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%
August 06, 2010 06:17 AM UTC
74 Comments
It’s going to seem real quiet around here, at least until the general warms up.
The discourse (if it can be called that) has made me go away for a while, too. But I always come back.
Enjoy your time off! You’re one of my favorite commenters and I’ll miss your posts.
I’ve avoided it mostly during the day because work has been so busy, but I also wish people at a minimum would stay on the topic of each diary.
How have I been doing?
Of course the only way you can measure that is no one is complaining about you 🙂
I’ve noticed.
….keep it up. I’ll still bash you when you’re on-topic though…
…when people get called names for pointing out factual omissions, offering different perspectives and presenting relevant information.
by staying neutral in the race.
Instead they went into partisan mode for Bennet.
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
This caused the other half of this site’s readers to go on the offensive for Romanoff, and in turn the Bennet supporters responded, thus starting the war you now see.
With your departure, along with Steve Harvey’s unwarranted banning, and CoPols using Republican Vince Carroll to attack a democratic candidate,
I imagine there might be a lot less people here pretty soon.
(exodus to Square State)
…you don’t have to type and repeatedly post every thought that pops into your head?
I should follow Phoenix’s lead here. I need to get out of here too for a while. I really didn’t want to get to this place…
Steve got banned!? Now I wish I’d been paying more attention to this place…
You and Ralphie are flip sides of the same coin. And in Ralphie’s defense, he generally keeps his comments very short.
You have to realize, neither you or anyone else is going to convince anyone on this site to change their vote. And the election is not going to be decided here.
I think what made Pols less fun the last couple of weeks is attempts by some, including you, to sell your candidate here. And yes Bennet supporters are equally guilty. There’s a difference between discussing why we each support a candidate and doing a full on sales job. And in that full on sales job, we’ve become less tolerant of opposing viewpoints.
And yes, I stepped over that line a couple of times too.
I don’t do shill diaries.
While you may not agree with me, don’t compare me with Wade.
I’ve written exactly two diaries that mention the Bennet v Romanoff race. One was about a push poll I received. The other was the “guess the over / under thread.”
It’s fine to criticize me. Just get it right when you do.
I was commenting about comments, not diaries.
Although he didn’t name names, I’m sure you are one of the incessant ranters he was referring to.
Blame everyone but yourself.
neutral – would I have needed to respond in any way?
I demonstrated factually from CoPols own words that they thought that Bennet was a ‘disastrous’ choice by Ritter, that Romanoff (along with Perlmutter or Hickenlooper) would have been wiser picks, and that Bennet’s money would not matter vs. Romanoff because of his superior name ID among state democrats.
Then, suddenly on Oct. 20, 2009, barely a month later, CoPols went into the tank for Bennet and have been ever since.
And now they are lying about it, saying they were warning all along ‘for 18 months’ that Romanoff was wrong to primary Bennet.
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
That’s a basic principal of being an adult.
…that you’ll be gone a whole 7 days.
I haven’t posted since the beginning of the year but I’ve been lurking at least a few times a week for months now. Unlike PR, I haven’t been here since (basically) the beginning, but, unlike a lot of folks here now, I do remember Pols talking about Rutt Bridges running for Gov 5-odd years ago.
To a large extent, I agree w/PR. This has become a full on shit show. There’s so little substantive discussion going on it’s really amazing. When the DavidThi’s of the world make sense, you know something is wrong. 🙂 (OK, I’m kidding there, Dave…)
This was a terrific blog for a lot of reasons…and, maybe I’m wrong, but I think it will be again after next Tuesday.
In my opinion it has resulted in a serious degradation of this site. What used to be a great place to come for breaking political news and worthwhile dialogue among a number of people “in the know,” has now become a pile of manure with no pony. If Pols had taken a more neutral stance on the Senate race, it could have helped tremendously – instead Pols has stirred the flames and added to the useless crap.
Bennet supporters and Pols, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – you’ve said here in weeks that has changed my mind one bit about supporting Romanoff. I haven’t been here much – has been better to use my time working for my candidate – and I’ll be here even less for at least a while.
I hope the site can move back to what it once was, but I have my doubts.
I’ve missed decent political discourse these last few months, and I thank you for providing a logical perspective on many issues during that time. Your input will be missed.
Enjoy your leave of absence. A sabbatical perhaps?
I do hope you come back in 7 days.
To anyone who think ColoradoPols is biased and therefor not a good site: Why aren’t you the ones leaving? You are a big part of the flamewars. You are always in the thick of the heated exchanges. You use a service provided for free and have the absolute balls to complain about it?
And you constantly blame the site instead of shouldering some of it yourself.
We are all guilty of this to a greater or lesser degree. I just found this site a couple months ago and really enjoyed the interaction. It’s definitely taken a turn.
Maybe it time to post less and lurk more.
are appropriate and well said.
I have been visiting less frequently, for all the reasons listed above, and now, upon discovering the news of the banishment of the inimitable Steve Harvey, I am more disinclined to return at all.
A troubling turn of events.
Steve appreciates that. He’s posting on Square State for now, and, if the folks there want, will work with them to make it the kind of blog that Pols almost was, but chose not to be.
He’d also say of Raymond’s comments on the Friday open thread that he couldn’t have said it better himself, except to add that not only did BJ repeatedly publish all of that information, but also did so while posting under his own name.
The most telling aspect of all this isn’t the choice to ban Steve, or even the decision to stand by it, but rather the absolute insistence that their judgment is indisputably correct, despite the fact that so many reasonable people dispute it.
This, in the end, is the fatal flaw of Pols, this fundamental commitment to arrogance and arbitrariness, that makes it a useful experiment full of lessons both of what to do and what not to do, but one which we can and should strive to displace with the next generation of political blog, one that respects the community that participates on it enough not to declare their perspectives irrelevant.
I can’t quite place it, but I’ve read posts like this before….
just a formality to transition to a new paradigm.
Azure blue skies. Melting glaciers in the background. And the gentle puffs of heated gases lifting brightly colored balloons like gentle whales drifting in thin air.
Blooooow. Bloooooow. Blooooow.
Below, the call of bovines as they ingest and dispose, ingest and dispose. Moooooo. Plop. Mooooo. Plop. Mooooo. Plop, plop, plop.
So much hot air! So much bovine waste! Wherever does it come from? Wherever does it lead?
Pray tell us counselor, if thy winged horse can but pause to plop alongside his bovine brethren while thy fingers fly. Type. Plop. Type. Plop.
like Square States in the ultimate in neutrality. What a joke.
I love the lame excuse that it is all the Pols folks fault that Romanoff chose not to run a positive issues based campaign and got called on it. Swearing that you are a new age politician and then resorting to old style mud slinging is all the fault of the Pols folks.
“We’re miffed that Pols didn’t front page more pro-Romanoff articles so we’re going to take our ball and go home in a snit”.
I would suggest that the pro-Romanoff extremists got just as much space to write about their beloved professional politician. Nobody excluded them from anything. They are just shitty house guests who expect people who wait on them because they think they are the ultimate arbiters in Democratic ideals.
Is that Pols is responsible for the horrible behavior of the Romanoff camp. It’s gotten heated on both sides, but there is an especially petulant and combative aspect to Romanoff supporters.
Sorry to spoil the whine-fest, but that’s how I feel. And please stop saying that if the Pols weren’t such Bennet sluts you wouldn’t violate them all the time. It’s really getting disgusting.
I think it’s pretty even. Different approaches but pretty even.
… you try to be even handed to a fault. The Bennet camp has had its lows, but JeffcoBlue is correct in his assessment of Romanoff’s supporters here.
Without some sort of qualifier, this statement is functionally meaningless.
Unless you mean to say that every poster on this blog who supports AR is the same. It means no more than if I say
Which, actually, is an observation I have made about some of the more vociferous Bennet shills prior to this conversation.
(Notice the qualifier, Ari?)
But this (from below),
is where you are just plain wrong.
To ascribe support for AR to nothing more substantial than a sense of entitlement is an insult. You don’t see that because you apparently consider AR and his supporters only slightly north of adolescent.
This is the same patronizing arrogance I have sensed from the Bennet camp from day one. Bennet is entitled to serve out the rest Salazars’ term, but the Bennet fanatics seem to think that Bill Ritters’ vote entitles him to the seat as long as he wants it.
The people of Colorado will choose their new senator…end of story.
I know which side turned me off first, and which one has been more shrill and attack-dog and just plain repugnant.
I don’t mean to paint every Romanoff supporter with such a broad brush – that wasn’t my intent. And I certainly don’t recall that you’ve been as bad as your cohorts wade, stryker, or that guy that got banned a few weeks ago.
Nearly all my real-life friends (that is, people I associate with outside of Pols) are Romanoff supporters. In fact, I can’t think of any Bennet supporters among my liberal peers. I admire and respect them, but I’ve noticed that they seem to have consumed the kool-aid too. One guy I know said something about the fact that Bennet was appointed made him unfit for office. I let it go (he’s actually the husband of a friend, someone I don’t know well enough to laugh at), but it was a patently absurd comment given that all these people wanted Ritter to appoint Romanoff.
I attribute most of the Bennet side’s answering nastiness to the fact that people tend to respond in kind. If you’re a jerk first, you’re likely to elicit a jerky response. That doesn’t mean that MB’s boosters aren’t responsible for the deterioration of discourse too, or that this wouldn’t have been tense anyway. But I do believe that the degree of nastiness is largely the fault of specific AR shills.
As I said, it’s just my opinion. Just as your statement that AR’s supporters aren’t entitled is just your opinion (and not fact).
He’s acting like a supporter, not a shill. A supporter, you can have an honest disagreement with. Shills, not so much.
I think his conduct has been exemplary.
admirable Romanoff supporter. Frankly, in my opinion, Andrew is lucky to still have supporters like duke on this site speaking up for him in reasonable tones.
Duke, MADCO, Ralphie, Steve (RIP), Barron, even bjwilson (for comic relief), Ali and a few others are an example of the type of Polster that first got me hooked on this site.
This makes several recent comments that I have read as encouragement to stick around.
Perhaps because it’s easier to remember the negative, I was starting to wonder.
And I agree about Duke, Ralphie and several others.
I am truly honored by your words. And I hope, Ari, that you understand my point was simply the difficulty in making generalities.
Sometimes I wish everybody would just go fishing, …or make a quilt…or just get drunk and screw…anything but talk about this primary.
Regardless of who “started it”, it will be resolved soon enough.
Live and let live…or something like that.
🙂
Not just Phoenix but your FPE too…
Can we limit the flame diaries to one a day?
“MB is a corporatist/AR lies”
to consider limiting the number of posts that any one person could make per day — let’s choose a generous number of say twenty. No limit on the length of a particular post, just the number per day.
You couldn’t have the two-unmentionable-party flame wars under this scenario for very long.
The snarky quips, of which I am a hugely guilty party, would have to be curtailed in lieu of some more thoughtful communiction.
Spell checking, also of which I a hugely guilty party, might become more habitual.
And, finally, I am lucking if I have twenty worthwhile thoughts in a year, let alone in a day. On a particulary good day,I might have one thing to be said that might hold interest for another person. (Perhaps there are a couple of other similar folks on Pols?)
back and forth debate or even interesting dialogue. I am going on the premise that after the primary many of us will be united behind our respective parties. Then after the general there will most likely be lively debates about policy and politics.
Of course I don’t think I’ve reached that 20 comment limit lately but there are certainly days I have.
does what all campaigns do – try to win based on differences in their opponent.
Romanoff has done that quite well.
the Romanoff supporters on the other hand, many of whom i speak with, feel that this site became biased towards Bennet and attacks anyone who is pro-Romanoff.
Therein lies the problem,
this is supposed to be a news site, not a place that puts its weight behind a particular campaign.
Since it is shown this to be the case, CoPols credibility has been damaged among at least 1 half of the democrats in the state who read here.
We all understand your complaint. You’ve made it very very very very clear. What’s the point of continually complaining about it?
This site is owned and run privately by an/several anonymous individual(s) who are by no means obligated to anyone who posts here. It does not represent itself as a kind of New Age journalism source; it may (or not) link to newspapers, broadcasters, or other sources of news, but it does not serve a reportorial function and doesn’t claim to.
It’s perfectly within bounds for ColoradoPols to conduct the site as they please: promote diaries or not, ban posters or not, tolerate crude posts or not, explain themselves or not. All entirely within their rights. “Objectivity” is probably an entirely theoretical concept when it comes to political discussions (and maybe any other discussions) anyway.
To the extent that some people want to have a reasonable discussion, ColoradoPols may or may not fit their needs. To the extent that some people, including “guest editors,” prefer to express themselves by typing “you suck,” or “fuck” in public, it’s their choice to present their thoughts as they see fit (or, should I say, to the best of their ability). No admission requirements here, no minimum SAT scores, GPAs, or anything else. Ignorance is welcome anytime.
What the site was yesterday, or last year, doesn’t mean it can’t change, as indeed it has. To the extent that changes may cause some participants to go away, go elsewhere, or consider starting another blog that better fits their needs–their (our) choice.
Colorado Pols is a news site? Really?
I’m getting sour grapes loser vibes from you Wade. The bitterness is just kind of welling up out of you because you must know deep down that the Colorado Democratic Tea Party isn’t going to take over. Too bad big dog but if you want to blame the Pols folks for not buying into your thin skinned weigh every word neutrality then go for it.
are you just here for entertainment only?
Otherwise, why does Colorado Pols cover so much news and have titles that start with the title
“Breaking”
like
BREAKING: Hickenlooper to announce Lt. Governor choice today
wade through your repetitive tripe.
I really like The Oil Drum (theoildrum.com) for a better understanding of the Gulf spill and the efforts to cap the well. They also have some great threads on Peak Oil and explanations of why we’re so fucked as a species of hydrocarbon consumers.
I visit Pols to see how many times you can comment on what a terrible person Bennet is. And I visit it when I’m bored and want to give you some grief for my own entertainment.
I do like your political passion but after talking to the loon on Spear Blvd and watching the conservatives eat their own in a quest to see who can be the most extreme, I’m not convinced that we on the liberal side need to follow their lead and move as far away from the middle as we can. Progress is incremental in my world and I’m OK with that. Salazar wasn’t all that liberal but he was better than Coors.
I come here because when I first created a user id (before MADCO) the confirmation screen I got said if I read and posted enough I’d get a hat. I like hats – and so I’m still trying for the hat.
As for news- I don’t no stinkin’ news sources. That’s why I have a
mother shipcampaign hqfriends and a car with talk radio.Yes, CPols has some of the brightest minds in Colorado, aggressively debating each other – it’s also a place where people pour kerosene on political topics and light a match, all with abandon
As a Republican, I think the negativity is same as usual – but like any intellectual knife fight, respect is earned with aggressive defense and logic
Perhaps the problem is that this is the first time, since taking over the State, that the Colorado Dems have faced a major primary – yes, Republicans are accused of ‘kingmaking’ (which we, unfortunately, often do), but Democrats in Colorado have gotten away with the same method, while looking untainted
You guys (Dems) aren’t used to primaries – take it from me – yes, they suck – but Bennet was the undeserving choice to begin with and a democratic primary is the only way to legitimize what’s become a massive inheritance
Lastly – yes, CPols is clearly biased towards Bennet – that said, Cpols promotes tons of pro-Romanoff diaries and does an excellent job of aggregating outside voice and commentary
Every editorial board will have an opinion – that is what makes them dynamic – however, CPols does a fantastic job of also giving time to many opposing and diverse views, in staying true to the journalistic ethic of open and diverse opinion
Me? I’m happy here – it’s always a knife fight and it always will be at ColoradoPols
The CD7 primary four years ago, and the CD2 primary two years ago both got quite heated, including here on Pols. Of course neither were statewide, but this is altogether different. I don’t recall any of the camps in those races copping the entitled attitude that AR’s shills have, which seems to be at the root of this whole thing.
Dave is fond of saying primaries are good, and I tend to agree. Time will tell if this primary was good for the Dems or not.
…to have primaries that “go good” these days
Nonetheless, it’s a fact of life
Nice –
of flaming the indefensible hysterics of the Romanoff supporters but I am not particularly remorseful about it. I stopped and talked to the Romanoff supporter at corner of Speer and Broadway and asked him about his signing declaring that Obama was trying to steal the election. He told me that Obama was a right winger and he supported Romanoff because Romanoff also hated Obama. This kind of crystallized for me what is so troubling about the Romanoff supporters. They are the Democratic equivalent of the Tea Party and are trying to out do the Maes crowd for political extremism. This has been one intense period of self examination for Colorado Democrats and I have been more than happy to participate in the struggle for the soul of the party. Hickenlooper and Bennet are centrists while Romanoff, Maes and Buck are extremists. I have no intentions of leaving the field to the extremists.
As the old saying goes: If you don’t like the menu find another restaurant or start your own.
The crazy and extreme shills come out of the woodwork to spew their bile, then crawl back under their rocks.
They’ll go away becaue after the primary, after the ‘I told you so’s’, they won’t have any thoughts on other issues.
PR – you once told me, years ago, relax, it will settle down soon and I give the advice right back at ya.
Enjoy the downtime. Unplug and soak up some rays.
See you soon.
if you this site has reached “intolerable levels.”
Phoenix Rising is one of this site’s most senior polsters, and has been through a lot of mudslinging. Sorry, but you’re way too new to comment on that. You need to have been around for a few years to judge the discourse here.
You don’t know what far flung sites kingbaby has visited in the blogging universe and what kind of crap he/she/it has seen to issue such an imperial rebuke.
The only thing I find intolerable are those sanitized sites that don’t permit free for alls and don’t allow both sides to shake their fists at each other. That is one of the reasons I find DailyKos kind of boring. I understand it’s purpose to promote better Democratic candidates but I do enjoy the no holds barred aspect of Pols. It fits my temperament and entertainment objectives better.
Blog on kingbaby. Glad your not afraid to wade in.
PR was talking only about Pols. Kingbaby was responding to PR’s specific comment about Pols, and admonished PR for it. I admonished kingbaby for being presumptuous.
As I said, PR’s been around this block a whole lot. New polsters aren’t really in a position to criticize PR’s opinions about the level of discourse here.
“Intolerable” is such a strong word. It sounds like someone has an overinflated sense of self to post this. If it was so “intolerable,” this person simply wouldn’t have logged on today. Why this was promoted to the front page is beyond me.
If you want to know why he thinks it’s so bad, you should have just asked that without presuming that he needed “thicker skin.” (Not to mention knocking the one longtime polster who’s kept his ego in check better than anyone I can think of.)
And elected front page editors tend to promote diaries that don’t necessarily merit it. You can take that up with CT if you wish.
60+ comments suggests it was placed properly to me
But they have front-paged diaries that haven’t deserved it. (“They” being front page editors in general, not CT specifically.) And while I agree with you that this was good to promote, I was speaking more to kingbaby’s opinion that it wasn’t by pointing out that it wasn’t the first time it’s happened.
Was kingbaby’s comment about “this” site being intolerable being compared to other sites or was he commenting on “this” site being intolerable compared to past periods of controversy?
If the former than your scolding is without basis. If the later than you have a point.
I think Ali really hit it on the head in that we haven’t seen this kind of a Democratic primary since Ken Salazar waxed Mike Miles. Even that one was a pretty tame affair because Mike Miles never lost his orientation about who he was. If the attempts by the Colorado Democratic Tea Party to take over make Phoenix uncomfortable because it has become a raucous affair among Dems. then he is fair to say that it is intolerable. I actually wrote Romanoff an email imploring him not to split the party with petty behavior but naturally received no reply.
I’m pretty certain the Phoenix will rise again from the ashes of this acrimonious affair and will blog again if not on this site than on another. Pols will be Pols and the real fun will start Wednesday when we start the countdown to see if the Republican gubernatorial candidate will step down for a party appointed savior. If you think Dems. have trouble getting along, our opponents are even more dysfunctional.
At least, given the context of PR’s diary, that’s the only reasonable interpretation to take.
But it was fun to use the Clinton defense again kind of like the Ruy Lopez chess opening.
Too bad you didn’t get to play chess in the Parthenon. You would have probably been good at it.