U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

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) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 30, 2011 09:17 PM UTC

Big Line Updated (Now With Percentages!)

  • 38 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve made some minor adjustments to The Big Line, most notably changing the fractional odds to percentages to make it easier to read for those of you who aren’t degenerate gamblers.

Tell us what you think of the change after the jump.

How Do You Like Your Big Line?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

38 thoughts on “Big Line Updated (Now With Percentages!)

  1. I’d say changing odds to percentage chance is a MAJOR change.

    Percentages are easier to understand (take it from this non-gambler), but it wasn’t too hard to suss out that, say, 7-2 odds were long. I generally interpreted longer odds to mean a bigger margin of predicted victory.

  2. The percentages just make it too obvious that it’s guesswork (they’re all ending in 0 or 5) but the odds are confusing. I guess that means this is the second Jewish girl in the thread voting for bacon.

  3. because they are easier for all to grasp (I recall seeing a post wondering why the odds didn’t add up to 100), and this is similar to what 538 states and others use.  

    But,  because I am feeling like Romney and Kerry today (voted for it before against etc – is this a Masschusetts thing?), I kind of like the odds because it sets this site apart from others, and it speaks to degenerates like myself.

    1. are much good if the basis is faulty.  Pols often has a good grasp of things except in cases where echo-chamber wishful thinking trips it up.

  4. I like the betting odds, it’s just that they were often unrealistic – like if I put one dollar on every candidate I was certain to come out way ahead. also agree with ProCowGirl

  5. Then why not use a measurement that is as nonsensical as the Big Line itself?  Maybe aromas: Tipton = horseshit; Pace = I don’t know, salsa?  Maybe colors: Lamborn = puce.  Maybe sounds: Mike Coffman = air horn, Joe Miklosi = cymbal crash.  It’s just silly bunk anyway, so make it amusing silly bunk.

    1. We’re just testing things out since we’re in the quiet days of politicking.

      That said, we do kind of like the idea of assigning colors. It would be like the old Homeland Security alert system, only…well, it would be equally confusing.

  6. Let’s say you have a competitive district with a sitting congressperson.  Coin flip chance of winning reelection — (s)he would have 50% right?  But if there is a primary on the other side, and they are also even, would you just give both of them 25%?  I mean technically it’s accurate (50% odd twice), but I think some people may not get that, and would think you are implying either candidate in that primary has almost no chance against the incumbent.  

  7. we should all agree to try chocolate covered bacon, religious customs allowing, of course, and vote on whether its great or disgusting.

    1. I suppose in CD5 they could just list “Sacrificial Lamb the Dems put up” with 5% after it.  Not like the name will matter much anyway.  Same goes for the Repubs in CD1

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

324 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!