Am for him in the primary, but am not working it in anyway. While doing research for CTG, Markos and I talked with him in CO. A sharp guy who understands new media politics and I've been impressed with his aggressive campaign.

Or at least as far as I can tell from the Dems and independants here on the ground. He was Speaker in Colorado for a bit, but has been out of it for a while.  He is a great guy and has pretty much always stuck to his progressive guns.

He has a very strong, pro-Colorado record and everyone knows him here- this is why he leads in polling.  Think Colorado version of Tester before he got into office.  Tester is a Montana boy, Andy is a Colorado boy.

You are right though, Bennett would have been complete toast in the Caucuses and the August Primary if he did got to bat for the PO with his letter.  This makes it a bit of an interesting match.  If Bennett does more than just a letter, i would actually consider supporting him.

Neither candidate would be mistaken for Alan Grayson, but either candidate seems to be a decent choice for a pale-blue state like Colorado. Our Democrats are more liberal than Bennett or Romanoff, and our Republicans extremely conservative. Conventional wisdom in the state holds that you have to be a centrist to win the general. Registration has improved to approximately 33/33/33, but in fact the enthusiasm of the base will be significant.

Romanoff showed well in the beauty-pageant caucuses, but these tend to be political activists, with a high proportion of Romanoff supporters. By the time we get to the actual primary, Bennett's name recognition and incumbency will be a greater factor.

The biggest issue in the primary is the simple fact that Bennett was appointed, bypassing the Party activists, most of whom are fairly progressive. So, the primary has been beneficial as it forced Bennett to defend himself by making some decent, progressive votes, and he has shown a willingness to stick his neck out on some key progressive ideas. Also, Bennett has provided good constituent service and made a big effort to market himself. I wouldn't read too much into his sponsoring of the Public Option letter; I don't think it had much chance of actually winning, so the most you can say is that Bennett was willing to go on the record... no small thing. 

I think the biggest criticism you can make of Bennett, is that we don't have a sufficient record on him to know whether he is just running to the left because of primary pressure.

While Andrew Romanoff is no conservative, it's not like he has a huge progressive record. To be fair, his career started in the midst of a Republican ascendency and he presided during a period of slow, steady Democratic gains. His background is DLC, not Liberal. In trying to run from the progressive side, Romanoff simply doesn't have the record, and carries the embarrassment of calling for a stupid "special legislative session on Immigration", which was intended to inoculate Colorado democrats from the accusation of being soft on immigration. Health care reform efforts in the Colorado legislature have been carefully neutered by the Party mucky-mucks, despite strong pressure from the Party base. I mean, they didn't even get much through on Health Insurance regulation.

I think the biggest criticism you can make of Romanoff is the ineptness of his campaign.

So Bennett's claim was that this was "just party activists" who vote in caucuses. I don't know, but it's likely that only active Democrts will vote in the primary either so if this is an indication of his level of support he's not doing that well.

Living in Denver I've heard a bit from Bennett (which wasn't that hard for him since I contacted his office several times), but I've heard nothing so far from Romanoff whose campaign has been invisible so far.

Gail Norton, the Wicked Witch of the West who's running for the GOP has a huge war-chest so she'll be on TV 24/7 this fall for sure, spreading her evil lies. She really is a foul bitch queen, but is a lot more polished a politician than their usual GOP standard-bearers who tend to be crackpot Billionaire businessmen like Pete Coors.

Bennett has amassed some money, but Romanoff will have to prove he can be funded to the necessary degree to win this race.

I'd say it's a toss-up race right now and the outcome will depend on what happens to the economy between now and then (probably not a whole lot in terms of jobs but there might at least be an attempt at a new jobs bill in Congress).

I'd prefer Romanoff, but Bennett's recent activism makes him palatable as well.

My one fear is that Bennett would revert to being a Blue Dog once he's been elected and start blathering about the desperate need to reduce the deficit.

I like Romanoff a lot, but Bennett is making a decent run. His actions the past few months have been solid. Either one of these guys at this point seem to be a decent choice as far as Colorado Dems go. Your never again going to get a Gary Hart type pol as a CO senator so let's not delude ourselves. But what Bennett managed to pull off lately while representing this state AND did so without sparking tea bagger riots in the streets of Colorado Springs is pretty deft. He pulled off a very focused political maneuver that not only salvaged his political career, but kept HCR alive and did it all with pinpoint messaging and activism. I have more respect for him now than I did last year.

I don't fear Norton. She's is truely nasty. She'll need to soften that against these fresh-faced, affable, and positive young men. The moment she tries to come across as anything other than a cut-throat bitch she'll smack of insincerity and her messaging will sound hollow. And if she aggresively attacks, either one of these guys can easily rise above it in a very Obama-like manner.

Now, if they can get Hickenlooper on message we'll be doing ok.