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%
June 25, 2008 05:47 PM UTC
81 Comments
Loading ...
Please note that the quoted parts above are by Ben DeGrow.
While I would phrase some of the above differently, it is accurate on it’s statements of fact.
In addition, when Taylor West emailed me why she found Ben unacceptable, she emailed me links to 4 post “by Ben” that were the specific reasons why. Those 4 posts were not by Ben but were by a different poster on SvU. This would be like claiming I’m a conservative and pointing to 4 posts by NEWSMAN as proof.
In other words, Taylor West, a person running a U.S. Senate campaign, apparently does not understand that posts to a blog are by distinct people. And that those individuals each have their own opinions, approach, etc.
can’t be taken seriously in any media setting. He’s still calling Udall a communist.
No wonder Udall rejected the idea of having him as a “moderator.”
Why give credibility to that crappy water-carrying blog, Wadham’s Sockpuppets? David should be wary of getting on the high horse here.
than some of the things I’ve said about Schaffer. We each find our own view “reasonable” and our opponents views “totally wrong” but I think we’re pretty equally partisian.
What really got to me was Taylor West finding DeGrow unacceptable because of posts someone else made. Maybe she thinks the internet is a series of tubes…
As far as standards for a US Senate debate, this is pretty lame:
Wadhams obviously isn’t too impressed with you, is all. It’s not a question of equivalence.
I think having some (not all) debates where it’s a pair of moderators that are clearly biased, one for each, could make for an excellent debate.
Imagine a presidential debate where the moderators are Keith Olberman and Bill O’Rielly – we would learn a lot from it and it would be quite different from the ones we have seen.
So yes, we’re both clearly biased and have been very blunt about the opposing candidate. Politics is not a cotillion
According to the diary, the Udall campaign never agreed to the debate. Is it fair to call their refusal “backing out”?
…you are judged on the company that you keep. This is one of those cases where it appears that is appropriate.
I’d be very happy having a beer with Haners and NEWSMAN – I much prefer to discuss issues with people I disagree with.
…as the Shotgun Willie’s golf tourny (or so I read), but to each their own.
Seriously, I’m just put off by debates with “media” people who are more concerned about feeding their own ego’s than getting straight answers out of politicians.
Surely there are some passionate, involved, educated people that don’t have a blog or a radio/TV show?
If there are, how would you hear about them? 🙂
…the job that the League of Woman Voters did.
Politicians already have super-sized egos, I just don’t see the point of adding any more of that to the mix.
Haners is a Mormon and doesn’t drink beer, and I haven’t had one since I quit over 20 years ago.
But I would Love to sit and talk with you, Paul, Skyler, Laughing Boy, Barron, Haners, GOPstudent, or a dozen others I could name that at one time or another I have disagreed with, or they have disagreed with me.
You have your favorite adult beverage, and I’ll have a diet coke with a slice of lime.
Without accepting the beer. I’d be down for it at some point.
I’ll email you guys to see if we can get together. And I’ll stick to Pepsi in solidarity (besides I have about 1 beer/month).
That would be fun.
Is a paid Schaffer shill. He works for the Independence Institute. To claim he is not paid to do the SvU blog is to ignore the facts.
David Thielen, on the other hand, has shown a propensity for ignoring facts and failing to exercise critical thought.
It’s the blog equivalent of Hannity and Colmes or Caplis and Silverman. The frothy-mouthed right winger and his liberal patsy.
How about an online debate that is moderated by one person who is professionally obligated to remain neutral, such as Lynn Bartels, Raj Chohan, or Mike Riley? How about one where Schaffer and Udall appear together, in person, and their responses are streamed by video so that we can make sure Schaffer’s questions aren’t being answered by Dick Wadhams?
Silverman qualifies as a liberal enought to be considered a “liberal patsy”.
might be forthcoming before one makes such assertions that DeGrow is a paid shill.
1. He works for the Independence Institute.
2. He posts during work hours
So unless he can prove that he’s doing the posts on his personal equipment, not using Independence Institute’s Internet connection, and taking an unpaid leave of absence during the work hours in which he writes and posts his material, the preponderance of the evidence suggests that he is being paid to shill for Schaffer.
I’m not saying there’s anything illegal about it, but it certainly does establish that he’s far from neutral or unbiased.
for moderation and the source of allegations as a “shill” for one side, then that would pretty much eliminate all of the “activist” left, like Bill Menezes, most of Colorado Pols, SquareState, etc.
I don’t happen to agree with them, but I won’t just avoid debate simply by calling them a shill. They have an agenda, just like everyone else, and as long as they provide some support for their assertions, then they are worth engaging.
As for the other point, quite a lot of people “post” during work hours (blog posts or comments) either on breaks or via the ability to have timed posts. Since most of Ben’s posts appear early in the morning or later in the evening, your second assertion has no merit.
I have no interest in reading responses dictated by Dick Wadhams. Make it live with an agressive, though neutral, moderator who will push BOTH candidates to explain their positions and past record.
Exactly. Ben would at least have his eye on the ball for his guy. David would flail around in delusions of influence. It’s the old fallacy that two nutters in the same room equals balance and sanity, when it’s actually just double the nuttery.
I’ve done 2 (Boulder City Council and CD-2 primary) and in both cases they were very well received – by both the candidates and the public.
Point?
As with many of the Independence Institute’s operatives, DeGrow frequently uses misinformation or outright falsehoods to promote his points of view in mainstream media. Here are a few examples Colorado Media Matters has documented:
http://colorado.mediamatters.o…
Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters
You site two “stories” within two days of each other, and call that frequent?
Under your guidlines, you “frequently” do the same thing here.
He can say whatever he wants because he has a nice job title and works for a media watchdog group!
For the record Bob, I think CMM is such a partisan joke that I really don’t see any good coming from any of your efforts. People on both sides of the aisle give their opinion and news outlets and stories will always be biased, just like everything on your website. The “information” you provide is so elementary it is a slap in the face to any true progressive.
Nicely said CCtiger!
It’s not like they have it posted on their website under Who We Are…
They don’t hide it. In fact, they’re pretty open about it unlike some people who are embedded in the media and try to paint themselves as something they’re not.
But they say they correct misinformation when really they’re just spewing their own propaganda that others could claim is misinformation in itself. I believe news stories will always be biased and it isn’t the reporters job to always be completely balanced.
How does this help anyone?
shoot the messenger.
That Udall did not want to debate Schaffer online, at least not with any input from a conservative. Dave has taken many shots at Schaffer on this forum, but that doesn’t seem to be a disqualification as far as Schaffer’s campaign is concerned.
If he can’t stand to take questions from someone who has a different point of view, how can he realistically say that he will represent all of Colorado?
that he will represent all of Colorado… when Schaffer and Wadhams continue to degrade Boulder, over and over and over.
Those are your assumptions. Big distinction. I think the message is simple: We’re not going to get stampeded into some goofy debate where Wadhams feeds one blogger a bunch of crazy stuff and everyone pretends like that isn’t going on.
This isn’t an 8th grade debate class. This is a campaign for the next Senator of the United States. If both camps are going to agree to an online debate, a moderator with credibility and some credentials for asking the hard questions needs to be found. Neither of those mentioned, David or Ben, meet those qualifications, in my opinion.
Udall was right not to agree to a debate, particularly with a blog that calls one of the candidates a “liar” before he even shows up and mainly because neither of the “moderators” have the capability to pull it off.
.
He’s done it before.
And, in this era of new media,
he could get and vet “hard questions” easy as falling off a log.
.
She used that same “Ben called Udall a liar” (she actually seemed more upset that he “called her a liar” too).
The problem is, the links she sent me, none of them were by Ben.
Can you provide a link where Ben calls Udall a liar? Or is this just the talking points at the Udall campaign today to try and divert attention?
No, I’m not Taylor West. Nice try. I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings by saying you would not be a good choice as a moderator but from the tone of your reply, I guess I did. Sorry for that, David.
And please reread my comment. Nowhere did I say Ben called Udall a liar. I say “a blog”. Come on, David. Reading comprehension is your friend.
If you read my post-mortum of the CD-2 online debate I took myself to task for some of the questions being ineffective (in that all 3 answered them well and we learned nothing useful to pick between them).
Good point that you said “a blog.” But by that measure, no one who posts on ColoradoPols can every be a moderator because this blog has called every candidate every dirty name in the book.
I don’t think Ben & I as moderators would be the best debate in this race (although if it had been held, at the rate they are going, we might have been the only one). But I do think it would have been a good one. It would be interesting to have 2 moderators who are clearly biased – it would definitely be different.
But let’s be honest–most folks that blog here are not qualified to moderate a debate between two Senatorial candidates and you can most definitely include me in that camp.
I do think the idea itself was a great one–the online debate format is something that I think we are going to see a lot more of in years to come.
And listen, I do want to apologize to you. I wasn’t attempting some sort of cheap shot at you. I think you are good at what you do and more importantly, I also think you are a genuinely good guy. I just think that a debate of this sort would require one or two folks that are masters in the art of debate.
Then again, look at how badly the presidential debates sucked, so what do I know? 🙂
And I’ll be the first to admit I did not do a great job moderating so far (good, but not great). On the flip side, I may have more experience at this than anyone else in the world having done it twice.
Again, thank you for the nice words.
How many voters would actually pay attention to an online debate anyways?
I am in favor of anything that puts people on record.
“The internet? hmph. We don’t do the internet around these parts, it’s blasphemy. What’s a blog? They won’t never amount to nuthin. Coloradopols is just some obscure website. bah humbug.”
There is a reason why it’s called the new media. If it were so obsure, why did you think that your post would have mattered to anyone?
I just don’t think you’re going to reach many voters with an online debate.
(And for the record, I’m not a Republican and use computers extensively so I realize the power of the internet.)
I didn’t think you were; hopefully I didn’t come across as such.
Your view just might be correct for this cycle, but I’m sure many said the same thing about television debates. It’s going to happen, it will be more of a force as time goes on. Why not be ahead of the curve?
But online debates often reach them INDIRECTLY. They can shape messages and opinions of the people who are, themselves, opinion-makers. Most of what politicians and candidates do never reaches a vast number of voters directly.
Has Colorado Pols offered to moderate an online Senate debate? As the most widely read political site in the state, it would seem to be a natural.
After all, the most likely moderators in that case would be Haners and me – same problem for Udall, a moderator that clearly supports Bob Schaffer.
I think the question should be “who can be fair”, not “who do you support”
It’s worth noting that Pols was friendly to the idea of a CD-5 debate, but it never worked out.
But we should start again. If David and Haners want to lead the way. It won’t be a debate, necessarily, but it will get the issues and answers out there. We could even solicit reader questions like we used to do.
Just let me know…
Q & A’s with follow ups would be even better
Best of luck David.
Both Udall and Obama will not appear in any format that is not carefully scripted. Udall refuses an online debate. Obama refuses to appear in town hall meetings. They don’t want to deal with real voters or spontaneous questions.
Actually McCain championed this whole town hall idea, and wanted to hold a meeting just like this in Denver.
Problem is it was cancelled due to lack of willing participants.
Udall went all across the state just a month or so ago holding town hall meetings to discuss his campaign. I can tell you that they one that I attended sure as hell didn’t seem scripted and he most definitely won folks over with his candor.
I cannot understand anyone who doesn’t see him as a VAST improvement over Wayne Allard and a much, MUCH better alternative to Bob Schaffer.
Mark Udall is one of the few people that I expect to improve the political dialogue in this country through his nature of striving for bipartisanship. If for nothing else, that is why I want to see him in the Senate.
No one knew about them. I kept watching the Daily Camera and the blogs for one to be announced as I wanted to go. He had a speech at Manhattan Middle school here but there was no open Q&A. And that was it for Boulder.
If you go to upcoming events on his website – there’s one. And no mention of if he’ll take questions there. I also emailed Taylor West on his campaign asking when the next event would be where he’ll take questions – no answer.
I’m sorry but until I see it happen I don’t believe it. The only people who seem to have been at these “open” events are Udall supporters.
“No one” means everyone. The fact that “you” didn’t know about them doesn’t mean “no one” knew about them. It means you don’t know, and so what if you don’t? You’ve been complaining how the Udall campaign has been totally invisible, weeks into a two-spot ad buy covered on the front page of Colorado Pols. Campaign strategist you are not.
What you don’t know could fill the Library of Congress. Don’t attribute that to “everyone” else.
Maybe you can answer the question. When/where is the next event Udall will be at where he takes questions from the audience? You keep saying it is happening a lot and that everyone else knows about them – so share the info.
Because all you do is keep trash talking me but neither you or anyone else actually lists an upcoming event he’ll be at to answer questions.
is the SEBP debate. Questions go to Adam Schrager at 9News and he will pick them.
Keep your eyes and ears open though, because of the schizophrenic House schedule events tend to be planned on a moment’s notice.
That’s 9NEWS picking a set of questions they like.
he’s a troll from the McCain campaign
Udall running away from debating is posted at SvU and now we have the first debate between Udall & Schaffer.
Who knows if this story getting out had anything to do with this, but maybe…
and it had nothing to do with SvU.
What are you talking about, David, “finally get a debate”? This was news a week ago.
Clearly there is some place for these announcements that I don’t know about. I just searched Udall’s website again and found no listing of it.
Where can I go to find the announcements of these events?
thanks – dave
I called and asked how to get a ticket and they said they’re paper tickets being printed by the venue and when they get them in-hand and figure out how to best get them to people they’ll start publicizing the debate.
.
how about some democracy, huh ?
I want all 5 candidates to have the chance to explain their positions.
.
I’ve declined numerous debates on behalf of my candidate, and it’s clear from the Udall campaign’s response that there’s no way they’re agreeing to this debate.
It’s a good call, politically. Why expose your candidate to potentially harmful questions when the fallout from refusing the debate is almost nill? Is Channel 9 going to run a story about Udall backing out? Will people even care? The answer to both: probably not.
Sorry guys. Good idea, just not political convenient for a 10-point front runner.
when the debates were proposed.
Why should questions be withheld from candidates? Are all candidates for office to be shielded from voters and questioned only by members of the MSM?
And would an online debate more closely resembling a town hall (questions from the blog audience in addition to the moderators) be that potentially harmful?
If blogs aren’t such a big deal, why are you posting here, or on your own blog?
First, this was all before any of the Marianas Islands, etc stuff came up. At the time Schaffer was in the lead in the polls – yet he had the balls to agree to do this.
Second, anyone could submit a question and Ben would pick 6 and I would pick 6. We were going to what each of us picked and re-work if there were dups between us.
Every question was for both candidates which would eliminate attack questions. It would have been a good debate.
And the offer is still open if Udall is willing…
It’s been mentioned already, but I’ll say it again. The debate/debates between these guys need to be live, face to face and viewable. If Schaffer can indeed do his own work let him prove it. Nobody’s stopping wadhams from prepping him. An online debate takes Udall’s “verbal volleyball” advantage away, because wadhams could and would be supplying all/some of the answers. Udall’s 10 up, and he’s acting like it. Schaffer’s going to have to face him sooner or later, unless he’s just going to throw in the towel.
I think we might have ended up with news crews at each to get shots of them answering live. It would have been enforced that each answered everything by themselves.
And keep in mind this was proposed back when Schaffer was ahead in the polls. I think the big difference was that Wadhams understands the blog-o-sphere and so he could understand that someone could say “mean things” about Schaffer and yet the 2 moderators would make it a fair debate. And might very well make it more interesting than a standard debate.