Michael Bennet Wins Colorado Senate Seat

Michael Bennet Wins Colorado Senate Seat


He wasn’t supposed to win a month ago, but he pulled into the lead late and was able to hold.

From Denver Post:

Appointed U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet will be elected to the U.S. Senate after pulling ahead of challenger Ken Buck this morning.

Long after most Coloradans — including the candidates and their supporters — had gone to bed, returns from Denver and Boulder moved Bennet past Buck and into the lead, 47.5 percent to 47.1 percent.

A recount would be required if the difference between the two candidates’ vote totals is less than one-half of 1 percent of the highest vote total, or about 3,900 votes based on current tallies.

Bennet leads by nearly 7,000 votes with an estimated 30,000 still to be counted in Boulder County.

This was also a big deal for Obama because he backed Bennet, while former President Clinton backed a different primary candidate, Andrew Romanoff. Lots of political capital working behind the scenes here.

So this, along with Patty Murray’s likely win in Washington, means Dems are at the 51/49 mark in the Senate. They still have a majority…but barely.

  • kranky kritter

    Despite all the alleged volatility suggested by both sides due to the angry voter dynamic, this election unfolded almost precisely as the poll aggregations predicted over the last 6 weeks.

    So, you know what I find interesting about last night’s results? Almost Nothing.

    I can’t even count that Harry Reid won by a few points more than expected. I’m never surprised when a few folks have last minute doubts and back away from a candidate that is a little kooky. When a fringy candidate is running close but a hair behind, they inevitably lose.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    Looks like 52-48 is the final tally. This takes the Lieberman/Nelson defection scenario off the table. We have a divided Congress in addition to a divided government. Should be fun.

  • Alistair


    Will you be pushing for the re-election of President Obama in 2012?

  • http://itsthe21stcentury.wordpress.com Jim Satterfield

    No, he won’t. At least, not really. In case you haven’t noticed his camouflage slips in the election season and his posts show that he’s a Republican in conservative independents clothing.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    Of course, as I’ve said repeatedly during many of my recent posts. There are three ways that divided government can continue past the 2012 election.

    1) The Democrats could retain the Senate majority. I consider this unlikely since 23 of the 33 seats up for reelection are held by Democrats, many of them swept in on the 2006 Democratic wave. They’ll be on defense and structurally have a much tougher row to hoe than in 2010.

    2) The Democrats could lose the Senate and retake the House. I think this is extremely unlikely, given the depth of the hole they have dug for themselves in the House.

    3) In all cases (excepting an improbable Dem 2012 wave retaking the House and retaining the Senate), the easiest vote to ensure divided government past 2012 will be to vote against the GOP presidential candidate and re-elect Barack Obama.

    That is the way I see it now, and if nothing changes that will be the way I vote.

    The last time I changed teams was after the Democrats swept Congress in 2006 (which I supported) and it became clear that the only way to keep the government divided was to elect a Republican President in 2008. Then it took me until June of the year following the change election before I was confident enough in my forecast of the political winds for 2008 (although I’d declared my intent earlier).

    Changing teams to fight for a political objective is, of course, incomprehensible to partisans such as JimS who are psychically incapable of voting for anyone outside of the their preferred party for President, Senate, or House of Representatives. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Some of my best friends are partisans. They simply subscribe to the “My party is on the side of angels and the other party is the spawn of satan” school of politics. Their federal level votes are as predictable as sunrise and sunset. They are in good company. I think that at least 70% of the electorate and possibly closer to 80% vote that way, regardless of whether they choose to label themselves by their party of preference or as an independent.

    I think of them as the Partisan Dead Weight of the electorate and as long they stay roughly balanced on the right and left, they provide stability and ballast for our ship of state. It is because of them that a relative sliver of the electorate who are true independents, who will really swing their vote at a federal level between the major parties, can dramatically change the complexion and direction of our government.

  • Tully

    So this, along with Patty Murray’s likely win in Washington, means Dems are at the 51/49 mark in the Senate.

    I lament the failures of numeracy education. It’s hard to take people seriously when they can’t do simple math.

    Bennet’s win makes the current Senate tally 52-46 with two races uncalled. Assuming Murray wins (quite likely but not yet certain) that moves to 53-46. The Alaska race won’t even be counted for a while, but assuming the write-in votes provide Murkowski with enough validated legitimate votes to surpass the Miller total she would then resume her seat as an independent lke Leiberman and Sanders, and no one is really all that sure how Murkowski (a pro-choice moderate/centrist) would caucus. She would either make the final tally 53-47 (caucusing GOP) or 54-46 (caucusing Dem). A Miller win would make it 53-47, of course.

    Jim, mw has ALREADY stated numerous times that if the GOP solidly holds at least one house of Congress in 2012 he will be voting for Obama in continued pursuit of divided government. I know this comes as a shock, but not everyone to the right of you is a “conservative.” If they were, the Dems would have trouble winning any national office at all, what with 90+% of the electorate being “conservatives” and all.

  • kranky kritter

    To be fair, you are counting Liebernman and Sanders as democrats even though technically they are not.

  • Tully

    Yep. Because they caucus Dem and always have. Just as I don’t automatically count a Murkowski win as a GOP pickup — we don’t KNOW how she’d caucus, and I do not automatically assume she would caucus GOP. I was pretty explicit and explanatory about it, even. After all, if she goes back to the Senate as an Indie the Dems can offer her more goodies to caucus with them than the GOP can. At least for now. She wins, she’s a free agent and can cut her own deal, just as (to toss out two examples) Leiberman and Jeffords did.

    I’d wager 2-1 she would caucus GOP (but not 5-2 or higher) because I know that I don’t know that she would, and after all, the GOP has done a pretty fair job of running pro-choicers out of the party. No? And even facing the likely 2012 GOP Senate gains, she’d still have six years to buld her base back up.

  • Alistair


    I believe that Murkowski will be more of a Joe Lieberman or Jim Jefford type and Personally that would be good for America to have an Independent voice like her and could start a Centrist type coalition. I hope she goes Indy just to personally piss off McConnell & Jim Demint.

  • Tully

    The Murkowski campaign has now confirmed that if she prevails she will caucus GOP as long as she can keep her committee assignment. So the final Senate count is 53/47. Regardless of the outcome in Alaska, it goes down as an “R”.

    On the bright side, we still get a circus in the Great White North as they count the votes. Popcorn?