Another poll shows Romanoff is stronger general election candidate

:'( WHY ARE DEMOCRATS SUPPORTING MICHAEL BENNET? :'(

Probably because his campaign had its shit together since day 1.  

---

by: OH!4CryingOutLoud @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 22:31:01 PM UTC

really?

yeah I mean they were on the ball making sure junior staffers had the price sheet for the Senator's time.

Michael Bennet cannot win the general election.  It's that simple.  Like him or not, if dems want to hold the seat Andrew Romanoff is our candidate.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 22:49:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"the price sheet"

Dude, you just made me laugh so hard, milk came out of my nose. And I don't even drink milk.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 23:13:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honestly?

Because of what OH!4CryingOutLoud said.

Because he's got more money in the bank. Because, at the end of the day, there really isn't that much difference between the two of them, ideologically.

Oh, by the way, it was an intern, not a staffer. I realize you want very, very, very badly to turn this into the Colorado equivalent of Watergate with a dash of Whitewater, but saying it umpteen times a day doesn't make it so.

Interns & volunteers have done stupid shit since Sargon ran for Ziggurat Planner in Akkad six thousand years ago, and they'll do stupid shit six thousand years from now in the elections for Planetary Sector 7.


ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 00:02:36 AM UTC

By the way, care to explain these quotes?

This one:

what's the point of a democratic majority if they don't vote for democratic values?  We could have 6 years of Senator Buck, and then run an actual progressive against him.  He said he only wanted one term anyway ;)

I'm optimistic about Romanoff's chances though; as more and more information like this comes out about Bennet, I think people will get a real look at who he is.

Link here

and this one:

I won't vote Bennet

I used to think I would, but as more an more information comes out about Bennet I've decided that if he pulls this off, despite all the information that is coming out him, I can't in good conscious vote for the guy.  I would probably go 3rd party.

That said, I am optimistic about Romanoff's chances.  I think they are running a solid campaign (after some bumps early on) and they will be able to pull this off.

Link here

You're entitled to do whatever you want in the general election, but I have to question just how committed you are to the party process you've championed so loudly if you're not going to respect the wishes of the majority.

I'll say it now: if Andrew wins, I'll vote for him. Why? Because either candidate would be way better than either Buck or Norton.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 00:58:25 AM UTC

Has Michael Bennet pledged to support Romanoff

if Romanoff wins the primary?

Romanoff has pledged countless times that he would support Bennet if Bennet wins the primary.

But the last I knew, Bennet was still refusing to make the reciprocal pledge, and that refusal has been opening the fissures in the party wider and wider. So it would blatant hypocrisy for Bennet to expect blind party loyalty.  

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:41:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Due respect, Peter

but the onus is on Romanoff, not Bennet, to make that pledge, because he's the challenger in the primary. That may not be to your liking, but that's how that cookie crumbles.

Now, yes, I would expect that if Bennet were to lose to Romanoff on August 11, then he would support Romanoff. The fact remains that if Romanoff hadn't decided to run, there wouldn't be a rift, because it's highly unlikely that there would have been a primary.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 02:27:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We disagree on that, rnoboa

I think both candidates in the primary are equally obliged  to pledge party unity. Romanoff has made the pledge many times. Bennet refuses.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 04:34:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How do you figure?

Romanoff has made that pledge, over and over again, precisely because his campaign is seen, fairly or not, as divisive.

Personally, I couldn't care less. I think primaries are vital because that's the one mechanism we have for determining the party's ideological direction, such as it is. I've participated in my fair share of primaries in my short life, so I don't see them as intrinsically bad or intrinsically good. It's a tool, plain & simple.

What's more, I think the pledges are meaningless. I highly doubt that Romanoff, who's a party hack in the best & most noble sense (as in he's worked hard for the party) is going to pull a Colorado for Romanoff and go rogue. And in the unlikely event of his defeat, I hardly think that Bennet would fail to endorse Romanoff.

In other words, we don't have a situation here that's analogous to, say, Connecticut's in 2006, where Lieberman hinted repeatedly that he didn't see himself bound by the primary electorate's decision, and then proceeded to take advantage of Connecticut's lack of a "sore loser" law.

I made a point of posting Stryker's quotes because she was banging on throughout the assembly process about how that was utterly reflective of the "real" Democrats - and yet, she's all too willing to ditch the party if the results don't conform with her expectations. Again, she can leave the party if she wants; all I'm saying is that it's a bit odd to be lectured on being a "real" Democrat by someone who's ready to exit stage left, and that doing so is directly counterproductive to her stated goal of electing a progressive to that seat.

For what it's worth, I continue to fail to see why people remain exercised over Bennet; while he has his faults, they pale in comparison to Ben Nelson's. Say what you will about Bennet, at least he hasn't held people like Bill Egnor hostage by refusing to vote for unemployment benefits, or held up financial reform because he saw his shadow - both of which Nelson did just this past month alone.

I know what the response is: "but Andrew says he would've voted for X/Y/Z!". Which, again, fine, I'll grant you that - but in the alternate universe where he would've been appointed, based on his prior behavior in the legislature and his organizational affiliations, I have a pretty firm idea that he would've cast the same votes as Bennet did.

At this point, though, we're engaging in the same tired, worn-out back-and-forth that been taking place both here and in Pols for the better part of a year. Frankly, I'm tired of arguing over fifteen shades of grey, which is what we have. I understand - you like charcoal, I prefer slate. But really, at the end of the day, it's still freakin' grey.


ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 08:57:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

rnoboa, thanks for taking the time

to express your views in a well-written, thoughtful and civil manner.  While we continue to disagree on several points, it's refreshing to disagree with a Bennet supporter based on reasonable differences over interpretation of facts, rather than having to repeatedly argue over which asserted facts are real and which are imaginary. Glad to see you increasing your participation in this forum.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 16:05:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would second that

Well stated Peter, and well said rnoboa.

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 19:42:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Likewise, Peter (n/t)

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 20:04:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

BTW, I posted your quotes, Stryker

because I think it's very curious that you thumped incessantly about how Romanoff was the choice of the real Democrats - and yet, you're quick as lightning to bail on the party if it decides to go a different way.

Like I said, you can do whatever you want in the general. I'd ask you to reconsider, because win or lose, we need progressives like you and I to not take a walk.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 01:13:46 AM UTC

Stryker posted a promise to not support Bennet?

OMG. Not surprising.  

---

by: OH!4CryingOutLoud @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 05:35:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah i noticed

I mean it's a giant comment, but apparently you feel the need to write another that you wrote the first one?  Thanks for upping the attention on this important diary!

What's your point?  The polling shows there are a lot of people who will vote for Romanoff but not Bennet.  Why is it at all strange to see one of them?

It's simple really: I don't trust Bennet.  Not in the slightest.

But back to the main point, Bennet can't win the general election.  I notice you don't actually address that point, but thanks for playing.  I would say I've missed seeing you on the blogs, but really I haven't.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 15:40:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You keep on banging on about Bennet not being able to win

and Romanoff being able to do so, because he's going to perform the fundraising equivalent of the loaves & fishes.

There's not a Democratic incumbent in a competitive race for whom polling numbers don't suck - I mean, Barbara Boxer is losing to Carly Fiorina in California, of all places!

You want to know why? Three words: jobs, jobs, jobs. Regardless of how blatant Republican obstruction is, voters are going to hold Obama & Democrats responsible for the economy.

For what it's worth, I've yet to see you address how Romanoff wins the general election when he's already said that he'll spurn every outside offer of help, including the DSCC's. Unless, in fact, he's not going to - which then makes his protestations about PACs & outside money rather hypocritical, no?

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 21:16:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the DSCC does whatever they want

they run their own ads.  You're actually twisting writing from a news story a few months ago that was corrected -- Romanoff never said he would tell them to stay out.  Regardless, campaigns don't control the national party.  They run their own ads.

Romanoff's fundraising has been competitive with the Republicans; it's a simple truth I know you don't want to see.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 18:04:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If the Democrats pick a bad boring candidate

The independents will look at us a joke, and for good reason.

Neither one of these Republicans is to be underestimated. Norton is an idiot, but remember, this is America, people like idiots. She's "folksy" and likes to shoot things and hates the same people they hate. Buck is a smart, charismatic guy who breeds deep loyalty in his followers and actually has some moderate leanings.

I personally believe that running a candidate who is against Big Business but takes their money anyway, who has major ties to the Obama administration in sneaky back room ways will be looked upon as a foolish decision. Foolish because the candidate is going to be another "Insider." Also, an incumbent in an anti incumbent year who is a Democrat in what is still considered a very red state.

And we're going to run him versus the "folksy" woman with a gun who they think is cute even when she acts like a moron?  Or we run him against the quick thinking, funny, charming guy with a legion (alright, legion may be an overstatement) of loyal followers? Can you imagine the incumbent, poor debating, Democrat with major ties to Obama against either one of them? It's just dumb. There is no other word.

Oh but he has money so that should be enough right? I guess I missed the memo that says "dead presidents" are allowed to vote now...

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 06:08:26 AM UTC

Because Romanoff *isn't* an insider?

See, this is why I'm tired of this race:

I personally believe that running a candidate who is against Big Business but takes their money anyway, who has major ties to the Obama administration in sneaky back room ways will be looked upon as a foolish decision. Foolish because the candidate is going to be another "Insider."

Which, OK, Oz. If you have problems with how the system is set up, fine. These are all valid points. But I guarantee you that if Romanoff wins the primary, the very minute he does so he'll be shilling for ducats. He has to. If he doesn't, he's committing political malpractice. Romanoff's funding his campaign (or not) in the manner with small donors because he lacks access to those ducats, currently. If he becomes the nominee, he'll have access to them. If he turns them down, he's unilaterally disarming. Which is cool as a Hollywood plot device, but monumentally stupid as a political strategy.

The reason that Democrats line up at the business trough is because that's where the dollars are. Why do they go there? Because money fertilizes the grassroots. It's the same reason, incidentally, why so many Democrats wind up lobbying and working for businesses: because they want to be financially compensated for their skill & knowledge. If you want that to change, you either have to come up with a different incentive or match the current one. Good luck.

Moreover, it's a bit strange to refer to someone who's served as a member of a national party committee, served 8 years as Speaker, and was a proud member of the Democratic Leadership Council as an outsider.

Back to the broader point, though. It's a function of how deeply bizarre this primary is that on the one hand, Andrew's supporters will claim his two decades of work inside the machine as proof of his greater fit for the office, then turn right back around and claim that he's an outsider, humbly fighting for the little guy.

I'd say that it's deeply contradictory, but I'm sure someone will jump out and say "CRAMDOWN!!?ONE!!" and yell loudly about how Obama is Teh Sux0r!! for butting into a state's primary, while at the same time demanding that Obama should do just that to Nelson or Lieberman.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 09:28:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Easily explained, rnoboa

There's more than one inside/outside dimension here: Bennet is a Washington insider and a Colorado outsider, whereas Romanoff is a Colorado insider and a Washington outsider.

RE: corporate campaign money
You're right that that's the way the system is now, but that's the whole point. That's what needs to be changed.  It's the single most important issue we face -- unless we solve the growing problem of corporate control over government, we can't solve any of the other monumental problems we face. ... If not now, when? If not us, who?

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 15:14:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand what you are saying

But the general populace votes on national feeling. It's a sad but true fact.

Right now, Bennet is an insider in the Obama administration. Romanoff is an insider in the state party. Though I hate to say it, the general public probably doesn't even realize that there is a state party. I have talked to people before who didn't even know we had a state legislature, let alone a state party.

And yes, he served on the DNC, I don't take away from that, but the DNC service from years ago, is not the same thing as lit pieces about the friendship between the President and the Senator. The tie to Obama can really hurt Bennet. That cant be argued with Romanoff.

I do have problems with how the system is set up, but the thing is, so do A LOT of other people. Voters are responding to people who are anti corporations and working on publicly funded elections. Just because "that's how it's always been" doesn't mean that that is how it should be and it doesn't mean it can't be different. People want to believe in true democracy again, a democracy where elections are not bought by big business.  

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 15:51:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

As I've said before, that's a distinction without a difference

Insider is as insider does. Regardless, no one becomes personal friends with a former President without being a bit of a DC insider themselves, so your point is moot.

Again, going back to my earlier point: we're talking about 15 shades of grey here. Whether you like charcoal (Romanoff) or slate (Bennet), it's still grey. I don't say this to harsh on your choice, which is considered, or on the candidates, who are both decent, upstanding people.

I say this because I want people to be very clear on what we're arguing over, and I get the distinct impression that folks are ascribing their own frames to the candidates. I saw this happen with Obama, and it's the root of much of the progressive disillusion with him.

I say again: they're both insiders. Arguing over who's more of an insider is a waste of time.

As for the campaign finance system: absolutely, I agree with the need for change. That said, I'd respectfully submit that to the degree anti-corporate sentiment "exists", it's more a function of a lousy economy than of any deeply-held beliefs. I fully expect that if & when the economy recovers, that anti-corporate sentiment will vanish, just as it has in the past.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed Jul 14, 2010 at 21:52:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

For what it's worth, Bennet is on record saying he'll support Romanoff

Link here, quote below:

CS: Is it safe to assume that, if Andrew Romanoff wins the primary, that you will support him?
MB: Of course.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 23:56:38 PM UTC

That's good to hear

Thanks for pointing that out. ... Dang, now we Romanoff supporters have to find something new to harp on to replace that issue.

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 00:26:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

how about a record of terrible votes?

:)

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Fri Jul 16, 2010 at 18:19:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes indeed

Not just the final-passage votes either, but the lack of effort to get good legislation onto the floor for a vote.  

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 04:39:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

About that:

...but the lack of effort to get good legislation onto the floor for a vote.  

Whatever you may think, I guarantee you that Romanoff wouldn't be any more successful at doing that. Being Senator isn't anything like being the Green Lantern, no matter how many times Andrew may insist otherwise.

Here's what I mean by this:

Green Lantern Theory:
Usually used as a pejorative, this is the thought that a lack of will is the main impediment to achieving a goal.

Other links here and here

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 07:16:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No need to speculate or invoke cartoon characters,

Romanoff has a proven track record of shepherding good legislation to the floor for a successful vote.  The other candidate doesn't.  

There's much that I disagree with in those links you provided, but I don't want to get bogged down in a long discussion about it.  To summarize briefly: The administration and many congressional Dems have indeed displayed an alarming lack of will to get important things done. In fact, they've repeatedly shown a will not to get those things done and to actively work against people who have stood up and made the effort. Just because someone created an expression that was relevant and instructive in its original context, that doesn't mean the expression automatically denotes valid criticism every time it's invoked in other contexts.  

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 18:49:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]