U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Janak Joshi
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) David Seligman
50%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(D) Milat Kiros
90%
10%
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*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Jessica Killin
70%
30%
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) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 23, 2009 10:13 PM UTC
18 Comments
Loading ...
represent an accurate breakdown of people? So lots of wingnuts comment, it’s always such. Nothing I see suggests that they represent any type of majority, even if they are a majority of commenters.
That it is just wingnuts that actively post, but it is on multiple sites that this is happening (9news, Fox 31, CNN, etc).
Then, I started wondering if I am just trying to rationalize the high number these commentors since they don’t agree with my pre-conceived notion that Americans couldn’t possibly support something like this.
It is like when I didn’t want to believe polls that had Kerry and Bush so close. I said, “they aren’t polling young people sufficiently because of the land line/cell phone issue, there is no way that half of America would vote for Bush.”
How could there be such a large discrepency in the number of birther bloggers to middle of the road and liberal bloggers without it somewhat reflecting the population as a whole?
Because Obama is President. If people who commented on these sites really represented the majority of folks, then the majority of people are racist…which means Obama never gets elected.
It is quickly taken over by wingnuts, regardless of the topic. An article about snowstorms? Where is Obama’s birth certificate? Why won’t he produce the ‘long form’? etc. etc.
I might post one comment but don’t stick around to hear about birth certificates, secret Kenyan Muslims, etc. Why bother arguing with idiots?
(I know, I engage Libby on occasion, but he’s kind of one of our own, like a pet).
There is a large bloc of people who don’t vote, and because of the high young/minority turn out, there still could be scenario where a majority that is racist and Obama still wins.
Not really my point though. My point is that a huge number of the opposition to Obama supports this sign, if you go by the bloggers comments. If 45% of the country disapproves of Obama, what percentage of that 140 million people support the sign’s message?
Absolutely not an accurate representation of the public as a whole. Even if you have 100 different people commenting that they agree with the billboard, that’s 100 out of what, 5 million in Colorado?
The people who are against anything are always going to be more vocal than the people who are in favor of it. That’s just human nature. It’s easier to be a critic than a cheerleader, and often more fun.
http://deadspin.com/5410949/ol…
10 people in KKK garb protested at the Ole Miss campus, but hundreds booed them as they went by. Hundreds didn’t attend or organize a counter-rally — they just went about their day and booed when they passed by.
The benefit of blogging is that you can make your views known to the public without facing the public. That same protest they ‘expected’ hundreds of Klansman (could be media exagerrating), but there are over 7,000 members in that particular chapter.
If you do not think this is a group that is growing, what do you attribute to the added coverage and exposure of these people?
Because they are loud, obnoxious and controversial. Being loud, obnoxious and controversial is an easy way to make the news.
And the obnoxiousness is reaching fever pitch. What passes off today in tea party rallies and billboards are the same things that were at KKK meetings 15 years ago (effigy’s of senators, nazi/swastika emblems, etc).
My point is that racism and hatred is becoming way too mainstream. Blogging and Glenn Beck have made it acceptable to be public with this behavior and that is not good for society. Am I wrong about that?
if there really are only a ‘few’ wingnuts that take over the story, why aren’t there more liberals/middle of the road people to comment back. Does everyone just take the stance of CT and not want to argue with idiots, or is there really just that many more people with those beliefs and the anonymous (sorry, just realized my spelling error from before) forum finally lets them speak with no shame or repercussions?
I have rarely commented on a general news site because the quality of the conversation is so bad.
30% of Americans believe George Bush was a great president. A minority can be very large and still be irrelevant. I do not think posters fear repercussions, I think they live in closed communities of similarly minded people.
Political arguments are normal, that is why political discussions were never fit for polite society. The fist fights we see in Asian democracies were common in the US in the 19th century. Why shouldn’t people be passionate about politics.
In large part I think we were spoiled by the politics that grew out of WWII because people from every region and class worked together to beat fascism and rebuild our country. At least for a few years the effort demanded every citizen to come together. Once the crisis was done it was a lot harder to demonize people you disagreed with politically and so politics had a decidedly mellow flavor as WWII vets entered politics.
Only on race, where the lines were drawn regionally, not by political party were the battles contentious. Maybe if black Americans had been allowed to volunteer and serve in mixed units in the crucible that made modern America, the battle over race wouldn’t have been as contentious. we will never know.
I only post on Colorado Pols, albeit rarely, because of the quality of conversation here. However, I must admit that I read the comments on the other sites. While everyone who blogs here, regardless of their political leanings, would dismiss the postings on the other sites as crazy…how many Joe the Plumber’s read those and put actual stock into them?
I get the same quesy feeling about Glenn Beck…yeah, I can watch him and realize he’s an idiot, no harm. But what about the millions who take what he says at face value? There are enough un-informed people out there to sway elections and public policy one way or the other.
was at the end of the era you speak of, and is commonly referenced by modern-day Republicans as the father of conservatism as we know it. Goldwater was well before my time, but looking back at his stances, Barry Goldwater’s ideals align more closely with Democrats than they do Republicans. Goldwater was in favor of gay marriage, civil rights, and a host of issues that today are considered progressive.
I would love for political arguments to return to the level of that era. Instead, we are stuck debating death panels, birth certificates, and communist – socialist Nazis (pardon the triple oxymoron) taking over health care.
.
I got down to the name at the bottom. I usually recognize Steve’s posts in the first couple of lines, too. Same with Arvadonian, sxp and a few others with distinctive voices. This is a community where we know each other.
I post a lot in the comments at WaPo. The comments are better when I have to find the articles by searching. Once a WaPo story gets front-paged, the comments descend into “I hate Bush – I hate Obama.”
………
I am not embarrassed by the conservatives who are getting under Dan Quayle’s skin. I don’t identify with them at all. It strikes me as little more than coincidence that I agree with their social conservative positions on abortion and gay marriage. We arrive at our similar positions by completely different routes.
There is nothing overtly racist in that billboard. It ends up being a “dog whistle” for racism, based on DQ08’s experience on the blogs, but it isn’t racist to challenge if President Obama was born in the US.
If there was overt racism in that sign, it isn’t anything anti-Black, it would be in connecting Muslims to terrorism. But I don’t think it even does that.
I don’t find the two pictorial depictions of Obama to be racist.
.
This isn’t a problem that is limited to conservatives…but I do think it is more prevelent on the right than the left.
To Barron’s point, it is interesting how you can arrive at the same conclusion as a complete crazy, just that you took different paths to get there. I’ve found that with health care reform and a host of other issues…i.e. you find that you agree with someone, but realize they have no idea what they are talking about, sadly you are glad that you can count them as a vote though.
My problem is the increased number of crazies which is led by our current leaders and news media. Maybe the same number of people would still arrive at opposite conclusions as I do, but there are far fewer rationale people to debate with and solve problems because of the tactics that we have discussed.
in agreement with the position you attribute to CT. As you may have noticed, I tend to post on oil and gas issues, and the same dynamic exists in that forum.
How many times do I have to debunk the SAME OLD BALONEY? A perfect example is this mornings’ GJ Daily Sentinel Community blog. Three new letters making the same points that have been refuted over and over again, yet they keep on coming.
It almost feels like work to continually be forced to refute the utter nonsense these people offer up. One grows tired of it.
I do, however, plan to continue to call “bullshit” when I see it. The issue is too important to allow these misinformed ditto-heads to spread their lies and half truths uncontested.