CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 28, 2012 07:45 PM UTC
15 Comments
http://blogs.denverpost.com/th…
That article is linked and briefly discussed in Stokol’s piece.
Sounds like a Miklosi staff problem that Coffman is exploiting, not a trip to Bizarro World.
It sounds more like they changed their mind because they are comfortable with their position in the campaign.
A former boss of mine changed international plane tickets (for a fee) to go to that event, off of that article. While she’s an old friend of Coffman’s and a Republican, she was/is considering voting for Miklosi and wanted to see him in action.
I’m sure she’ll appreciate his new found “position.” But it’s not like moderate Republicans are the audience Joe’s looking for anyway.
Is that the official line, or are you pulling that out of somewhere? I’m happy to pass it on if it’s the former. While we’re at it, is Joe cancelling the rest of the debates?
Because if droll doesn’t understand or agree, the usual response is a firehose of apoplectic incoherent bullshit.
Nice sig line, chump.
Which part don’t you understand? I’m really curious.
BTW, according to Pols’ new rules of quoting I’m actually being generous. You did tell me that. Defend away!
Sometimes you actually have very reasonable points to make. Other times you act like Libertad with your pointless trolling. In the blog post about Joe Coors this weekend, it really seemed to be the latter. If you don’t think the points the Guvs made about Coors’ crazy past statements is valid, say why. But by simply declaring them not “anchored in reality,” it seemed to me like you were defending Joe Coors for predicting Armageddon, or ever thinking AIDS was God’s revenge on gays. I happen to agree those things make Coors unelectable. I found it strange that you did not.
There, I’ve explained myself. Please feel respond to respond in kind. I get the feeling that you’re not a person I would normally want to fight with, so let’s see if that’s true.
Let’s not get hung up on typos, either.
I have dig bick stuff. We only notice their/there/they’re stuff because we watch ourselves for it. No worries, in other words.
I never said that Coors’ statements were off limits, I said that the diary wasn’t based in reality. They made it look like the DP article was somehow related to the diary and it really wasn’t. Bartels only briefly mentioned Coors’ crazy and then told a lovely story.
Specifically I asked where the devastation in Bartels’ article was and where they got their definition of “sociopathic.” Because, I’m sorry, but forcing your kid to live on his own for not following a (fairly sensible rule, even) is not anywhere close to being sociopath behavior. Allowing him to die in that situation because he couldn’t afford medical care probably could be. The devastation in Bartels’ article was missing because it was the inverse of the diary, brief crazy, lots of nice.
You never addressed those specific questions, so I didn’t feel it necessary to explain myself.
My problem is that a) I don’t appreciate the if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us attitude and b) integrity is really important to me. Obnoxiously so, I’m aware. That diary had a nasty slant while purporting to be about an article without really seeming to be. It was a re-hash of their own work, at best. I wouldn’t care who the article is about. I don’t care that I don’t like Coors and he’s not on my side (as a woman, doubly). Frankly, I’m finished giving Pols the benefit of the doubt.
This diary is worse. I’ve made good points and added historical context. You didn’t respond to any of that. Why would you attack first?
FWIW, both BC and I have recently mocked ‘Tad for posting something and pretending it said something else and I’ve done it to ArapaGOP, too. It is very Libertad behavior.
Now I’ll repeat my question; in this diary, what did I write that is confusing or incoherent? I’m happy to clear it up.
What the fuck? You’re entitled to your opinion about their opinion, but I fail to detect a “if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us attitude” or any lack of “integrity.” This blog has an opinion, and that’s ok with me. I don’t always agree with it either, but you’ve got a chip on your shoulder that isn’t explained by what they actually wrote.
I think Bartels’ story did tell a nice tale about Coors’ life, but there is NO way you can read it and not reel from the crazy. That’s my opinion and Pols’ opinion. You clearly have a different opinion, and that’s fine. What doesn’t make sense is your invective.
It’s tough to say more about the Miklosi thing, which isn’t what I was taking issue with, I don’t know anything about your Republican former boss or you. Sometimes you have dare I say progressive opinions I very much agree with, and sometimes you seem like you’re arguing very cleverly on behalf of Republicans.
As a partisan Democrat, I’m keen on not helping Republicans be clever. Does that make sense to you?
One more thing: as long as you keep that ridiculous signature that has no relationship whatsoever to anything I said but still uses quotation marks as though it’s verbatim, you’re a little short on credibility with me.
You’re the one I get the IYNWUYAU attitude from. Mostly this kind of line, “sometimes you seem like you’re arguing very cleverly on behalf of Republicans.” I’m not on anyone’s party’s side.
The new quoting rules allow my quote. Sorry. I didn’t make the rule. 🙁 I’ll change it just for you, but you are going to have to counter an argument in the diary you’re posting in. It’s a little odd for someone to bitch about credibility when you called me “incoherent” for a reason you apparently can’t put your finger on.
against Flerlage, who I’m sure he was super scared of.
http://www.coloradostatesman.c…
You’re welcome for the research.
I think you must be foolin’ around
Joe had a great issue and now he blows it by blowing off the chance to debate. Change your schedule and show up!
I am amazed at how much money the DCCC and other outside Democratic groups are pouring into CD 6. It appears that Sal Pace has been cut adrift and Joe Miklosi is the candidate with an actual chance of winning a seat in Congress.