Up until just recently, technically speaking, Romanoff had been trailing in his primary contest with Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO). One poll had the deficit at 17 points.
I say "technically speaking" because you could feel something building for Romanoff even months ago. He might have been behind, but his campaign seemed to have a spark of something or other, and so did he.
He and his opponent both spoke to the Arapahoe County Convention early this spring. Sen. Bennet gave a good speech. Andrew gave a better one. It reminded you of Adlai Stevenson's observation that when Cicero spoke, people remarked on what a fine speech it was, but when Demosthenes spoke, they said, "Let us march!" Bennet was Cicero, but Andrew was Demosthenes.
It was the same way at the state convention. Sen. Bennet gave a good speech, but Andrew's was better. In fact, it wasn't so much the speech itself, but the response to the speech--the symbiosis between the speaker and the audience--that was particularly striking to me. It had moments of electricity.
Today, the Denver Post/9News poll has Romanoff up by three--48-45. Four days ago, a poll from Brad Chism's agency had Romanoff down by four. Not that many disagreed with those numbers, though some pointed out that that firm is only recently in the polling business--true, though their track record so far has been pretty good.
Both polls confirm what you can feel on the ground, which is that the momentum is in Romanoff's direction. That was even before he sold his house, although that action of Romanoff's fed into the momentum. It sent a message to supporters: Andrew could smell it, and he was all in.
Vincent Carroll and the Denver Post--predictably--blasted Romanoff for running an ad based on a story that recently appeared in the Cherry Creek News regarding Bennet's tenure with Philip Anschutz. I'm sure that--again, technically speaking--there was nothing illegal in the Anschutz actions regarding Regal Cinemas. I'm not aware that anyone has alleged that.
That misses the point, however. When people hear of fancy financial dealings--buyouts, bankruptcies, jobs lost, with $700,000,000 involved--it all sounds similar to the things we've been hearing out of Wall Street for several months now. The average person who works for a living doesn't relate to all that, yet somehow always manages to be the victim when something goes wrong. So please forgive our skepticism.
Bennet has several core problems. He's a big money candidate in an anti-big money year. He's gotten loads of Democratic Establishment cash. Second, he's a high finance guy in an anti-high finance year. And third, he's an establishment candidate in an anti-establishment year. He even has the support of the President!
Every time the Bennet campaign runs an ad with the president, it reminds people of his establishment connections, just as his Washington County ad reminds you that he's probably never been in Washington County in his entire life, except to shoot the commercial.
Meanwhile, the Romanoff campaign is all grass-roots. The "establishment" of the state generally supports Bennet, but the "Democratic street" is moving to Romanoff.
Comments