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%
November 10, 2010 09:21 AM UTC
27 Comments
also came out with a poll I think yesterday, that showed 59% of those polls saying that the repubs would be a disapointment and not follow through on their campaign promises the next 2 years. The more conflict the better for the corporate media.
From the original Rassy report to how the data got fudged, the data junkies at Lance Bledsoe have the best explanation for how this got so messed up.
is that it shows how critical messaging is.
While “what people think” about global warming is clearly less important than what the science shows, clearly if we are going to take meaningful steps to adress the issue more of those ‘thinkers’ have to learn the truth.
is that it shows how critical messaging is.
While “what people think” about global warming is clearly less important than what the science shows, clearly if we are going to take meaningful steps to adress the issue more of those ‘thinkers’ have to learn the truth.
What is important about this poll is that the Rasmussen and FoxNews staff combined couldn’t manage to count to 100.
Or any of their viewers?
These are the same people who brought us “Obama’s $200 million per day” trip to India.
How many mathematically-challenged motherfuckers does it take to run a television network?
Like Angle read somewhere that a couple of American cities were instituting Sharia law (wonder if the separation deniers realize that separation of church and state as clearly established by the non-establishment clause prevents our succumbing to Sharia law or Talmudic law or even all of the ten commandments. Anyone arrested for failing to remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy lately?) and Brewer read somewhere that the border desert was loaded with headless bodies and that most illegals are coming in as drug mules.
The folks at Fox, their viewers and their pet pols don’t know much about the constitution and our guaranteed rights or care much about freedom ( handcuffing reporters, head stomping protestors, illegal wire tapping, torture, trashing habeas corpus all are fine as far as they can tell) but they do all staunchly believe in one very, very sacred freedom: Freedom from fact checking. Fact free and proud! Fact checking is for socialists. Fact checking is un-American and un-patriotic It’s for elitists who think they’re better than you and me, not for real Americans.
Besides, if Fox employed fact checking then righties couldn’t just throw something out into the blogosphere and Fox couldn’t claim it was true because it was on the blogosphere and then where would they be?
I give you LB as a case in point. Seemingly intelligent. But an independent thinker?
Sorry LB….you just happen to be my favorite foil.
Remember Shakepeare:
“Life is but a stage, and we are all just foils upon it”
Ok, ok…I take liberties with Shakespeare.
So he disagrees with you. So what?
If you can’t accept people who disagree with you as decent human beings, I feel sorry for you.
And, it’s ok that he disagrees with me, it’s fodder for my angst.
As to your last statement….you missed my point. I accept and potato LB.
Because I seriously potato LB myself.
59% – Somewhat likely
35% – very likely
7 trillion% – I like turtles
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.n…
Here, the three RBI polls on Pols (‘poles on pahls’ ‘poles on poles’?) came as close as any. As usual Rassy was way off…
Well duh!
(And now YOU can pay my fine, CT, for mentioning this polling/pawling outfit.)
to discover there is a world beyond my screen…
I actually figured someone noticed Nate’s piece. I saw it too a few days back…been a bit pre-occupied with non-blog activities.
Where did you get your prescription?
I am guessing the original poll results were:
59 % somewhat likely
35 % very likely
6 % not very likely
Fox didn’t like the results, so they beefed up the answer they liked best by 20 points, but, DOH !, they forgot to take 20 points away from somewhere else.
Losers.
Since Fox usually tries to claim that global warming is a hoax, they would have bumped one of the top two, if anything.
But actually, the original results reported by Rasmussen were:
35% Very likely
24% Somewhat likely
21% Not very likely
5% Not at all likely
15% Not sure
But Fox, while trying to group the results in likely and unlikely, messed up.
that wouldn’t have supported their theory or bias.
I just checked out your link above though – I love how they take full ownership of the mistake.
Think we could get Rasmussen to conduct it?