Chris Romer vs. Michael Hancock. The pulse races at the prospect.
(Quick admission: My deadline arrived with some votes uncounted, meaning it was still possible the runoff could pit Romer vs. James Mejia. Not to worry, though. The same punch line applies.)
During the past three decades, every election that produced a changing of the guard at Denver city hall (1983, 1991 and 2003) provoked much more excitement and suspense than this one. And so did two of the contests (1987 and 1995) in which the incumbent survived a scare in the first round but eventually triumphed.
This year’s contest seems flat by comparison — and lacking in content (could those characteristics be related, do you suppose?).
Do the two runoff candidates disagree on anything significant? Is the contrast entirely a matter of tone?
And yet, ironically, the actual stakes for Denver in this election could hardly be greater.
After all, the city really does seem to have a structural problem with its budget — expenditures growing faster than revenues — that economic growth alone is unlikely to resolve. Something’s got to give. The next mayor will oversee major change or let the city drift onto a reef.
And yet, during the past two months, you simply didn’t hear as much about that problem as you should have.
Maybe the candidates were too concerned with letting us know their views of reform in Denver schools, which the mayor doesn’t happen to govern. It’s time they abandoned that dead-end theme and moved on for good to other issues.
Romer’s name and fund-raising ability gave him an edge from the beginning that he’s successfully exploited to a first-place finish, but whether he’s able to expand his base in the runoff is very much unclear. He may enjoy a lead, but it’s a slight one. And coming in first place is no guarantee whatsoever of eventual victory.
In 1991, Norm Early cruised to first place with 41 percent of the vote, only to lose a few weeks later to a fellow named Wellington Webb who had garnered only 30 percent in the first round.
Webb had the wind at his back by the runoff, having turned the contest into a populist tilt against the anointed candidate of what he derisively denounced as the “big shots.”
Romer enjoys no similar momentum today (let alone John Hickenlooper’s 43 percent tally of 2003). If anything, the former state senator’s performance was anemic given the amount of money he spent. So he will have to make his case anew to voters, hoping the contrast with just a single opponent works to his advantage.
As senator, Romer bubbled over with news-grabbing ideas, some worth pursuing and some that simply weren’t ready for prime time. So when he promises to “challenge the status quo,” which is something of a mantra of his — and a timely one, too — you get the feeling he actually means it.
He’ll toss off a clunker or two along the way, to be sure. For example, at a meeting with this newspaper’s editorial board, when discussing a possible evolving role for firefighters, he asked, “Why couldn’t we check blood pressure, flu shots and obesity issues at the firehouse?”
Talk about grasping at straws. But he’s right that we need to rethink how the city does business. Remember that structural deficit?
If anyone appeared to be riding momentum as I wrote this, it was Hancock — a long shot not long ago. Yet what is it that captured voters’ fancy? His “We are all Denver” motto? What does that even mean?
Sure, Hancock is extremely likeable — someone who, as the political consultant Katy Atkinson told The Denver Post, “doesn’t seem to have any known enemies — which is pretty remarkable for someone who’s held office as long as he has.”
She’s right: It is remarkable, but is it entirely a good thing? Shouldn’t a fellow who’s held office for as long as Hancock have some enemies? Politicians with no enemies tend to be those who rarely say anything to ruffle the feathers of interest groups, preferring to get along with them instead.
Denver’s runoff election always has a different dynamic from the first round. Each candidate tries to define the opponent as quickly as possible — unflatteringly, of course — and doesn’t have to shout through the din of a pack. The debates, blessedly, are one on one. Differences are finally clarified.
With five weeks to go, in short, this contest is still up for grabs.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
