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%
May 18, 2010 07:50 PM UTC
28 Comments
2500 D”s are going to show up in Broomfield and prefer Romanoff so much he’ll get top line.
That’s the real deal, right?
This poll is just… well, just inconvenient.
issue with this poll,
The poll specifically charts Andrew Romanoff’s favorable vs unfavorable
in fact for every candidate in the field, it asks that question,
but does not ask the same question for
Bennet.
I have a couple of issues with this poll (it’s a robopoll, gender distribution is way out of whack) but that’s not one of them.
So apparently a comment I put on this diary keeps getting deleted. I’m assuming Pols doesn’t like the tone of it (I see they also just reposted rules), so let me rephrase.
Roguestaffer: Are you employed by the Bennet campaign, actively seeking employment with the Bennet campaign, or otherwise being paid/attempting to be paid for posting diaries such as this?
Like, really funny.
and the only thing that happened to me is that you called me a ‘sanctimonious ass’
to which i apologized.
as for the comments being removed above,
i do not see how this question risks ‘outing’ someone’s i.d. – if that is the reason the comments are being pulled.
There are a lot of posters on this site for whom that question would make them worry. You know this, Wade. Rogue was posting on Square State before Bennet was even a name on the political radar.
It just so happens that Rogue is one of the more erudite, smart, and in-the-know posters on this site. It’s not surprising he/she would continue to be a target for the people who disagree with his/her analysis.
We won’t repeat it, because it was intended to point directly to someone.
Consider this your warning. Stop trying to “out” posters.
have been asked numerous times if they are paid employees of the Romanoff campaign.
I hope to see you follow the same strict guidelines for Bennet supporters asking that question in the future.
It worked out for you with questioning Pols. Roguestaffer has been asked many, many, many, many, many times the same question.
But hey, I guess if some Romanoff shills were asked, then you’d better interrogate every single poster on this site! It only makes sense.
If you weren’t a random sock puppet, and knew just a tiny, tiny bit about the Colorado blogosphere, then you wouldn’t even need to ask the question at all. But hey, don’t let me stop you from making an ass of yourself.
about why i asked Roguestaffer at this point. Doing so would, of course, reveal information that would violate the rules here.
As far as being a sockpuppet, you’re welcome to think whatever you like of me.
If that had been your first question, then it is perfectly fine. But your first comments, which were deleted, were specifically aimed at trying to identify someone.
is a significant factor in your reposting the posting rules, do you have a brightline rule on posts that attempt to convey non-postable material in marginally insignificant ways?
Obviously given your clear warning the question is moot in this case, but just wondering about your decision-making framework for these issues.
Were clearly intended to identify a specific person, and were repeatedly deleted, which led to the current comment above. Without those prior attempts, the comment above is perfectly harmless. The context provides the difference here.
Otherwise, there is really no hard and fast rule. It’s sort of like that old adage about pornography: “You can’t explain it, but you know it when you see it.” 99% of the people who post here are never going to be a problem at all, and most of those people probably know if they are getting close to crossing the line — most of you don’t need to see rules or policies to know what is right or wrong. Unfortunately, a small minority either don’t know or don’t care.
thanks for the response.
Of course I understand why you can’t do that here, given that you thought my first comment would lead to outing (which personally I don’t). If you have a moment, please feel free to email me the explanation of how/why my comment would do that. Your explanation would be helpful so I don’t cross the line again.
You’re welcome to email me at the address I signed up with.
You’ve asked before, and I’ve given you the same answer that I’ve given other people: I’m taking the cycle off to concentrate on personal stuff.
The manner in which you’re asking, frankly, is kind of offensive, because you’re seeking to impugn my motives. If Romanoff were winning, or even narrowing the margin, I’d post it as well.
The fact remains that your candidate isn’t doing well, by any commonly accepted measure. This doesn’t mean that his loss is certain; there’s a fair amount of time between now and August 10th.
The inconvenient truth, though, is that he doesn’t seem to have a strategy whereby he wins the primary. All that winning the state assembly gets you is the top line on the ballot.
Are you seriously arguing that doing that will prove to be such a momentous event that it’ll turn the trend lines upside down? Are you saying that it’ll result in a massive flood of donations? Are you saying that it’ll result in a massive increase in volunteer recruitment efforts?
If so, you’re arguing that the state assembly will do something historically unique – something that didn’t take place in 2004 or in 1996, the last time there were contested Democratic Senate primaries in Colorado.
you could run for office someday.
Well since we can’t bring in outside points that could, within the realm of possibility, out you, I guess we just have to take your pseudo-denial at it’s word, despite the fact you don’t actually answer the question and repeat a sidestepping answer.
Just remember: lies make baby Jesus cry.
I haven’t interviewed with the campaign. I don’t work for the campaign. I mean, I really can’t make it more clear than that.
When I said I was taking the cycle off, implicit in that response is, “No, I’m not working for any candidate.” I’ve stated before, as well – the moment I do so, I’ll quit posting. Failing that, I’d post a disclosure statement as my sig block.
I really don’t get it: when did I stomp on your puppy or kitten that you’re going after me like this? Regardless, you could out me, and it still wouldn’t change the underlying fact that your preferred candidate is losing.
You’re time is better spent working for your candidate, not chasing after ghosts in your head.
for shame
Kittens though… Double shame!
Which part of “I’m taking the cycle off” is confusing to you?
and I’m just spitballing here.
Take your “outside points” offline- direct to roguestaffer. Then after establishing whatever it is you think you can establish, let us know.
Old Black MAGIC?
We’ll find out at Convention how much love there is for Mr. Conservative/Phil Anchutz’s go to guy, Michael Bennet.
He is Wallstreet’s Senator just as he was the Health Insurer’s Senator.
Many on Huffington Post don’t agree with the PPP Poll
http://huff.to/doy6aK
and also on Facebook many don’t agree
http://bit.ly/bYZxTw
It is propaganda!
You link to “many” and it turns out to be the same guy commeting at both places and a whopping 5 comments on the HP post, including one from Sharon Hanson and one from the same guy that you link to on Facebook.
How embarrassing to be you.