“You shouldn’t have to go broke or diewhen you get sick, and you should have awarm place to sleep at night. ... They’re pretty fundamental.”
tendent, when he came up for his first election.
Itwas a gnarly affair: Bennetwon the big-name endorsements, except from former President Bill Clinton, who backed Romanoff. Bennet also racked up bigger fundraising totals, even after Romanoff sold his house. Romanoff, for the first time the underdog, went through four campaign spokespeople, and he lobbed attacks that included a scathing spot accusing Bennet of looting companieswhile heworked for billionaire Philip Anschutz.
As allies point out, Romanoff wasn’t running as a lonewolf. He had the backing of nearly all but a handful of the 64 county Democratic chairs and hadwon 60 percent of the vote from insiders at the state Democratic assembly.
But the bitter race left a sour taste for some Democrats.
It also left a trail of fodder that Coffman’s campaign now is happily scooping up, fromRomanoff’s hard-left turns on some issues to criticism for his campaign’s negative tone. Coffman’s campaign has repeatedly tried to equateRomanoff’s conduct in the current race to his much-derided attacks in 2010, including when Romanoff raises Coffman’s past abortion views without noting his more recent moderation.
After 2010, Romanoff kept a low profile— down but not out.
“I think he really went into a kind of funk, to be honest,” said state Sen. Nancy Todd, D-Aurora, a campaign supporter who served with Romanoff in the House. “That’s human, and I don’t have a problem with that. Had he stayed there and not done something positive, I would have been very concerned.”
GOP questions motives
This time, Romanoff is back on top in some ways, raising more money than Coffman, although public polling has been nonexistent in the race and some national analysts have suggested he’s failing to catch fire.
Republicans question his motives, tarring Romanoff as an opportunist.
He’s running against Coffman in a district whose boundaries were redrawn three years ago to make it one of the nation’s most competitive. It also has a 20 percent Latino makeup.
Two years ago, Coffman beat a lesserknown Democrat, then-state Rep. Joe Miklosi, by just 2 percentage points. (Miklosi points out thatwithout former Democrat Kathy Polhemus, who garnered nearly 4 percent as an independent candidate, he may have won.)
This time, Coffman has been blunt, repeatedly contrasting his military service with Romanoff’s prep-school and Ivy League background to brand him as an elitist.
Romanoff disputes that he has a privileged background. He relied on financial aid for Yale and Harvard and had help from an education trust — a source less commonly available — established by his grandfather for some of his schooling.
“What I describe those as are basic opportunities (that all should have),” he said in an interview, extending the argument beyond education. “You shouldn’t have to go broke or die when you get sick, and you should have a warm place to sleep at night. I don’t think most Americans regard those as special privileges. They’re pretty fundamental.”
Coffman suggested that Romanoff moved to the district “not because he wants to live in Aurora but because he wants to live inWashington, D.C.”
Asked again about his move in an interview, Romanoff said he chose hisAurora apartment, at East Hampden Avenue and South Dayton Street, because he has ties there. Hemoved fromCherry Creek around the time he announced his campaign in February 2013.
“I used to teach at the Community College of Aurora,” he said, “and the main appeal for me is the diversity of the community. ... Having spent time around theworld, frankly, it’s cool to be able to talk to folks who come from so many places at a grocery store.”
Sondermann, the political analyst, said voters in the district probably won’t care about his recent residency change.
Instead, he said, they’re more likely to gauge howwell the longtime Denver urbanite fits in with the district’s suburban culture.