Who would do better against Gardner?

[Zohranism is OUR future]

Until recently, this answer would have been clear cut, but now with the ethics scandal and the Reade comments, it’s a bit closer.

[SnowLabrador]

Romanoff.

[Upstater]

It's going to be a bit of a hot take but I'm going to say Romanoff.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Still Hickenlooper, but that margin was never large and I think it only holds by a hair's breadth now.

[YE]

Romanoff at this point.

[Annihilation]

I'm for Romanoff now and I think he has a good shot.

[SevenEleven]

Hickenlooper might be showing himself to be too stupid to be trusted with a Senate seat

[We Live in Black and White]

Hickenlooper is what you would get it you took Joe Biden, boiled out all of his charm to leave a skeletal husk of stupid gaffes, and ran it for Senate. Romanoff.

[W]

Given how (annoyingly) pro-Romanoff I've been since joining the forum I have an unexpected take that it's still Hickenlooper. That being said given this is already a safe D seat (yes, I said safe D) no matter who runs and Hick's repeated gaffes and questionable ethics his pure name recognition edge is fading rapidly.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

The difference was and probably still is pretty negligible. Maybe now Romanoff would do a point better or so, but considering Gardner’s almost certain to lose, it’s pretty much just splitting hairs.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Things change with  Covid 19, Romanoff got alot of Bernie voters to vote for him in the straw election. Now, with that over, Hickenlooper as well as Bullock are running on experience like Biden

[Gracile]

Maybe Romanoff at this point, but it doesn't matter since both would win.

[NewYorkExpress]

Hickenlooper would probably win the seat by more (name recognition helps, even in general elections), but Romanoff probably would be a better Senator.

[Mr. Smith]

Much as I prefer Romanoff and usually roll with the non-moderate option, I have to go with Hick still.

The situation feels very Rick Scott-ey.

[The Mamdani Virus]

Still Hickenlooper, his moderate policy positions matter a lot more than a random gaffe that most people probably don't even know about. Gardner can't effectively attack Hickenlooper as an extremist like he can with Romanoff. The difference here is that Hickenlooper puts this race away, while Romanoff would win, but would need to spend much more than Hickenlooper in the end.

[coloradocowboi]

This is and has been kind of a silly question tbh. The difference we are talking about is somewhere between one and one-half of a percentage point. Both would win handily, but John Hickenlooper will be a corrupt, alcoholic, useless Senator just like he was a corrupt, alcoholic, useless governor. It's not even a "moderate" vs. "progressive" race like it's been framed. Both are ambitious and pragmatic. The only substantive difference is that Romanoff has never been totally bought and paid for like "nice guy" John Hickenlooper.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

I can’t wait for the pundits to move this back to “pure tossup” if Romanoff wins lol

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Much as I prefer Romanoff and usually roll with the non-moderate option, I have to go with Hick still.

The situation feels very Rick Scott-ey.

Rick Scott could not have saved the GOP in Virginia. This isn't much more competitive than VA (by which I mean they are different depths into the "safe D" category) and Democratic strategists shouldn't worry about having to go on defence for X or Y candidate in Colorado.

[Calthrina950]

Hickenlooper would still do better against Gardner than Romanoff, but the difference between them is marginal at this point. Gardner is still doomed, regardless of who the Democrats ultimately nominate. Hickenlooper's recent gaffes may give Romanoff an avenue to pull off an upset victory in the June 30 primary, however.