It’s been almost six years since U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet took center stage to run for the seat to which he was initially appointed. He barely squeaked out a win in 2010, and conventional wisdom dictated that the only reason he won was because of missteps by his opponent and all the outside money spent branding his opponent with the “war on women” moniker. 
Other than being a decent fundraiser, Bennet doesn’t bring anything to table. He’s terrible at retail politics, has no stamina for the campaign trail, and is an awful public speaker. Bottom line: Bennet can’t take much credit for his electoral success.
By comparison, when Cory Gardner won his Senate bid last year, it was widely commented that a big part of that was how likeable he came across and, of course, that million-dollar smile.
Much like Mitt Romney, Bennet comes off un-relatable and almost robotic at times. The guy doesn’t even have good posture giving him a lackluster stage presence. And his nasally east coast accent is a dead give away that he is not from around here. Every pollster will tell you that these likeability factors matter to voters.
We bring all this up because the right challenger doesn’t need to be the next Cory Gardner in order to beat Bennet. He or she just needs to be more likable than Bennet, and that isn’t a tough order to fill.