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%
August 16, 2014 09:16 PM UTC
19 Comments
I don't know if it's so much that they're lazy as that reporters no longer know what their job entails. They don't know it's not just repeating what they're told. They don't seem to know that reporting isn't just regurgitating. They don't seem to know that one person's "opinion" is not just as valid as any other where verifiable facts and verifiable untruths are concerned or that it's their job to verify what they're told before they pass it along.
I have no idea what gets taught to journalism majors anymore. Apparently not journalism.
Agreed, BC. They don't understand the age-old rule that
if your mother says she loves you,, check it out.''How many are even aware of the historical mandate of the Fourth Estate? Most of the young reporters are nice enough and some are even quite literate, but they are historically underpaid and under pressure… even more so today.
That too.
Well, the Denver Post seems to have fired all the journalists, or they left on their own. Journalism schools have been closing, so they aren't teaching much at all.
Only the low-paid steno pool remains, supervised by accountants and PR flack-wannabes planning their exit strategies.
I don't think that the journalism picture is that bleak. It's changed form, and it's much more chaotic and uneven in quality, with the new media and the blogs and the forums and the comments and tweets and all.
The traditional forms of journalism – newspapers, magazines, broadcasts – now all have components and branches in the new media formats.
Capitalism and net neutrality will both level the playing field, and potentially enclose people in tighter and more reason-proof fact-free bubbles.
I don't know how to raise and maintain standards, except through good old laissez faire demand – the hits, the eyeballs on the articles.
Just random thoughts.
For example, on the "new journalism" front, 15,800 people are watching the livestream twitter feed of this one journalist, Tim Pool, in Ferguson, MO.
Not much is happening – same as last night, the police are trying to enforce curfew, and some citizens are resisting, and the press is covering.. And the fact that this motley, ragtag crew of "the press" is covering, has kept a lot of people safer here. The eyes of the world are, literally, watching what happens in this sleepy little Missouri town.
And "the press" looks so different from even ten years ago. It's on a 24 hour cycle. It's completely dependent on the consumer's choice and the internet connections available. The broadcast equipment is relatively cheap. It's a different world.
Newspapers are a traditional form but print journalists, with some notable exceptions, are no longer of traditional quality.
Do you ‘spouse that’s cause the smart ones saw the writing on the wall and have fled to the Interwebs?
as a general rule, I mean…certainly there are exceptions.
Arrrggghhh….I was trying to shorten “suppose”..damned phone…
Apparently, they're no lnger taught that old saw of law and olitics "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts, B.C.
"poiltics', dammit! Whre do the letters go/
War on women, war for women. Political consultants are also "full of it". There are as many different "women's issues" that will motivate women to vote for or against a certain candidate as there are women. And we're smart enough to know when we are being manipulated for our votes. The struggle to nail down Cory Gardner's lying ass on "Personhood" is a struggle to show how much he is attempting to deceive and misinform women, and how much contempt he has for our ability to discern his lies.
In general, policies which enable women to support themselves and take care of their already-born children – policies about wages, fair treatment, childcare, education , a healthy, safe, not-polluted environment- are going to have equal weight with reproductive rights issues. It's a spectrum.
What is a "men's issue"?
Heh. The controversy swirling around the Washington NFL team seems pretty testosterone-soaked to me.
"being ready when the moment is right" and "knowing what you are made of"…apparently.
that was @mama…
All of those issues about raising kids (fair wages, fair treatment, childcare, education, clean, safe environment) are daddy issues, too. But you knew that.
Kind of a cheap shot here, Alva — publishing a Gardner diary on Saturday — when you know damn good and well that Moderatus isn't paid to troll on Weekends?!?
How are we gonna' manage here until Monday without a dead-horse gif???
Congressman Gardner's Credibility Problem Expands Again
With Amendment 67 (the Colorado Personhood Amendment) on the ballot again this year and the campaign for and against it cranking-up, the reason Gardner withdrew his of support for 67 is obvious. The amendment has been defeated by overwhelming majorities twice and it would be the kiss of death to his campaign for U.S. Senate if he endorsed it but therein rests his latest credibility problem.
No matter how hard he tries he is still a cosponsor of the federal Personhood Amendment which would outlaw abortions, even in cases of incest and rape, and end the legal status of many contraceptives. No matter how many iterations of his position he tries to foist on Colorado voters, he still supports federal legislation that would accomplish the same goals as the Colorado Personhood Amendment.
His latest ploy last week, supported by the Colorado Womens Alliance, was to convince women voters that everyone is tired of womens issues, especially abortion, and to just move on. You bet women are tired of those issues and probably many male voters too. But one must ask what exactly are they tired of? In the overwhelming majority of Colorado voters minds, they are tired of this debate because these are settled issues. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Colorado voters believe a woman has the right to control her body and to make her own helathcare decisions free from government control or the whims of the owners of privately held corporaitons. They are "tired" of politicians who, like Cory Gardner, believe someone other than themselves should have the right to choose or make these deicions for them. They are tired the Republicans, and this year its Cory Gardner, continue to attack their rights but that doesn't mean they will give him a pass on this issue. They won't and most Colorado men won't either.
Congressman Gardner has tried to play it both ways for the past five months. He made himself the issue by standing on both sides of this issue. He has suffered the political consequences as his credibility has evaporated. It is now too late for him to be honest because even if he was honest now and admitted he is anti-choice for women, he would legitimately open himself to an attack that he has been trying to fool Colorado voters for the past five months which is exactly what he has tried to do.