet this afternoon to congratulate him on winning the U. S. Senate race.

Buck said that while the final margin in the race is very small, Colorado voters have spoken and he wishes Senator Bennet well.

Buck said, “my Senate campaign has been the experience of a lifetime. I will be forever grateful to the thousands of Coloradans who helped make this grassroots journey possible.”

257 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. caroman says:

    Boulder still has about 42,000 votes to count.  If Bennet wins the same % as Hick in Boulder, that’s another 19,000 vote advantage to add to the 7,000 lead.  Then, only Arapahoe could save Buck’s butt.  Not a chance.

    Congratulations, Senator Bennet!!  Fantastic campaign!

  2. Aristotle says:

    Bennet had some not-exactly-long-but-not-short-either odds to overcome. Still, we’ll see how this shakes out.

  3. reubenesp says:

    Bennet was losing among whites, but up big with Hispanics and blacks.  Great GOTV effort in Denver may have made the difference in this race.  

  4. Roger D says:

    But I don’t care, I am just glad he won.

    And as Litwin noted in his column this morning: who will be the first out of town on a bus Maes or Wadhams.

    Does anyone really believe that the Wad-man is any kind of political whiz?

    Forget the Macaca moment, in a wave election he can’t get the top of the Republican ticket elected.

  5. Voyageur says:

    it says the votes outstanding are likely to add to his 7 thousand vote margin.  I was making calls until 6:30 p.m.  I know the last ones went out at 6:50 p.m.  It was shoe leather and cell-phone calluses that won this one for Bennet, a fine GOTV.

      Some times, the good folks win.

  6. caroman says:

    my Romanoff Kool-Aid I handed out for Halloween.

  7. redstateblues says:

    Condolences to the losers–of which there were far too many. Today is bittersweet.

    • BlueCat says:

      when all votes are counted? I’ve been so looking forward to Dickwad finding his place as a historic footnote: First state GOP chair to lose major party status for the GOP in his state. Bennet’s win and under 10% for Maes would help cheer me up in light of the incredible but now almost certain defeat of my HD38 Rep. Joe Rice.

      We seem almost certain to be stuck with the most under-qualified, silly candidate in the entire country due to huge outside and credit union money. And she has  told two people I know  that Jesus wanted her to run and win.  So this is what we’re getting in place of one of the most respected, successful, accomplished members of the State Assembly.  Pretty pathetic.

      • caroman says:

        I think the message to Dems is that it doesn’t pay to be a Dem-Lite or Conservadem.  Joe Rice was the only state rep who voted against the elimination of the CO capital gains exclusion which benefits only the rich.  If you are a Dem, you should act and vote like a Dem.  That’s my opinion — I’m sure there are others.

        • BlueCat says:

          You know nothing about HD38 obviously, Caroman.  Hope you’re happy with Conti because the choice is always going to be between a Dem willing to take the HD38 constituency into consideration or someone like Conti.

          Right or left, the people of HD38 now have a totally unqualified nitwit representing them.  She will be a non-entity whereas Joe accomplished a lot, even though I haven’t agreed with him all the time. But I really do prefer 85% of something to 100% of nothing.  

          Years like this, the Dem moderates and blue dogs lose but it’s not as if liberals ever win in their districts either. First the GOP was purged of its moderates.  Now it’s the Dem’s turn, not that I miss true blue dogs but Joe is far from that. Wonder when the middle will figure out that if they keep voting against moderate candidates in moderate districts, what their left with is what the they say they hate: pure vicious, no compromise politics focused only on crushing the opposition no matter what the cost to the public welfare.

          • Aristotle says:

            If you want a Dem majority, you accept moderates and blue dogs in red districts.

            • BlueCat says:

              haven’t done us much good, have they?

              • Aristotle says:

                but they all got on board with health care. Between that and just having them count toward the majority, that’s a lot.

                I really don’t know if the “not progressive enough” meme has that much merit. I assume all the ones who were turned out where in red districts, so they’ve been toast for a while. Being more progressive would only mean being turned out by a wider margin. But there’s time for the individual stories of those races to be told.

                • BlueCat says:

                  such as they allowed it to be and which will do nothing to lower rates for anyone for years, not very politically helpful.  Then they chose to run like hell from it but that didn’t help them much, did it? Very high blue dog attrition rate this election. Not that liberals would have won their districts.  There are no easy answers.  

                  Yes, It’s nice to have the warm bodies to secure control of agenda and committees. But there’s a limit to what can be done with that control when the administration and leadership are so unwilling to pressure their caucus members the way Rs so successfully pressure their few remaining moderates.  

                  When  push comes to shove, their Snowes and Collinses, unlike our blue dogs, tremble with fear and fall in line. Current Dem leaders are incapable of scaring anybody into any level of submission on anything. We could learn something from Rs in that regard without going so far as to purge most of those who don’t meet a litmus test.

                  In the Senate, for instance, we could have freed conservadems to vote as they feel they must in the end while demanding that they refrain from joining GOP filibusters. The GOP was not only successful in preventing such disloyalty, threatening to cut off all funding and pork, but also in cowing Dems and rallying public opinion by framing it as a question of small “d” democracy, proclaiming that the democratic process demanded and the people deserved the opportunity to get an up or down vote. We never heard that after Dems took over with all 60 needed votes in their caucus. All we heard was “Sorry.  The votes aren’t there.”

                  Now here we are, two years after the 2008 election, back in the toilet already, most of those blue dogs we tried to appease gone, the GOP as confident as ever.  So how much good did all that abject catering to Rs and blue dogs really do? Just sayin’…  

                  • Aristotle says:

                    Dems just aren’t tough and disciplined like that. It’s frustrating. And you’re right that blue dogs running away from their records wasn’t helpful – not to themselves, or other Dems, or anyone.

                    I don’t have an answer. I’ve been trying to write about how the Dems need to keep the more conservative people, either blue dogs or freshly minted ex-‘pubs, or else they’ll just go back to the GOP; or how Obama doesn’t seem to be that good of a leader (but then again he did get HCR passed); and some other points that don’t really get to the heart of the matter. What good is it if there’s no discipline? Is it because the Dems just don’t have any tough leaders now? Or is that just perception? Will Senate rules reform help? Can that take place or does it have to go through cloture first? I don’t know.

                    It’s a frustrating mess.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      and showing confidence in Dem majority convictions instead of apologizing for not being more like Rs would be a good place to start. Back when we had 60 in the Senate Dem caucus, Blue Dogs could have been free to vote against for their own home consumption, as they always could in the House when Dems had votes to spare there, while being held to refusing to join an R filibuster, selling  their refusal back home with the small  “d” democracy, the people deserve an up or down vote line and then lots of stuff could have passed with the simple majorities the mainstream Dems had.  

                      Rs did that all the time, letting the likes of a Collins vote against the party to stay in the good graces of her constituents as long as she fell in line when votes from Rs like her were absolutely essential to move past a threat of filibuster to a final vote on core conservative R legislation. Then they cracked the whip and made offers (or threats) that couldn’t be refused.  No reason why Dems couldn’t have done the same when they had the chance.

                      Obama made a serious mistake in thinking that the change people wanted was for the party they elected to bend over backwards to accommodate the party they voted out. Yes people wanted more civility as in not accusing the loyal opposition of being traitors as the Rs constantly did.  They didn’t mean for the new majority to put all its energy into endless, futile efforts to get a minority determined to be as nasty as possible to play nice.

                      For instance, there was never any good reason to water down health care reform so much it became useless as a political plus in the near term.  With polls clearly showing enough of the anti sentiment to be coming from people who didn’t think it went far enough to make a clear majority for strong reform when combined with supporters of what was being proposed, Dems should have grown a back bone, sold it relentlessly, twisted blue dog arms and taken no prisoners.  Putting a real public option in place would have been a winner, once people realized they could get secure affordable health care. If they had made damn sure the blue dogs had to refrain from blocking an up or down vote in the Senate, we could had a bill to brag about and that people could start seeing benefits from in time for the 2010 election.

              • Old Time Dem says:

                Which means Democrats hold the Speakership and the chairmanships.  That means a lot in the House, where the leadership controls what happens on the floor.

                A Republican House is going to be a goddamn circus.  Are you ready for committee hearings on climate change science, featuring every bought and paid for oil and gas company “scientist”?  How about birther hearings?  How long before the braying asses in the GOP commence impeachment hearings?

                • Aristotle says:

                  … let them. That’s the best chance the Dems have of reversing the losses this year. They’ll only be in trouble if the GOP tries to govern.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    the Rs being horrified at the very idea of anything approaching impeachment hearings on Bush because it was so-o-o-o un-American to attack a president during war time. Probably un-American even to just say not very nice things about him.  We all have to support our dear war time president.  All Dems must denounce such un-patriotic un-Americanism. Oh my, those few commie Dem extremists who were even considering it must be traitors of the first order! Which of course is a given anyway since Dems are commie America haters in general.

                    Denounce all those raising questions about the illegal Bush wire taps or you’re just as bad as they are.  Bla, bla, bla. What happened to all that insistence on blind solidarity?

                    • dwyer says:

                      Think strategically.  The goal is not to govern or solve problems. The goal is to win in 2012. Those which the dems ridiculed, rose and struck an almost fatal blow.

                      Have a beer and laugh about committees investigating the “birther” claims.  Meantime, “birthers” contributed to the repu wins this year and will do so in 2012.  

      • PERA hopeful says:

        Conti and Arapahoe County DA Carol Chambers.  Way to go, Jesus.  

  8. ColoDem Di says:

    And all the Bennet campaign volunteers who worked their asses off!

  9. raymond1 says:

    My percentages weren’t spot-on for all CO races, but I predicted Hick, Bennet, Suthers, Gessler, Markey, Tipton, Permutter. (http://www.coloradopols.com/showComment.do?commentId=382519)

    I also said that of the “little three” statewides (AG, Treas, SOS), Suthers would have the largest margin, then Gessler, then Stapleton.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I gotta head to the track to place some bets, because clearly I have a bright future as a degenerate gambler.

  10. CastleMan says:

    The Republican wave last night was historic in its ferocity, as GOPers won more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than in any year since 1948. The GOP also won 10 governors mansions.

    But that wave didn’t really hit Colorado. Yes, and tragically, Cary Kennedy appears to have lost, and we will be burdened with a corrupt, partisan hack as our chief elections officer. But Hickenlooper won more than 50 percent, Buck was beaten by the appointed senator, and the Republicans couldn’t dislodge Perlmutter from his suburban, swing district.

    I don’t think the state legislature results are all in, but it doesn’t appear that the GOP won enough seats to control either chamber. They will make the margins closer, yes, but they lost a chance to build a pathway to revert to the wonderful days of Andrews-style policy.

    Amidst a terrible day for America – one that consigns our kids to even more poverty, even less hope for a decent education, and much less hope for economic opportunity – our state stood out for its willingness to resist the tide, at least somewhat. Thankfully.

    • Aristotle says:

      when Salazar lost. Had he kept his seat, along with Cary Kennedy and Bernie Buescher retaining theirs, I’d be with you. But Dems had a lot of luck go their way.

      Ritter steping down was one – no way he was going to be re-elected, except in the face of two – the GOP implosion. All Scooter had to do was the job the Hasans paid him to do, and we’d be congratulating him this morning. But even with the GOP implosion, Ritter’s odds were long. Making way for a much more popular Dem ensured retaining the Gov’s mansion.

      Buck’s problems are number three. Bennet was a weak candidate, but he at least stayed on message, and wasn’t hurt by the DPS financial mess.

      Without these breaks, we could have lost the Senate and Governor’s mansion, and maybe a few more down-ticket GA races with them. But we lost enough major races to say that some of the wave hit our state.

      • shrubHugger says:

        we kept the senate and the gov (haven’t got official word on the house). And in a redistricting year that’s awesome.

        So here’s to Sen. Morse! the most amazing victory of the Colorado races (imho)

      • BlueCat says:

        held the Senate seat, won the Governor’s race and  came out a whole lot better than Dems in other states. Also, all the nutty amendments failed.  Which makes no sense to me. How is it that Colorado voters so strongly reject the far rightie agenda as evidenced by their votes on those, while electing so many extreme righties?  I guess the answer is money, nasty ads sound bites and ignorance.

        • sxp151 says:

          Anti-Buck ads were everywhere, and that’s why Buck lost. But nobody imagines a partisan hack is going to run for Secretary of State, and so they don’t necessarily do the research if they don’t see an ad.

          The ballot initiatives were plainly awful and clearly laid out in the blue book (and the atrocious simple-minded advertising for the Bad Three really really hurt them). But the worst candidates snuck in on voter optimism.

        • PERA hopeful says:

          And fear that somebody is going to sneak another TABOR past us.  My brother, otherwise an extremely intelligent man learned and experienced in public finance, explained that he would never never again vote for a constitutional amendment, “unless it’s an amendment to give One Million Dollars to everyone in the state named Brother Hopeful, I might vote for that one.”  I tried to tell him that if he never votes for another constitutional amendment, then he can never vote to repeal TABOR, but he remained adamant.

          Most people who don’t know anything about ballot measures reflexively vote “no,” and that’s generally a good thing.  Unfortunately it allows blowhards with a lot of money to give their pet issues enough publicity that people think they know something about the measures and vote for them.  See, e.g., TABOR and Polis’s Amendment 41, I think it was.

      • CastleMan says:

        I think he may have tried to coast for too long and did not awaken to the threat of the wave until far too late in the game.

        The loss of Kennedy and Buescher can be attributed to the wave.

        Bennet isn’t a weak candidate. He beat Romanoff’s tough challenge and won the most expensive Senate race in the country.  

    • Half Glass Full says:

      What else can you call it when you have:

      a Democratic Governor

      a Democratic House

      a Democratic Senate

      two Democratic U.S. Senators

  11. coloradowahine says:

    This is an important seat not lose.  We lost outstanding public servant/leaders in Cary Kennedy, Bernie Buescher and Betsy Markey (WTF John Salazar??).  Senator Bennet has and will continue to serve Colorado and the nation well, and be a sane voice in the upcoming bedlam.  

  12. MADCO says:

    Thank you to everyone who knocked doors, phone banked and otherwise donated sweat, money, food, socks, whatever.

    Congrats also to Ken Buck.

    He energized a disparate R electorate and kept a decent attitude.  I would think being a candidate sucks and I am grateful when talented smart people volunteer to put themselves out there.  FWIW- give a polite concession and get back to work.

  13. He’s got a 6-year term now, even if it starts with having to deal with a thin majority in the Senate and an opposition House.

    If we want anything to get done for the next two years, the next push must be for filibuster reform in January.  Hopefully Bennet will get on board with our other Senator, who has what seems to be a great reform package proposal.

    • State Line says:

      there’s a decent chance the Senate will swing R in 2012.

      So, ‘filibuster reform’ may/may not be such a swell idea going forward….

      • sxp151 says:

        The Dems did not use the filibuster remotely the same way that Republicans have. It was never a tool for Dems to block ALL legislation, just the absolute worst. No reason to think they’ll be any different in the minority than they were.

        The filibuster is a tool used by conservatives to block progressives, not the other way around. I don’t think I mind if it’s gone.

        • I want it around, just harder to use.  And I don’t want this zillion cloture votes before “the” vote nonsense.

          I think there are good reasons to use a filibuster, but I think it needs to be an effort to keep one going.  Right now the Senate doesn’t actually bother holding the filibuster – they just take it as read that the opposition will have one and be successful, because there’s no pain for the opposition in doing it – they only need one or two people to stay in session while the majority needs everyone present.  That’s backward.

          • Voyageur says:

            eliminating the ability of a single senator to hold up appointments with an anonymous hold.

            Disgraceful.

            • BlueCat says:

              That’s just insane.  In our two per state system, Senators from small states already give their constituents all the out of proportion make up power they could ever reasonably want. A single Senator being able to bring everything to a screeching halt makes a mockery of our democratic republic.

        • State Line says:

          But, IF we get a GOP House/Senate/President in 2012 – admittedly a very big ‘if’ – I might want to preserve the Senate F-bomb for Dem use.

  14. Automaticftp says:

    Or is this still a projection?

    • State Line says:

      are from Boulder County, which is going for Bennet by a 2:1 margin…..

      • Automaticftp says:

        I’ll wait to breath a sigh of relief until all the ballots are counted (87% reporting at last check).  Scarier things have happened . . .  

        • State Line says:

          With only 72% of Boulder County precincts reporting thus far, Bennet leads 67%:29% in BC. Zero reason to believe the 28% of outstanding BC votes will magically swing Buck’s way.

          All other large counties are 100% in.

          Think it’s safe for you to breathe that sigh of relief now….?  🙂

  15. Middle of the Road says:

    This is turning out to be a pretty fabulous day.  

  16. admin says:

    I can’t believe the GOP hasn’t created jobs yet! It’s time for a referendum!

  17. caroman says:

    But, but, we emailed!  We voted! And, they didn’t listen to us!

    Time for a 2d Amendment remedy and take back our country.

    Assholes.

  18. State Line says:

    based on more returns in from Boulder County….

  19. MADCO says:

    850 KOA just reported that  Nancy Doty, Arapahoe County CLerk says 30,000 votes left to count. KOA also reported 30,000 left to count in Boulder.

    60,000

    Assume Boulder balots mimic Hick – Bennet get’s 18,000.

    Then Buck needs all 30k in Arap.

    It’s almost over.

  20. Aaron says:

    In the biggest Republican sweep on the last 50 years, Colorado just elected a Democratic governor and senator.

    Makes me proud of my home state.

  21. Gilpin Guy says:

    at the top of the ticket.

    You definitely don’t want to start celebrating until Buck concedes but maybe we can do a few warm ups for Shill-mans return.  Who would have thought that Maes would give progressives the last laugh.

    tentative script:

    Shill-man

    In a Republican wave year Kenny Boy choked.  What happened dude?

    he ha ha ha

    Please tell us about another secret Republican poll showing Kenny Boy whupping ass.

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    That’s probably enough for now.  Don’t want to eat too much crow later in case it falls apart.

     

  22. caroman says:

    Just posted from Bennet campaign:

    Victory Speech

    with Sen. Michael Bennet

    Today at Noon

    —————————————————————————–

    Wednesday, November 3

    12:00 p.m.

    North Side of the Nature and Science Building

    2001 Colorado Boulevard

    Denver, Colorado

    ——————————————————————————–

  23. BSWilson83.83 says:

    Given the record shitloadbof money dumped into this race from the outside, any of these groups that Bennett now owes some allegiance to?

  24. State Line says:

    How does Ken Buck spell t-o-a-s-t?

    • Half Glass Full says:

      How about a little more analysis and response? I’d be interested in what you think happened and what this portends.

      • Dabee47 says:

        CU repubs don’t actually put thought into things.

        • Aristotle says:

          Jess has shown that he’s a pretty reasonable debater, and I congratulate him for even showing up to say this much. Much more impressive than some of the bleaters and shills who don’t dare show their faces today, even though it was, by any measure, a good day to be a Republican.

        • RealJessJohnson says:

          Have you met any CU Republicans?  I don’t think you have.  So, before you pass any judgement upon us I suggest you actually talk to one of us.  I am no ideologue.  I am only advancing my own agenda through the system that is in place, which I believe everyone should do.

          • Dabee47 says:

            have I “met any CU Republicans,” I’ve met plenty of the ones that make up your very organization today.  I finished my MA at CU 2 years ago and was (painfully) involved in the ridiculous world of UCSU and ASSG politics both undergrad and post grad.

            So, if you took offense to my characterization of your group, just know it has nothing to do with you as an individual.

            • RealJessJohnson says:

              There is only one member still around since two year ago and he is the President.  He is a stellar individual and does put a lot of thought into what he does.  The organization may have looked differently two years ago.  I wouldn’t know because I wasn’t there.  I joined January of 2009 after I returned from studying abroad in China.

      • RealJessJohnson says:

        The race came to down to the wire.  In the end, the smear campaign against Buck worked.  By all measures, it was Buck who shot himself in the foot to become the loser tonight.  It was his race to lose the entire time.  You can mark this one as another race that the Tea Party has lost for the Republicans along with Delaware and Nevada.

        • Ralphie says:

          That doesn’t sound like a campus young republican to me.  Except for the part about the smear campaign against Buck.  You probably weren’t getting the robocalls about Bennet.

        • Aristotle says:

          Believe me, I know from smear campaigns. It was negative, to be sure, but it was clean.

        • Pam Bennett says:

          There are smear campaigns, talk to Max Cleland and Kerry.

          And, then there are truth campaigns, victim of a DA refusing to prosecute rape because she is pregnant and he thinks she got what she deserved.

          • RealJessJohnson says:

            The rape case was a low blow since he was only doing his job.  Also, there were many issues brought against Buck that were unfair in my opinion.  For example, there were many people I talked to through the GOTV effort that thought Buck was going to go straight to Washington and try to take away their birth control.  Something he never ran on. His statements were taken out of context many times throughout the campaign to make him seem like he supported things that were outside the mainstream when he was only having a conversation about it (ie. flat tax and privatizing social security).  

            • redstateblues says:

              His statements were taken out of context many times throughout the campaign

              What do you call “The tragedy of it is that we have absolutely nothing to show for it.”?

              Also, Karl Rove’s ridiculous ad where they took everything in the Post endorsement of Bennet and took it completely out of context. This was a nasty race on both sides. By your logic, I could say it wasn’t a larger margin of victory for Bennet because Buck and his buddies in DC ran a smear campaign against Bennet.

            • sxp151 says:

              So unfair!

              Buck campaigned on supporting Amendment 62. Not our fault he changed his mind. Buck campaigned on replacing the income tax with a flat tax. Not our fault he changed his mind. Buck campaigned on phasing out Social Security. Not our fault he changed his mind.

              Actually, saying “he changed his mind” is way too generous. He told extreme right-wingers he supported all their causes to win the primary, and then lied about having those positions throughout the general election.

              He was a liar. This was a textbook example of not running too far to the right because you won’t be able to find your way back.

              • redstateblues says:

                Bennet was shockingly consistent in what he said during the campaign. He was always a centrist Dem, so he never had to change positions. Good point about Buck’s flip-flopping.

              • RealJessJohnson says:

                He did campaign on supporting Amendment 62.. later he did clarify that he did not know it would also affect birth control.  Take what you want from that.

                Buck on the Flat Tax:

                “I like a simplified version of the income tax. I like a flat tax, and I like a fair tax,” he told a group of Douglas County Republicans in March. “I read about it, and I’m saying this is great. But give it a little time in Washington, D.C., and it’ll be ruined. . . . My guess is it’s going to be easier to simplify the income tax than it is to pass a fair tax.”

                Seems pretty reasonable to me.  At least he gave his thoughts to the idea.

                Buck on Social Security:

                http://politifact.com/truth-o-

                Again, you can see he was at least giving his thoughts on an issue that may come up in 10-15 years.

                Bennet may have been more consistent but he also made an effort to stay silent on many issues (for example, card check) until he had to answer the question in the general election.  I am pretty much over the Senate race.  I don’t find Bennet to be that bad.  If he actually takes heed to what the people have voiced on limiting the debt, he will be in the Senate for awhile.  He seems thoughtful and not a firebrand.  I feel like he had to make tough votes since he was appointed and would need the support in his first election and became a “rubberstamp.”  He very well may become his own person now that he has truly won his own election.  There is also a different dynamic now that the House is in GOP hands.

                • sxp151 says:

                  Yes, that March 2010 statement is kind of ambiguous. However, the December 2009 statement isn’t.

                  Dec. 16 to Liberty Candidate Search

                  “I think our tax code is a disaster; I think we have picked winners and losers for years, and it is absolutely wrong. I don’t think the income tax is a good idea. I think a national sales tax, a consumption tax, a fair tax is a better idea. I think a flat tax is a better idea that what we’ve got now.”

                  It was actually discussed here.

                  http://coloradopols.com/diary/

                  No need to keep refighting this election (Buck is done for a long time), but he really is a liar.

                • Half Glass Full says:

                  Thank you for responding to my request for further discussion. I appreciated your efforts. You also sound like a reasonable Republican and of course, yes, there are many such folks out there: we on the left tend to forget that.

                  As a Bennet supporter I agree with you to an extent: it was probably a little unfair the way Buck was characterized. But of course the same was true of some of the attacks on Bennet. But I think Buck left himself wide open to the attacks due to the one undeniable thing he did to himself: flip-flopping on issue after issue after issue. THAT is why the attacks on his attitude towards women, gays, etc. had traction: people really were concerned about what he might do in office, because he didn’t seem to be straight with us.

                  Buck does seem like a nice guy and I wish him well, personally. But I’m glad that Bennet is our Senator.

            • SSG_Dan says:

              He told the Tea Party – “Privatize the VA’

              He later told the United Veterans Committee “I support all of your issues,” several of which are fully funding the VA, and expanding VA programs.

              When the press called him on his bullshit, he said (thru a spokesman because he didn’t have the balls to say it to a camera) that he favors “partial Privatization of the VA.”

              Liar. And a “quadrilateral, astronomical, incandescent Son-of-a-bitch.”

        • raymond1 says:

          Did the Tea Party cost Rs the Senate? Maybe, in that the TP’s probably cost the Rs NV, CO, & DE (as you note) — but that would’ve given them only 50 Senators. But I do think the Rs would’ve had a decent shot at CT is, when Blumenthal’s war-record scandal hit, the Rs might’ve been able to knock Blum down for good if they’d had a candidate who was (a) more skilled and (b) more moderate so as to match CT voters (eg not McMahon who expressed doubt about keeping the minimum wage). In other words, if the CT Rs had nominated Rob Simmons, or even better pleaded with Chris Shays to run, I’d have liked their odds — and that would’ve been their 51st senator.

          • No-one seems to be counting Washington State on the Dem balance sheet yet, though Murray appears to have survived.

            So we have 53 including Lieberman and Sanders?  That’s not too shabby for the night, all things considered.

          • RealJessJohnson says:

            From what I have read, McMahon was a poor candidate.  I never heard about her being propelled to be the nominee via the Tea Party but I also never followed the race. It was a good day to be a Republican yesterday even with what occurred in Colorado.  How often does a Senate and Governors seat get taken by one party and the rest of the statewide races by the other?  Colorado is a fun place to be for Politics.  I just hope the new Republican majority in the House gets some work done and actually makes a balanced budget.

  25. DaftPunk says:

    In a year in which all the other statewide races not populated by yahoos named Maes or Tancredo went to Republicans, two federal house seats flipped, and Democratic statehouse majorities were weakened/lost, Buck couldn’t pull out a win against appointed Senator mumble-mouth (Nothing against Bennet as a Senator, but he’s not the most compelling campaign presence, and I’ve met him twice.)

    People didn’t like Buck.  Why didn’t they like Buck?  Polling showed reason number one was his troglodyte anti-choice views.  >70% of voters have twice rejected those views at the ballot box.  Whiners who don’t like campaigning on social issues should take note.

    It worked.

    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

      Yet every pundit has said he ran one helluva campaign, every politician has said they were impressed with the campaign he ran, most of the numbers guys they’ve had on the news shows were impressed with his campaign. Oh, and he won beyond the recount margin.

      Apparently his campaign presence was compelling enough!

      • Gilpin Guy says:

        and lack charisma.  Bennet is a decent fellow but he doesn’t inspire comparisons to Obama.  You can be good at your job and not be telegenic.  

        Bennet did what he needed to do to put the spotlight on Ken Buck, culture warrior, and Buck did everything he could to validate the caricature.  I don’t know if it was Bennet running an effective campaign as much as Buck showing an unpolished and belligerent style along with the mill stone around his neck of dead weight Maes.  No one will ever know how many votes Maes really cost Buck.

        Centrist Democrats 2

        Crazy Tea Party Extremist Republicans 0

        • raymond1 says:

          … but super at some mix of (a) being respected by their state as good senators and (b) being super-savvy at the politics of winning races. Reid, Bennet, Lugar, Hatch, Feinstein, etc.

      • DaftPunk says:

        I just don’t think he excited a lot of independents to vote for him.  I think they (and the outside groups) scared a lot of them to vote against Buck.

  26. MADCO says:

    By JOSH MITCHELL

    WASHINGTON-Colorado Democrat Michael Bennet successfully defended his U.S. Senate seat Wednesday, beating Republican and tea-party insurgent Ken Buck in one of the nation’s most hard-fought and expensive races.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/

  27. DaftPunk says:

    Does everyone else see a banner ad for University of Michigan gear at the bottom of the page, or is that geared to me through the wonder of the internetz?

  28. TimothyTribbett says:

    I am so fricken happy!

  29. Gilpin Guy says:

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

    They call Buck the same name in Spanish as they do Tancredo:  El Loser

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  30. Daisy Margarita says:

    I have never been so happy to be wrong about something. Really and truly.

  31. Craig says:

    I told you guys this week that if Bennet won or came close in Jeffco, Arapahoe and Larimer he was going to win.  He was winning those three counties last night after the first count and never lost the lead.  You could have saved yourselves a lot of heartache and pain, if only you had listened.

  32. Lauren Bacall says:

    I know you worked hard for Bennet, and it was a looong night!

  33. SSG_Dan says:

    …but tomorrow at a Tea Party rally, he’ll say that he’s still in the race and that he never called Bennet.

  34. Ray Springfield says:

     Thank you ELECTED US Senator Michael Bennet for having integrity, stamina, and honestly giving the people of Colorado a critical thinking problem solver with a heart of gold to represent them over the next 6 years

  35. Ray Springfield says:

     Thank you ELECTED US Senator Michael Bennet for having integrity, stamina, and honestly giving the people of Colorado a critical thinking problem solver with a heart of gold to represent them over the next 6 years

  36. Ray Springfield says:

    ?????

    Probably user error. I stayed up til 4 before I was sure that he would win.

  37. dwyer says:

    AGain, I am very glad that my prediction for Buck was wrong.  Thank you to all who did such a great GOTV for Bennet.

    However, my comments about his problems vis a vi Colorado remain.  I think that Buck lost the election as much as Bennet won it.

    My concern about what is going to happen next grows.  

  38. TimothyTribbett says:

    No2Dems = Stupid name that made me skip all posts.

    H-Man = Paid Buck staffer.  Tried to baffle us with bull shit.

    BJ = Horribly wrong but nontheless a tenacious SOB.  Kind of miss him. Oh I do not really mean that he will be back soon enough and remind me why I do not really mean that.

    • raymond1 says:

      if being caught as Chestnut didnt make him run away in embarassment, nothing will!

      • Gilpin Guy says:

        He has probably been recalled to a re-education camp to train for his new assignment pimping Republican poll victories for the 2012 campaign.

        He might just disappear like Ellie or come back, take his ribbings and be a part of the community again.

        Time will tell.

          • Gilpin Guy says:

            but H-man’s absence is hilarious after all his poll victory pimping.  A senate seat isn’t awarded for poll victories.

            I still believe he is a paid operative assigned to blog sites.  We’ll see if he is actually a long term amateur contributor who can discuss other issues besides Bucks latest poll victory.

            • Aristotle says:

              A paid operative. You can pick them out from the other shills by how well they stick to their message. Colawman likely was one, too. The others were too embarrassing to be anything but wannabes.

              Ellie was around yesterday. I don’t know if you think she’s a shill, but she is anything but. She’s a great addition to the pols community and I hope she sticks around.

              • RedGreen says:

                She’s one of the most thoughtful posters on here. I hope she sticks around.

                (BTW, I thought lawman was someone who worked with Buck in the past, definitely not a paid shill, and was mainly posting from that perspective, that he could vouch for the guy having the integrity both Norton and Bennet campaigns said he lacked. He stuck with that point but otherwise seemed open to actual conversations.)

                • redstateblues says:

                  There’s a difference between someone who really, genuinely likes their candidate (like Ellie with McInnis) and a shill. It’s all about the subtext.

                  • Aristotle says:

                    Yes, colawman had actual discussions, but so did H-man. And like H-man, his actual discussions were all about Buck.

                    I think people who stick to one subject, and only that one subject (especially when it’s a candidate or ballot issue – someone or something to vote for), are shills. They don’t have to be mindless robots who are impervious to facts and contrary data.

                    Colawman can prove me wrong by returning and posting about other topics. But disappearing right at the election, especially when his guy lost, isn’t a good sign. Ellie, who some accused of being a McInnis shill, did just that.

                    • Gilpin Guy says:

                      I think we all can enjoy thoughtful conservatives who fill up their comments with “you do it too” excuses.  Whoa baby what exciting nuggets of insight to wade through.

                    • Ralphie says:

                      Don’t know how you missed her.

                    • Gilpin Guy says:

                      It wasn’t about Ellie but I stand corrected.  I guess I don’t read the diaries she posts in.

                      If you see an H-man post let me know.  It is going to be interesting to see if he/she/it remains active.  I actually enjoyed some of his writing.  It was a polished message from the get go.  The problem with his writing was you couldn’t believe his poll pimping even if they were true.  He would have been saying the same message of invincible Republicans regardless of the actual poll results.  Him citing internal GOP polls showing Buck in the lead were meaningless because he was in the Baghdad Bob propaganda mode and the narrative was not to be altered by reality.

  39. Denver Unemployment Examiner says:

    As one of the long term unemployed, I am so relieved that the results went this way. I was not among the Bennet supporters during the CO Senate primary; I supported Andrew Romanoff and was more than a little disappointed when Romanoff did not win the nomination. It took me awhile to come around, but I eventually realized that the consequences of electing someone like Ken Buck would be disastrous for the middle class – particularly for the unemployed workers in this state and across the nation.  Colorado continues to bleed jobs and while the Democrats may not have all the answers for creating the 8 million jobs lost during the Bush adminstration, at least the Dems try to put forth ideas and progams to help stimulate small business job creation and to stop corporate outsourcing or desperately needed good, US jobs for the middle class.  The rebpulicans, including Ken Buck have not suggested any ideas, nor plan of action to help put America back to work.   For that reason, I supported Michael Bennet and other Democrats fighting for working-class America..

    Now it is time for the unemployed in CO and across the nation to re-engage in the fight for the restoration of good, long-term jobs in this country. This is a fight for the middle class. This is a fight for the American workers everywhere.

    Get involved, and stay involved.

    KWiedemer

    Denver Unemployment Examiner

    http://www.examiner.com/unempl

  40. parsingreality says:

    They didn’t wait even 24 hours.  Two Republican state legislators have already asked for an injunction to stop Amendments 5 & 6, passed by almost 2/3rds of the electorate.

    After 5 & 6 made the cut to be on the ballot, the R dominated legislature tried to get their own, self serving (!!!!) version on, but a judge threw it out handily.

    Yet more proof that R politicians see the voters as something to be ignored or rejected.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.