Four weeks ago, former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D-CO) was anywhere between eight and 20 points behind incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.* His campaign was broke and focused mostly on sniping within the Republican Party. But since then, Romanoff has surged. He was endorsed by Bill Clinton (a thank you for his support of Hillary), automatically making him a credible contender. He sold his house to supplement his bank account and began to whack Bennet with negative ads, some of them misleading.
But when a Denver Post poll showed Romanoff leading by a few points, it was Bennet who hit his stride. He had been carefully and diligently campaigning across the state, trying to make a personal connection with voters who didn't really know him, or knew him only through headlines. Then he got angry, and his campaign ran ads blasting Romanoff for misleadingly claiming that he was a tool of Wall Street.
On Friday, the New York Times, using a Romanoff fundraiser as a protagonist, ran a piece questioning Bennet's stewardship of Denver Public Schools. The article suggested that because of Bennet's choices, Wall Street would profit off the backs of students. Romanoff immediately threw up an ad. Bennet blasted back, bemoaning Romanoff's decision to go negative and pointing out that Romanoff's clean campaign stance was not as white as it seemed.