U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 05, 2008 07:39 AM UTC
16 Comments
didn’t do him a whole hell of a lot of good….
You still need to be a good candidate. Maybe Polis in this race is better than Romney was in that one, but I’m not so sure.
…he’s going…um…responding. No, er, informative. No…he’s um, just defending himself. Yeah, that is it. Poor Jared is so misunderstood that he needs to spend $300 a vote to make himself understood.
Poor Jared
CO-02 poll, no questions about anyone else. The poll questions were not leading – started out with favorability ratings, then “who wins on X issue”, then “which candidate best characterizes X”.
On the last, one question was “negative campaigning”; I unfortunately was able to name someone as “most negative”… It wasn’t Will or Joan.
Did they identify themselves?
I’ve been rather stunned at the lack of public polling in a race that’s supposedly so hot.
Don’t have it in front of me, though. I’ll try to get a post up late tonight with the answer.
Granted I’m a Polis supporter but I don’t see this as negative, I see this as directly responding to the attacks from Joan and answering them. What is he supposed to do, just sit there quietly and not answer her acusations?
And yes, I think Joans earlier pieces were fair too – they attacked Jared on issues. Joan only wants standard public schools (with all union labor) and Jared clearly supports charter schools and other approaches.
This is a valid and significant difference between the candidates. It is exactly what their ads should be about right now.
The ad attacking Polis on education policy wasn’t a Fitz-Gerald attack, it was a union attack. If Polis had responded to the unions, or even said “supporters of Joan Fitz-Gerald,” it would’ve been honest. But he didn’t and it’s not.
In fact, most viewers haven’t seen JFG’s negative campaign, which consists of press releases about Polis contributors and investments.
He is so far gone into the Polis spin world that nothing you could say would affect him.
It sure is interesting that Jared proclaims to be different, but really is just a typical politician.
The subject was that Polis has released 2 negative attack ads now. He is a typical politician. You would refuse to acknowledge that if it smacked you in the face. This is evidenced by the fact that you continue to characterize his ads as anything BUT negative attack ads.
Your justification, as you mention below, is effective marketing requires Jared to do what he is doing. Fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that what he is doing is launching negative attack ads against Joan. Fair isn’t the question. Effective isn’t the question. Negative is the question as it is the headline of this thread.
Jared’s ads are negative despite spin to the contrary. This is also despite the fact that Jared continues to say he is running a clean, positive campaign.
See how that is ON subject, as opposed to changing the subject?
Jared’s ads respond to the acusations in Joan’s ads (both hers and the union ones done on her behalf). I don’t see responding to an attack ad with an attack ad is going negative. Both Joan’s and Jared’s ads are discussing issues in the race.
How on earth is this negative? The only way it is is if you want incredibly polite ads that never mention the opponent. We wouldn’t learn much if that’s all the candidates ran.
David, you’re just making things up. Which of Joan’s ads makes the accusations refuted by the Polis attack ads?
Sure, David, up is down, left is right, Polis has a solid progressive record — and that’s not a negative attack.
At least Dick Wadhams is honest about the kind of campaign he runs.
Lets take the quote:
It’s a statement that you can arguably make about virtually any politician who has been in politics for just shy of 20 years. Others may disagree with that characterzation but that does not mean it’s unfair – it’s a judgement call.
In another 16 years you will probably be able to say the same thing about Jared. And others will disagree with you for saying it.
But the fact that you disagree with a statement does not mean it’s negative. I disagree with a lot of what Joan (and her union allies) say about Jared – but I don’t call it negative, just that in my opinion I think it’s wrong.
The Swift Boat ads weren’t officially from the Bush campaign but they were clearly a Bush attack on Kerrey. Those union pieces were an attack on Polis for Fitz-Gerald.
Yes it would be more correct to say the hit pieces from the union on behalf of JFG, but effective marketing also requires a short clear picture – and so all campaign ads summarize. I think it was fair to summarize in that way.
My unbiased opinion, Polis was doing what needed to be done to answer his critics.
I side with Jared Polis on this one.
For what its worth.
NEWSMAN
okay…