Colorado Pols - caught in the act spinning for Bennet

by: wade norris

Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 18:56:12 PM MST

As for debunking the Romanoff "disadvantage"
Any disadvantage he had in this Primary was his own doing. We discussed this many times in the last 18 months. Nobody forced Romanoff to wait until August to announce his candidacy, by which time he was already millions of dollars behind in fundraising. He could have jumped in the race in March, when he first polled on it, and it would have made a huge difference.
by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 18:04:00 PM MDT
[ Parent | Reply ]

To which I replied:

nice try Colorado Pols
but I was there in September when Colorado Pols (said)

http://www.coloradopols.com/di...

Bennet Scramble to Show Democratic Bonafides Too Little, Too Late
   by: Colorado Pols
   Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:10:43 PM MDT

   Sure, Bennet has raised a ton of money, but in a Democratic primary where Romanoff will start with significantly  greater name ID, the latter needs only to be able to raise enough money to be competitive. Romanoff doesn't need to outspend Bennet, or even come close, because he is so much more well-known and liked among Democratic primary voters.

You can see that Colorado Pols has clearly supported the idea that Romanoff both had better name ID and 'likability' with Democrats and that this was more important than money. "Romanoff doesn't need to outspend Bennet, or even come close" the editors said.
This was not 18 months ago, but 11 months ago. And furthermore, the credibility gap for Colorado Pols goes back even further.

http://www.coloradopols.com/di...

While we are at it, let's look at all of the Bennet bashing was doing before they took a complete 180 on the Senate Primary.

What the Hell?
by:  Colorado Pols
Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:58:56 AM MST

In other words, Bennet is a good choice if all things are equal...but they're not. It's not that Bennet is a bad choice because of who he is - Bennet is a bad choice because there were so many better options....
Ritter could have gone with a popular Mayor who enjoys tremendous name ID throughout the Front Range (Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper). He could have chosen an incumbent congressman with a big warchest who could seamlessly move into the office (Rep. Ed Perlmutter).He could have chosen a popular former Speaker of the House whose selection wouldn't have caused a domino effect of jockeying to fill his seat (Andrew Romanoff). Ritter could have chosen a lot of people who had strong name ID and weren't just known as "Denver people," but he didn't. He chose Michael Bennet.

Michael Bennet's Problem, In a Nutshell (+)
by: Colorado Pols
Mon Feb 09, 2009 at 10:04:52 AM MST

To be fair, Bennet had not really been introduced to the group in a clear manner, but he also demonstrated an almost total lack of charisma. And this is exactly why we thought Gov. Bill Ritter's selection of Bennet for U.S. Senate was such a disaster.

While Democrats like Rep. Ed Perlmutter and former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff were warmly received on Saturday, others didn't even know who Bennet was. And these are Democrats. Active Democrats. If they don't know who Bennet is, and if he doesn't have the natural charisma to carry a small room, then how is he going to win a statewide election in 2010?

Ritter Hopes Primary Won't Split Democrats; Also Wants a Unicorn (+)
by: Colorado Pols
Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 09:57:00 AM MDT

So, yes, picking Romanoff (or John Hickenlooper, or Ed Perlmutter) would have been safer politically for Ritter. Smarter, too.

http://www.coloradopols.com/di...

Bennet Scramble to Show Democratic Bonafides Too Little, Too Late (+)
   by: Colorado Pols
   Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 14:10:43 PM MDT
If Bennet had come out early for the public option and supported EFCA in some form -- even if just a promise to vote for cloture, which is all Udall has done -- then there's a good chance that Romanoff never would have had the groundswell of support behind him to justify a primary challenge. Sure, Bennet would have then made himself slightly (though not significantly) more vulnerable in a general election, but it's better to be a little more vulnerable in November than to never make it to November at all.

Reading these posts, you'd think this website was devoted to an objective, impartial view of the Primary.
What happened?
I don't know, but somewhere between September and October, Colorado Pols began trashing Andrew Romanoff at every turn.

Vote Romanoff for Senate - He's a Nice Guy and All (+)
by: Colorado Pols
Fri Oct 16, 2009 at 09:37:52 AM MDT

More Weirdness from Romanoff Campaign (+)
by: Colorado Pols
Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 10:11:04 AM MST

Who's Driving the Romanoff Train? (+)
by: Colorado Pols
Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 13:44:15 PM MST

http://www.coloradopols.com/di...

And on and on from then, up till the present day.
Colorado Pols has belittled every positive story about Andrew Romanoff - even the recent poll that shows Andrew Romanoff pulling ahead of Bennet, meanwhile Bennet gets positive press here.
And the whole time, they have kept ridiculous odds on the Big Line, always citing Bennet's money for the reason Romanoff was 20-1 or 25-1.
Now its 17-1 and  Romanoff is 'out of time' even though Bennet is down in latest polls.

So what happened?
How does a website go from impartial to in the tank for a candidate?
And should editors here have to disclose that they support Bennet - or is it so obvious?

The way I see it, Andrew Romanoff should win Tuesday and then will win the General with ease. If however, Michael Bennet wins Tuesday, he better win in November as well.
Because if he doesn't win in November, then COLORADO POLS will be squarely to blame for helping at every turn to defeat a stronger candidate in Andrew Romanoff.
Colorado Pols was supposed to be a site that countered newspaper bias and bad journalism. Instead I was shocked that the editors were quoting Right Wing editorial writer, Vincent Carroll - to smear a good democrat like Andrew Romanoff.
I hope this the editors of Colorado Pols will think about how they have wasted their credibility and hurt the democratic party.