New Big Line

(All together now – tell Pols where they got it wrong – promoted by DavidThi808)


Good to see a new big line, particularly with the recent developments in two.

One thing, though. Hal Bidlack is listed with one of those pesky (R)’s next to his name. Listen, I know that CD-5 is pretty damn conservative, but I don’t think that Hal would’ve switched parties that easily. Well, not unless Alexander Hamilton rose from the dead. He’s not Josh Hanfling, you know.

91 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. jericho says:

    Usually “Big Line” changes are accompanied by an attendant thread so that we can air our greivances about legitimacy of the changes/non-changes.

    How could Coloradopols rob us of such a beloved institution? Inquiring minds want to know.

  2. Danny the Red (hair) says:

    Like to see others banging that drum.

    • Skyler says:

      I’m a firm friend and supporter of Lois Court in that race. I’m confident that she’ll win, but Liz Adams would be a decent Representative as well.

      Josh Hanfling is Josh Hanfling. He’s a very sharp and eloquent campaigner, and if he wins that seat, it’s not the end of the world. If he votes like a Republican, or acts like a DINO, he’ll be primaried in two years time, hopefully by someone like Tom Russel. If he doesn’t, then HD-6 has another solid state rep.

      Nobody could replace Andrew, though.

      • Danny the Red (hair) says:

        She talks about TABOR, which is the issue.  I liked Tom better, his brain made my brain hurt and that’s a good thing.

        Liz is a nice person, and she’ll do a good job, but I have problems with her healthcare positions.

        Leaving aside his recent conversion to the Democratic party, Hanfling’s main qualification is that he likes to throw parties and take pictures with a good looking woman or a quasi celebrity on each arm.  Sure he raises money for good causes, but it is not a qualification for office.

  3. NEWSMAN says:

    Pol’s begrudgingly admits what I have said for 9 months:

    Doug Lamborn will win CD-5 Primary & General.

    Game – Set – Match.

    • RedGreen says:

      Do you have equal praise for Pols’ reading of the 4th District race? Do you think Musgrave is in serious trouble?

      • NEWSMAN says:

        But then, neither am I.

        Musgrave is re asserting basic principles to solidify her base.  Pol’s sees it one way, Republican voters see it another.

        She is on the “traditional values bus” because her constituents by and large are right there with her.

      • Dan Willis says:

        But she will have to fight hard for it … again.

        There is no doubt a portion of her constituents like her being on the gay-bashing bus, but they are by no means a majority.

        The Republicans greatly outnumber the Dems and this favors the Republian whoever it is and that person should win by landslides. The fact that MM has won by meager margins suggests that what she’s best known for, being anti-gay, hurts her more than helps her and she has to work very hard every election to overcome that short fall.

        So far she has been successful at it, but it has always been close. In 2006, if Paccione did not have financial problems to exploit, I suspect MM would have lost that one.

        • CO Democrat says:

          …regardless of ideology, if I were a farmer in her district, I’d be quite annoyed with Musgrave’s focus on Gay Marriage over the plight that farmers in her district and throughout the country are going through.  

          • Yokel says:

            What plight is that?  Commodity prices are at all-time highs.  I can assure you, things out there aren’t all that bad these days.

            Now, when Speaker Nancy takes all the capital out of the commodity markets because of her strategy to scapegoat the speculators, they may have a “plight” to worry about.  That will be an interesting day, to be sure.

            • CO Democrat says:

              Now does that help the big farmers or the small farmers?  Commodity prices being at an all time high.  

            • CO Democrat says:

              …how does that affect the regular Middle Class in this country?  

            • Let me know how much of that actually gets back to the farmers, vs. how much more they’re paying for fuel, transport, the robber-barons masquerading themselves as seed producers…

              • CO Democrat says:

                …do the farmers have many, or any commodities to sell to begin with?

                I know, I’m saying “furthermore” a lot.  

                • Yokel says:

                  So there’s that…

                  Speculator capital is still capital.  And capital adds to value.

                  • CO Democrat says:

                    I would like to see numbers.  Isn’t it possible that farmers might not be seeing that extra money due to the fact that the cost of commodities is higher due to the fact that it is more expensive to transport?  Do you have any sources to back up your assertions?  

                    • Yokel says:

                      Are you arguing that selling wheat for $3/bushel is the same as selling it for $8/bushel?  

                      I think they see that.  Cuz, you know, it’s what they get paid for.

                    • CO Democrat says:

                      …are they selling it for that much, or are the stores doing it.  Might they be selling it for that price to cover additional costs?  

                    • Yokel says:

                      You don’t know much about grain markets, do you?

                      Yet here you are, prattling on about plights of an economic class you know nothing about.

                      Point proven.

              • Yokel says:

                Same as it ever was.  

                If it didn’t matter what the price of wheat was, they wouldn’t tell you the markets ever 30 minutes on the radio.  But they do, because it does matter.

                  • Yokel says:

                    How about me – I’m arguing against two people who seem to think that higher market prices for a produced product don’t result in higher wages.

                    If I used to sell widgets for $30/widget 5 years ago, and now I can sell them for $80/widget, it seems to follow that I’d be making more money on my widget business now than I was 5 years ago.

                    And here you’re implying that I’m not.  Color me skeptical.

                    • CO Democrat says:

                      In what sectors have wages increased?  They have been stagnant for years.  Isn’t it possible that when a product is being sold for more money, that there are other factors at work?  

                    • Just as farmers are rarely selling their produce to the consumer directly these days.  Instead you sell to the distributor, who has to transport your widgets to his warehouse, store them, and then transport them again to the retail store, which has to pay its bills and employees in order to sell it to the customer.  And that doesn’t count the farmer’s increased costs – insurance, fuel, seed costs, failed crops…

                      You’re justifying your argument with assumptions, with no basis in fact and considerable counter-scenarios.  So we want to see sources.  Get it?

                    • Yokel says:

                      Insurance tends to be insurance, because failed crops happen no matter the commodity price and don’t really matter in this case. Seed costs are up, but only the raw amount, so the multiplying factor’s roughly the same as it always is.

                      About all that leaves is fuel.  Which ain’t pretty, but is still dyed pink and therefore not as bad as you might think.

                      Sorry, but your buddy got called out and proven a fool.  Complaining about the “plight” of the farmer in this day and age is so much populist “What’s the Matter with Kansas” pap, even moreso than it’s always been.  

                    • Still no trust of your voice on this matter.

                    • Yokel says:

                      Or are you too busy lost in your own presumptions and prejudices to care about providing your own?

                      Would you even be able to prove that crop insurance has risen at all, let alone equal to the rate of crop prices?  Or that seed costs have risen enough to take out any excess profits?

                      The seed cost one is interesting – it’s the whole point of farming.  You turn one seed into one plant and get from that a yield of many, many more seeds.  To be able to live, you have to produce significantly more raw seed than the amount of seed you initially bought.  Therefore, for an increase in seed price to take out all additional profit from a more-than-doubling of the commodity product price, the seed price would have to have increased geometrically for essentially the same product.  

                      Why should I spend my time digging up “facts” for someone who doesn’t understand the basic concepts, and wouldn’t even bother accepting them when I did.  Show some understanding, and you might get facts.  Until then, you’re no better than COD, playing the century-old populist card and getting no resonance whatsoever, because it’s not true these dayse.  

                    • Aristotle says:

                      You made your statements first, so the onus is on you first, especially given your track record of relying on unprovable philosophical points to support your arguments, and your record of repeating stuff you read but then blaming your lack of “google fu” to find them. It’s lazy and it undercuts your arguments.

                      And if you think PR won’t understand the facts, you really have not paid him any attention.

                    • Yokel says:

                      The concept that farmers worry about crop prices because they matter to the bottom line, just like the weather matters to the bottom line, has apparently escaped your friend.  

                      When he can’t seem to understand, let alone accept the objective economic truth that the more you get paid for what you do, the better off you are, no other number of facts are going to change that.

                    • Yokel, you’re asking me to believe that a rise in prices invariably equates to a rise in profits.  That’s just not true.  Costs are part of the sales price of any commodity, and costs have unquestionably risen.  I don’t know whether they’ve risen more than profits, or if profits have risen at all.

                      My question to you, as you are asserting that their profits are now much better than they were, is “where are you getting that fact”?  I just want to know; we cannot make good decisions based on logic-riddled “common sense” assumptions.

                    • Yokel says:

                      I’ll pull some numbers.  We’ll look at fuel, since that’s obviously the largest increase in price over time as a percentage of its previous value.  

                      Wheat used to be roughly $3/bushel.  Now it’s around $9/bushel.  At 40 bushels/acre, that’s an increase from $120/acre to $360/acre, or $240/acre.  Using the fuel/acre calculations from here, I get about 3 gallons/acre for an average wheat crop.  Over the same time, the fuel prices have risen from about a dollar per gallon, or $3/acre, to about $3.50 per gallon, or $10.50/acre.  

                      That’s a net of $117/acre back in the $3 wheat days, to a net of just under $350/acre today.  

                      Even just using rough numbers, you, and your strangely-absent Democratic friend can see that there’s no real “plight” to speak of these days.  And when you try to argue particulars rather than ball-park numbers, the equation still remains the same:  That’s how a 300% increase in prices can be a 298% increase in net, despite a 350% increase in fuel.

                      At least, so long as people can still invest their capital in the free market and keep prices in the positive realm.  We’ll see how long that lasts.

                    • Still looking for an actual source quoting “farmers are making more money with today’s increased commodities prices”.

                    • Yokel says:

                      With the greatest change over the same time period, proving that even an increase in that component’s cost even greater as a percentage than the increase in the prices still equals a profit quite close to that increase in prices.

                      Everything else pretty much is equal.

                      I’m not surprised you won’t submit to the puh-owning, though.  Typical.

                    • Yokel says:

                      That even with fertilizer and pesticide costs also increasing, if they weren’t so expensive you couldn’t make a living off of $117/acre, Somehow I doubt that they suddenly cost $133/acre to wipe out the increase in profits due to higher commodity prices.  

                      But that would require common sense.  Something that’s clearly lacking on your part.

                      But if you want a cherry-picked quote from a google search, rather than actual numbers proving the actual relationship between prices and profits, here you go.

                      Matt McKinney reported in yesterday’s Minneapolis Star-Tribune that, “Fortune smiled on rural Minnesota in 2007, as median farm income soared 73 percent in a year, to $105,000, on runaway demand for corn, milk, wheat and soybeans.

                      “A University of Minnesota survey of 2,600 farms concluded that it was the most profitable year for the state’s farmers since 1973.

                      “‘We’re in one of those golden ages of agriculture,’ said Dale Nordquist, associate director of the Center for Farm Financial Management at the university, which does the annual survey.”

                    • Yokel says:

                      I prefer the math.  Because anyone can link any blog saying anything.  It’s silly.  What’s the difference between that and someone who grew up on a farm, whose family still farms, and whose friends still farm?

                      Though, honestly, the effect was way smaller than I’d expected.  

                    • Mathematical equations are derived from theory; statistics are data.  Also, your math wasn’t complete and it was obvious.

                      But thank you for something that had some data.  Now that we have it, we can have a meaningful discussion on “the plight of farmers”.

                      I think farmers have been hurting for a while due to depressed crop prices; this price spike is probably not long-lived, but while it’s still here, I think a lot of farmers are more than a bit grateful for it.

                      Don’t know if it helps Musgrave or not.  Her problem isn’t generally with the Plains vote.

                    • Yokel says:

                      Though it’s one that I’ve seen come up more than just this once.  It’s a page in the Populist Progressive playbook that won’t work this year, though, whether it’s talking about the 4th, or how bad people in Minnesota are hurting when a certain Presidential candidate made his “I’m the nominee” speech.

                      Actually, the equation itself isn’t derived from theory – just the ball park numbers.  The rate at which a change in fuel price affects the cost of doing business, when compared to the change in commodity price, that will remain the same, regardless of the actual numbers.  And from those numbers, it’s clear that in this market, the change is negligible.  

                      Statistics could tell you that since the price of wheat increased 300%, and the price of diesel increased 350%, all gains would be lost.  

                    • I’m missing a link in your response.  I wasn’t suggesting a play by Democrats based on increased profits or “it will go away soon”, I was just commenting on the situation now that you’ve provided facts.

                      And I’m confused about your math vs. statistics thing, too.  Fuel increases do not form a hard correspondence with commodity increases, only a loose correspondence as there are other factors besides fuel involved.  Your statistical “example” agrees with me, but your argument would seem to disagree.  I’m lost.

        • Arvadonian says:

          more the third player in the game that garnered over 10% of the vote.  The majority of the voters in CD4 in ’06 voted for new representation.  That is the fact that has to keep Mad Cow awake at night.

          If she survives this year (there is no 3rd candidate to pull votes from Markey and Congressional Republicans will not be able to pump as much money into her campaign this year), it will be because of the increased turnout in a presidential year, which in the 4th means more votes for McCain that will trickle down to Mad Cow.  I’d say Pols has it right on this race.

          • One Queer Dude says:

               You would think that would keep her awake nights but it probably doesn’t.

              The only thing that keeps Musty up at night is the idea that “Mike” and “Joe” in West Hollywood are able to “tie the knot” these days.

              Maybe she should try counting sheep. Woops, wrong homophobic Republican housewive turned politician…..

    • CO Democrat says:

      Colorado can keep at least one R nut job in the delegation.  

  4. DavidThi808 says:

    I’d put Jared at 3-1 (and leave Joan at 4-1). He’s rocking and zooming up and Joan appears to not be adapting to Jared’s approach.

    I’d put Betsy Markey at 3-1 and Marilyn Musgrave at 4-1. Polls show them effectively tied right now but I don’t see how Marilyn increases her support – everyone knows her.

    ps – And Hal Bidlack is a [D]

    • jericho says:

      Therefore, you would favor Markey. And you would want to Bidlack to be known as a Dem, even though that is the kiss of death in El Paso County.

    • Skyler says:

      Jared is probably the frontrunner at this point, particularly if internal polling from the JFG and Polis camps put him ahead.

      I wouldn’t write Will off, though. He’s got a dynamite staff. 8-1 is a bit harsh, I’d agree with 5-1 odds.

      Mike Eck, if you’re reading this, thanks for never calling me back.

    • colorado_dude says:

      besides the internal poll which Ewegen alluded to the other week, what’s the proof, where are the numbers that Jared is “rocking and zooming up”? Don’t mistake the army that he seems to follow him everywhere for actual support; from what I’ve heard those are all paid staffers and rich as he is, even Jared can’t afford to put the entire 2nd Congressional District on staff in order to win.

      • BoulderDem says:

        in poliitcs. Reason #729 why longshot like Will almost never win: It’s hard to put together large groups of people — either volunteer or paid — to contact voters. Joan is out there with her hordes of union types. Jared has his volunteers and (I’m sure) paid organizers. Who does Will have except the handful of folks who know him personally? Politics is a numbers game, and money is only one of those numbers. It’s sad that a decent man who is not a bad candidate at all has such obstacles to overcome even to be competitive. But it is the reality.

        • twotone says:

          Handful of folks collected 4,700 signatures. Must be quite the handful, eh?

          • BoulderDem says:

            He had a couple months to do it. 4700 sigs, when all you’re asking is to get yourself on the ballot, is about 100-120 shifts. In 60 days that’s a couple shifts a day. Between family, friends, and staff, that’s easy. A giveaway that a campaign has little chance to get to the 40% that it needs to win is that they’re crowing about reaching 4700 voters once each. Even if he were to GET all of them (which is impossible), that’s only 10%. Which, come to think of it, is about what I expect him to get in the end.

            • twotone says:

              That is where your analysis is wrong. You expect Will to end up on Aug 12 with the same amount of votes as signatures he collected months ago? And that being the case after being on TV for more than a month? If he could reach out to that many people without paid communications…it is only to go UP from there.

              Listen, I understand why you continue to hammer on the talking points. It has apparantly worked with a couple folks including Colorado Pols. But, you are wrong and whether or not Will ends up winning or not, I can tell you it will be a close election.

              • BoulderDem says:

                on August 12. I’ll even buy you one of your favorite beverages if we ever identify each other. And it’s true stranger things have happened, although off the top of my head I can’t come up with any, at least in Colorado politics.

                The sigs are irrelevant. Most of those people won’t vote for him — didn’t even support him then. I signed it, and have been on Jared’s side for months. I signed it because I like Will and think he deserved to be on the ballot. There have been instances in Boulder where a dozen or so committed people have collected 5,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. Themselves. It’s not hard. I don’t think the signatures mean anything.

                The main reasons I don’t think he has a chance are two-fold: A) He isn’t selling anything that Jared and Joan aren’t; and B) There aren’t enough undecideds left, after 12 months of campaigning, for him to introduce himself to AND win over. Not in four weeks.

                But we’ll see. Wouldn’t mind at all if he won.  

                • DavidThi808 says:

                  I signed it the first day, and I’ve been a Polis supporter from well before that.

                • twotone says:

                  The fact that you wouldn’t mind is why the Polis camp has been so desperately trying to convince you (and others like you) that somehow with $1.3 million Will is out of contention. Will is the best candidate. If everyone who likes him votes for him, he will win. Jared knows this and will say anything to make the race seem like it is between himself and Joan.  

    • There has been no actual polling data to suggest that Polis has overtaken Fitz-Gerald’s lead, only a rumor – and I’ve heard contrary rumors.  Jared is certainly out there (I saw him both today and yesterday), and he’s definitely motivating his people, but I don’t know if it’s going to be enough.

      Signs (which I believe you noted yesterday) don’t vote.  If I were to base the 2004 Senate race on signs in Gilpin County, I would have said Mike Miles was winning; he lost by a significant margin.

      But the race has, IMHO, tightened.  4-1 to 5-1 sounds about right.

  5. NEWSMAN says:

    ps – And Hal Bidlack is a [D]

    For a minute there I thought we had one more hapless Republican trying to unseat incumbent congressman Doug Lamborn.

    • Barron X says:


      CD-05 is a 2-man race.


      • NEWSMAN says:

        Look into your crystal ball and tell us.

        • rwrgop says:

          it will be a two man race: Rayburn v. Bidlack.

        • Barron X says:


          foresees that the looming 3-way disaster will be hung around his neck,

          so I think he will announce a pro-forma withdrawal to preserve his future prospects locally.  

          I don’t see him campaigning for Bidlack, but I think he will secretly root for him.

          I don’t think General Rayburn has any hopes of a career in local politics if this campaign fails.  

          He has many other options,

          so he hangs on to the bitter end.  

          I really thought that, in a 2-way, that the challenger had a chance.

          But David Thi pointed out tonight that the ballots are all printed,

          and there’s no way to get the word out if Jeff withdraws,

          so I finally see the writing on the wall that NEWSMAN has been pointing to.



          • Discernment in CD5 says:

            I don’t see that happening as it would do more harm to his future prospects. He has too much of his own skin in the game along with that of others who have hitched their waggon of $ers to him. Regardless if he does or does’nt, Lamborn is going to win and I agree Crank’s bitterness will manifest itself by rooting for Bidlack in the form of his surrogate Peggy Littleton telling her falsehood to the TV news that Lamborn won again due to dirty campaigning.

          • Client9FromOuterSpace says:

            Whether he stays in or drops out, it makes no difference.  He will not even win a house seat.  He has developed a reputation as a whining sore loser, and he will be unable to win a seat in El Paso county.  If it’s his political future he wished to preserve, he should have considered running for a house seat this time around instead of trying to re-live his past glory.  (For past glory only occurs in the mind of the politician, not in the mind of the voters).

  6. Genway543 says:

    Just to disprove the point, Hank Eng’s  neighbours think he is certainly the most qualified and electable for CO-06. Name recognition is certainly a challenge but the notion that Coffman is a shoe-in at 2-1 is laughable! Hank is looking forward to celebrating TT’s retirement and SOS Coffman’s continued term serving our state while Hank is in DC renewing the American dream!  

    • Dan Willis says:

      As a Dem I enjoy your enthusiasm.

      As a realist, I’m very sorry, I just don’t see it happening.

      If Mike Coffman were to drop dead tomorrow, he’d STILL likely win the primary and be replaced by a vacancy committee for the general election. And as long as that person has an R after their name they would win in Nov.

      • DavidThi808 says:

        Rationally I agree with you. However, Hank is a compelling speaker and so while his name recognition at present is zip, if he can get in front of enough people, maybe just maybe…

        Anyways, I made a small donation to him (and Hal) because even if it’s a 0.0001% chance, we need to encourage quality Dem candidates in Republican districts.

  7. davebarnes says:

    What do you people have against DeGette?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.