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) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

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%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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
April 22, 2009 06:01 PM UTC

Rothenberg: Bennet Looking Safer

  • 26 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

According to The Rothenberg Political Report, the seat occupied by Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet has been upgraded from “Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party” to “Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party.”

Despite Bennet’s disadvantages when it comes to name ID, we’d have to agree with Rothenberg. Given his prolific fundraising and the weakness of the Republican field, Bennet is certainly in the driver’s seat for 2010 at this point.

Bennet’s biggest weakness is his low name ID, but Republican candidates Ken Buck and Ryan Frazier aren’t exactly household names, either. It’s also unknown if either Buck or Frazier can really raise the money needed to be true challengers; given the number of competitive seats around the country, the RSCC won’t be there to do it for them if the eventual primary winner doesn’t show an ability to be a big time fundraiser on his own.

Comments

26 thoughts on “Rothenberg: Bennet Looking Safer

  1. and has very little to do with Bennet, IMHO.

    The Senator has done an amazing job fence-sitting, but little else. I’m not a Bennet-hater, that’s just an honest assessment.

    If there was a clear Republican favorite, someone who could win the primary as well as the general, then Bennet wouldn’t be nearly as comfortable.

    The fund raising doesn’t hurt either.

    The point is that Ken Buck and Ryan Frazier are not exactly sending shock waves through the electorate right now. Frazier is the strongest candidate, but the GOP will have to compromise a lot of what they believe if they’re going to nominate him–let alone donate to him.

    Even with Frazier as his opponent it’s Bennet’s race to lose. A lot depends on the Senator’s voting record between now and next year. Despite MB’s fund raising, it’s not technically too late for a primary opponent to materialize–though the day is fast approaching when that window will be closed.

    Considering all these factors, Michael Bennet may very well be the most fortunate Colorado politician of all time.

    1. The dude is both (a) working the trenches unbelievably hard, and (b) raising a shit ton of money.

      Being able to do both at the same time speaks for well of him as a candidate both now and down the road.

      While he may be appointed, he also has advantages as an incumbent. Keep in mind that he’s brand new to the Senate, and no one in that china shop is too keen on a brand new bull rushing in there. By next year he’s going to be in a position to make his mark legislatively.

      I guess you could say I’ve really grown to like this guy.  

      1. Good comment. I think it’s been clearly recognized by most that he is an unbelievable fundraiser but it seems the work he is doing to meet with folks and on the issues is being somewhat overlooked at this point.

        I would say that redstateblues has a legitimate point since right now Bennet’s record is still a bit thin–no one’s fault, he just hasn’t been in the Senate long enough to establish one yet.  

        1. I should have mentioned that he’s done a great job reaching out to constituents.

          My comment was purely based on policy, and legislative record, not on his ability to listen to constituents–which he’s done a great job on, and which he deserves credit for.

    2. Clearly there is no Democrat that can challenge him in a primary. The level of support at the Governor’s announcement would indicate that any Democrat challenging Senator Bennet would never get any substantial endorsement vs. Bennet who’d have one from all the states top Democrat leaders.

      I don’t even think that his coming out against EFCA would change those leaders endorsements.

      1. I don’t think redstateblues was referring to any non-existent Democratic primary. It’s pretty clear to everyone with a brain that Bennet will not, and was never going to have, a primary. Duh.

    1. Reread. Bennet outpolls 3 out of 4 potential candidates and the only one beating him is Beauprez, by one point.

      And before you get too excited by that piece of news, please note that Beauprez has a higher unfavorablity factor than Bennet.  

        1. you don’t know politics. You don’t get it. Bennet’s numbers aren’t spectacular but neither are any of his potential opponents.

          But you just keep beating that one tune, Tommy. It seems to be all you know.

  2. The numbers do not lie, spinmeisters. Bennet is losing support like the rest of the taxachussetts jerkoffs the voters mistakenly gave power to.

    Wait the voters didn’t do SHIT for Bennet did they? He and Ritter are going to crash and burn.

    1. it’s all in how you compile and analyze the numbers. I admire your hope, but you don’t seem to have much more than that. Particularly for Bennet, I would grant you some latitude that Ritter might be in a bit of trouble, namely because he has higher-profile (potential) challengers and because things at the capitol have been kind of a mess lately.

      Your claim about the “taxachussetts jerkoffs” though is completely unwarranted. Overall Democrats are maintaining high (or at least higher than Republicans) approval ratings than Republicans; there is no indication that there is any significant degree of backlash against the Keynesian policies put forward by the Democrats so far.

      1. The hundreds of thousands who protested last week didn’t convince you? Obama’s falling approval numbers being documented every didn’t convince you?

        I wish my job allowed me to smoke what you’re smoking.

        1. Gasp! No shit sherlock, of course there are people who are opposed to Obama/Democrats, in fact I think they may even have some sort of political party. Republicans? Is that right?

          I’d guess there are at least 59,934,814 people who might come out to tea bag since they, you know, already registered their protest by voting against Obama.

          If you have proof that that number is massively swelling, I would love to see it.

          Until then, goodnight moon.

      1. If it wasn’t for Republicans checking the majority’s excesses during those periods, we would have been much more screwed. Bush inherited Clinton’s economy, and actually so did Obama.

        1. then I agree.  Keep R’s in the minority so they can do all that benign “checking”.

          Bush only wishes he could have left with the Clinton economy.

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

203 readers online now

Newsletter

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