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%
December 09, 2011 06:37 PM UTC
38 Comments
760 producers would have to find real, compelling talent, and put the effort into marketing that person. But would they have the listernship to be able to justify that?
I think if they found the right person and promoted them they would bring in new listeners and some they lost.
Sirota, like him or not, has a solid following and some national presence. They would need someone else of equal stature for the evening show.
All about talent and where they want to be in the market.
I think it’s safe to say that Sirota has captured the “Democrats who want to bash other Democrats” market. But that’s not exactly the way to grow.
With the crazy train that is the republican GOP nomination right now, Sirota should be having a field day. But he’s not. Plenty of Obama, Hick, Hancock, Bennet bashing, very little, or even no, time spent ridiculing the flip flops of Mitt, the baggage of Newt, not to mention the bag of holy shit crazy that is Bachman, Perry, and Cain. Or even Tipton, Coffman, Gardner, McNulty, Lundberg…so much to choose from.
There is potential audience growth in appealing to progressives who want to hear someone go after the GOP and their candidates, both national and local. But that’s not where Sirota is, and it’s not where Mario was either.
It is where most of the national hosts are. Big Eddie is mostly a pro-D guy; Hartmann is an always-excellent voice who spends most of his time going after Republican thought and the lack of action against corporate crimes; Norman Goldman is more of an attack the system guy, but he definitely thinks Republicans are worse than Democrats; Randi Rhodes is her normal attack dog self; Press is a solid voice though at an unholy hour of the morning, and Colmes is a bit wishy-washy but generally focused on Republican idiocy.
I agree that Sirota should be able to take the time to fight against the truly bad Rs vs. the lesser idiocies of the Ds. But that’s not Sirota, who absent the guide of an Al Franken seems content to throw bombs in his own crowd more than lobbing some into the R juggernaut.
in the five you mentioned, only one is a woman? I rarely listen to any of them anymore because they are so male-centric, especially Schultz. He cuts often women earlier than men, or talks down to them. It’s not surprising — he used to be a Republican.
Randi Rhodes is right on the issues, but can be too goofy, like Solis-Marich. There are many intelligent women in the progressive world to choose from. Sadly, until we return to the days when the airwaves are considered public property and regulated accordingly, the radio will be owned by, and filled with, misogynists. Until then, women will continue to prefer NPR or their IPODS.
Sirota provides a progressive program. You seem to want a partisan pro-Democratic Party program. What makes Sirota’s program such a great asset to the community is that he eschews the very sort of idiotic partisan loyalty you’re advocating.
True progressives put principle above party and believe that Obama, Hick, Hancock, Bennet and others should be held accountable regardless of their nominal party designation.
Your “Democrats who want to bash other Democrats” remark suggests that you either don’t get the distinction or don’t care.
That if Sirota wants things to improve, he has to start with the true problem children in the equation and work the reality of our political system.
Every time Sirota goes after the President is a moment spent demotivating the Democratic base, whether you agree with the specific issue or not – and, unfortunately, Sirota’s critical thinking processes have decayed significantly since the Al Franken days. If 3/4 of that time was spent going after the Republican alternatives (which Sirota spends very little time on), it might alter some peoples’ understanding of just where the problem is. Some previously uninformed listener who started listening only to Sirota in the AM (or who decided to get a “balanced” program of Sirota in the AM and Limbaugh in the PM) would think that the Democrats have completely come off the wheels.
Actually, what demotivates the base is the president’s action or inaction that prompted the criticism. What I hear is that you want Sirota to be a “good team player” and not call out malfeasance by what you misguidedly assume to be “his own team.” Well, some of us are quite grateful that Sirota refuses to play along with the blind-party-loyalty groupthink you and others are pushing.
The airwaves are already chock-full of hyperpartisan angertainment voices. We don’t need more. Again, what Sirota brings to the airwaves is a commitment to hold principles above partisanship, and that’s exactly what’s needed.
Then why doesn’t he spend a lot of time ripping away at the Republican House?
Read what I said above – if he spent 1/4 of his time righteously criticizing the President (and Hick and Hancock), and 3/4 criticizing the Republican hostage-taking and obstructionist crap, I wouldn’t mind.
In fact, I don’t mind it on Ed’s show, or on Thom Hartmann’s. And the reason is that while all of the shows on Progressive talk criticize Dems, only Sirota spends most of his time bomb-throwing into the group of people that more closely shares his agenda.
Where do you get your numbers (1/4, 3/4)? Even if those numbers are somewhat accurate, I think it’s terrific that a true progressive is spending that much time holding the Democrats’ feet to the fire, because it needs to be done. If you want to hear Republicans getting bashed, there’s plenty of that out there. What Sirota does — holding Democrats accountable from a progressive perspective — is in desperately short supply. Obviously the blind-party-loyalty drones don’t like it, but tough shit on them.
And BTW, “Big Ed” is hardly a progressive. Just a few years ago he was billing himself as “The Rush Limbaugh of the Great Plains.” He only adopted the “progressive” label and did an ideological 180 on a dime because he decided he could make more money that way. He rightly assumed that there are enough stupid and gullible people out there who wouldn’t even notice the switch.
I listen to his show for as long as I can stand it on the way down to work. That’s usually about 5 minutes, because every time I turn on the radio it’s about bashing Democrats. When I hear him going after Republicans it’s usually in a short news blurb format.
If you want to consider me (or anyone else here) a blind party drone, feel free to delude yourself like Sirota does. I’ve been an independent-minded registered party member (first Republican, now Democrat, and increasingly frustrated at that…) for as long as I’ve voted. I’m an advocate for various ranked choice voting systems for a reason.
But I also still live in the real world of politics. Change in politics almost always comes through inter-party maneuvering and social change. The Republicans have completely overhauled their party in 30+ years this way, and have increased their party representation while doing so.
If Progressives want to move the country to the left, they must first (re-)establish a position of strength within the system. They can build off of #OWS, but whatever they build must become an organized movement rather than a group democracy experiment. So long as the Democratic Party remains a strong party, they cannot simply form a third party and expect it to thrive, nor can they work outside of the party and expect a massive shift in party outlook. Furthermore, they should not expect the Democratic Party to destruct due to attacks from the Left on the supposed weaknesses of the party – these are fringe attacks that only erode at the majority standing of the party, not effective assaults on the core strength of it. Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy did more to move the party to the left than has any assault on it since then – and Dean and many of his supporters were moderates!
Take my advice as a former outsider turned former chair of my county party and representative on the state party executive committee – you can do far more by getting a few friends together from your precinct and going to the Democratic Party caucuses in 2012 – and getting other Progressive-minded souls in other precincts to do the same – than Sirota has done since coming on the air here in Colorado. And you can do far more to change the country by going after Republicans than by taking on Democrats who are often in difficult political situations – clarify their situation by removing the obstacles to their doing right, and things will be better. Once you’ve done that, then it becomes time to shift opinions to more Progressive views; until you’ve done that, it’s hard to shift the opinion of an entire country.
I am just seriously curious. As a party chair and representative on the state party executive committee, did you ever organize a lobbying campaign to support any of Obama’s positions. I am assuming that you held those positions fairly recently.
I left just after Obama won the election.
I’ll be freeing up some schedule time to help this coming election season – I’m not sure where, but I’ll be donating some free time to campaigning somehow.
I’ve been listening to a progressive Ed Schultz since early in Bush Jr’s first “reign of error”. His bio says he has been a Dem since meeting his current wife in 2000, who ran a homeless shelter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…
Sirota is the Ralph Nader supporter in 2000 Florida, sure that he’s doing The Right Thing by opposing Al Gore for President because Gore wasn’t his idea of perfect.
Republican talk show hosts who hold these kinds of absolutist views at least know that 90% of the time you save it for the primaries.
Progressive = only bash Democrats most of the time.
I didn’t always agree with his methods. For instance, I thought he was far too quick to cut off opposing view points. But overall, I thought he ran a good show, and brought some attention to things that others didn’t, such as bringing the screening of “Cesar’s Last Stand” to Denver.
I’m not ready to riot over the decision, but i do agree that more local progressive voices and perspectives would be good for Colorado radio.
I must say that I never listened to Mario very often because I found his show mostly silly and superficial. And the few times I did listen, I recall that I would typically turn it off as soon as Mario would rudely cut off conservative-minded callers who were behaving reasonably. He came across as a left-wing Limbaugh much of the time, and who needs that?
RE:
I believe it would really be good if everyone had affordable, good health care and there were a cure for cancer.
Conservative talk radio ran losses for a decade as right-wing big money donors invested for the long term. They now make enough money in their local stations – and have enough of them – that they can invest in new local talent regularly.
Progressive radio’s ramp-up include a few years of money losses by Air America, but otherwise it has come up through local talent followed by syndication (e.g. Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz) or through national figures with radio shows (e.g. Bill Press, Alan Colmes). It doesn’t have nearly the number of stations, and those stations are often (as here in Denver) run by otherwise conservative oriented owners (i.e. Clear Channel) who just want to make an investment in a hopefully profitable format. 760’s signal is pathetic compared to any of the conservative stations, and station maintenance screws up the signal far more often, too.
This is somewhat of a perpetuating cycle, and the people who threw in to EIB and other conservative outlets back at the start I think knew that they had to develop the market with serious cash outlay in order to see a long term outcome. Given the weak investment in Progressive equivalents, it will take Progressive radio a lot longer to develop, and to develop talent.
There is a lucrative adverting base to target the conservative audience.
Progressive radio is dead, locally.
I’d argue that conservatives built a base on the backs of their long term investment, and that the investment in part helped steer the country to the right, generating the conservative audience that drives their revenue.
Progressives don’t have that kind of investment in the system.
This is what I think happened:
1) Corporate America decided that they had to “advertise” their agenda. So they looked to sponsor right wing shows and cultivate conservative hosts…using Rush as a model.
2) Coincidently, Radio-TV ownership was deregulated in 1996. It was supposed to allow “free market” principles. Instead, there was a consolidation of media ownership.
3) So called “progressives” were quick to adopt the ” new media”….c phones and the internet. Radio was not their medium. They dismissed its importance. Perhaps the single biggest political miscalculation since Dewey Truman.
4) All of this allowed the right wing to dominate the radio and use it for an organizing tool and to indoctrinate.
5) Now it is impossible for progressives to have any kind of real voice on the public airwaves.
I’ve had issues with both Sirota and Solis-Marich (David’s b.s. about Bennet not being sincere about the public option and Solis-Marich’s constant attacks on Morgan Carroll, for example), but I am glad they’ve been on the radio rather than their conservative counterparts. (Incidentally, Solis-Marich lived in LA from the minute he started his show here, and closely guarded that secret. If anyone “outed” his CA residency, he defriended them on facebook and wouldn’t take their calls). Sirota’s show is controversial because he is skilled at stirring the pot. His passion for the well-being of this state and country are sincere and admirable, although occasionally, he’s misguided.
Tom Hartmann has a strong national following because he can balance knowledge with tact and diplomacy. The closest local personality we have to that is James Mejia. James filled in for David Sirota a time or two and was did a great job. Any lobbying of Clear Channel to bring back local broadcasting here should encourage them to call James, IMHO. Sadly, they probably won’t consider it unless Nor-man Gold-man doesn’t get the ratings. It is much cheaper to tape one show and spread it around the country like MacDonalds burgers are spread around the world.
Not!
Sirota’s the Newt Gingrich of the left. (intellectually, not personally)
Gingrich is an obnoxious bomb-thrower, as is Sirota. But Sirota has a juvenile streak that Gingrich doesn’t have. Sirota think it’s clever to call Hickenlooper “Governor Howdy Doody” and characterize elections as a choice between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. Come on. I know I’m old (will turn 58 next week, God willing), but even when I was younger, I think I would have rolled my eyes and changed stations at such infantile statements.
I would be overjoyed if AM760 could find a local talent who is intelligent, interesting, and thoughtful. Neither Sirota nor Solis-Marich fits that description. I have heard Mejia fill in for Solis-Marich and think Nancy might be onto something with him.
that makes us turn off the radio when we hear “turd sandwhich”. 😉
One of my fondest childhood memories is of my mother berating my younger brother for being such a foul-mouthed kid; she got all wound up and exclaimed, “You’re the obscenest little turd I’ve ever known!”
But calling a politician a turd sandwich or a giant douche is just stupid and immature. For God’s sake, it’s a radio show, not a junior high.
Hickenlooper is Governor Howdy Doody and what a disappointment he is! Having said that, I find Sirota tends to consistently bash Progressive policy rather than looking for ‘anything’ positive with Democratic politicians. He is supposedly a Progressive talk show host after all. Overall, I agree with his activism for animals, but not much else. I reached a point of rarely listening to Mario, don’t listen to Goldman, and no longer listen to Sirota.
I do thoroughly enjoy both Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann.
I’ve never heard any progressive talk radio in Denver.
If we actually had any, then I could address whether it had a future. Until then, the web is my friend.
…that you are not truly a Progressive? If you are, try listening to Schultz and Hartmann, or, any of the other Progressive shows. Schultz and Hartmann are indeed Progressive and your statement “if we actually had any” tells me you don’t understand Progressive versus how you define yourself.
a) when did I ever define myself as progressive?
2) Is there a test? I’d study if it would help.
3) Ed Schultz is fine and Thom Hartmann is great. They aren’t Denver radio.
and D) I am not truly anything. I’m just a big fake. It’ part of my charm.
When Rush (divorced three times) waxes on about family values and Sirota (private Philly high school) hammers away about public education you have to enjoy talk radio for the entertainment value and not much else.
760 should scrap the talk format and give us a greater selection of news and information. And a mix in an opinion piece or editorial from a variety of sources would be nice as well.
Not as much fun to listen to, but much more informative.
And, Clear Channel would be motivated to take your suggestion because?
I personally believe that Sirota would not be on the air if he were not bashing Obama.
Why would corporate America want to sponsor radio that was not supporting their business agenda?
I believe that talk radio is a propaganda tool and one of the most powerful forces for indoctrinating conservative principles to the body politic.
“Big Steve” was an overnight host one night a week on KOA and recently lost his gig.
Before everyone starts speculating about who would be a good “progressive” host, first tell me how a station would be convinced to go “liberal?”
Unfortunately, Mario cared little about caller views when they did not align with his own. While Progressives are generally politically astute, they also are independent minded and do not want to be told how they must think which was how Mario hosted his show. He very frequently disconnected even Progressive callers because they had a different point of view than Marios. I became very familiar with the usual callers who he greeted cordially because they were the ones who played Mario’s game Mario’s way.
I’m surprised Sirota’s show was not the first to go and I will be surprised if Goldman’s show is long-lived in the Denver market because both of these men are Obama and Democratic party bashers. Progressives tend to be politically astute looking for ways to problem solve and most likely are tired of only the negative coming from Sirota and now Goldman.
I believe Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann remain popular and successful Progressive talk show hosts because they do project a true desire to provide viable information. Both men invite their listeners to not only vent but to offer ideas on how the middle class can fight back against this oppressive right wing agendist movement that has become so pervasive in this country.
The Denver market needs to provide a level playing ground for political talk shows. Across America, right wing shows outnumber Progressive shows by ten to one. We are only less than a year away from the next major election and we need more Progressive show hosts, not less. Perhaps newbies should take lessons from Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann.