Here are my picks to win the today’s primary election – and you can put your money on them! I won’t, because I know my limits as a prognosticator.
Romanoff v. Bennet
Polls, power and cash flow all say Bennet – so I’m going with Romanoff. While in the legislature, Romanoff attended every dreary Dem event in every dreary county in our sometimes dreary state – and did so with wit, humor and evident delight. 18 months ago, the mere fact of Obama’s support would have guaranteed a Bennet victory, but today’s a different story. And as an inveterate gambler, I love the fact that Romanoff went all in, selling his house to raise $300,000 for the campaign. You have to admire a politician who gambles with his own money, and doesn’t depend upon moneyed supporters to bankroll him.
Norton v. Buck
I think that Jane Norton, as a dignified and competent woman, will benefit from the Maes/McInnis train wreck. It may be that Republican voters, dismayed by the bad-boy incompetence/venality of M & M, will prefer a competent political veteran to a fire-breathing insurgent. Buck also suffers from the “Ritter Syndrome”: He knows everyone in the Courthouse, and no one in the State House.
Shirk v. Maketa
Shirk has been less than inspiring at public events, while Maketa radiates competence, confidence and enthusiasm. Despite his initial reluctance to run, he’s clearly in the driver’s seat. Shirk just hasn’t given voters any reason to toss Maketa out, and they’ll reward the incumbent with a well-deserved third term.
McInnis v. Maes
Whoever wins this one has two unenviable choices: stay in the race or quit, and let a GOP vacancy committee find a respectable stiff to carry the party’s banner. Stay, and suffer two months of scorn only to endure a humiliating defeat at the hands of “Lucky John” Hickenlooper. Quit, and that’ll be the first paragraph in your obituary. McInnis has his faults, but he’s far from a being a bicycle conspiracy theorist.