The Unaffiliated Will Decide

( – promoted by ClubTwitty)

The reason many of us live in Colorado is for the incredible beauty of its open spaces.  But as the population grows and the major arteries linking the cities to each other fill with homes, shopping centers and business parks, open spaces have become scarce and farther away than a few minutes drive.

Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose.  With 310 million Americans (or especially 5 million Coloradans), that’s a lot of noses.  So the quest for freedom in a land of so many may seem ephemeral at best.  The crowding, the imposition on our freedoms, but most of all the feeling that “others” are responsible for our problems is the cause of unease, concern over our future, and yes, heightened paranoia on the part of some.  With the economy limiting the freedom to look for a better job – here or somewhere else – or even just to have a job, the anxieties induced by this crowding is greatly amplified.

What does this have to do with elections?  The image of the two major party candidates represent vast disparities in what it means to be a Coloradan.  The urban sophisticate Senator Michael Bennet, or the cowpie-kicking cowboy, District Attorney Ken Buck.

Which represents the Colorado we live in? Which image is reality, and which one represents what brought us to, and keeps us here in Colorado?

Aside from their differences on the issues, which are substantial (and greatly discussed in many other forums), I believe the votes from the large contingent of unaffiliated and likely still undecided voters will hinge on how they perceive the two candidates will conduct themselves as senators.  In that, the contrast  in their personalities comes in stark relief to each other.

Ken Buck comes across as rather mild mannered.  Harmless, almost.  Except for his Tea Party extremist positions, he does seem to be the kind of guy you could sit down and have a beer or two with.  But that same informality is what gets him into the most trouble – his “shoot from the lip” style of snap decisions, giving little thought or serious consideration to a position, leading to the need for “clarifying” his former position, or even denying or contradicting it as political considerations (i.e.  what his handlers) demand.  Thus, his recent avoidance of the press or public events.

Michael Bennet, despite living here in the West (even in a rustic Montana cabin) for many years, chooses not to abandon his Eastern mannerisms and speech patterns.  He may seem a bit standoffish, which is likely just his natural reserved personality.  But he always gives thoughtful, nuanced, if not soundbite-useful, opinions on the issues he wrestles with each day.  He doesn’t waste time on issues that aren’t on the frontburner (hey how’s that EFCA thingy going?), but rather devotes his considerable energy and passion to badly needed reform (of the Senate, as well as legislation).

I think in the next few weeks, Buck will have to come out of hiding, and Bennet will need to learn to connect to remote and larger audiences.  Which one is more likely to make the most of the opportunity?

Given that the Democrats and Republicans have by heavy margins, declared their loyalty to their respective party candidates, it will be up to the Unaffiliated to decide our next Senator from Colorado.

113 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Ralphie says:

    And that’s a dangerous place for Democrats to be.  Unaffiliated voters sometimes vote like Republicans.  Here in Mesa County, it’s more often than not.  In fact, the unaffiliated voters here are the ones who are so crazy they don’t trust either party. (Myself included.)

    The Democrats could have avoided having to rely on unaffiliated voters if they could have found a way to energize their loyal base plus all the first-time voters they signed up in 2008.

    Unfortunately, the Dems have not done that.

  2. colawman says:

    H-man’s recent diary addresses just how those unaffiliateds are polling. He takes it a bit farther in pointing out the polling outside Denver/Boulder is troublesome for Bennet.

    http://coloradopols.com/diary/

    Hat tip to H-man on an article that certainly deserved a front page, but alas we Buck supporters understand the only way to the front page is to predict a Bennet win.

    • Ralphie says:

      The best way to the front page is to write something worth reading.

      Talking points won’t get you there, no matter whose talking points they are.

        • sxp151 says:

          so it’s hard to say Pols hasn’t been more than fair to you.

          • bjwilson83 says:

            But I guess they had to do that based on the attention it got. I don’t think BashBuckPols has ever frontpaged something supporting Ken.

            • Aristotle says:

              Although I’m open to reviewing some of them again, if you find one you think was worthy of the front page.

              • bjwilson83 says:

                http://www.coloradopols.com/di

                http://www.coloradopols.com/di

                Also I believe H-man and colawman may have some good ones.

                • ClubTwitty says:

                  Two sentences and a youtube clip don’t a diary make.  It is theoretically possible that you as–I presume–a sentient being are capable of original thought.  Evidence, however, remains lacking.  Try it sometime, even a Buck diary might get promoted if you actually put some effort in it.  I promote original thought.  

                • Aristotle says:

                  It’s because the body of the diaries consisted of videos (one an advertisement) without any real commentary or analysis. You have to have some kind of angle (hopefully one that’s interesting and insightful) or else it’s basically the same as copying and pasting someone else’s words. Believe me, the diaries I’ve done that were just about that never saw the front page.

                  H-man just seems to do diaries and posts about polls, with no more comment than “See, Buck’s leading.” Not very pithy. And colawman is someone who I’m not very familiar with, so I’ll reserve judgment until he writes a new diary.

                  So… it’s not because it was “pro-Buck.” It’s because it wasn’t thought provoking. And there’s nothing wrong with the occasional non-thought-provoking diary, but IMO the front page doesn’t need them. Some of the elected front page editors don’t agree, and they sometimes promote sillier stuff (and I say that as someone who’s had silly diaries appear on the front page, which made me kind of wish I hadn’t written them).

                • Aristotle says:

                  Didn’t realize til now that he had written one. It was pretty good, but I did see that JeffcoBlue said it was recycled talking points. I don’t know if it was or not, but if so, that would be a possible non-conspiracy reason for it to remain in the margins. DavidThi808 might promote something like that.

                  • DavidThi808 says:

                    But I also thought it was mostly just a listing of old talking points.

                    I will admit I treat conservative diaries differently – if in doubt I promote conservative ones because we get so few of them that are good enough to front page. (In other words, affirmative action for conservatives.)

                    • Aristotle says:

                      That makes it official for me; Dave is generous and gracious to ‘pubs to a fault, so if he thinks it’s mainly talking points, then it’s mainly talking points and not front page material.

                      Beej, “good writing” and “well crafted arguments” are independent of whether you agree with them or not. You may be a radical if you can’t see that.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      But I have promoted, and will continue to, diaries from some of our conservative friends.

                      I like clever diaries, interesting analysis, topical and relevant.  Links, research.  

                      I can read an article myself, I can find a video clip myself–what I promote are diaries that tell me what it means (or what the diarist thinks it means).

                       

                  • dukeco1 says:

                    That sort of ridiculous comment is exactly why the diaries mentioned don’t get any respect. You are not doing your conservative cause any good with that adolescent nonsense…OK?

                    I know some of the posters you routinely vilify as liberal extremists…and they are not. When you start taking us seriously, perhaps we will return the favor.

                    • Libertad says:

                      Show me a promoted diary somewhat fair to Buck and I’ll find 5 that slammed him. Same for Gardner and Tipton.

                      I get it, its not part of the ‘program’ on this site, I accept that. Why can’t you?

                    • dukeco1 says:

                      I get the feeling, Lib, that I don’t quite understand exactly what you mean by that. Do you mean…inaccurate?  😉

        • Voyageur says:

          That’s because nobody is really interested in what the dog has to say,they’re just astounded that he can speak at all.

    • GalapagoLarry says:

      But then you fell back into that whiny “You’re so unfair to us. We’re just victims.” horseshit that characterizes so much of the TeaPublican mindset. “Alas,” indeed. You think this is a Victorian novel we’re writing here? Pathetic.  

      • bjwilson83 says:

        when your own government turns against you? Can you honestly say that Tea Partiers have had any representation in government these last two years? Most presidents at least pretend to listen to the other side. Obama’s attitude was “we won, so you don’t matter”.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          Oh, ‘student’ of ‘history.’

          • bjwilson83 says:

            If you knew anything about history, you would know that GW was not president in the last two years. Actually, if you had any sentience you would know that.

            • ClubTwitty says:

              Most presidents at least pretend to listen to the other side.

              If you knew anything about history, you would know that most presidents haven’t been Obama.

              You’re such an idiot.  

              • bjwilson83 says:

                Obama has been the worst president ever. Still haven’t decided to cheer up, eh? Don’t worry, life is about more than politics. It will go on.

                • ClubTwitty says:

                  Ever. (Period).  I quickly, in about 2 seconds, proved you wrong.

                  My point is that above you say ‘most presidents’ (by this I assume you mean historical POTUSes?) at least pretend to listen, I point out that the very last one, the previous one, the one just a few months ago, said similar things after his even much slimmer margin of victory.

                  You’re an idiot.    

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    If you’d like to lower the level of discourse, I can oblige.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      In answer to your question.  Every day, as Ralphie notes.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      is reduced to repeatedly calling people idiots. Good luck winning an election using that method.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      They’re conditioned to being out of power and complaining about everything.  They’ll get their groove back on starting Nov. 3rd.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Starting (but not finishing) wars; spending like mad (and keeping most of it ‘off budget’); trashing the economy; destroying the surplus.  Who wouldn’t want to go back to that?

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      And you can’t even pretend to make fun of spending under Bush if you’re an O supporter.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Iraq was a mistake.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      But we’ll never agree on that, which is cool.

                      Health Care, particularly in the for that was passed, is optional.  So was the horrible “stimulus” bill that took a huge crap.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Forgive my typing.

                    • Aristotle says:

                      … balanced budgets is a Republican watchword, is it not? It’s not like Dems are being complete (or even partial) hypocrites when they engage in deficit spending.

                      This is why I roll my eyes when I see ‘pubs talking about that today. You were all silent when this shit ballooned under Reagan, and you were all silent when Bush played politics and took his wars off the record. It seems like you don’t give a crap about balanced budgets at all, unless it comes exclusively at the expense of social programs you don’t like. Which ain’t going to happen because even likely Republican voters like those programs more than they hate them.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      And it will be hilarious, since Obama will still be president.

                    • harrydoby says:

                      No other machines on this site that I’ve noticed.

                      But I will admit you did show a small flicker of rational thought when you dumped Dan “How do you spell loozer?” Maes, for Tom “Let’s Nuke’em” Tancredo.

                      Not that it matters, of course.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Rather just some random blogger that posts on Pols.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      A minute ago you were bragging about your long and storied career, much of it in politics or media.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      I was a canvasser, on issue campaigns.  I was a paper boy, that’s kind of media, I suppose…

                      No, I wasn’t bragging, just listing my work, since you started that trend.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      You mean to tell me “field director” isn’t a political job? And “columnist” and “radio host” aren’t media? Seriously!

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Neither the column nor radio show were media, really, I have no journalism background (other than high school newspaper and yearbook…).

                      Local radio show for a while in college–talking about local issues and having some callers, and the column was in an entertainment weekly, about environmental stuff.  Neither were career moves, just work that was fun and somewhat interesting.

                      I suppose either of those could be ‘media’ but just barely, hardly much more than 1 year total out of 30+ years of work. Lots of types of organizations and businesses have ‘field directors.’  It wasn’t political.

                      I have never been employed by an electoral campaign or political party.  I could do without the parties, could see a time when I was glad there was more–or none.  I’m an issue guy, and most of my work that I care about, am proud about, has been issue work.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      by insinuating that I hadn’t done any real work.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Some lines of insult are batter backed off from.  Twitty’s a devoted partisan, but a good person.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      but as long as he keeps calling me an idiot and casting aspersions I will respond.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      He quit calling me an idiot years ago, but I know he still means it.  🙂

                      Your factual posts are a major bee in the bonnet here.  That’s why I love ’em.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      I hope that’s sarcasm, LB.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Sorry BJ, sometimes the crap you peddle (I dispute LB’s notion of what constitutes ‘factual’) is a little hard to take.  None of it, that I can find, is backed up…it really is just regurgitated talking point with no basis as far as I can tell.  I’m sure you are capable, at least I hope so, of putting together a sound argument.  I just haven’t seen one yet.

                      That said, I should let you alone.  You deserve neither the attention nor ridicule. So apologies and carry on.

            • MADCO says:

              Today’s date Oct 4 2010

              2 Years ago today – Oct 4 2008.  

              President: G.W. Bush.

              Who’s second term started in Jan of 2005, and ended Jan 2009.

              You should study numbers more.

        • Aristotle says:

          where the wrong president was cited.

          Obama reached out to the GOP plenty of times – remember when he jettisoned single payer and b basically proposed the full-of-GOP-ideas-from -1994 HCR package? That was reaching out.

          Now, cite me (in more than one sentence, please) a case where Obama was guilty of behaving like Bush. Because you’re projecting the Bush admin’s sins on Obama when you claim he was the one shutting out the opposing party.

          • bjwilson83 says:

            meant Republicans voting for socialist bills. Bush worked with Dems on Medicare part D, bailouts, etc. He was by no means a strong conservative like Ronald Reagan.

            • Aristotle says:

              when it wasn’t “socialist” then. (Nor is it today – check out what socialists want sometime.

              Obama invited GOP leaders to the White House to get their input on HCR. The GOP showed up but added nothing to the discussion. Whether you think just saying “NO” was right or wrong, the fact remains that Obama reached out. He didn’t threaten them to go along or else, or do anything else that would make a sham of such a gesture (although, as always, I’m open to solid, documented evidence to the contrary).

              • bjwilson83 says:

                The GOP did not “add nothing to the discussion”; it was all rejected out of hand by Obama. In 1994 Clinton did reach out to Republicans, and saved his presidency as a result. The GOP was not fine with this stuff in 1994; Clinton’s health care bill failed.

                • Aristotle says:

                  What was it, specifically, that they proposed? Was it, in fact, a reasonable compromise?

                  Keep in mind that, although engaging, discussing what the ‘pubs did or did not offer at the summit is beside the point. The point is, Obama invited them to come and discuss HCR. It’s proof positive that your statement that “Most presidents at least pretend to listen to the other side. Obama’s attitude was “we won, so you don’t matter”.” is false.

        • parsingreality says:

          I’m tempted to say, “Asshole,” but I’ll say instead, “You of textbook cognitive dissonance.”

    • ClubTwitty says:

      And, gee, I front paged it.  One might think the only way to be a shill is to MSU.  

  3. Laughing Boy says:

    Unaffiliateds are breaking 5:3 at worst for R’s.

    This next few months will be my most enjoyable yet on Pols.

    🙂

    • harrydoby says:

      I won’t argue that the unaffilated don’t appear to be huge incumbent supporters.

      But, at least in today’s poll by the DP, I found two items a bit odd — the apparent strength of the Hispanic community for both Buck and Tancredo (WTF?) and that only 1-2% claim to be undecided.

      I find neither convincing 4 weeks out from election day.

      Stay tuned…

      • GalapagoLarry says:

        I noticed that, too. And if it holds true, it’s hell to pay for us progressives Nov. 2 and into the future. We’ve been banking on the growing Hispanic numbers for the Dems’ future base, and progressives tend to tie their fortunes to the Dem Party. Well, we’ll see what happens down the line.

        • Laughing Boy says:

          You made my day!

          …it’s hell to pay for us progressives Nov. 2 and into the future.

          Good.  I hope Keynesian economics and a self-hating foreign policy had a stake driven through their collective hearts with the last disastrous 20 months wielding the hammer.

          • BlueCat says:

            Voodoo economics and a clueless foreign policy are all Rs have on offer. If your tsunami comes to pass it will be short lived. By 2012 everyone will be asking themselves “How did we get sucked into giving the GOP another chance? What the hell were we thinking?”

      • parsingreality says:

        All I’ve seen for years is the assumption that all Hispanics are a monolithic block and all support open borders.

        Remember, Hispanic voters are citizens!  They could be many generation Coloradans who lost speaking Spanish along the way, or the could be recently naturalized.  Both categories could conceivably have a high level of resentment for the “cheaters” streaming over the border.

        Many Hispanic citizens probably also find themselves competing with the illegals for jobs, or at the least lowering wages.

        So, yes, I am surprised at the poll result, but upon reflection, not so much.  

        • Aristotle says:

          Some have immigrant parents, others come from families who became American when their land did. And although admittedly anecdotal and not scientific, my polling of them show that they all pretty much view the anti-illegal immigration movement as a race-based, Mexican-targeting phenomenon, and believe most of them don’t care for any brown-skinned folk.

          If large numbers of them are considering voting “R,” it’s mainly because immigration is not actually that prominent of an issue right now. Really, in the past year the most prominent immigration issue was Arizona’s law, but few R’s, even Tancredo, seem to be trying to use it as an issue to draw votes. It’s been “economy economy economy,” which can only be a winning strategy that appeals to every voter (other than those of us who remember who piloted our economy onto the rocks in the first place).

          Now, I know that “Hispanic” is not synonymous with “Mexican American,” and it could be that those with other national backgrounds, as a group, don’t view anti-illegal people with the same degree of alarm, and thus are more likely to consider the GOP anyway. But times are tough, and people are not looking at social issues (which may be alright; even if the GOP wet dream of taking both chambers comes true, Obama is unlikely to let any radical bill they may try to sneak by the people leave his desk without a veto).

          • Libertad says:

            They aren’t recent immigrants … blah, blah, blah … they’re the average joe 6 pack tired of the abusive Democrat policies that hurt the American middle class, that hurt GDP growth, and that use race dividing tactics to sell their warped messages of socialism.

            Where are the old time Democrats – the capitalists like Perlmutter used to be … the people are asking why have you foresaken us?

      • H-man says:

        Here’s a link to the Gallup poll.

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/143

  4. bjwilson83 says:

    He’s out of town doing fundraising and will be back soon. Meanwhile, I haven’t heard from Bennet either.

  5. Pam Bennett says:

    Buck wants to dictate how you live and that is by his version of his morals.

    Bennet wants you to live how you want to live in a civilized society that cares more for all people.

    • harrydoby says:

      Thanks Pam.  That really does boil it down to the bare essentials.

    • GalapagoLarry says:

      in you’re pithy analysis, and you know why, even though Bennet is no progressive, by any stretch of the imagination, I’ll be voting for him. As should anybody the least bit left of slightly left of far right of center.

      • MADCO says:

        they do want :

        serious, potentially passable debt control;

        practical, progressive taxation;

        real answers, with real thought;

        serious consideration to energy independence;

        and do not want:

        to waste time sponsoring a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, which won’t pass;

        to privatize Social Security, which Buck believes may not even be Constitutional;

        Senator McConnell running the Senate;

        to waste time  failing to privatize the Veterans Administration delivery of healthcare and other services;

  6. reubenesp says:

    according to this morning’s poll.  Don’t see much leeway there, unless they change their mind.

    Re: Dems:  “You know why their symbol is the letter D?  Because it’s a grade that means good enough, but just barely.  You know why the Republican symbol is R?  Because it’s the noise a pirate makes when he robs you and feeds you to a shark” – Bill Maher

    • harrydoby says:

      Today’s polling data just helps focus both campaigns on what they can do to hold/move the numbers.

      What polling data in any election has ever been static for 4 whole weeks?

      Buck will try to keep it zipped, and spend all his money on canned advertisements.

      But IIRC, he’s got some debates coming up with Bennet.  Buck is not a stupid man, but he does have a lot of swampy territory to defend.  Bennet needs to clearly and concisely stand up for what he believes in.

      Maybe we’ll get Kennedy vs. Nixon in the final weeks?

      Whoever wins will have earned it.

      • colawman says:

        The reality is polling data has been very consistent since the primary with Buck maintaining a lead and Bennet unable to move out of the 43 to 45 range. The remaining debates will further highlight Bennet’s lack of charisma.  

      • reubenesp says:

        doesn’t mean I beieve he won’t win.  The race is still too close to call (Buck 48-43 w/ a margin of error +/- 3.9%).

        This morning’s poll only represented all “likely voters” NOT all “registered voters.”  It also likely undercounted minority voters and voters 18-29.

        And the R’s in Colo. have never been able to match the D’s “on the ground” when push comes to shove.  For these reasons, I expect Bennet to win.  If Markey and Salazar’s numbers are similar, I expect them them to win as well for the same reasons.

        As for the U’s, many of these guys are closet Republicans and so I am not surprised by their numbers.

  7. Ray Springfield says:

    Buck worked for Cheney, and is a classic neocon. He is not a BS kicking cowboy. He’s a radical right wing don’t tax and spend reverse robinhood. His lack of any policy othr than give to the rich will lead to more social upheaval.

    • harrydoby says:

      But Buck, the Princeton educated New Yorker, does play a pretty convincing BS-kicking cowboy from Weld County.

      The underlying thesis of this diary is that as much as we think issues drive elections, a significant factor in whom to vote for is governed by the emotional touch points such as the alignment of our self-image with that of our candidates.

      But the alternative factor is the manner in which one candidate will present themselves in the Senate:  “Loose-Lips” who’s already lost a job and gotten a reprimand for wandering off the reservation, and had his raid on the meatpacking plant ruled illegal… or a sitting Senator who has already made a strong positive reputation for himself, with prospects of making a real difference to the good for Coloradans?

      • H-man says:

        Your last sentence to be consistent should read: or appointed Senator whose wall street wisdom has had ruinous effects on the DPS and whose tenure in his hometown Washington DC has been in lock step with Obama’s failed agenda.

        • harrydoby says:

          You mean the deal that allowed DPS to hire more teachers, and still has upside savings coming?

          Looks like you’re the one that bought into Meridia’s talking points.  You apparently missed the threads thoroughly debunking that story a few months ago.

          Gotta run to my job.  Maybe this evening I’ll take some time to dig up that discussion to relieve your concerns over DPS’s financial health.

    • Laughing Boy says:

      All the more reason to elect him!

  8. susanalt1 says:

    It’s difficult to believe that despite the pathetic and often very strange people the Republicans have positioned for Congress( Ken Buck, DAn Maes, Tom Tancredo) , they seem to have the votes to win back seats.  Or do they?  Is it because of their pathetic ideas and arrogance that they have the better chance to win seats back in Congress?  Are Independents voting for Republicans out of pure sympathy for the party of No ideas?  Will independents do the independent thing and think about what is right for this country?  Can we all agree that the Bush era was a failure, and that “trickle-down” economics broke the bank the first time it was used during the Reagan administration?  Republicans stand up for the wealthy; Democrats stand up for the middle and working classes.  So where do Independents stand?

    I have never understand what being an Independent voter means.  Someone who waffles between the two parties, or doesn’t see eye to eye with either?  So what do you independents believe that makes you different than Republicans?  

    Of course Democrats are demoralized that their party didn’t ride roughshod over the Republicans to get more things done in Congress.  The Democrats clearly have the better ideas to get the economy going and make a full recovery from the disaster of the Bush years and when you look at Obama’s agenda, they have accomplished quite a lot.  .  Don’t forget, guys, that Mr. Bush sailed out of office with the worse economic downturn occurring on his watch and because of his party’s actions.  It is going to take time to undo this mess.   Republicans are about creating their own wealth at the expense of the poor.  Period.  Democrats fight for those who have no voice, for fairness in the rule of law, for the protection of the environment, and for social justice.

    Democrats need to dig in their heels and stand tall for their beliefs, and fight for what is right.  The Party of No will certainly do no better, and indeed, will paralyze the government still further, if they regain control of Congress, all the while stealing from the middle classes in order to pay for making the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent.

    Join me and vote for Democrats this fall.  It is still a good time to be a Democrat.

  9. Angie Paccione says:

    really harry… c’mon,

    The urban sophisticate Senator Michael Bennet, or the cowpie-kicking cowboy, District Attorney Ken Buck.

    Buck is a cowboy???? really??? He is more of an East Coaster than I am!!!! I only lived in the East till I was old enough to leave… at 18 years old. Buck is TOTALLY an east coast opportunist! Bennet followed his passions, Buck followed his politics. Now, who do YOU think best represents independent minded Colorado?

    • colawman says:

      Bennet’s father was a US Ambassador and worked as an aide to Vice President Humphrey. Bennet attended private schools in Washington DC until he entered Weslyan. As a student he was a page in congress. After Weslyan he began working as an aide for then Governor Celeste of Ohio. Bennet then attended Yale law school.  After graduation he went to work for the Clinton administration.  He moved to Colorado and worked for Anschutz.  

      Bennet was then appointed Super of DPS by Governor Ritter. During his stint at DPS he teamed with pal Romer to invest DPS pension funds into a soon to fail scheme on Wall Street.

      Following his passion sure involved a lot of political connections and appointments. Angie if you are going to post, please have a bit more respect for the readers on this site.

    • Voyageur says:

      Please weigh in more often.  

  10. MADCO says:

    Not that unaffiliated and uninformed are related -in my experience they aren’t.  In fact, it’s been my experience when it comes to candidates that the R’s and D”s have more of the uniformed because too many of them just won’t look past that affiliation.

    And when they do it’s for over simplistic  political litmus tests:

    Does candidate X want lower taxes or not?

    Does candidate X support single payer healthcare or not?

    Would candidate X ever support abolition of the US Senate?

    Repeal of the 17th Amendment?

    Constitutional amendments to prohibit gay marriage? abortion? birth control?

    Etc and so on.

    And so the uninformed outnumber the rest. And it’s tough demographic to campaign to.

    • harrydoby says:

      Leadership, image, and mindshare.

      I doubt that even in the Golden Age of Greek democracy, did more than a small minority actually take it upon themselves to be fully knowledgible and engaged in all the issues critical to their lives.

      That’s kinda why you and I and most of the other folks on this site do what we do, right?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.