Michael Bennet Got Fewer Votes Than GOP Loser, Kaine Not Happy With Gibbs' Comments

For all the chatter about the White House's ability to get out the vote in Colorado's Tuesday night primary, the election produced one statistic that could leave Democrats unsettled.

The losing candidate in the Republican race, former Lt. Gov Jane Norton, actually earned more votes (197,143) than the winning candidate in the Democratic primary, Sen. Michael Bennet (183,521).

A voting breakdown like that is troubling enough for the party. That it occurred in Colorado -- a state targeted by the Obama presidential campaign and turned into a potential Democratic stronghold in 2008 -- makes it slightly more frightening. When the loser in the Kentucky Democratic primary, Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo, received more votes (221,269) than the winner of the Republican primary, Rand Paul (206,159 votes), it was routinely highlighted by party officials as a sign of viability in the bluegrass state.

Party officials refused, on Wednesday, to downplay Bennet's win because of the aggregate voting trends. Eric Schultz, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, noted: "nearly three times as many people voted in the 2010 Democratic primary election in Colorado as participated in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus in Colorado." The Secretary of State's office, meanwhile, reported that more than 35 percent of all Democratic votes on Tuesday evening were cast by voters who had no previous primary election vote history.

"That means our team knows how to motivate unlikely voters (like the Obama surge voters) come the fall," argued Schultz.

Whether that motivation extends to -- or, more importantly, accelerates in -- the general election is the essential question on the party's mind. Operatives are increasingly convinced that electoral enthusiasm will play a determining role in 2010, which is why grumblings were audible on Capitol Hill after White House spokesman Robert Gibbs mocked liberal constituencies for their unreasonable demands.

It was telling that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine didn't show any reluctance to poke fun at the president's press secretary when asked about Gibbs' remark.

"That was definitely one where, you know, it should have stayed in the thought bubble over his head than being spoken," Kaine said, during an appearance on "Morning Joe" on Wednesday.

"Look, it's been a hot summer in Washington and I've said things like that too and my temper got the best of me... As Democrats, we tend to be an impatient party. This is something that I know and I kind of love about us. Edison said discontent is the first sign of progress. If you're complacent, you don't push."

Kaine rarely addresses weighty political topics without first coordinating with the White House. So it stands to reason that Gibbs offered both the DNC chair and others in the party the green light to distance themselves from his remarks.

Comments

[archerlane]

08:44 PM on 08/14/2010

Looks like Obama will be making more speeches in Colorado.

Maybe he will bring Gibbs with him.

[JAMjr]

10:13 PM on 09/15/2010

Will the Dem candidate want him/them there?

[rbchilds]

01:15 AM on 08/14/2010

Bennett lost my support when he would not vote to audit the Federal Reserve.

[Weirdwriter]

04:07 PM on 08/12/2010

Big whup. Colorado has always had more registered Republicans than Democrats. Still, the state managed to come out decisively for Barack Obama, and it will keep a Democratic governor because no sane person will vote for a Republican so regressive he thinks women should be forced to bear their rapists' children.

[Countess]

02:19 PM on 08/12/2010

Voters are increasingly disillusioned with both parties and are becoming more and more independent so often the most important factor in any state's primary elections is whether or not independents can vote in these contests.

[Derrick Binnall]

01:08 PM on 08/12/2010

The republicans had more going on in this primary with 3 major tickets.

Dems had to decide on 2 guys who's platforms were really pretty similar.

It will be different in NOV when we vote for Hickenlooper.

[RhondaL]

12:17 PM on 08/12/2010

It is true that more Republicans voted in Colorado than Democrats. But that has always been the case in Colorado this decade. In 2002, 189,998 Republicans voted while only 104,603 Democrats voted (both parties had uncontested primaries), a ratio of 1.8 Republicans for every Democrat. In 2004 the ratio of Republicans to Democrats was 1.4, in 2006 it was 1.35 and in 2008 it was 1.23. Tuesday night it was down again, to 1.20.

[cynical one]

01:48 PM on 08/12/2010

Thanks for the numbers. It could be taken that Democrats are gaining in numbers, but my feeling is that more Republicans are leaving the party and going Independent.

[tlk221]

12:12 AM on 08/16/2010

Do we have any numbers on how the Independents may have voted? They can change to (D) or (R), for a brief period - in order to vote in Primary.

[wtf-please]

12:10 PM on 08/12/2010

Romanoff knew the machine would roll him over after not being asked to exit the race.. Kudos for sticking with it though

[farmilyman]

11:28 AM on 08/12/2010

It's hard to be enthuesed when everything gets water down by rightwingers that don't care about the country.

[blueken]

10:19 AM on 08/12/2010

I'm an independant liberal, if the Democrats want my vote in Nov and 2012, all I ask is they do two things. One, Obama has to appoint Warren to Consumer Protection and two, let the Bush tax break expire, untouched. Neither one requires any co-operation from Blue Dog Democrats or Republicans. If they can't do those two things, it will be hard to be fired up. I wanted single payer, they ignored me, I wanted a more comprehensive and understandable financial reform, they ignored me. They don't deliver those two things, I will ignore them.

[NotImpressed]

11:53 PM on 08/13/2010

I agree with both goals. But neither can be done properly without co-operation from Blue Dog Democrats or Republicans:

- Warren's appointment would require Senate confirmation. Recess appointment or other temporary measures are possible - and could be considered.

- Just letting the Bush tax cuts expire requires no action, but that includes cuts to ALL brackets. Obama has always supported extending the cuts to all but the the top two brackets. A bill to do that will require 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House. A lot of those votes are mainly concerned with protecting the wealthy.

[rbchilds]

01:12 AM on 08/14/2010

Go to: http://www.mytaxburden.org and see how you will fare.

[kfreed]

10:10 AM on 08/12/2010

Correction from previous: "731,000+ unaffiliated voters in Colorado"

Make that 723,000+ as of 1/1/2010 (latest record)

http://www.elections.colorado.gov/Default.aspx?PageMenuID=2202

[kfreed]

10:00 AM on 08/12/2010

Before getting all bent out of shape, let's consider that there are more 'active' Republican voters in Colorado than there are 'active' Dem voters. Also keep in mind that Colorado had two excellent Dem candidates to choose from in the primary election and most voters would have been happy with either so there was nothing at stake during the primary if liberal voters failed to materialize at the polls. However, there is a world at stake in the November election between Democrat Michael Bennet and the Tea Party fave, Ken Buck.

It's not November yet and Dems need to get busy on those voter registration drives and on getting those 'inactive' Dems to the polls. Also there is the not so small matter of some 731,000+ unaffiliated voters in Colorado.

http://www.elections.colorado.gov/Content/Documents/2009%20Voter%20Registration%20Numbers/December/by_party.pdf

Let's not count our chickens before they hatch... on either side.

And Dems: don’t waste this chance.

[MNTom]

10:00 AM on 08/12/2010

Funny in the Kentuky primary it was the other way around. So, what gives with these stupid headlines. In MN the Dems came out more than the Reps, so does that mean Mark Dayton is the winner in the General election. If so why have it.

[1differentdrummer]

06:12 AM on 08/12/2010

Let's see, are we now comparing apples and oranges?

[gtx281]

03:44 AM on 08/12/2010

Almost 200,000 more people voted for Obama in CO. Bennet will win.

[Pyrum]

05:04 AM on 08/12/2010

It's 2010 now, not 2008, and seems to me that depends on how many of those voters are satisfied with Obama's performance.

[deeblk07]

12:20 PM on 08/12/2010

well, Dem voted for Obama's man Bennett - must mean something

[JAMjr]

10:18 PM on 09/15/2010

I dunno. That hope and change stuff sounded better than the actual experience. As for the "summer of recovery"? Another positive sounding label that failed to deliver. The marketing is good, it is just that the product stinks. In Nov we see how badly the voters feel about what has been happening under this regime.

[imtheoz]

03:11 AM on 08/12/2010

How silly is this? Of course there is little "enthusiasm" for an uncontested primary. Should anyone be surprised that there were more Republicans voting in a hotly contested primary than Democrats voting in an uncontested primary?

[wizzardly]

09:09 AM on 08/12/2010

And this guy gets to vote! Uncontested????? Bill Clinton endorsed Romanoff and Obama endorsed Bennet...if that's not hot I don't know what would constitute hot.

[NOV42008]

10:01 AM on 08/12/2010

Maybe many thought any democrat win is ok. It only matter in November when the decision will be D vs R.

[tlk221]

12:19 AM on 08/16/2010

What State Primary are you referring to? In Colorado it was Bennet vs. Romanoff, who many thought would win - based on yard signs and outward enthusiasm.