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%
February 23, 2014 10:58 AM UTC
25 Comments
Someone walks into a party, climbs up on a table, drops their pants, squats over the punchbowl, and drops a gigantic turd in the punch. At this point, while you have everyone's attention, no one is listening to a word you say.
Excellent advice, David. It will be interesting to see if it is followed.
Are you kidding. None of the rightie trolls could possibly post under those conditions. What on earth would they have to say?
Typical David. Taking all the fun out. . . .
AC is clearly part of the campaign staff for Ken Buck. Everything he posts here is paraphrased or cross-posted on the Colorado section of redstate.com or on Colorado Peak Politics.
There's nothing wrong with that, specifically; I have worked, or will work, on several campaigns, and disclose it when applicable. Full disclosure on AC's part would be the ethical thing to do.
So all this garbage is in hopes of getting Buck elected? So sad.
I think there is some wisdom in what David writes, as there often is.
But I will also take this as an invitation to identify some of the things that, from one holding the minority view here, drives people away, even those that enjoy the fray. Maybe that is the intent, maybe it is not. But that is the effect.
Opinions that are different than yours are not wrong. They are different.
Identifying someone as different should not be an invitation to vulgarity or threats.
Not everyone that disagrees with you is less knowledgeable or less intelligent, they just disagree with you.
There are hundreds of thousands of folks in Colorado who think all of you are full of it, just like there are a similar number who think that of me. That is why it is described as a purple state.
I am not paid by anybody to post here. I just post here. I suspect that is true for most who post here. Why are those that do not hold the majority view, subject to you must have a political master nonesense. CT threats of disclosing who I am, MJ55 and the like going to get on it. Get a life. If you feel that the only way you can win an argument is to drive the other side away, you don't have a very good argument or you don't know how to make one.
I get to decide what I post here which is based on what I think is appropriate to post here. If your favorite candidate has an AP story about them that you don't like, guess what, I probably do like it and I am probably going to post it. I don't decide what the AP thinks is news, they do.
If there is an article about a family member of a candidate in the news, my sense of propriety is not to dump on the family member, but the candidate and what they do as it relates to it is fair play. Some of you think I stepped over the line. I don't think I did. There are grey areas, but that is my view.
MJ, who has powers to declare the dead alive and now dead again, I have not tried to hide the fact that I support Ken Buck and want Mark Udall to lose. I also support whoever runs against Hick and want Hick to lose. I could go on, but I think you get the trend. That does not make me part of any campaign except my own to make the world a better place as I see it.
I read Red State which is a quality conservative political opinion site. The material is thoughtful and well written. Buck's previous communications director recently became the managing editor and I read it daily. I also read Complete Colorado, the Colorado Observer, Colorado Peak Politics, the Denver Post, Drudge, National Review and Breitbart. I check out the facebook pages of candidates I am interested in following. That means I read multiple political sites daily, not that I work for a political campaign.
My experience on this site is that in the summer most of the leftist polsters will be working on campaigns as they have in the past, will be posting wild ass stuff and will deny working on said campaigns. Rest assured if I work on a campaign it will not be for any of those campaigns.
When your response is "let me tell you why everything I do is correct," then you're probably not understanding the points in the article.
Yes people respond to you with profanity and dismissal, including when you bring up fair points. But you've so consistently shit in the punchbowl that it's the initial reaction of everyone, even when a more reasoned response is called for.
There's not a single item in my list above that says don't bring up valid issues about Senator Udall which is what you are alluding to in your reply. It's about how you do it. And the above isn't aimed at just conservative shills, it holds for liberal ones too.
Weasel wording alert:
In any of those cases, consultant, blogger on a right wing site, or campaign volunteer, full disclosure would make you more credible. If you care about that.
If you are not a consultant, blogger, or volunteer, how would you explain the facts that, whenever a blog critical of Buck is run, such as catpuzzle's expose of Buck's insensitivity towards a domestic violence victim), you resort to personal attacks against the blogger, bring up irrelevant and resolved issues, and put on your Buck Defender Cape?
Or, why are the exact same demographics you gloat over, that the Q poll showed Independents and young voters preferring Buck to Udall, posted not only half a dozen times by you on this forum, but about as many times on redstate or CPP?
Really, as expert as you may think you are in getting the liberals riled up, all anyone has to do is post criticism of Buck, or praise of Udall, for you to go into full-tilt campaign mode.
I do agree with you, by the way, that vulgarity and threats don't advance the conversation. When I feel moved to do so, I ask others on here to dial it back, and have in fact defended your virtual virtue from such attacks. For my pains, I get accused of "pearl clutching", whatever that is. That's fine – I'll do what I think is right.
Like it or not.
MJ. I have a real job. It is not in politics. I get paid by my job. I have never been paid by a politician, campaign or party. I have donated to a few, but not very much in the scheme of things. Who cares? I don't know if you are or care to know. What difference does it make?
So if I want Republicans to succeed that makes me a campaign volunteer? That makes 90% of the Polsters as campaign volunteers.
The race I am most interested in is the Senate race. Frankly federal issues tend to be more up my alley. I personally think the last 6 years have been disappointing and that Udall is a weak-kneed puppet who has voted in ways which have hurt this country. I hope he does not get reelected and that the next 6 years are better than the last.
Are you a blogger on another site, or a campaign volunteer?
If you define your terms, and answer all of the same questions you asked me and inasmuch as you are asking on behalf of others allow me to select a couple other polster who submit to similar interrogation, I will be pleased to answer.
A blogger on another site? Have I ever submitted a post on another blog?
Campaign volunteer? Meaning? Gone door to door? Made calls? Now or ever?
Me, answering your questions in order: Yes. Yes. Yes. all of those activities in the past, and will do again. I've disclosed that a couple of times on here.
I don't feel that I need to define my terms, as they're very clear. I rarely ask questions that can be answered by Yes or No, but these can be.
I don't have the power to compel any other Polsters to answer anything, or you either, for that matter, but you can certainly ask. I'd guess that about half of the people on here have worked for a campaign, either as a volunteer or paid staff, at some point.
Are you a blogger or diarist on another site? Do you volunteer, or anticipate that you will volunteer, for a candidate? If so, which candidate?
MJ, You did not answer any of your questions in the detail you asked them of me. I don't want to offend David's tread jacking concerns so I will not go on, but if there are rules for all, I will comply. If not why should I be held to a different standard because you do not agree with me?
David, I apologize if you think I violated rule 9.
Yes or no. No detail. Not that hard.
1. Do you blog or diary on another site? Y/N
2. Do you volunteer, or will you volunteer, for a candidate: y/n
If no answer, or more diversions and bs,. I will assume that I already know that your answers to both of the questions below are yes, and that I do know the details. This is more trollfoolery than I should be doing today.
That's what we call a "no answer" answer.
Nice try David. I could stand to take a refresher course myself.
But apparently our troll has become so enamored of the sweet bouquet of his own BS, he's not going to stop reposting objectively false talking points.
Expecting critical thinking from him? Not so much. It's just his opinion vs. ours, and facts don't matter. Regardless of what name he may post under, now or in the future, that fundamentally flawed mindset is instantly recognizable.
I agree. It reminds me of the old saying, don't argue with a mule – it does not good and it annoys the mule.
So whyile A/C was the inspiration for this post, I wrote it assuming he would not understand. It's for those who will listen. If we get a couple who approach this here like Elle, that would be wonderful (I miss her).
Since facts mean nothing to him he doesn't get that people get ticked not because they disagree but because he refuses to address facts, refuses to acknowledge when others present evidence that his statements of fact are wrong, refuses to acknowledge that those he disagrees with have indeed backed up their statements with verifiable facts. That's because facts and critical thinking are absolutely meaningless to him. If he's against someone then everything that that person says or does is wrong and no further investigation or analysis of facts is required. This causes confusion as to why people don't give equal credit to unsupported or discredited BS over supported facts.
Most of the rest of us disagree with each other at times, present facts to one another, sometimes change our minds based on those presentations, some times admit that we were wrong and often criticize pols and candidates from our own side that we still, over all, support over the GOTP opposition. We don't feel the need to pretend they are all paragons or that all criticism of them is unfair.
This is way of thinking, discussing and reaching judgements completely alien to today's GOTPers. So naturally they think we're just being unfair because we disagree them. They have no concept of examining facts objectively and so are clueless as to why their single minded parroting of talking points aggravates us so.
Yep, the old "Opinions (and especially Beliefs) are facts, so you can never prove me wrong" fallacy.
OK BC Here is an inconvenient fact.
More than 335,000 insureds in Colorado had their health insurance plans cancelled. The "objective judgement" of the Pols cult is the number should not include insureds that were cancelled but offered other plans, which is patently untrue but the same crock that Udall's office was trying to sell.
The Pols cult has no concept of examining facts objectively and are clueless as to why their single minded parroting of talking points is so aggravating.
OK, one last time (oh, who am I kidding….):
The policies were cancelled BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO CANCELLED THOSE POLICIES BECAUSE THOSE POLICIES DID NOT OFFER THE COVERAGE MANDATED BY LAW. The insurance companies were ripping people off with huge deductibles, refusing treatment due to "pre-exisiting conditions", and doing everything they could to avoid paying for basic care. The ACA is a good thing. History will bear that out.
Just because you and some other people enjoy being robbed blind in the name of "Freedom", doesn't mean it's right. It just means you're ok with being robbed, as long as someone uses the right (meaningless) patriotic buzzwords.
And now you're thread jacking. Go write a diary about this rather than jacking mine. And in it speak to the issue of the industry practice of regularly canceling policies and offering a new similar policy in its stead.
Apologies for contributing to the wrongdoing.
Violating rule #9 is forgiven by following rule #2 🙂
Solid points