President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 17, 2006 06:53 PM UTC
11 Comments
The days of journalists or reporters actually asking a question, or doing critical thinking, or getting facts right, or even using correct grammar are long gone.
I constantly find errors or am left dangling. “Who, What, When, Where, and Why” seem to be lacking from the halls of journalistic education. My “favorite” is Lyn Bartels of the Snooze. She wrote that the state Republican convention was held in Greeley. When I busted her on that, her attitude was, “So what?”
I am OMI (Officially Mathematically Impaired.) Yet, I’ve read numbers that at a gut level I knew were impossible. I pull out the calculator, and lo and behold, another example of “journalists” taking the press release at face value.
A couple of years ago the Snooze did an article on CIBER of Greenwood Village. They are one of the few companies that certify the election machine’s software. Their CFO is a heavey Republican donor. I noticed that his surname (Durham) is the same as our HAVA enforcer in the SOS office; his hiring has a sordid, suspicious history. I pointed this out to Lyn Bartels.
Instead of researching this using her best fedora and trench coat, SHE JUST ASKS THE CFO IF THEY ARE RELATED!!! “Did you rob that bank?” “No, sir.” “OK.”
From Cronkite and Murrow and generations of great reporters we have idiots drawing a paycheck “informing” the public.
PR
hey guys, back from short vacation. Anybody miss me?
Took a quick look at the FEC filings today couple things jump out.
1) Fawcett may have more COH, but it doesn’t look like his expenditures include any TV media buy. He’s probably pushed that bill to the end of the month, which means he actually has less COH than reported (as in, he may have the cash now, but he can’t spend it, since it’s earmarked for the media).
Lamborn on the other hand, has already paid over $60000 this cycle for media. Advantage -Lamborn.
2) Fawcett’s taking on more loans to support himself (about 23000 this month) and is up to over 70000 total. Lamborn’s confident enough that he’s paying off his loans. Advantage -Lamborn
3) As someone posted here before, Fawcett’s been having paid staffers writing letters the editor in the Gazette under the pretense that they’re “concerned citizens”. That strikes me as . . . ummm dishonest?. . .no no no, what’s that word du jour this election cycle? Ah yes -sleazy. That strikes me as rather sleazy.
And in regards to the poll, who’s to say. I’m assuming the CFG poll was conducted by the PAC to see if they needed to start funneling money to the race. Why would they bias a poll that was for their own personal information? And of course, when it came back at a 17 point Lamborn edge, why not put that out in a press release to bolster your candidate. I trust it just as much as the DEMver Post’s polls which were conducted in order to spur public discourse.
Isn’t it illegal for a PAC and a candidate to coordinate?
If you really had a poll showing a 17-point lead, you’d scream it to anyone who would listen to slow Fawcett’s fundraising.
The last two statements pretty much made two opposite arguements against Lamborn.
robert – “CFG and Lamborn are working together on this poll” (and good job backing that statement up).
Colopols – “How come Lamborn doesn’t promote his poll?”
Maybe, oh maybe, because Lamborn has nothing to do with this poll. It was done by CFG, and they put out a press release, and it was printed in the Gazette a few days ago.
End of story.
There was no collusion, and therefore, Lamborn is not going to march it around. Hotaling was referencing it in a personal statement in some interview. Are we now supposed to indict Hotaling for quoting polls numbers that were printed in the Gazette while giving an interview for the Gazette? Come on guys, seriously.
My post was actually a question. Can candidates work with PACs or is it just 527s who they can not work with? Clearly Lamborn has worked with the CFG in the past, but I do not know what the rules are regarding 527 vs PACs.
sorry robert, I misread what you posted. I’m not sure about that to be honest.
Does anyone know the answer to this?
Because the Club for Growth never says anything except the whole truth.
There’s no such thing as a neutral poll. What about the WSJ one that came out with Beauprez down 2%? That was a paper with more clout than the Post, but everyone here had fun trying to rip it up. SurveyUSA, Rassmussen, they all have elements that open them up to scrutiny. The Post is no different.