Bennet, meanwhile, waited to go negative against his primary opponent. He has spent a staggering $5.8 million on the race, but his first mention of Romanoff in a TV ad came only two weeks ago...With polls showing Romanoff now tied with Bennet -- a Denver Post poll released last weekend had Romanoff at 48 percent and Bennet at 45 percent -- some observers are wondering whether Bennet might have been better served by pursuing a McCain-style "scorched-earth" strategy against his upstart primary opponent.
It's not pretty folks, but it's true. Andrew Romanoff has gained because he's willing to be aggressive. Bennet has stumbled for months, burning (according to the article) 5.8 million without actually engaging his primary opponent.
People on here have been quick to decry this tactic or that, but at the end of the day this is a place where the horse race is what seems to matter, and Bennet picked a lame pony.
The article goes from bad to worse for Bennet:
One Democratic operative who has been following the campaign closely but is neutral in the race called the Bennet camp's strategy "horrendous."
"I've never seen anything quite this disastrous," said the source, who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about the race. "They wasted money; they wasted time. They let Andrew define this race."
So there you have it. Whether you like the tactics taken by the campaigns or not, Romanoff is seen as effective, while Bennet is not. At the end of the day, I (and most other Democrats) want to keep this seat Democratic -- we want to pick the guy who can take out Buck or Norton (looking more like Buck I guess).
This article begs the question -- does Michael Bennet actually have what it takes to run against Buck? Because it's clear that Andrew Romanoff has no problem firing both barrels when he has a target in his sights.
The full story is here |
