The Washington Post recently called the Colorado Senate Democratic primary one of the most important in the nation, and a new Denver Post/9News poll's results are stunning: Former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff has now taken the lead over appointed Sen. Michael Bennet. I say this is stunning because Romanoff's progressive-themed campaign has closed a 17-point gap despite being outspent by about 8-to-1. Romanoff will be on my AM760 morning show Monday (8/2) at 8:30am Colorado time to discuss the state of the race. Tune in here. (Note: We are also inviting Sen. Bennet on as well as we always do - but he has most often refused to come on the show).
A question I keep being asked right now is: How should progressives look at this race? It's a fair question, considering the records of the candidates.
Bennet has cast some truly terrible votes, tried to dupe progressive voters on the public option, and got caught on tape trying to dupe voters on credit card reform. At the same time, Romanoff, while certainly a solid Democratic vote in the legislature, was hardly some Paul Wellstone or Bernie Sanders. In sum, both candidates are imperfect - and it is, thus, rational to wonder whether this primary has major implications for the progressive movement both here in Colorado and nationally?
I'd say it does, and here's why: While both candidates are imperfect, there are very clear differences between them on the issues (see here for a good run-down) and, as importantly, their candidacies differ in key ways.
Bennet has run one of the most D.C.-directed, top-down, Big Money campaigns I've ever seen run in any state I've ever lived in. He is one of the biggest recipients of corporate campaign cash in the entire U.S. Senate and has relied almost exclusively on the support of the Democratic Party Establishment. That kind of campaign comports not only with some terrible votes he's cast, but also with a career that has been the antithesis of anything you might call "grassroots" (he went from son of an ambassador to D.C. insider in the Clinton administration to corporate takeover executive for right-wing billionaire Phil Anschutz to appointee as Denver Public Schools chief to appointed senator).
Romanoff, by contrast, has run an almost purely grassroots campaign, has not taken corporate PAC money in this race, has taken concretely progressive positions and has made concrete pledges to cast progressive votes on specific issues. In short, his campaign has been all that any progressive could ask for in terms of structure, issue positions and funding - and the Denver Post/9News poll shows that his campaign is being specifically supported by the progressive base. As evidence, note this excerpt of the Denver Post's report on the poll:
The results show a surge for the former state House speaker since June, when he was 17 points behind, and are likely a reflection of a well-organized and passionate ground game, analysts say...Romanoff's movement is "dramatic," according to pollster Jay Leve of Survey USA, the firm that conducted the poll. Leve said Romanoff is finding support from voters in the Denver area; among voters younger than 50; and among people who call themselves "liberal."
Now, it's certainly true that Romanoff has constructed his campaign this way, in part, out of necessity - not necessarily purely out of principle. For instance, he couldn't raise the money Bennet has been able to raise because he's not as connected to D.C. and Big Money as Bennet is, and so he's been compelled to raise his money in a grassroots fashion. Likewise, he has run his campaign on progressive themes because that's a powerful way to critique a more conservative Democratic senator like Bennet.
But here's the thing: Why should progressive voters care about motive? If we accept that all politicians are, in some way, professional opportunists, then shouldn't our votes be equally opportunistic in the cause of furthering the progressive agenda?
In this particular Senate primary's case, the Romanoff campaign has created a progressive dynamic in Colorado Democratic politics whereby (according to polls) voters are rewarding a candidate's progressive candidacy with support, despite that candidacy being outspent 8-to-1. If Romanoff wins - or even comes close - it sends a message that Democratic candidates in the future will be rewarded by Democratic voters if they run progressive campaigns, and they will be punished if they run anti-progressive campaigns and cast anti-progressive votes. Isn't that precisely the dynamic that furthers the progressive agenda?
I'd say yes, and I'd also ask what the opposite would say. If Bennet wins overwhelmingly after casting the votes he's cast and running the kind of campaign he's run, wouldn't it only reinforce the idea that Democratic politicians should continue voting with corporate interests, running D.C.-centric top-down campaigns and behaving in a way that undermines the progressive agenda?
I say all of this, again, acknowledging that neither of these candidates is perfect and stating that I am officially neutral in this race (I've publicly praised and criticized both candidates at different times, and frankly, I like both candidates personally very much). Indeed, I haven't officially endorsed either candidate in this race because the only thing I care about is creating a progressive dynamic in Colorado politics - regardless of who wins the race. The Denver Post/9News poll is encouraging to me not because Romanoff may win, but because clearly the closeness of the race represents an uprising among many progressive voters, and sends a message that even if more conservative Democrat outspends a progressive campaign, that progressive campaign still has a shot to win. Ultimately, that dynamic is what will ensure more progressive change in the future - regardless of who wins a given Democratic primary.
This is an axiom more progressive voters and activists are better understanding, as evidenced not only by this Denver Post poll, but also by the Bill Halter primary challenge against Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. Like Romanoff, he wasn't a perfect progressive candidate - he wasn't some Paul Wellstone. But his candidacy contributed to creating a progressive dynamic in electoral politics, whereby Democratic incumbents have to now fear a progressive-themed primary if they are too conservative. It's the same thing for the Romanoff candidacy - and the way the incumbents can avoid those kinds of primaries is to simply be more progressive. Which is exactly the dynamic - and end result - the progressive movement should want.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
Aaron Harber: The Nation's Political Testing Grouund: Colorado Elections & Candidates
The 2010 election year in Colorado presents the opportunity to test many political theories which will have national implications.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-cronk/romanoff-vs-bennet-a-matt_b_673433.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=954485,b=facebook
"Colorado Democrats
DO NOT TRUST HIM"
Given that he out spent Romanoff by $ 7 Million to 2 Million just to get to this point,
it obvious Colorado Dems Don't Trust BENNET
(1) pick the candidate that looks the most progressive, liberal, environmental, etc.
(2) help them get elected; time and $
(3) see how they how they vote, and how they act, towards constituents and their campaign
(4) if not to your liking, next time 'round, pick somebody else!
With Bennett, I'm already to #4.
Do note: there is nothing in that about Always Vote Democratic, or Always Trust the Colorado Democratic Party.
One thing that did come through loud and clear at the CO Dem State Assembly: Romanoff is not running as a Party Insider. Which is exactly what Bennett is doing, and what he talked about in his speech there; his indebtedness to the party seemed a bit overdone, to me, but then they "gave" him the Senate seat, after all ...
If nothing more, as Sirota argues, if enough of us avoid the Blind Party Loyalty trap, then maybe, just maybe, we'll have both better candidates, and a more effective party.
Mark Udall, are you listening?!?
You ought to be! Especially if you are planning on running for another term, as a Centrist, aka Repub Light, Corporacrat!
Sometimes I think Mark thinks he can get re-elected by just being enough of Centrist; which is false if he looses the majority of the Dems, and unaffiliated Progressives and Liberals in the process!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-conniff/con-games-on-facebook-its_b_649886.html
Why run away from the word and the tradition.
Perhaps the conviction of principles and courage matter more than the labels?
(and so, what those principles are, and the strength of that conviction, are what really matter?)
A rose by any other name, ...
likewise, a dog poop, no matter what you call it, is still just that ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OevEjf1EhDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcauOE8JshA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8z1IEUV7S4
When Independents and Republicans compare a proven legislator who built a coalition (Measure C) keeping Colorado schools open, rejecting PAC money in his current campaign (admitting it's a mistake he's made previously), and who sold his own house to pay for his campaign (showing guts if not the best financial judgment)...with a corporate raider ($11M payoff) and recipient of over $1M in special interest money...well, money talks. And that's before you consider their backgrounds...Andrew chose public service (Southern Law Poverty Center, teaching English in Central America, teaching at community colleges) versus working for a right-wing billionaire and being appointed (never elected) to various government jobs. Who really is the insider?
With the emphasis on "anti-progressive" votes. Incumbanhts that fail to support a progressive agenda must be punished or the democratic party will become the party of corporate centrists permanently.
Why does Obama need to pick side to begin with, and then TRY to get involved?
And then he (Obama) has the audacity to think a robo-call or an email will do it.
We'll fawn over his every word so much, we'll just do that Dear Leader wants us to do ... bleat, bleat, bleat ...
NO WAY!
WHAT DID COLORADO DEMOCRATS EVER DO TO OBAMA?
That he Must Tell US who OUR Senate Candidate Will Be?
Gov. Ritter split the Colorado Party and Set our Colorado Party Back 10 Years with the Bennet appointment. Bennet has never been elected to any office whatsoever and yet Obama is causing Millions in out of state and special interest money to flow into Bennet's campaign. Bennet lost our Democratic caucus, county assemblies(all but 3) and our State Assembly voting. Romanoff beat Bennet with 50% more votes. That is a huge margin. Colorado Dems DON'T WANT BENNET, yet Obama and his Organizing For America hacks are trying to force us to accept Bennet.
Now, 460,000 Colorado Dems are getting recorded Obama calls telling us we have to support Michael Bennet, Phil Anchutz's Corporate Raider and
"Pretend" Hero of the Public Option.
HANG UP ON OBAMA.
SEND A MESSAGE TO WASHINGTON "We're Sick of Your arrogant Meddling""
50% more Colorado Democrats at our State Assembly Wanted Romanoff and Still Obama Meddles.
As Paul W: in the Denver Post said "Obama's win in 2008 in Colorado was by 200,000 votes. He's risking alienation of 464,000 voters that likely voted for him in 2008 and, no doubt, at least half of those are Romanoff supporters."
That may be Chicago Style leadership but it is not Colorado Style Leadership.
VOTE FOR ROMANOFF, for a long record of Proven Leadership and service to Colorado.
Everybody ought to do themselves a favor, and send Organizing For America a BIG message -- unsubscribe!
Was the old Who songs, declares, "won't get fooled again!"
(at least I'm sure trying NOT to get fooled twice! ;-)
I urge Mr. Sirota to ask the key question of Romanoff tomorrow, "Will you join the New Democratic Coalition if you are elected?"
The problem with comparing an incumbent's votes with a challenger's positions is that politics "consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable" (attributed to a letter from John Kenneth Galbraith to John F. Kennedy.)
Hopefully -- a VERY dangerous word! -- Romanoff is not a DLC "disciple" like Clinton was, or Emanuel, Lincoln, Nelson, and Lieberman still are! (I'd have to check if Lincoln, etc. are DLC folks; Emanuel is a hack, plain and simple!!)
I do have to admit I wonder about the Clinton endorsement of Romanoff. I do wish that had not happened. (Clinton, like Obama, seems to have a lot of ego, and audacity, and a lot less respect for democracy, as in voting processes, than I'd like.)
So, I'm left with a bit of unease about Romanoff, but a LOT more so about Bennett.
I ALREADY know how Bennett operates -- see it in action, in the campaign, and in his votes, and how he handled being appointed Senator when he first got the job. (Maybe his comments in The New Yorker about how the Senate floor is boring, and he ends up fiddling with his Blackberry, and wondering what is happening in China bare this out more than he, in retrospect, should have admitted; the truth often hurts or is otherwise unpleasant.)
What I've already seen does not inspire me to vote for Bennett ...
Bennet's spending advantage according to the FEC filings through July 21, was $5.9 million to $1.8 million, a little more than 3 to 1.