CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
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*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 06, 2009 05:47 PM UTC
18 Comments
I would love to read them. As you said, many times the content alone makes the sock puppetry obvious.
I deleted them, I really wish I had published them but that’s what happens when I blog before my coffee.
What a missed opportunity! I would LOVE to have seen if they had been copying and pasting. The comments on the diary here on Pols are just like you describe.
this is the Colorado Political
story of the week
in my opinion
homerun Mr. Balboni
The story of Cleve Tidwell’s sockpuppeting made the papers, I haven’t seen anything about this one yet. It probably should.
OTOH, I think I would be nervous about commenting on ANY blog that is ‘outing’ commenters. I’m glad the Pols don’t do this. I’m just speculating but I’ll bet there a lot of insiders on this blog who would say the same thing.
I outed a political campaign for abusing my comment section and being deceitful. That’s very different from outing commenters.
99% of the comments by sockpuppets are so painfully obvious that no one needs to out them.
…who is not wise in the way of such proprieties. I have a question. You claim:
You seem to be suggesting that this tactic is improper or unusual in some way. If that is your contention, why? Isn’t it perfectly proper for people who support Ritter (paid or not) to respond to posts by people who don’t support him (paid or not). Isn’t this simply a political campaign and/or politically minded folks using the internet for…gasp….politics?
I don’t think this tactic is improper or unusual; indeed, it’s been going on since the rise of blogs, probably since the rise of message boards too.
However, I think that it’s just as proper to call out propaganda when you see it. It insults our intelligence. I mean, come on, several newly registered bloggers all saying the same thing?
The purpose of blogs is for people to come discuss. When the staffs of campaigns and elected officials come on here like this, it’s reminiscent of the sheep in Animal Farm. It’s dishonest and it’s also amateurish. Maybe I have standards that are too high (this is politics after all) but this reflects poorly on the governor IMO.
But it’s also revealing. A couple of the bloggers who just popped up last night registered on Monday. The coordinated nature supports the idea that Ritter was planning to veto all along, which then lends credence to the claims of GA members that he didn’t warn them in advance.
…and I think you make sense. But I also think that the offense you take at such campaign bloggers may stem from an assumption that people who post on blogs are generally neutral in some way. I.e., they don’t have a horse in the race or an axe to grind. I come from the opposite assumption (I’m a cyncial ol’bitch). Thus, when it’s revealed that a poster has a particular reason to support or oppose a politician, it doesn’t typically annoy or surprise me. But it is useful to know! Thus, I welcome the identification of bloggers associated with particular campaigns, but I don’t find them worthy of contempt (unless they deny their affiliations).
What’s the purpose of these entries? I would assume that they want to persuade us of the rightness of Ritter’s actions. So… why not actually engage us in debate? That would serve two purposes – one, if there truly is a good reason for Ritter’s actions, they’ll be able to explain and articulate it, and that would win more people over than a couple of talking point bulletins. Second, it was also cover up the fact that we’re not dealing with paid staffers who we’ll automatically dismiss because they’re paid staffers.
I swear, these politicians need to learn how to use blogs to their advantage. Creating the false impression that anyone in the public supports this stuff isn’t the way to do it.
I think it’s considered ethical for bloggers who are being paid to write something to say so in their posts. Hell, even those payday loan bloggers have a disclosure statement, and they’re the least ethical people on the ethernets.
….although the failure to disclose such facts (as opposed to a denial) doesn’t bother me as much as it bothers others.
That it’s no big deal. And they are so painfully obvious it’s not clear they are helping a candidate anyways.
“astroturfing” or “freeping” (except that the latter usually implies the weighting of an unscientific poll), both of which denote artificially generated traffic from a common source (in the former case with a connotation of paid organization).
Strictly speaking a “sock puppet” is an undisclosed alter ego who is created to generate the appearance of independence in getting out a favorable opinion, as opposed to a frankly anonymous poster on a one time basis.
But, quibbling over terminology isn’t that crucial. Unlike Balboni, I would probably not deleted such comments, although I would possibly have made a post of additional comment that identified a common apparent source and identified that source in the form of a shout out.
that it wreaks of desperation.
This is the group that includes among its lobbying clients Gary-Williams Energy (destroyer of the Roan Plateau and co-frolicker at the MMS sex and drug orgies–or at least provider of dinner beforehand) and big PhRMA, opponents to all meaningful health care reform, not to mention at east half a dozen proponents of suburban sprawl and more and more roads.
Not only that, but its staff includes Sean Duffy, who is a pity hire if there ever was one, because the guy doesn’t have an ounce of political acumen in his entire body. Kenney hired him after he led the campaign to pass domestic partnerships and defeat the ban on gay marriage into a fiery oblivion.
And then there’s just the generally creepy thought of hiring corporate lobbyists to run his campaign. Clearly because he cares so much about working people that he wants to make sure he’s in tight with the corporate lobbyists?
though there aren’t a lot of big-deal campaign consultants in the state who aren’t also corporate lobbyists, which is its own problem.