Actually for those who do not live in CO, the August 10th primary date is a misnomer in that voting has been going on for the last three weeks where over 40% vote by mail and in some counties, individuals can vote early at central voting centers. That said today's New Times article titled: Payback Time - For Denver Schools, a Financing Deal Takes a Bad Turn has turned up the temperature among interested Dem's and will have an impact. Here is what is going on.
First let me tell you I am a Democratic Party activist and minor party official locally and in the state party organization. I also am supporting Andy Romanoff where I made that decision last November when measuring both candidates and their respective campaign messages and stances. Nine months ago there were many presumptions that have not materialized, Dems are motivated, GOP is not except for the Tea Party nuts, but the most important one, was who would make for the best candidate against any GOP'er. My reasoning back then was simple; if by some luck a candidate could get nominated and then elected by not taking PAC and corporate money it would send a message throughout the political landscape irregardless of the particular candidate or race. I still hold to that reasoning and more so.
Today we are a mere 4 days from the final voting day where roughly 40% (depending on the county, I suspect this one it is over 60%). And of the remaining electorate they will have an opportunity to read the NY Times article before they vote.
Previous contested statewide primaries has shown that between 20% & 25% of the registered Democrats actually participate. This year both Dem campaigns are working on the assumption of a 25-30% will turnout. My take is that due to the negative media blitz's by both campaigns over the last two weeks it will actually dampen the remaining turnout, probably near 25% +/-. I think Bennet purposely raised the temperature to tap down the turnout going against him.
In El Paso County, (4th largest Dem base in CO, 2nd largest county behind Denver County and home of right-wing leaning Colorado Springs) has recorded a tad over 12,000 ballots that have been submitted in the Dem primary, a current 17.88% turnout. My precinct which votes overwhelming Democratic has recorded a 21.50% turnout. Depending on the today's mail in receipts and those who early vote one can roughly say that 60% of the votes will have been cast before most have of the New York Times article, roughly 2/3's of the votes. Yet Denver County does not have early voting centers and have a lower percentage of mail in voters where this news will be pronounced and meaningful to many. This could prove to be significant.
But one thing is for certain, Bennet will have to burn the final weekend defending his resume even more, and this is the final weekend before the polls close, never a good thing to do for any politician. Speaking of Bennet one emotional supporter forwarded me the campaign's contracted internal poll of last weekend and it showed that the race was even, (coinciding with the Denver Post/News 9 poll) but at that time it also showed that 22% were undecided.
Like many Democratic activists I have been engaged in voter contact and will say that the undecideds I have been talking to are falling Romanoff's way 2-to-1. In El Paso County which actually has a higher number of liberal leaning Democrats this could be significant. This turning should not surprise anyone, since Bennet, as the incumbent, has never polled over 50% and often remained flat between 35%-44% since Romanoff entered the race.
On the ground I came to notice something quite strange, most of the Bennet supporters are affiliated or related to the professional liberal/progressive activist class, others were big money contributors to the Obama Campaign or were remaining OFA leaders/activists. The Romanoff supporters were a coalition of regular Democratic party volunteers/activists, many active before Obama's campaign, many being local politico's, volunteers, and even Clinton supporters. In fact one Romanoff volunteer was a leading PUMA member and Clinton delegate of a short-run renown. I will state I was an early and leading Obama volunteer and also active Democrat years prior to Obama. Many of the local volunteers and local campaign staff were also Obama campaign volunteers as well.
This is how Romanoff won 60-39% in the caucus-to-state convention process despite Bennet's campaign insulting those party activists and participates. Now as the campaign has turned towards the finish line I have been the recipient and seen many other personal insults and epitaphs directed towards Romanoff supporters by Bennet supporters, especially from those who are from the professional liberal politicos where they often describe the Romanoff support as naive, hypocritical, or condescend and indict Romanoff's motives or those of the volunteers---all then concluding that these efforts now are "splitting the party into smithereens!"
Here is the reality, without a competitive primary the party's electorate would not be engaged, organized or even enthused for the general election. I see energy and commitment that transcends down the ticket as well. Secondly, the professionals are not running a good campaign for Bennet, the recipient of over $8M in treasure where he has burned almost $7M in a primary contest that he should have dominated from the start. Romanoff has spent a mere $1.6M in this race now has pulled even (conservatively) and now Romanoff appears to be pulling away.
Also Bennet has ducked and purposely avoided the press and nine debates over the last 60 days, possibly after performing badly early on. His ads have been, more negative than Romanoff while accusing Romanoff of waging a negative campaign, and because of the expenditures has had many more on TV that has actually turned off voters who are watching summer time TV because we are all broke. And yet, "his stick" has not sold and remained essentially flat. This was the same back in March when he launched a media campaign and it failed to move the bar no more than 5 points, even though he spent $1M on soft this is Michael Bennet and I want to clean up Washington BS.
Now here is the NY Times chiming in, probably a little late for a big impact, but again possibly the straw that will break the back of Bennet's bid. Bennet has responded and he has a three page point by point reply but the reality is that the story is about a complicated debt financing deal that went to Wall Street Big Banks, where the NY Times and a DPS Board Member is saying that the deal is bad and has cost DPS more money.
A DPS Board Member said it was a deal driven by Bennet and that it was too complex to really understand and she trusted Bennet. She now cannot say now on the radio whether she was mislead or not. This is taxpayers money going to Wall Street Banks, that Bennet voted to protect twice, during Financial Reform, and whom Bennet has received large PAC donations from. Even if Bennet could make a big Obama like speech to explain every point made by the NY Times, he cannot explain this triangulation;
A finance deal that is much like regular citizens have had with their own banks where fees and interest have overwhelmed them, either with their credit cards or bank accounts or mortgages and the same thing now with Denver Schools.
Therefore Wall Street banks are getting a lot of money from them.
Bennet worked as a professional for that industry was trusted and put together the deal.
Bennet has now received big bucks from the industry.
That is called a "back of the envelope explanation", something my now deceased mother would understand...Bennet delivered a sweet deal to his banking friends, they got the $$ and have now said thank you with big contributions, what is new?
Politically this is untenable whether by some surprise or circumstance he wins the primary after all. He is then going to have to defend this story for the rest of his life, let alone defend it against the Republicans this autumn. Talking to a voter who was disparaged about this and earlier revelations, he said, "he thought there were two great candidates". I replied, "well that is why we have competitive elections, these things have a way of surfacing, no different than the stuff about Obama and his Rev Wright."
It isn't pleasant but it has to be scrubbed and determined how or what relative importance this story has. He then asked me, "what relevance does it have to me?"
I told him, "Bennet appears to be captured by his former culture of big banks and all that is finance, his judgment is not with little guys. He sold his resume at Regal Theaters and now that is mixed experience. He also failed to tell us he also got paid big for the job---$11.4M where also Anshultz got billions before the companies were made solvent. Now the experience at DPS is dubious at best, possibly worse...His experience as our Senator is also mixed, protecting the big banks like a Republican. The relevance is poor judgment."
This voter who was going to stand on the sidelines because of the noise of the negative ads is now turning in his ballot. My take is that I will be surprised that Tuesday night the national press is stunned that Romanoff pulled off an improbably victory and will try to tie to Obama which is a false analysis. Romanoff will win because he had a great home-grown grass roots organization and because the incumbent candidate was flawed from the start and the finish. But the effect will be that Romanoff will win by not taking corporate or PAC money against a highly financed candidate, who was an incumbent and had all the endorsements.