U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 21, 2009 07:26 PM UTC

American Political Dialogue ca 2009

  • 34 Comments
  • by: JO

(Please discuss. – promoted by ClubTwitty)

ColoradoPols is an astoundingly accurate mirror of American political dialogue. On this site, hour by hour, we can see before our eyes the spectrum of voices that comprise simultaneous discussions taking in places that range from the United States Senate to Manny’s Manger on Route 287. Is it different today than a decade ago, or five decades ago? I think it is.

Political dialogue on this site isn’t all that much different than any other set of discussions. Gossip is probably the biggest single topic. It’s carried out on the same level as any other kind of gossip: rumors put forward as assumed facts, mutually assuring comments designed to assure that the speaker is accepted by The Group, smirks or snide remarks designed to assert that this group is The In Group, as if blog sites were junior or senior high school lunchrooms, but an idea still beloved by self-proclaimed members whose self-confidence rests on sitting at the same table.

There are occasionally diaries intended to spark discussion on some of the serious issues we face as a society, among which are American’s ability to compete effectively in a new world economy; the foreseeable need to wean ourselves from carbon energy; clear evidence that we must join every other country in a serious, concerted effort to reduce CO2 emissions before global warming passes a tipping point; the growing concentration of wealth in a small number of hands whose sole loyalty is increasing their wealth without regard to national or class considerations, and our ability as a society to take care of the sick, even if they are also poor.

By and large, such topics seem to attract relatively few comments. When they do, we can count on a blizzard of fluff coming from a small handful of individuals whose sole contribution is to mock the thoughts of others by coming up with adjectives last heard in the school cafeteria. These comments, entirely predictable, often show an almost amusingly complete ignorance even of what the poster doesn’t know. One hallmark: the comment has nothing to do with the topic, much less advancing the discussion by contributing information or fresh analysis. Adjectives loom large in such pap.

But there is a serious downside: these posts may serve another hidden purpose: to discourage the many readers of ColoradoPols who seldom or never post comments from coming forward for fear of similar mocking. This is unfortunate, and I for one would like to see more contributors speak up with the assurance that many replies will be disregarded by the great majority of readers on the site. There are no lunch tables on ColoradoPols.

Others quickly learn to disregard such nonsense, which serves as an indelible stain on the posters, a few of whom presume to be taken seriously on another day, another thread.

But the question is whether this pattern of political discussion on the larger national scene can possibly lead to viable solutions that require organized social activity–aka government. So far, there is mounting evidence that our ability to work cooperatively to solve common problems has been lost in a world of adjectival sniping absent any serious thought or analysis. And that’s a problem.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

34 thoughts on “American Political Dialogue ca 2009”

    1. it doesn’t guarantee productive conversation, it allows it. It’s necessary, but not sufficient.

      And this kind of wide open, 24/7 discussion is still new. That  it’s also anonymous means there is going to be some flame-bs still going on.  We need to draw it out- ignore the worst and even shame the worst posters.

      But the negative baloney needs to be drawn out- maybe then we can get past it.

      Although the Phil Wolf s of the world are going to need an outlet to vent- they don’t need followers.

        1. What I’d call an over reach is the lead in

          ColoradoPols is an astoundingly accurate mirror of American political dialogue.

          I certainly don’t think the NJ and VA governor races mirrored the discussion here.

            1. I agreed with you your agreement, but pointed out the over reach was in the lead in [which I quoted].  I’ll review you concerns, but don’t see the validity at this early hour.

  2. Most people never really grow up past junior high school, so any kind of social gathering with more than a couple people devolves into gossip and cliquery. This is as true on blogs as it is in workplaces and in families and at bars and parties.

    It’s even true in political groups. I once helped organize a big protest and was denounced as a right-winger by the rest of the organizers. This was in person, so it’s not that anonymity and electronica are responsible for that kind of behavior. And I’ve been guilty of it too; I basically spent the entire Howard Dean campaign trying to date various women who were involved. It’s hard to stay high-minded when we’re all still just people with monkey-brains.

    People hang out on this site because they’re interested in politics and want to talk with other people who are as well. By definition it’s a social thing more than it is a political thing. If you hang out on a music blog, I wouldn’t expect it to be any different. Will everyone just dispassionately discuss the benefits of tonality vs. dissonance, or will they insult each other and talk about silly meaningless stuff? I suspect it’s the latter.

    The difficulty with trying to discuss very serious things on the blog is that

    1) many people have already thought about many of the same sorts of issues, and have their own opinions pretty clearly set

    2) many people have had lots of political arguments over issues before and pretty much know how most of them will turn out

    3) many people already understand how screwed up the system is and have decided to work “at the edges” to make things better, since otherwise the problems are really truly overwhelming.

    It does nobody any good to think about problems that have no solution. This was the hardest thing for me to learn in my own political life. You get into radical politics and feel certain you have the solutions, and you probably do if only you could seize power, but you can’t get people behind you because all you offer is a critique. People think, “Well I could follow sxp151 to the barricades and to my probable death, but what evidence has he given me that he knows what he’s talking about? What makes me think he can win this battle he wants me to fight? When has he ever shown proven results before?” And I never had a good answer for that. I tried to start small and locally, but even then I couldn’t get little problems fixed. All great successful political leaders started this way: by fixing little things locally.

    So, most of us having decided that we can’t change the world from the top down, and having realized that we can’t even convince most people to believe our own world view, we find discussions of the BIG ISSUES rather tiresome. Especially when they’re with people who don’t view others as individuals who’ve thought about the same sorts of things we have, but rather as petty, stupid, and selfish people just waiting to gain imparted wisdom to save them from themselves.

    We’re all people who care about things, but the discussions necessarily have to be about how you’re going to pass THIS BILL because it’s the only option possible. Overthrowing the government just isn’t an option, so we have to work in the system, crappy as it is.

    Plus calling people names is both easier and more fun.

    1. …blogs are not much, if any, different than political discussion in many other arenas, ranging from the neighborhood bar to news conferences by senators from one party or the other (but virtually never, these days, from both parties at the same time). Some threads are serious; some are frivolous; some are focused; some are not. Most are a mixture of all four. The personalities on this site are exact echoes of those many of us have seen in, say, county party meetings, political caucuses–and yes, in adolescence.

      You may be right that discussing possible solutions to big problems is a waste of time, but does that imply that such problems cannot and will not be solved? Or that discussions voicing different ideas are not the way to reach a commonly accepted solution? One could argue that the principle difference between a “democratic” society and a totalitarian one is the difference between bottom-up and top-down solutions; between discussion beforehand and issuing orders to be followed without question. I think a strong case can be made in favor of the former, but that requires that the discussions take place.

      My point was not to criticize what goes on here; it was to suggest a parallel between these discussions and those in virtually every other arena.  

        1. Obama didn’t fix all the problems of the south side apartment complexes, but he did get things started, and got people thinking things could get fixed. Still, I didn’t classify Obama as one of the “great successful political leaders.” I think he could turn out to be one, but he needs to demonstrate some victories even as President, just like anyone else would have to.

          Of course Barron X is an asshole who pissed on Ted Kennedy’s grave the day he died, so fuck him to hell.

        1. some of us prefer verfiable facts and grounded reason to irrelevent insinuations and innuendo. Try it some day; it might save you from having to invest all your money in that clue I recommended to your doppleganger.

        2. …working with SEIU, a big bunch of thugs, and ACORN, the organization responsible for most voter fraud, not to mention their underage-illegal-alien-prostitution-enabling habits and embezzlement scandals.  No wonder he didn’t stand up and shout it from the rooftops during the campaign.

          2. would like to have intelligent and informed discussions about public policy. Why is that so anethema to you, and, apparently, to most (or the most vocal and visible)members of your party and political ideology?

            The ACORN expose involved a few isolated people. There’s no evidence of the practices that were detected, after searching every nook and cranny of the organization, were organizational policy, or came from the top. I can discredit any organization (church, government, military, school, choir, little league team, you name it) if all I have to do is catch someone in it doing something unethical.

            Then, to use that cheap ploy as a inexhaustable source of condemnation of the president for ever having had any association with that organization…, it just doesn’t get much lower and more desparate than that.

            Talking about thugs….  

            1. I would like BoulderRepublican to defend his statement–but like many of his ilk I doubt he will.  Specifically I am interested in seeing his support for two operable terms–‘most’ (as in more than half) and ‘voter fraud’ (as in fraudulent VOTING).  

              Here is a handy reference to get him started, should he prove my impression of him wrong–http://truthaboutfraud.org/analysis_reports/

              1. because to do so would be to give credence to an orchestrated meme that does not merit credence. Instead, I’ll let ACORN defend itself.

                The right has a habit of repeating partial and selective truths, out of context and laced with insinuations that do not follow from them, until even those who are not predisposed to believe those deceptive memes end up repeating them, even if only implicitly.

                  1. because Democrats won elections. You silly.

                    Since the majority of Americans agree with right-wing Republicans (their opinions being self-evidently true), it can only thusly therefore be that results in opposition to the obvious truths are obtained via fraud.

                    And God saweth the biggeth words and spaketh that it were trueth.

                    1. that’s his excuse–not that he’s a victim, being a conservative he believes in personal responsibility–but it was all ACORN and BIG UNIONs fault.

    1. Are we just a bunch of tweens in our little cliques making snide remarks about the kid without the cool clothes?

      To torture the analogy a little more…

      Or are we engaged in a dialog that accomplishes something other than spending time and making ourselves feel like we belong?

      1. As I have said before, the level of discussion on this site is what keeps me coming back.  I think sxp151 pretty much speaks for me as well (only much better than I would have said).

        The demographics of this audience appear to include some very active and well-connected folks, so the education I get reading these posts is well worth getting spanked if I post something stupid.  It doesn’t seem to stop others either.

        I gave up very quickly on the old Rocky and even Denver Post sites, which devolve after the first comment into a wasteland.  When I got letters published in the print editions, the online discussions were mostly silly.

        But JO raised good points, and I think one answer is that when posts are heavy on polemics and light on, as sxp151 says, things we can affect, the quality and quantity of replies will decrease dramatically.  We are, afterall, a self-selected group, and we aren’t all masochists wishing to debate every single thought that might cross the mind of every diarist.

  5. Is going to lead to hurt feelings. Why? Because one person is going to tell another person that what they believe in is a bad idea. That’s what you get in that kind of discussion.

    I’ll agree that discussion here gets childish and snarky at times. And there is no benefit to that. But as SXP and a couple of others pointed out, that’s because we’re human.

    Anyways, I think a tough skin is called for to discuss things here. But I also think that is a good thing. If you believe in what you propose, then stand up and fight for it.

  6. My original post on this thread was not a complaint about the manners of participants; it was to observe that in general, in many different places, political discourse has ceased to be about what Thomas Friedman calls “optimal solutions” and instead has taken on several different aspects, including sounding like a junior high school lunchroom but also much more. Perhaps I should emphasize that in no way was I referring to my own thin or thick skin; I’ll just say I’ve been in aspects of this game for a long, long time and, well, I’m oblivious and fully intend to keep on posting. Others, I speculate, might feel more hesitant to step forth; to them I say, Post! Let us hear your views!

    On the subject of discussing the nitty-gritty vs the “big picture.” I think both are needed, and are needed in a forum like this blog. I’d point to the discussion the other day about the Roan Plateau. As soon as one gets into discussions on who can withdraw or cancel what, with or without a court fight over subclause 9(f)a.2, it is very easy indeed to lose sight of the larger picture: that we should not be concentrating on the rights of one company to explore for a bit more petroleum when we are, in fact, lacking in a coherent national policy, applicable at both the production and consumption ends of the problem, to  migrate from CO2 to other forms of energy asap. Speculating, in the absence of any hard evidence or case law, on the legal aspects of one particular deal seems, to me at least, diversionary. IF one were to judge the Roan Plateau drilling rights issue from the larger perspective, to me it seems clear that the deal should be canceled and that in the time left, more relevant, larger-scale issues should take up our attention. Insofar as there is, in fact, not agreement on what to do about energy and the related problem of the environment, evidently more discussion, argumentation, and persuasion is needed. Others, in fact all others on that Roan thread, obviously saw it differently. Fine; that’s the nature of political discussion, especially among apparent insiders.

    AND, I think the basic principles, the very basic  principles, do need to be repeated, over and over and over. Not unlike certain liturgical rites repeated every week, every year, over and over and over. In politics, that liturgy goes right back to “all men and women are created equal.” THAT is the standard by which detailed legislation needs to be judged, THAT is the reason governments are instituted among men, NOT in order to protect XYZ insurance company’s exemption from legislation from being ended next May 1 instead of July 15.

    And a final point. There must be a phrase to describe the phenomenon of this thread, in which a discussion about a topic illustrates the topic itself. Rather like “chatterboxes chattering about chatterboxes chattering.” (NOT to suggest this site is filled with chatterboxes.)  Veering off into comments about ACORN, for example, and community organizing–is that relevant to any urgent national problem? Was that meant to advance understanding? Or was that another example, which I alluded to, of participants on the national political stage losing sight of real issues at hand and focusing exclusively on (a) regaining a handful of Senate and House seats; and/or (b) the next quarter’s profits in order to justify year-end bonuses? I have to wonder whether Republicans, including posts on this very thread, really think the “birther” movement is going to cause them to regain power next year? Or whether Americans will recoil en masse from ACORN and put back in office the party of George W. Bush, the Great Recession, the Near Financial Meltdown, the record deficits, Iraq and Afghanistan… Is that what you think? OR, are you simply repeating the big lie over and over and over and over in the belief that the grossest untruths, repeated often enough, will begin to stick? At the other end of the spectrum, does the fact that House districts will not be redrawn next year to better represent the voters rather than to protect the incumbents mean that it’s not a good idea to talk about a fundamental rethinking of this issue? No major changes ever take place over the period of 30 or 60, or even 365 days. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be discussed; people do occasionally change their minds.

  7. I think the level of discourse can be paralleled to some degree with the kinds of political dialogue that surrounds us. Watch it on the TV, or listen on the radio. They all act as though they are 15 years old, trying to one up each other. What sums it all up for me is Joe Wilson excusing his outburst with a statement claiming he was having “a town hall moment.” If that is how town halls work, serious dialogue is endangered.  

    1. or the comment threads under any DPost article, but yesterday I was annoying myself watching Cal Thomas on Fox, and the poor brother was foaming at the mouth, literal spittle, talking about men in white coats coming to kill granny and all sorts of whacked out stuff.  

      When people like Lindsey Graham are being called RINOs because they dare to speak to the Members on the ‘other side’ of the aisle, well that is a serious sign of D-E-V-O…

       

  8. from a newbie (commenting) but long-time reader, for this discussion and the general tenor of Colorado Pols over time.  

    I learn something worth knowing every day, am often entertained, and rarely turned off (as other have noted usually happens on DP threads).

    The best learning moments (and sometimes the funniest as well) can be the responses to the worst of the trollish ones!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

67 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!