U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(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) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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%
November 05, 2010 11:51 PM UTC
58 Comments
Pols if that was your own beef with this diary, I’m happy to make appropriate edits.
All other subject matter referenced specific people who held specific positions — all easily verifiable.
Let me know
I call shenanigans on ColoradoPols.
The suppressed diary can be read in its entirety at Square State, and anyone can see by reading it that ColoradoPols is wantonly mischaracterizing the contents of the diary. The issue of unpaid wages is only one relatively minor element of a far greater set of concerns the diary raises. Why is ColoradoPols trying to suppress those concerns?
This tactic may buy you a little time, Pols & Friends, but the story is not going away.
I should have thought to suggest that myself.
Our Rules and Regulations apply to every user. Even you.
are selectively enforced, and you certainly don’t apply your own “Rules and Regulations” to yourself:
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
As we did in another comment below. It really isn’t complicated. We take responsibility for anything written under the Colorado Pols name, sourced or not. We do not, and will not, take responsibility for unsourced negative attacks by any other user.
The diary was written by a party insider speaking from first-hand knowledge. He doesn’t need to cite his source — he’s the source. See how that works? It “isn’t complicated.” What’s he supposed to do, preface every sentence with “According to me, …”?
Furthermore, the diary’s concerns are only about alleged incompetence on the part of public officials and their agents, with no suggestion whatsoever of illegality. By contrast, your own unsourced allegations against Kathleen Curry the other day were of illegal activity. Do you understand the distinction?
and you can piss off if you don’t like it.
Has he outed himself before?
Are you outing him now?
After AR lost the D primary, which STryker, rather irrationally, gave me much too much credit for. And note the creation of the sockpuppet:
about the time of Stryker’s departure.
on any user.
I’d like H-Man and GOPWarrior to reappear and pay off, but otherwise, I don’t know and I don’t care.
40 years old and named Mike D.
Oh, maybe one…
Hint, he was a romo shill near the end of the primary.
And I actually have a lot of respect for him, this current meltdown notwithstanding.
What you just wrote is exactly our point — you just have the end of it backwards. And you seem to misunderstand the word “source” in its various connotations.
If Pat Waak, say, or Dick Wadhams says “X happened, and I saw it happen,” then it is sourced — we can see where it comes from. But it has to come from someone who the reader knows to have some knowledge of the subject. If Pat Waak or Dick Wadhams said “The Denver Broncos are going to start Tim Tebow at wide receiver this week,” then the comment is sourced — but not from a relevant source with any history of knowing anything about the Broncos.
In any scenario, just because a reliable or relevant source says it is true does not necessarily make it true — it is still just an allegation until there is some other “source” of evidence. Dick Wadhams can say that Republicans won the race for governor, but that doesn’t make it true.
Now, a person who writes under a pseudonym doesn’t even get to this first step unless they have proven in the past to be reliable on different stories or pieces of news. You say that “MikeD1970” is the source, and that he is a “party insider speaking from first-hand knowledge.” Sorry, but we’re not just going to take your word for it on that one. MikeD1970 may very well be a party insider. He might also be off touring with the Beastie Boys. As long as he (or she) is not identifying himself, then saying “According to me” wouldn’t make any difference anyway. According to whom? Who are you?
If you have nothing other than your own words to back up a negative accusation, then you have…nothing. And you can’t post it here. Them’s the rules. They’ve been the rules for a long time, and they are applied equally, to everyone. This has come up before, from Democrats, Republicans and third party supporters. It’s not a partisan issue. It’s a “prove it or lose it” issue.
Please understand that we are trying our best to help you understand our rules. What we are not doing here is having a discussion about whether our rules our good or bad. You may approve of our rules, or you may not, but if you’re going to post here, you must abide by them. Otherwise, you can go somewhere else, and we’d be happy to refund the $0 you pay to participate here.
money-back guarantee, . . . a double-your-money-back guarantee.
Man, somebody owes me 500 bucks.
I never should have left that bag of cash at the bus station.
I’ll take full responsibility if you trip on that ladder I left on my sidewalk. But I won’t be responsible for a danger you create on my property, so get your damned bicycle off my front steps.
Being all facty and reasonable will not be tolerated. At the least, call someone a name. Make something up. Insult a religion. Something. jeez, some people never learn.
Without the parts about people not being paid. Stick to opinion and facts you can back up with links to reputable sources.
But Pols has a reasonable concern about allegations of people not being paid possibly causing them legal problems. And a single person saying “it’s true” is not sufficient to protect them.
I’d he re-writes it with links as appropriate and no listing of factual claims there isnnot independent verification of, I would be happy to front page it. It had an interesting take on Bennet’s campaign.
If I only front paged stuff I agreed with that would make for a boring set of content. Opposing points of view make life interesting.
As to is it accurate, I have no idea because I wasn’t on the inside of the campaign. But a discussion of the specifics, instead of a discussion of should it have been pulled, would have answered that.
than the proprietors of this site.
Sorry to not give a flying f*ck at a rolling donut for your pathetic b!tching, but I came off a 4 day 60 hr GOTV effort for…wait for it…no payment! I, and over 100 volunteers at our staging location, subscribe to this quaint belief that it is our civic duty to try and keep our country from being run by crackpots. Oh, and that GOTV is following up on 12 weeks of volunteer voter contact both via canvassing & phone banking. Hope this explains why I can’t work up a sympathy crap for your tale of woe.
Like this?
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
As we said in the Rules and Regs, and as we’ve said many times before, there is a HUGE difference here. We take responsibility for whatever appears under the Colorado Pols user name, whether it is sourced or not. But we do not, and will not, take responsibility for what other users write and do not adequately source.
There’s no conspiracy here, as much as some of you want to find one. We’ve responded in a similar fashion to many other user posts written by Republicans, Democrats, or whomever. If you can’t source potentially slanderous or negative information, then you can’t post it here. Period. If Square State or any other site is okay taking that risk, that’s their prerogative. But we aren’t, and we won’t.
And it is especially slanderous, but also laughable.
After trashing Terra Strategies, the author goes on to credit Romanoff staffers that worked with Terra for winning the election for Bennet (what?). One of my favorite gems from the post,”The dems coordinated campaign decided they also couldn’t actually do field”. Ha!
Thank you for taking it down. Slandering staffers is tasteless.
It seems like nothing more than a disappointed progressive desperate for an explanation into why candidates he supported lost.
It couldn’t be the wave. It couldn’t be those specific candidates. It couldn’t be the districts or offices they were running in/for. It couldn’t be a combination of these.
It MUST be some complicated crony conspiracy theory.
I especially liked how AR supporters came in at the final moment to save the day for most of the candidates! Nice touch. Apparently the right wing doesn’t have the monopoly on conspiracy theories.
I quit wasting my time on Square State last spring, but decided to follow up on this story.
See the discourse hasn’t gotten any better. Wading through the bj’s and h-men here is one
thing. The so-called progressives spraying nasty shit at other Dems/liberals/progressives over there is just depressing. I mean, even JO has moderated and is presenting some rational writing.
Sore losers, nursing a grudge, blame and shame (and reaching pretty damn far to do it). Yuck.
Yeah, but it’s who was hired and how that’s causing a problem for the CDP. uh-huh, I get it.
You tricked me into going over to SS to see what all the fuss is about. What a dissapointment.
* a 1072 (one thousand seventy two!)-word diary/rant. Please, on a public blogsite, don’t stretch my old attention span with conspiritorial suppositions, even if they come from juicy insider info. Save it for when we’re playing spades and drinking Old Milwaukee.
* a bunch of indignant folks urging each other to get their cronies to take over county/state operations. Ah the evils of (somebody else’s) cronyism.
* a couple of ColoPols regulars getting their hides lashed for perfectly reasonable posts, by some really frothy-mouthed SS crazies.
* some Romanoffskyites who still can’t let go. They’re still wiggling that loose tooth because it hurts so good! Is Bennet really the Great Satan? What will it take to move beyond Wednesday, August(!) 11?
from all of the bitter posts. Those two have moved on. Leave them out of it. Seriously, all this crap has nothing to do with either one of them.
Either way- any time you want.
Cards & beer . . . I don’t care if it’s
Sheepshead and Bud — (OK, that’s a lie, can’t be Bud, but otherwise) — deal me in.
This diary is being suppressed! CONSPIRACY!!!
Like a voter in Arapahoe County
The chair, vice-chair, secretary, and treasurer were all angry Romanoff supporters who seemed to not get off their asses to do their job for any of the candidates.
of unsupported rumor and innuendo.
The cracks are still there. A Bennetista accusing Romanoffskis of blowing the election. Too sad really!
Maybe they’re just lazy or incompetent (although, in the past, this hasn’t been the case). I’m not naming names, but I know it happened. Too sad really.
This kind of defamatory allegation is clearly against Pols’ “policy.” They’re going to delete Bud’s allegation for sure! Because they’re so credible and consistent in enforcing their “policy.”
Unlike the story you are trying to compare this to, I am not calling them by name nor providing identifying information. I am also quite certain you do not know who I am, so that you can infer their identity.
what was in that story that was so worrisome actually? I heard some pissing and moaning about decisions made and speculation about reasons (it is politics after all). Mostly the article struck me as sour grapes with a dash of rationalizations.
Was it because he questioned why they chose the way they chose their contractors and the appearance of nepotism involved? If these people were chosen at all, the appearance of nepotism is clear, whether true or not. And as I have seen it often enough in corporate life, we should avoid even the appearance of such things.
“a bunch of crazy conspiracies surrounding lazy or incompetent staffers, throw in some cronyism that left the Bennet and other Dem races frozen. This caused Romanoff supporters to be forced to jump in at the very last minute and save Bennet’s seat and some others but alas those amazing Romanoffers couldn’t save everyone. The End.”
Ridiculous.
either you have poor reading skills, or you are dishonest.
his head up his ass;-)
huh! I’m usually better at diving those things (or at least that’s what my delusions keep telling me…)
Thailand will shake loose those delusions for the rest of your lifetime.
or so the song goes. Missed my chance during an extended government funded stay in Singapore to take the train up to Bangkok for a long weekend. Would have been great, but it was hard to drag my drunken ass out of bed to get to the station!
Thanks for helping to clear that up.
What an ass.