President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 24, 2011 09:07 PM UTC

Friendly Fire Aversion Leads To Romer Advisor Bailouts

  • 47 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

FOX 31’s Eli Stokols reported over the weekend:

Three members of Chris Romer’s so-called “kitchen cabinet”, informal advisers who are not on the campaign payroll, quit the mayoral candidate’s campaign earlier this week, several sources tell FOX 31 Denver.

Chris Gates, Paul Lhevine and Mark Eddy all left the campaign on Wednesday over growing concerns that the campaign’s message and tone were going in the wrong direction — a negative direction…

Sources close to the situation tell FOX 31 Denver that Hickenlooper, or the three advisers’ allegiance to him, played no part in their individual decisions to quit the campaign.

“They made these decisions on their own,” a source said.

What we’ve heard about this corroborates Stokols’ account of the departure of these three advisors. As with other divisive intraparty elections, there are always splits that occur between otherwise fast friends, co-workers, and political allies. Emotions that run high during Democratic primary and other blue-on-blue campaigns often take a long time to cool just like Republican primaries (see: Bennet, Michael and Norton, Jane for examples from both sides). The desire to avoid “going negative,” thus preserving goodwill between once and future friends, was probably always futile in this Denver mayoral race, which means that maybe the departure of these advisors from Chris Romer’s campaign always was too. In short, we see no reason to question Stokols’ explanation for their departure, or to criticize it as reported.

Those of you weighing the net value of this “inside baseball” story, for which we have just significantly increased the total coverage, versus other issues being widely discussed in the mayoral race, might come away unconvinced that this will sway the results one way or the other. This is more about keeping things peaceful between insiders over lunch at The Palm–important for that set, surely, but do keep it in perspective. The voters are likely to care…a little less.

UPDATE: More commentary and some details on the players involved here.

Tweet
Share

Comments

47 thoughts on “Friendly Fire Aversion Leads To Romer Advisor Bailouts”

  1. When a campaign in the heart of things loses anyone important and those who leave are cited saying it’s because  “the campaign’s message and tone were going in the wrong direction” it’s a bad thing.

    Hell, if they left for the lame reason the campaign claimed – they got busy at work and wanted more time with family – it’s bad news.  If they said nothing and just stopped advising, who would know?  Makes me believe they wanted it known.

    Far more ominous are Stokel’s hints and speculations that Romer is having a hard time funding a real media strategy. If that’s true, that’s  a real negative, though still of questionable impact.  I don’t vote in Denver, but I’ve not met anyone struggling to make up their mind.

    1. about this story.

      One, the direct contradiction over the reason for the mass exodus of the advisers coming from Romer’s camp regarding .

      Two, the timing. The same day they leave, Romer is getting a phone call from the Governor. The very next day, the negative ad is off the air. Poof. Gone.

      There is no such thing as coincidence in politics.  

      1. Is this really a site for people who work politics and know politics? There’s no way any operative, either high or low, would call Romer’s campaign negative. I’m no Romer fan, but really — this is attack dog politics? Give me a break.

        If this stuff really bothers Hancock this much, then I wonder about his suitability to serve in high elected office. What kind of mayor is so thin-skinned that he can’t handle ads about his own votes to give pay raises for politicians? What kind of pol is so sensitive to criticism that he thinks it’s unfair to recite his own quotes about creationism?

        This ain’t dirty politics. It’s spotlighting differences in a race between two pols who don’t have many. If Hancock bristles under this, can you imagine how he’d handle ads ala Romanoff/Bennett? Grow up, dude.

        1. No kidding. From what I’ve seen of them over the years, they are experienced Democratic political operatives. Are you sure you weren’t talking about yourself, you political genius, you?

          This diary isn’t about Hancock’s feelings on how Romer is going negative. Do try and keep up. I realize since there is more than one diary up today about the mayoral race, it may be more than you can absorb but really, do try.

          This about Romer’s advisers leaving his campaign and leaving the same day Hickenlooper makes a phone call to Romer about an ad that references him, an ad that was considered negative by just about everybody. An ad that promptly went from major airplay to being pulled off the air the very next day.

          And when I say everybody, I mean Romer’s own unpaid staff.  

          1. The posters here who claim this is a negative campaign are the real Pollyannas.

            The term for the unpaid consultants who apparent have left the Romer orbit is: “People afraid to piss off future business clients.”

            There’s a difference between quitting over principle, and quitting over the fear of losing future personal paychecks. Quitting for the first reason is noble. Quitting for the second reason is nothing more than dollars and cents.

        2. I am not against negative campaigning (defined by me as attacks that are personal rather than political and/or not factual in nature) because I lean pacifist (I do), or because I spent a lot of years as a preschool teacher with students more mature than many of my current political colleagues (I did), or because I am spiritual (I am). I hate negative campaigning because I know it works in the short-run but has devestating effects on the party that does it, in the long run.

          I have said this before — during ’08, I knocked on thousands of doors for Obama, and met thousands more people while registering voters in public places. I heard literally hundreds of times, “I don’t vote because I hate the way they attack each other on television” (or something to that effect). Negative campaigning has a huge negative impact on voter turn-out for many election cycles to follow. In ’08, we were talking to people who gave up voting when Marilyn Musgrave attacked Angie Paccione on television! (How many election cycles ago was that, Colorado?) Those who did agree to vote again for Obama did it because they told us, “He’s different. He takes the high road.”

          Republicans know that negative campaigning decreases voter turn-out — that’s part of the reason they do it. When more people vote, Dems win. When they are disgusted and stay home, the GOP wins. Shame on any Dem who would rather win their own single election, than do what is best for their party overall!

          1. So the less people know about candidates, the more they vote? Not my idea of democracy.

            Many of the people I know who repeat that canard — “I’m so turned off by negative campaigning that I don’t vote” — are just looking for any excuse to duck a hard choice via voting. There’s more viciousness in daily talk about co-workers or neighbors than any political spot that intrudes on their favorite TV shows every two years.

            As for the “shame on any Dem who would rather win their own election than do what is best for the party,” who gets to say what is best for the party? Is it saccharine creationists or silver spooned blowhard Wall Streeters? This is a non-partisan election. Let them go at it.  

            1. I do not have a candidate in this race. I respect them both, and have some minor concerns about each. However, those who have been paying attention to the careers of both men know Camp Romer opportunistically sensationalized Hancock’s slips. In fact, the less ignorant among us know Hancock isn’t as stupid as the Romer attacks have made him sound. As I said before, if you’ve been paying attention, Hancock clarified his position and said he mispoke. I take him at his word because the larger body of evidence says he is an intelligent person.

              How is this different than when Bennet supporters like me opportunistically lambasted Buck for similar kinds of stupid remarks? Buck’s career totality confirmed his sexist, anti-science and homophobic tendencies. Hancock’s recent comments seemed inconsistent with his career.

              The more voters know about these candidates, and all candidates, the less they trust the opportunistic attacks on both sides that occur this far into any election.  I expect this from the Republicans; I am disappointed to see it from my fellow Dems. Many of us are Dems because we see Dems as caring more about others, in general. If you think that’s naive, “shoot me”.

              It really pisses me off that I have to defend my expectation for clean politics. I don’t support Hancock over Romer. If you ask me, neither excites me nor disgusts me, but both would be head-and-shoulders above the Republicans who would take the job. I don’t see either one of them giving specifics on education reform, being pro-teachers union, against the g-dawful pit bull ban, or anything else I want to see change. Please do not push me into blogging pro-Hancock (or anyone else in this race). (My close friends will remember I started the Bennet/Romanoff race with no strong opinion, and the more extreme anti-Bennet zealots pushed me into a corner and made me one of Bennet’s biggest defenders. Not interested in going there again.)

  4. the departure of these three particular advisors is something voters will care about. Of course they won’t.

    The question is whether what is widely perceived as a slash-and-burn negative campaign could be driving supporters away, maybe backfiring.

    The bromide that “negative campaigning works” isn’t enough. During the Senate primary, all four candidates (both sides) faced some substantial backlashes over what was seen as unfair or unnecessarily harsh negative attacks. And remember, this is an election to replace John “Never Met a Negative Ad He Liked” Hickenlooper. So it’s a question worth discussing.

    1. And consider myself an ABCer.

      I have a problem with your depiction of Romer’s campaign as a “slash-and-burn negative campaign.” Did you ever answer the question in the other thread? How would you justify a pro-creationist comment like this from a Republican? Would you even try?

      I’ve never liked “negative campaigning works.” But if you add the words “as long as it’s true,” I have a lot less to argue with.

        1. I think if it’s true and related to policy, it’s not negative. But what’s related?

          For instance, I think Hickenlooper is a hypocritical ass unless he had this conversation with Sen. Bennet. Bennet’s Buck (I’m not touching the primary here; I’d like no one else to) ads were extremely negative by the standards set forth lately. On social security, abortion, student loans, etc. They were all either negative or useless fluff.

          Clearly, much of Buck’s flubs were policy related. So I don’t consider most of Bennet’s ads to have been negative. Abortion is one of those “is it policy?” issues. In an obvious way? Probably not. But didn’t DaftPunk teach us all a thing or two about that? So even though Buck couldn’t make birth control illegal through his own policy choices, he would have some power to make other people make it illegal. How far does that go (not the issue, the idea of policies)?

          I’m also wondering now what makes a campaign inherently negative. Is it only what hits TV? Is it related to your endorsements? Your staff? Snarky bullshit you slip in while speaking? And at what ratio?

          Of course it comes down to the specific perspective of the individual voter. But if that’s OK, then so is selling the perspective of whatever “flub” someone made. This is where RedGreen’s bias is showing, imo.

          Et cetera. You didn’t really ask for that, I just think a lot about it. Too much.

      2. The question assumed I was a Hancock supporter, which I am most certainly not, and that I was trying to justify a pro-creationist comment from anyone, which I most certainly wasn’t. My interest in this has been a full airing of the dispute, including Hancock’s retraction. When some Polsters jumped to amazing conclusions (“he believes the earth is only 6,000 years old!”), I said those conclusions were probably unwarranted. And when WLJ made a patently false claim about what the video of the debate showed, I tried to set the record straight because, it appeared, no one else actually looked at the video. Beyond that, I’m in favor of a vigorous discussion and even more in favor of people keeping their facts straight.

        2. The video was clear; at least the one i saw that was posted on pols.  Moreover, it appears that everyone BUT you saw the same thing.  Maybe you know of another video that no one saw.  However, the one posted on pols was very clear.  Very clear…

          RG, i get you like Michael.  But he did say he was for teaching creationism in school.  He said it on the video, everyone saw it.  

          As for negative campaigning, really?  Every campaign season things get negative, you all are acting like this is new.  OK Hick didn’t.  Guess what, he didn’t have to.  The race was not close.  

          Negative campaign happens because it works.  And despite all that has been said, Michael handed Romer the negative piece. Not once, but twice.  He deserved what he is getting, politically speaking.

          Is it fair?  Really?  Are we talking fair politics?  

          1. I get it that you have a beef with Hancock. I’m neutral. But the video CUTS OFF before Romer answers. There’s a transcript (prepared by the Romer campaign) right above it over on Denver Pols. You’re not seeing what you think you’re seeing, and that was my only point about that.

    3. This is definitely the kind of story that deserves attention on this blog, inside baseball though it may be.  To use the it’s too inside baseball excuse when arguing that something won’t have much importance to the average voter is one thing.  To use it as an excuse for not giving something play here is kind of silly. It’s a political blog.  This feels like a pissing match between Hancock supporters (like Tobias) and ColPols. Both parties to the match have legit points but neither will concede anything just because.

  5. Mostly about how both candidates have failed to address actual issues that actually relate to how they’ll govern. They’re both just metacampaigning.  

    1. Or that they pretty much agree about everything so are arguing on the margins about leadership style. That’s hardly unusual for a Denver mayor race.

      1. If they agree on vision, they can debate implementation. If they agree on implementation, they can debate accountability. They can make different promises for the when, where, who, how, and why of implementation and accountability. They can discuss strategic differences.

        Any of those things would be equally marginal, but a lot more relevant to their actual leadership style than how they campaign. Campaigning isn’t management. One needs to look no farther than Obama’s campaign vs. his administration to see that starkly illustrated. (Not an Obama diss; I think it’s uncontroversial no matter how you feel about the POTUS that political conditions have forced him to execute very differently than he campaigned.)

      2. Anyway, these two are about as far apart as two people of the same party can be.

        Secure Communities – Implementation plans incredibly different. (This matters)

        Both are planning to dive into education. Romer is thinking more like DPP type stuff, Hancock is cool with a takeover if the current DPS minority comes to power. Could be a bit of a difference, eh?

        ICE processes being used in petty crimes if necessary, different views.

        FasTrack – taxes and when – stark difference in policy.

        Here’s a good one: Public safety pay. This is half our budget shortfall.

        There’s much more. I’ve been to a dozen debates now (help me) and only saw Wolf and Lopez outside of the box these guys make. So I’m always lost on this “they’re the same” crap. What, exactly, are they the same on? Fuck yeah they are avoiding specifics. But only one of them admits it. And celebrates it.

        What a sad time for Denver…

        1. a diary highlighting these differences? I’d be very interested in reading it if there was, and that’s the sort of thing that could be promoted to the front page, provided there’s no rapture story to breathlessly put on the front page, or any political cartoons that must be rushed to the front, of course.

  7. I haven’t been following all that closely, but I can’t figure out where this story is coming from. The only person saying the advisers left due to negativity is Eli, but is that a real source? Can he just say what he thinks happens without proof?

    Being a key campaign adviser does take a lot of time, and it sounds like they are still supporting Romer. If they had publicly rebuked Romer, yeah, that’s something, but as far as I can see this is all just speculation.

    1. None of the subjects of this story has asked for a correction. It’s been up since Saturday, and we don’t doubt that Stokols would have corrected if asked.

  11. If Chris Romer loses, it will be because he chose to go negative on Michael Hancock.  Both are fine men and either would make an excellent mayor for Denver.  Mr. Hancock seems to be going the Hickenlooper for Governor strategy of staying positive.  I hope the voters of Denver send a message that clean campaigns win.  

      1. Which campaign is positive and has no negative spin? I haven’t seen a poll since the Mejia endorsement, or the evolution fallout, so I don’t who this third candidate is with the huge advantage. Anyway, I don’t think runoffs work that way. There are just the two guys. The two lying, negative, and, in one case, whiny guys.

    1. how little you care.

      And yet, you keep clicking on these diaries and caring enough to tell us that you don’t care.

      Fascinating.  

      1. But that’s because you’re an idiot and easily amused.

        And when the election is over, you’ll go away like all the rest of the idiot shills.

        I’ll still be here, not caring about what shills write.

        1. “Look how little I care! I totally don’t care! I don’t care about this, or that, or anything else! Hooray for me!

          Everyone! Come see how I don’t care! I totally don’t care better than you don’t care, my don’t care is better than your don’t care. I don’t even care if you care that I don’t care!”

          But I’m the idiot. You’re adorable.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

23 readers online now

Newsletter

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