U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
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) Somebody
90%
10%
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%
February 19, 2009 11:54 PM UTC
34 Comments
Now they can see, right at the J&J dinner, who they should openly ostracize.
Only half-joking.
And not joking one bit.
option 1 – do nothing
results – possible support for a challenge fails to materialize
and remain outside of the political process
option 2 – be outspoken in supporting Romanoff
results – cement support for people who want a primary challenge for the Senate seat and become involved in the process.
let’s face it, its not a popular move among the ‘big folks’ in the party, but this race will be another democratic win – so the primary will be the battle.
if being ostracized is the price for sticking up for someone who served our state for 8 years and as the majority leader of the State House, then that is the cost.
Wait, I thought you were describing Ed Perlmutter there, except he served our state for 8 years and was president pro tem of the state Senate. And he’s won election in competitive districts.
Will he have a table at the Jefferson Jackson dinner too, or are his supporters mature enough to realize “this race” isn’t necessarily “another Democratic win,” especially if sore losers are launching an 18-month primary campaign only a few weeks after Bennet was sworn in?
well, or Hickenlooper – each of those picks would make sense in passing over another qualified candidate. No issue there at all. But when you pass over all the candidates who actually had to win their election (and yes, Perlmutter did win tougher races) and choose none of them, then what is that about?
And this:
especially if sore losers are launching an 18-month primary campaign
no one lost anything. That is part of the problem with this appointment, Ritter passed over many other candidates that objectively, were more qualified than the final pick.
And, are you against a primary within a party?
That is how we got to pick among the best of the candidates in the Presidential election.
And when is the right time to begin a primary race? it sounds to me that you don’t support any time frame for a primary, but would rather that people like us who don’t like the Guv’s choice, (that we didn’t get to vote on)
to just shut up or go away.
we won’t.
Wade, I sympathize with you (I thought Perlmutter would have been the best pick, though Ritter couldn’t have gone wrong with Romanoff or Hickenlooper either). But I’m willing to give Bennet a chance for the duration of 2009 and get the sense most Democrats (and Colorado voters) are too. Frankly, given the dynamics, I think it would make more sense for you to urge Romanoff to challenge Ritter in a primary, but doubt that’s any more likely than short-circuiting his career by challenging Bennet.
You can make all the noise you want, but I don’t think it’s going anywhere. Neither do I think Colorado is solidly enough Democratic that the kind of brutal primary you’re envisioning would help keep the Senate seat. But have at it.
ultimately, not what i want, but
what does Andrew want?
clearly though, the people i am hearing from are wanting a second opinion.
…yet you can claim his opinion matters most. Bullshit, either get his approval or clam up, respectfully.
you are saying that because Andrew has not said he wants to run, that he does not, and therefore people like me should clam up.
What if the “establishment” want his supporters to clam up, merely to dampen his view of his chances to enter the race?
Both of these scenarios are possible, unless you think that every candidate decides to run prior to getting public support.
Furthermore, since I have no contacts with Mr. Romanoff, I will only ‘clam up’ when he tells us that he is definitely not interested.
Until then, you respectful requests will go unheeded. And, sir/madam, that’s rude.
I’ve already said that I think primaries are good for the Party and if Romanoff or Perlmutter or anyone else wants to jump in and primary Bennet then that’s fine with me. But if either of them or their supporters are really serious about winning, they have better come up with a better reason then “they were more qualified” and therefore deserved to be picked.
as a whole. And most every Senate appointment this year seems to further support the reason why I don’t like it.
the Burris appointment was awful and will now be overturned, to be replaced by another appointment.
Gilibrand, was such an unpopular pick that Patterson is getting killed in head to head polls vs. Cuomo for a gubenatorial primary and will likely only be a 2 year appointment himself.
Both Bennet and Gilibrand are good candidates and good people.
But the appointment system does not reward service in some cases, and this is most seen in the case in Ritter’s appointment.
I agree that the issue of “deserving” to be picked is not a rationale to support a candidate, but being a more qualified candidate most certainly is, and that is enough for me and the other people who I have spoken with, to support a primary.
As I’ve said before, many times, Romanoff was a willing participant in the process. The fact that he wasn’t chosen does not mean that the process is broken.
It’s also coming to a point where all of this drum beating is potentially hurting your candidate.
One thing is certain: Bennet would be supported in the primary by the CDP, the DSCC and the President. Is it worth risking turning Fmr. Speaker Romanoff into the next Mike Miles?
At any rate, I think Romanoff’s best bet is to work in the private sector, the Obama admnistration, or some facet other than elected office until 2014 when he should make a run for Governor.
from what i heard there was no process.
what did you hear specifically about such a process that occured?
I tried. Carry on.
and for your comments.
this may all come to naught as you have suggested and I am aware of that.
Perhaps Andrew is reading these posts right now and thinking this is not a good thing or maybe not.
I guess we will see.
..you, wade, have wrung every bit of attention out of it for yourself….congrats!
as soon as the others step forward.
(and now i have confirmation that they are)
they just needed someone to publicly state what they were feeling on the inside.
and Jamba, if you look at the vitriol directed towards me by you and others,
i would call this “attention” something else, “taking it on the chin”
You’re so brave.
Thank God someone’s standing up for poor Andy Romanoff.
this is not about ‘poor andy romanoff’ – i have said before that the other choices of Perlmutter, hickenlooper etc. would have been fine.
this is about all the people I have heard complaining about the pick of someone they don’t know to be their Senator, and felt ignored by the Governor. (And there are many out there)
and as for
you prove my point perfectly by making it personal- and not about the right to ask for a primary – part of what our country’s democratic process is all about.
Remember when the 2008 presidential election was all about “Clinton’s inevitablity?” how else did we get to this moment in history, if not for the very primary process that you now attack, by attacking me?
but i guess if your only goal is to get under my skin, then keep going.
No, Wade, I’m just mocking you.
have at it
sir/madam
mock away if you are up to it
have at it
sir/madam
mock away if you are up to it
I’ve posted at the bottom of this thread and in others that I do think Romanoff could win a primary because of who typical primary voters are but that doesn’t mean he should challenge Bennet. I don’t know that the primary would hurt either candidate going into the general but if Romanoff is willing to challenge a sitting Dem simply because some people (maybe even Andrew himself) think he’s more qualified, then why not challenge Ritter? For that matter, since he cares so much about Coloradans, why not challenge Lady Di and give CD1 a rep who remembers who elected them?
I have to agree with those who have suggested Andrew get a job and some experience in the private sector or with something other than being a professional politician. I also simply don’t think that he has the cajones to actually do it. No matter how much he wants it, I don’t think he’ll pursue anything unless he knows the field is either cleared for him or there is no formidable challenge. He’s never had to fight and I don’t believe he has it in him to rock the boat.
Interesting to see that while there has been a lot of posts here about Romanoff’s page on Facebook, Bennet’s page there has 10x (over 600) as many supporters and his Myspace page has almost 3x as many (close to 900). Looks to me like Bennet has some support and his people are being very proactive in building some net-level support.
Getting the rank and file of the party in an uproar only to have your candidate to decide against a run leaving everyone with a bad taste in their mouth.
Having said that, I’m defintely not going to poo-poo any efforts to help the party raise money (which is the main goal of the JJ).
why don’t you just get Andrew to publicly state that he is not running. It shouldn’t be that difficult, right?
Maybe he doesn’t want to make a statement right now for personal reasons. Or professional reasons. Or strategic reasons. Or… whatever reason. The point being it is his decision and you should start showing a modicum of respect for Andrew. He’ll make his own decision when he wants to and badgering him is not helpful.
Not to mention that complete and total lack of respect that you’re showing to Michael Bennet by buying this table at the biggest party function of the year. You’re giving him a giant middle finger by doing this.
and certainly offer no such ill tidings towards him.
Heck, if many of us were asked to serve in the United States Senate in such a manner, I imagine all of us would be glad to accept the offer.
it is not about him, in the least. He said yes to a question that should not have been asked.
As for Mr. Romanoff…
Are you speaking for him mr. hand?
Who said I was badgering Andrew Romanoff?
Unless you speak for him, I will wait for his direct word to cease and desist.
There’s clearly no reasoning with you.
may they show their wishes better than i ever could.
would be foolish to think he could win a primary against Bennet unless something major happens in the next year. Yes people love Andrew, yes I would have been happy to see him appointed, but I don’t see the point in a long close and costly primary in which it is improbable he will win.
As for your original statement that Colorado is somehow now about choosing between Ds and Ds, this seem extraordinarily short sighted. George Bush is no longer the incumbent, the Republicans no longer have power. The Dems and Obama will have to take responsibility for what happens from now until the fall of 2010. Given the current situation, who knows where the hell we could be by then. Democrats resting on their laurels are both stupid and irresponsible. They ought to treat the senate as if it might be lost until the day after the election.
Without getting into the question of whether Andrew should challenge Bennet, I have to disagree with your statement that he would “be foolish to think he could win a primary.” Bennet is being given the benefit of the doubt by a lot of voters but I don’t think that translates to having earned a lot of passionate support. Andrew on the other hand is absolutely adored by the party activists at the precinct and district level. Voter turn-out in a non-presidential year is lower to begin with and primary elections in those years tend to be dominated by the hard-core activists. Given that, I think Andrew could probably win handily in a primary.
Which of them would be better positioned to hold the seat? Unless a more moderate Repub emerges I’d say either one of them could win over Both-Ways-Bob or the like. That of course all depends on what Obama/Pelosi/Reid do to or for the country between now and then and what the overall mood of the country is but CO does not seem to be trending toward the Tancredo/Wiens/Beauprez world (as much as Caldara et al would like to believe that).
The question then I think is whether Andrew should challenge a sitting Dem without any signs yet of big policy differences. More than that, does the Prince of the Party who has never had to raise big money or fight a contested race have the cajones to step up and take that fight and risk on? My guess is no. He could win, but won’t be willing to do it and will instead find another opportunity that doesn’t involve him having to fight for it.