Mike Littwin Analyzes Colorado Gubernatorial Debate Drama

"We learned too little" in the Democratic primary and "way too much" in the Republican contest. That’s the verdict from Mike Littwin, and if you’re sitting in a Delta living room trying to figure out who’s actually going to run this state, it’s hard to argue with the summary.

The recent 9News gubernatorial debates offered two distinct flavors of political theater. On one side, Democrats Michael Bennet and Phil Weiser stood on opposite ends of the stage, mostly agreeing on everything except who was tougher on Donald Trump. On the other, Republicans Victor Marx, Barbara Kirkmeyer, and Scott Bottoms gave us a deep dive into their records, including details that might disqualify two of them.

Let’s start with the Democrats. As Littwin notes, there isn’t much separating Bennet and Weiser on the issues this deep in the campaign. The debate came down to a familiar question: Are we being asked to judge them on who is tougher on Trump?

Weiser slammed Bennet for voting for too many of Trump’s cabinet nominees, labeling him an accommodationist. Bennet fired back with the classic politician’s defense: it’s easy to vote against someone; it’s hard to work with them.

"Bennet replied that the easiest thing in the world for a Democrat to do is to vote against a Trump appointee — and that he did the tough thing by voting for those in the Trump administration whose cooperation is needed on Colorado issues like fighting wildfires," Littwin writes.

Weiser countered by pointing to his own record, specifically his lawsuits against Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins. He sued her three times, including once over reductions in food stamp benefits. He wants Bennet to apologize for confirming her. Bennet says he has nothing to apologize for.

"Rollins has been cooperative with Western senators in ensuring their states will have sufficient resources during the wildfire season," Bennet said.

It’s a nuanced argument, but for the folks in the valley who deal with fire season every year, the distinction between "fighting" and "cooperating" matters. Weiser notes that Bennet’s record of lawsuits against Trump was far fewer in the first term. Bennet argues that Trump’s first term had more guardrails. Weiser, who calls himself "Fightin’ Phil," says he’s always been a fighter for Coloradans.

The real story, though, is in the Republican debate. That’s where we got the TMI — the too much information.

Littwin points out that the Republican debate revealed information that should be disqualifying for state Rep. Scott Bottoms and "high-risk missionary" Victor Marx. The charges they made against each other were heated, but the details were the real issue.

"Weiser didn’t enter an AG lawsuit in Trump’s first term on separating migrant children from their parents," Littwin notes. "Weiser, whose mother was born in a concentration camp, obviously cares about children being separated from their families. He hasn’t exactly said why he didn’t join that lawsuit."

The question is whether the voters on the Western Slope care more about the specific legal arguments or the broader political branding. Bennet and Weiser are both running on a platform of being better than Jared Polis. And according to Littwin, that’s an easy sell.

"Both would be far better than Jared Polis, who has been the most Trump-accommodating Democratic governor in the country," Littwin says.

The debate didn’t give us much new information. It just confirmed what we already knew: Bennet and Weiser are close, and the differences are mostly in how they frame them. Weiser wants to sue; Bennet wants to work. One is a fighter; the other is a dealmaker.

For the Republican side, the debate was a mess of details. Marx and Bottoms gave us their records, and some of those details might be fatal. Weiser, for his part, didn’t enter every lawsuit he could have. He’s sticking to his record.

"Fightin’ Phil says he’s always been a fighter for Coloradans and pointed to his record to prove it," Littwin writes. "I’m guessing he’d fight anyone who says otherwise."

The question now is whether the voters in Delta County, and across the state, care about the nuance of agricultural subsidies and food stamp benefits, or if they just want someone who fights. The debates didn’t answer that. They just showed us that the Democrats are playing the same game they’ve been playing for months, and the Republicans are showing their scars.

"We learned too little" from the Democrats. "We learned way too much" from the Republicans.

As Littwin puts it, the verdict is in. Both Bennet and Weiser would be better than Polis. The rest is just noise.

"Time will tell," Littwin says, "but the debates didn't give us much new information."