[I put most of the text beneath the fold while promoting this diary - WD]
Last week, before Andrew Romanoff endorsed Joe Miklosi in CD6, there was a diary comment on Pols which stated "Romanoff's Senate campaign was a disaster". That comment got under my skin, so I will set the record straight, for the sake of the tens of thousands of his supporters, as well as for the 2012 elections in Colorado. That may sound incongruous coming from one of Senator Bennet's earliest and most ardent supporters -- please hear me out.
First, a fast review of what happened, for those living under a rock, or out-of-state, from 2009-2010. Romanoff's Senate campaign was a study in contrasts. There were epic mistakes made, but in many ways, it was wildly successful considering its tiny fraction of financial resources. The vast majority of activists and staffers who worked on it have every reason to be proud of what they accomplished.
Some of you reading this are going to ask how I know the following. What I have to say is this: perhaps some kids over at the DSCC weren't too happy with their forced servitude working a DNC phone bank for Bennet all weekend, and decided to share some fun facts.
PPP, the polling firm of the DSCC, is going to release a new poll tomorrow. Guess what it will say? Bennet up on Romanoff by (probably) 5 points -- just outside the margin or error.
How did they reach this result? By weighting their poll differently than what they actually believe the voting population will look like.
First, as a former frequent poster on that other political blog (TOPB, from now on), and soon-to-be frequent poster on this one, I thought I'd start with a little introduction of myself as a blogger. One thing that is a bit different about my approach is that I am more focused on fundamental principles, systemic structure and dynamics, and, in general, overarching abstractions, than I am on the particular vessels and driftwood floating on their currents. Some of my posts frame typical political fodder in this way, and some don't get to the fodder at all.
I'm writing that disclaimer because this diary, for the most part, is of the latter variety. It's not about the hot events of the day, the battling candidates, the particular policy proposals in the pipeline, but rather about an overarching principle, one which we forget in the heat of our passions and the hunger of our will.
(when Romanoff loaned his campaign $300 K, Bennet supporters said it was a publicity stunt - and now? - promoted by wade norris)
Michael Bennet loans his campaign $300,000.
Frankly it's a bizarre move for the campaign that has touted it's fundraising as a reason to vote for him (Bennet supporters are quick to say that Bennet is the only one who can raise the money needed to win).
Michael Bennet reveals shocking secret...that Romanoff has been talking about for a year.
Last night Michael Bennet lost the battle to control the message. While his previous ads had been positive talking about himself, Bennet made the mistake of engaging on the one issue people can identify with Andrew Romanoff: campaign contributions.
The Bennet campaign released a new attack ad telling people what Andrew Romanoff has been saying since he started the campaign: that he has learned from his years of legislative experience and no longer takes PAC special interest money
(Not exactly illegal but a great way to ensure moneyed interests get in. - promoted by Fong)
The Bennet campaign has scapegoated a 22 year old intern in a serious pay-to-play scandal.
"With a donation of $2,400 or more," Garofano allegedly wrote, activists pressing for the fuel-standards bill "can schedule a one-on-one hour long meeting with the Senator." Hosting "an event for $5,000 or more," the email said, would offer "a better chance to lobby Michael."
So I saw Senator Bennet's newest ad today and was struck by what it might have similarities to. Surely it didn't seem like the Senator Bennet who was raised in D.C., worked as a corporate raider, and has been given everything in life. No, it resembled something else entirely.
First, if you haven't seen it, here is Senator Bennet's newest ad:
Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet appears to be riding rich TV spending and incumbent media attention, staying well ahead of former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff's insurgent campaign. Bennet beats Romanoff 53 percent to 36 percent among likely voters. The primaries are Aug. 10.
U.S. Senate Candidate Andrew Romanoff released the following statement on the re-election of Omar al-Bashir as President of Sudan.
Amid boycotts, allegations of fraud, deadly violence, and a civil war, Omar al-Bashir was sworn in for another five-year term as the President of Sudan yesterday.
Throughout al-Bashir's presidency, hundreds of thousands were killed and millions displaced from Darfur, and the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for the President alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The U.N. estimates the humanitarian crisis in Darfur is the worst in the world today.
I received an email from Senator Feingold's campaign today, a man I have always respected and supported. A few months ago the Bennet campaign sent an email expressing Feingold's support, and those two actions combined made me decide to respond.
I received your email today and I couldn't agree more about how disappointed I was in yesterday's vote on financial reform. I agree that the bill that passed lacked the teeth it needed and that we missed a great opportunity for real reform.
It is in that light that I hope you will reconsider your support for Senator Michael Bennet in his primary against former Speaker Andrew Romanoff.
While the Republican primary for Senate is shaping up closer than expected in Colorado, the Democratic one is going in the other direction. Michael Bennet has now opened up a 15 point lead, 46-31, over Andrew Romanoff as he attempts to win nomination for a full term. That's a 9 point increase in his advantage since leading 40-34 in a March poll of the race.
The key thing for Bennet is that he's winning similar levels of support from liberals, moderates, and conservatives. He has an 18 point lead with moderates, a 15 point one with conservatives, and it stands at 11 points with liberals. Romanoff clearly isn't getting much traction from the left and Bennet's across the board advantage ideologically bodes well for his ability to unite the party around him for the fall if he does indeed win the nomination.
The one group Bennet continues to be weaker with is Hispanics, who are splitting their support evenly between Romanoff and the incumbent right now. Bennet is still making progress on that front though- he trailed by 11 with Hispanics in March.
This race is not over by any means but the momentum is clearly in Bennet's direction.
Given that our Democratic State Convention is happening this week and that our race for the nomination for US Senator is hotly contested by our former Democratic long time Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and the appointed Senator Michael Bennet,
You all should read this diary by Wade Norris
He appears to have proof that someone, at Huffington Post perhaps, deleted Michael Bennet's name from a list of Senators who Voted Against Breaking Up the Mega Banks, on the same day that Bennet sent our a major fund raising letter on teh topic of reforming Washington DC.
*RECEIVED CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ALL SIX BANKS TARGETED
*VOTES, RHETORIC AT ODDS
U.S. Senator Michael Bennet has voted against the Brown-Kaufman amendment which would cap the size and power of "too big to fail" megabanks largely responsible for the financial meltdown.
As an amendment to the financial reform bill, Brown-Kaufman would force the nation's six largest banks (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley - all contributors to Sen. Bennet) to dramatically downsize, limiting their self-serving powers, their sway over world markets, and their ability to leverage - all which will lessen risk and volatility as a whole.
Said Sen. Majority Whip Richard Durbin: "I would say that (of) all the amendments which will be offered, this is clearly a game-changer. I am supportive of this amendment even though I know some of my friends in the banking industry won't be happy with that."
No such sentiment from Sen. Bennet, who, hours before the amendment failed, simply spoke of the need for bipartisan support to "safeguard America's financial future."
Sen. Bennet, a member of the Senate banking committee, has, in just over a year, become a top-10 recipient of financial-sector contributions (over $800,000). He voted against the interests of homeowners facing foreclosure (S Amen. 1014 to S. 896, 4/30/09) and voted against auditing the all-powerful, erratically performing Federal Reserve (S. AMDT 875 to S.Con.Res.13, 4/2/09)
"I would further strengthen the financial bill by restoring the Glass-Steagall wall between commercial and investment banking activities," said U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff. "I would also move the Consumer Financial Protection Agency outside of the Federal Reserve. I've also proposed regulating derivatives, by requiring that they be traded on an exchange; limiting the amount of leverage banks are able to incur; and increasing the percentage banks are required to keep in reserve in safe, liquid investments such as Treasury bills. If a bank is too big to fail, it's too big to exist."