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*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 05, 2009 09:16 PM UTC
27 Comments
If he ignores Penry, he’ll probably go away on this issue. But if he has to justify himself, it only makes it look like Penry is right for questioning McInnis’ decision. It also keeps the issue front and center, which plays into Penry’s hands. Yet another misstep from the McInnis campaign IMO.
And as for this:
I refer you to October, 2008 when McInnis did a really good job tearing down his fellow Republicans. I guess that rule only applies when McInnis is on the ballot.
That the debate issue would go away. It may eventually but two editorials required a candid response from Scott. I have to ask would they make as big a deal out of it if Bennet refused to debate Andy? The forums are working quite nicely thank you and questions are being answered but not necessarily reported which is unfortunate.
How does it feel to be a sock with a hand up your butt? That must be fun.
I look forward to Josh Penry’s sock puppets telling me how right I am.
You make a good point, it wouldn’t be as big of a deal. I’ve seen one of these forums and they are getting questions answered which is the main point. Why does it have to be an all out debate.
And if you’re gonna talk about sock puppets let’s look at the Penry campaign and the Colorado Republican Party…they are really good at having their hands in places they shouldn’t be.
Of course they’re completely biased, but they keep things lively and oh so entertaining.
I’m sorry if I was out of line earlier. I was told you’re most likely not a sock puppet, so I apologize if that is indeed the case.
I disagree with your assessment, as well as Pols’, though, that this editorial was necessary and good strategy.
IMO all it does is highlight the fact that McInnis won’t debate, and he’s on the losing side of that issue. He might have perceived incumbent status when it comes to name rec, but he’s been out of the game so long that he ends up looking weak by refusing to debate.
As to whether or not the newspapers and blogs would be making a big deal if Bennet refused to debate Romanoff, Bennet would absolutely be getting eaten alive by his hate-club in the Op-Ed section and on blogs like this one if he refused to debate Romanoff.
If the candidate in question is not a strong debater (which seems to be the case with McInnis) it’s probably the right move, but it undoubtedly gives their challenger ammunition. It would also depend on what Bennet used as his reasoning behind such a decision. Bennet would need to come up with a better excuse though, because in the case of McInnis, he’s saying that it would be bad for the party, and Republicans shouldn’t be trying to bash one another. Party loyalty and all that. I think it’s a lame excuse. It makes him sound like he doesn’t want to make the mistake of looking bad on stage, or on camera, next to Penry.
The fact that he’s parsing words with the whole “print, conversations, and forums” thing is silly too. There shouldn’t be anything wrong with the two men sitting in front of a moderator like Adam Schrager, and answering questions. If he’s that worried about Penry using such a setting to attack him politically, then he’s got more to worry about than debates.
It’s junkies like us who love to follow this kind of thing. The average voter does not care yet and won’t for some months to come.
As to Scooter, the polls we know about show him comfortably in front. He raised more money, and his history shows he knows how to raise a lot more. Until those change, why would he debate?
Third, he’s a good debater, and he’s had a lot more practice than Penry has.
As things move closer to caucuses and assemblies, lots of things could change.
Who is it that is deciding Republican strategy nowadays? Wadhams? McHenis does not want to debate. McPenry doesn’t raise his normal caterwauling shit blizzard about it. Both say they do not want to talk about social issues. (a stick in the eye of Hobson and Focus on the Bigotry) How in the world do they think that if they just do not show their true colors that voters will consider them viable candidates? I know smoke and mirrors have value in some circumstances but when you are entering a high profile race saying that you do not want to talk about the issue, you don’t want your opponent to expose your poor policy decisions and with the belief that if you just hide all will be roses and tea parties, then I believe that you have truly earned your reputation as a “fruitcake”.
Does that seem silly? Shouldn’t GOP forums differentiate between the candidates?
Scott, I keep inquiring about a conversation so I can place your responses in print. You claim you want that yet…
has Penry granted you?
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
The bigger question is how many people have denied themselves this privilege and gone on to win their election?
(No offense, David, couldn’t resist.)
I think it’s a funny point too.
Anyways, the two who found the thought of my hard-hitting interviews to be too much to handle are… Udall & Lamborn.
My point was not that he should necessarily sit down with me – but that he’s full of it when he says he’s talking to anyone who wants to have a conversation with him.
Same with Ritter, Buck, Markey, & Polis has done 3.
questions for Penry as you have done for your other puff pieces?
go to http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
I wonder if he will use them?
And I’ll take back what I said about David running puff pieces if he presses Penry on those questions. Heck, I won’t even provide the questions I have if he promises that he won’t get mesmerized by Penry’s CSB.
suggested for the Frazier interview, and instead went with strict puff piecery, you might not want to take back what you said just yet.
In the first interview I mostly let them talk. In the second I come in with a bunch of questions. Same drill as I’ve done with every other politicio.
I think there is value on both. The first one is gentler, but it also brings out more of who that person is. Getting answers to 10 questions gives you some specific info – but nothing about where there attention will be.
when he solicited all the questions for Frazier, he didn’t actually intend to ask any of them in his interview. OK, just so we’re clear on that.
As I said there, I wanted question so if Frazer discussed certain issues, I had questions to get more specifics on those issues.
RedGreen, just because I interview differently than you would prefer does not mean it’s a bad interview. If you would like to see different interviews – you should go interview the candidates.
As to the questions, I go in with a lot more questions than I end up asking – it’s called prep.
you need to work on your messaging
Are always very general conclusions with no specifics to back it up.
If you ever do choose to list out specifics, I am happy to listen and consider them. But I take this as just trying to inject doubt with no actual basis for it.
I’ll try to be more specific next time. I’ve lost interest in this particular issue, but next time, watch out!
…probably feel the exact same way about Penry vs. McInnis as we do about Romanoff vs. Bennet.
It’s like watching the Wings vs. the Stars. Who do you root for?
Injuries.
(That’s a joke, in case you were about to feign outrage).