CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 22, 2009 07:24 PM UTC

New Bennet PPP poll shows absurdity of PPP polls

  • by: twas brillig

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Just like yesterday’s Obama/Udall numbers, PPP is putting out its Colorado robo-polls. Tomorrow is Bill Ritter’s turn. Today it’s Senator Michael Bennet’s.

Bennet is such a newbie on the field, he’s a great test subject to establish how silly these robo-polling firms are. PPP is especially notorious in their home state of North Carolina–where they are known for improvising and re-doing their methodology on the fly. (The essence of solid polling is reliability and methodological predictability.)

Anyway, here’s where they have Bennet at:

41% of voters say they disapprove of Bennet’s performance so far, with just 34% saying they approve.

First, can anyone credibly say that Bennet has 75% name recognition in Colorado? Second, even if we could swallow that whopper, could 75% of Colorado voters have come up with an opinion of him as well? Many obsessive political junkies are still figuring out what they think about the guy. Third, if the poll text itself wasn’t so useless to determining actual voter opinion, there is the notorious unreliability of a robo-dial poll’s sample. Cheap methodology yields unreliable results. Plain and simple.

Luckily for Republicans, they should take heart from this as well, since the poll shows their numbers are just as bad if not worse. Much worse. Even poor Bob Beauprez, who ought to do significantly better just on name rec alone, is only even with Bennet the Newbie, and his unfavorables are higher.

Suffice to say, with $1.4 million raised in the first off-year quarter after the most lengthy and exhausting General Election in history, a weak Republican field that hasn’t even begun to form, and Bennet’s obvious plan to be doing a lot of face-to-face with voters, I’d say Rothenburg is on to something.  


98 thoughts on “New Bennet PPP poll shows absurdity of PPP polls

  1. Despite all the hating on Bennet, he apparently leads among robodialed button-pushers against every major GOP challenger except…Bob Beauprez (bah-dum-bump).

    1. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 34% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President … giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +2.

      On the Generic Congressional Ballot, it’s all tied-39% for the Democrats, 39% for the Republicans.

      Suffice to say in the minds of Pols, PPP and Rasmussen must be totally flawed to not come up with the right numbers or spin on Senator Bennet. Evidence again is below on just what the Political class believes to be true vs the rest of America:

      Tea Parties

      Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the “tea parties” held nationwide last week, including 32% who say their view of the events is Very favorable.

      Thirty-three percent (33%) [teabaggers] hold an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.

      While half the nation has a favorable opinion of last Wednesday’s events, the nation’s Political Class has a much dimmer view-just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.

      One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class.


      Looking back, 59% of voters nationwide believe the federal bailouts for banks and other financial institutions were a bad idea. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 26% think they were a good idea.

      The numbers are similar for the bailout loans given to General Motors and Chrysler: 60% say they were a bad idea, and just 26% hold the opposite view.

      Public opposition to the bailouts has been strong right from the start. In September, right after Lehman Brothers collapsed, just seven percent (7%) of voters thought the federal government should use taxpayer funds to keep a large financial institution solvent. Sixty-five percent (65%) said the companies should file for bankruptcy. A week later, following Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s appeal for a $700 billion bailout, support increased a bit but only to 28%. The more voters learned about the plans, the more opposition grew.

      But, in the end, the opinions of the Political Class mattered more than the opinions of voters. Today, by a 61% to 23% margin, the Political Class still believes the bailouts for the financial industry were a good idea. By a 64% to 23%, they say the same about the auto bailouts.

        1. We have all asked Libertad to reply intelligently and with data to back up his points. Yes he’s cherrypicking a bit but he is using decent sources and speaking on topic.

          It’s unfair to dismiss him just because you disagree with him.

          1. I just mentioned to him in another post that an overlong post with lots of spacing and bolding makes one sound kooky. So it was just a stylistic thing. I think links are generally better than long blockquotes for sourcing.

            But I should be nicer.

      1. but what I want to see is what do the other national polling firms show on these issues and others. Admittedly, I don’t know and I don’t have time today to look but there sure seems to be very large descrpencies between what Rasmussen is saying and what the Gallop polls said two weeks ago when they had President Obama at 71% approval rating.

          1. Not even Rasmussen would call that result a 34% approval rating. Rasmussen has a “strongly approve” and a “somewhat approve.” Rasmussen, like all other pollsters, adds up both numbers to get the approval rating, which right now is 54% (way off from what any other polling firm gets, but whatever).

            You’re a fucking moron if you really believe what you’re writing. Really, seriously, I’m trying to be nice here. But don’t act like you’re dumber than a rock, or you’re going to make this really hard for me. Part of me just HAS to believe you’re smarter than the stupid shit you write.

  2. But the fact that Bennett so seriously underperforms Obama in the same poll should really be alarming to the Democrats.  I concur that you have to be a little wary of this poll (or just about any one poll, for that matter), but one thing that is compelling is Bennett’s numbers vis-a-vis Obama’s.  

      1. I like this kid Frazier. He’s well-spoken. And I like Penry for Gov or Senate. And I like Ken Buck. And I think YOUR rumors about OUR death are greatly exaggerated.

            1. I’ll tell you what it’s not: Not discourse, intelligent or otherwise; not insight; not logic; not even righteous indignation. So what is it?

              1. There’s a whole school of theatre named after what it is; and it’s nothing new that there’s a school of blogging that goes by the same name: Absurd. Fortunately there’s over-the-country medicine warriors can swallow to treat the worst symptom. (Household Hint: Don’t blame salmonella in the peanut butter; it ain’t peanut butter.)

              2. It’s confidence. And facts. You’re the one who has to have five Ward Churchill footnotes for everything, because you argue against what everyone knows is true.

                You have small brains and smaller penises. It’s why redblooded American men service your slutty liberal wives.

                1. You have small brains and smaller penises

                  Any wonder why Colorado voters are voting increasingly Democratic?

                  Does this sort of rhetoric enhance Republican arguments?

                  Keep if up, GOPWarrior.  You might singlehandedly swing the next election.

                    1. You want to tell her personally?  Or do you want to personally explain your use of terminology.  I’m sure she wouldn’t be pleased.  One vote lost.

                      God I love you, warrior.  You’re everything that’s wrong with your party.

                      PLEASE keep posting.  

                2. Poor, poor pitiful you. Besides apparently being unable to write at better than middle school level, you’re mistaking me for someone else. I don’t post footnotes, let alone “Ward Churchill” footnotes, whatever they are.

                  Turds like you get flushed off the board by reasonable, fact-based postings. If this is a sign of things to come, you’ll be gone by the end of the month.

                  1. You’re here because you want to smear Republicans, and circle jerk with other people who want to smear Republicans. And the anonymous Govs manipulate the conversation against Republicans when absurdly claiming to be “non partisan.”

                    Any of this ringing a bell? You can kiss my ass. The legislature is a wreck, Dems care more about passing gay benefits than cutting the budget, and Ritter turned out of be a huge mistake for you guys–he came CRAWLING BACK to Josh Penry. Fuck you guys.

                    We are going to win it all back, and then I will laugh at you. Stupid.

                    1. No, because none of it’s true.

                      See? This is both reasonable and fact-based.

                      As an aside, here’s a tip – consistency will earn you points. Don’t post stuff about sexing up liberal women (like a buffoon like you could get the time of day out of one) and then whine “real mature” when someone gibes it back to you. It’s one thing to be a troll, but another to be a hypocrite.

                    2. I’m guessing your about 15 years old based on the phrases you use. The problem you’re facing is that rather than buttress your arguments with facts and links to reputable sources, you use derogatory statements the rest of us last heard when we were in High School. The problem for you with this is that we immediatley discount you as a bimbo.

                      And I say this as someone who has been at times supportive of GOP candidates and positions on some of the issues.  I’ve voted for Republicans. I think the Republicans are right on some issues.

                      But you are a waste of oxygen and are hurting the Republican cause.

                1. A “warrior” who’s too cowardly to even think about combat.

                  Bet you think you’re just like those soldiers in Iraq, risking their lives every day, except smarter.

    1. I won’t disagree that about your “deteriorating environment,” but I think it’s for just about everybody — Democrat & Republicans. Bennet happens to be the incumbent here, but if you are going to buy this poll, then you have to buy the absolutely miserable numbers of the GOP as well.  

  3. It’s just the beginning of the erosion for Bennet. We have several people who can kick his ass we get to pick from. It’s over, he should just concede and let Andy “Pastyface” Romanoff lose like a man.

          1. The battle lies with the independents, and Democrats have done a good job (like with this blog) keeping Republicans pinned down with their pansy bullshit so independents vote the wrong way. We’ll fix that and your time in power will end.

            1. but I find it amusing how for many right-wingers, posting comments on a political blog is considered being a “warrior.” This in spite of the fact that there’s a real actual war going on.

              For more on this, see the announcement of the Red State Strike Force!

            2. So in 2006 and 2008, Republican corruption, hypocrisy, and incompetence were merely temporary. Thing will be different next time. Honest.

              But how about those declining registration numbers? Maybe you can share why that’s occurring.

        1. and, you know what, your right, most Americans are probably center-right but the Republican Party’ problem is it isn’t a center-right party any longer. It is dominated by radical extremeist (they’re not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination) who are far to the right of the center-right position; thus leaving the Democrats far closer to the center-right position and therefore the victors in the last two eleciton cycles.

          Using the term “conservtive” as a self descriptive term doesn’t mean you are a conservative or that the voters believe you are.

          1. 60% of Americans believe the federal bailouts for banks and other financial institutions were a bad idea. Certainly this indicates some center rightness.

            1. so much as people seeing the banks being given a free ride to correct their mistakes. And there is a large element of truth to that.

              So there’s bi-partisian agreement that the bank bailouts, as structured, suck big time.

          2. Republicans have become Democrat-lite.  They are far less conservative than during, say, the Reagan years.  Can you imagine Reagan approving the bailouts?  The reality is we are in the big government era of Bush and Obama.  Bush let far too much spending go through and Obama has taken it to an extreme.  What we need is a party of small government.  The Republicans might get there, but right now we have a party of pretty big government and another party of massive government.

            1. 1.  Terminating funding for public education (John Andrews);

              2.  Torture; and

              3.  Invading countries without any basis for it.

              I can’t.  But when you say Bush let far too much spending go through, please remember the deficits piled up by President Reagan were at the time, the largest budget deficits in our history. He cut taxes and then kept on spending. His excuse was “I propose and Congress disposes.” He never tried to cut the deficits until he was confronted with the fact his tax cuts simply didn’t stimulate the economy enough to bring in the tax revenues required to balance the budget. Reagan certainly wasn’t a total bust like our last President but a great deal of Republican mythology has been built up around his image that simply isn’t true.

                1. I was referring to what some present day Republican leaders advocate which is terminating public funding for K through university educaiton.  Reagan wanted to eliminate the federal department of education which would not have temrinated K through 12.  Reagan never advocated terminating the state public school systems.

      1. The Democrat Party base is unmotivated for Ritter. This poll says Bennet too.

        I’ll take any bet where I can say the Dems are fucked. And because I’m not a dirty fucking hippie like these pajama-clad lib bloggers and I have money, they’d take me up on that bet if you had any money. Too bad they don’t.

        They could always go upstairs and ask Mommy for some.

        1. Of course, we’re coming to TAKE all your money–right out of your hands, and out of your great-great-great-great grandkids’ hands while you’re all off stewing in your juices–and throw you into the eternal hell of the Modern Social Democratic Welfare State, you ol’ warrior you. Hell, we learned this from you!

          Watch out for that Volvo comin’ up on the left with an Obama sticker!

          Could be anyone, anytime. Oooooooooo. Don’t you just love robbin’ the rich to give to the poor? Talk about Round Trips in your Subaru Sherwood Forester!

  4. Sayeth (some) Dems on this blog: “Anything unfavorable to Boy Bennet means the poll is faulty.”

    Sayeth Republicans on this blog: “Statements that our party is entirely bankrupt of ideas, having led the country in to one glorious mess, are not right because they make Republicans look like morons, and that just can’t be, we don’t care what the facts are. No no no no no.”

    Democrats need to find and promote a credible candidate whose very first run for public office is not the U.S. Senate! No doubt Bill and Hizzonor are buddies, and the mayor wanted to do another favor for the BoyChild he never had, BUT that doesn’t mean it was a good decision on any grounds, including Bennet’s ability to run an election OR function in a political environment beyond the City and County of Denver (directions: take InterPolitics Highway 70 to Exit 3C South and proceed straight to dead end).

    Democrats in particular MUST get over the idea, and now, that Bennet is some sort of shoo-in, either for the nomination or for election (NOT re-election). The momentum here, as in the rest of the country, is on the side of Barack Obama. Which candidate best fits that mold?

    Where the hell is Andrew Romanoff? Time to get moving, brother.

    1. Hubris, overreach, and eventually corruption will take down the (D)s, just as it took down the (R)s.  It’s just human nature.

      Question is – will the (R) party in its current form last long enough to see it happen, or will some other party be there to step in when the (D)s auger in?

    2. I doubt that Romanoff was ever seriously considering a primary against a guy who can raise $1.4 million in a single quarter. Not to mention that a primary would be fractious, unnecessary, and just plain ridiculous. What exactly is your problem with Bennet besides that he was appointed and isn’t Andrew Romanoff? And, more importantly, what potential problem would be serious enough that you would put this seat in even jeopardy by encouraging a resource-draining primary?

      1. (Don’t worry, I’m not planning to introduce rational discourse on this blog, God forbid.)

        Problem 1: Bennet has never proved he can be elected to public office. This is not at all the same thing as raising money. That’s a prerequisite, not a qualification.

        Problem 2A: Is Bennet a Democrat? What in fact does he stand for?

        Problem 2B: Does the Republican Party still exist outside the Confederacy? Not “Republican warriors” mind you; I mean the Republican Party as a meaningful institution with the least clue what it thinks about anything. I didn’t think so either, which isn’t to say some brand new Nut Case won’t spend money in this race.

        Problem 3: The fact that Bill Ritter appointed Bennet does not mean Bennet is therefore the One and Only Democratic occupant of Seat #2 (or is it Seat #1?) from now until he resumes his Horse Doctor of the North role, or whatever it is that occupants of that seat do. (No, I forget, that’s Seat #2, or is it Seat #1? How confusing this is for a such a simple place!)

        Non-problem 4: Primaries need not be destructive–witness the presidential election of 2008 in which the primary was huge, lasted foreeeeeever, and Voila! This was the essence of HRC’s argument–“Got it locked up; wanna be my Veep?” (BTW, she looked great in the House today!)

        Non-problem 5: Unclear to me that Colorado will have too much trouble attracting campaign contributions in 2010…especially since no licensed mortician will be willing to bury the Colorado Republican Party before November of next year. Raising $1.3 million in a quarter is okay, BUT… was anyone else competing? Should candidates more likely to win the election be therefore ruled out on the basis of an Easy Fruit Picking Non-Contest? The people, brother, have never uttered a peep! (Yeah, I actually go for that stuff. Bennet could be the only candidate in the race who has never been elected to as much as the Aurora City Council, a natural stepping-stone to the United States Senate.)

        Last, Problem 6. Making good on my vow not to resort to rational discussion, I submit that BoyChild Bennet lacks gravitas, Wesleyan and Yale notwithstanding. Not entirely his fault, be it said, but at the same time, would Susan Boyle be elected? [Come to think of it… “Cry Me a River (and Water Rights to Go with It), You Sexy Smoocher You” might just get somewhere ’round ’bouts…). What if the Senate stays in session past 8:00–can he still remember parliamentary procedure? (“Now you quiet down, you ill-behaved boys, or I’ll call Daddy!”) Life in the Visual Age, etc.

        1. maybe this is getting too much into “rational discourse,” but most of your problems seem to be more statement of fact than reasons to risk a primary.

          1- Bennet hasn’t been elected, true statement of fact, but who cares so long as he does the job. If you don’t think he is electable state-wide that’s one thing, but I don’t see where you’ve given a reason why he isn’t.

          2- This is silly, he voted for the stimulus package, supports universal healthcare, and overall, using government as a positive force for enacting change. That seems to be the main “qualification” in my mind for being a Democrat. Plus, most importantly, he will vote for a Democrat (Harry Reid or whomever) for majority leader and other leadership. Do you doubt that? Didn’t think so.

          On the standing of the Republican party, again, so what? How is their collapse relevant to supporting a primary to Bennet?

          3- Again, statement of fact, no duh this isn’t his “rightful” seat or his forever, but he’s in it, why does this mean we should primary him because he holds the seat now? (Admittedly it would be hard to primary him if he didn’t, but this whole point seems to be a non-sequiter).

          4- There is a difference between presidential and senate elections. Obama had a crap-load of money, so spending on the primary wasn’t a huge deal, plus the prevailing anti-Republican attitude would have made it hard for any democrat not to be elected regardless of what happened in the primary. Not so much now if there is any backlash against the economy or current Democratic priorities.

          5- Ummm, maybe, but so what. Bennet is raising money, that’s great, maybe someone else could have raised the dough too but why does that mean we should support the person who could have “potentially” raised money? Makes no sense to me.

          6- I’ll conclude with another, so what? Does every politician need to be a JFK, Lincoln, or Obama? So long as they vote for the Democratic majority leader, work for their constituents, and act in accordance with reason and humanity, what more do you need?

          The charge still stands, maybe a primary wouldn’t harm him. Maybe the Republican party is in shambles enough, and the Democrats are strong enough, but why would you want to risk it? Which of your “problems” are actually problems worthy of outing a senator who appears for all intensive purposes, to be doing well and acting in accordance with Democratic principles?

        2. I’m bored, so I’ll keep playing:

          1. One of the big drawbacks to selecting Andrew Romanoff over the other mentioned names was that he’s never played the fundraising game at a high level. I thought that was a canard at the time when I argued for picking him, and I think your objection here is a canard as well. Also, Gary Hart never held office before running for US Senate, and he didn’t have the advantage of incumbency at the time.

          2. It was not by accident that this guy was a serious contender to be Obama’s Education Secretary. He’s a fine Democrat. The Litmus Test routine isn’t flying.

          3., 4. Prying through the gibberish here leaves me saying, so what? I think a primary would be fun, actually, but I think the idea of a serious challenge is off the table by now. If an activist/blogger challenger manages to get on the ballot, I think that would be fun. Plus, the presidential primary analogy doesn’t apply here anyway — that dog don’t hunt. So I call that a non-problem.

          5. Raising $1.4 million in the first quarter of the off-year just after the longest, most expensive presidential campaign in history is a feat. We are not talking low-hanging fruit. When a primary challenger gets in who can bank $1 million in a couple of months, come back then.

          I’m sorry, but your random goalposts don’t really amount to much, and your complaints sound like Old Lady nitpicking — not arguments for a primary challenge.  

    3. but I don’t think Andrew Romanoff would be stupid enough to become Colorado’s next Mike Miles. I would have liked for Andrew to have been appointed, but I can distinguish between a process and a person. Unfortunately, many of Bennet’s Democratic detractors can’t.

      As to credibility of candidacy, there are two things you have to accept: (1) Bennet is proving he is a first class fundraiser; and (2) he has demonstrated a pattern of event-based, face-to-face engagement all across the state. Hence, he is showing he will be competitive in an expensive media market, and he is showing he works hard at the ground level. A candidate who can do both of those at once is very credible indeed.

      It now being April, January’s complaints don’t have quite the same ring to them.  

      1. Bennet never responds to letters/messages. His predecessor Salazar always did…even if with a mere form on a different subject (once). Ditto Udall. Even the Horse Doctor. This is programming, not epistle production. Get with the program, Michael. Your staff aren’t beginners! But they do what you make sure they do. This isn’t about my ego; it’s about his amateurism. If he thinks he can be elected merely on the basis of $$$ donated at this stage, well… he should have been in school, not at the head! Still, lots of ex-financiers may still believe Money Talks No Rich Man Walks. That’s so yesterday.

        1. because he isn’t answering your letters?

          I’m sorry but that just seems juvenile to me. I don’t mean to be rude, but c’mon, aren’t there bigger things to worry about then his ability to generate form letters?

          1. Those pesky form letters are a way for the politician to engage with an interested  constituent. They can write a detailed response outlining their position that is likely to be read. and they control the message; they can frame it however they want. That’s a lot more than they get with any newspaper article or campaign ad.

            So, sure, it’s shallow, but it tends to generate some warm fuzzies and might lead to more campaign volunteers or contributions.

        2. I guess we can just ignore my two points and focus on your failure to receive a form letter or whatever. One time Wayne Allard’s sent back a letter on an unrelated piece of legislation. It really irritated me. Yet somehow, Allard wasn’t primaried at the next election. Still scratching my head over that one. Oh well.

          Something tells me that Michael Bennet, who has been driving the state relentlessly, is on the whole doing a pretty good job of constituent outreach.

          Try again?

        3. Her refusal to give attention to any particular constituent is grounds for throwing her out of office. That’s not true for anyone else.

          Get with the program, JO.

          By the way, the only Senator who was good about sending detailed on-topic responses to my letters was Rick Santorum, when I lived in PA. He was also by far the worst Senator who’s ever represented me.

        4. With that said, Bennet is definitely going to every meeting of more than 4 Democrats to talk to them. And he is also still staffing up (although he should have just grabbed 90% of Salazar’s staff) and so things like this are not being handled well.

          I agree, legit complaint and you should bring it up. And if it’s still happening in 3 months – that’s a significant problem.

          1. Bennet did retain most of Salazar’s staff, which is widely known.

            One anecdote does not a pattern make, so I don’t think you are in a position to make a judgment such as, “things like this are not being handled well.”

            The point here is that a thread that started with “Democrats need to find and promote a credible candidate…” quickly moved from faux-analysis to nitpicky whining about form letters in very short order. Michael Bennet has proven he is a viable candidate, and in the face of evidence only cognitive dissonance allows one to argue otherwise.

            The way I see it, be pissed about the pick, but don’t be disingenuous about the job the guy is doing and his viability as a candidate solely because you are pissed at Ritter for picking him. The confusion between process and person is really annoying. It’s the chief reason why the “Draft Andrew” guys fell apart in about two days.

            1. [I didn’t say down the river…, you blubbering idiot–but that’s another song, another place.] (a) Why should I go to the front door for Michael Bennet? Who is this guy…? What has he ever actually accomplished besides get a job w/ Hizzonor? What sorta of great job is he doing as New Boy? Bangs the gavel authoritatively when he’s on CSPAN? “E” for effort? (b) “In the running for Ed Sec,” eh? Are you still readin’ the Rocky–or wasn’t that their exclusive? Where’d he place in that race? (Ans: Second Grade Homeroom.) At least that would have made some sense–appointive position, related to education… (c) “Only a faux would disagree with me, you Snickersnack!” [Slithy Toes] (d) “Proven he can be a viable candidate” = persuaded big donors to give early? Why? ‘Cause it’s cheaper to buy an office if you can knock out the competition early? Is what they call the New New Math in DPS? The New Driven Snow League counts this against Bennet, not for him. (e) Guilty as charged; I think basic constituent services, such as sending out form reply letters, is a necessary part of becoming a viable candidate. Has he fixed this? I wouldn’t know…why would I? I’m too busy bitching about the weirdo choice our dismally ineffective governor has foisted upon us. (BTW, taken your ol’ ‘lectric car through the Silicon Valley of Green Energy springing up on State Highway 128 here? No, neither have I. Oh well, at least he’s sincere, so who cares about effective? Right? Right? Right!) (f) If Bennet is such a safe seat, are we to interpret this as further evidence of the Utter Idiocy of the Republicans who can’t wait to waste their money running against him? [OK, I admit… The Who? Still, if they have any hopes outside the Confederacy, they seem to think it’s here.] OTOH, if a primary yielded a really strong candidate, that would be a different matter. Might objections to a challenge at this stage be a symptom of Extreme Anxiety Komplex…EAK? Last..quick! Four of my neighbors and one small dog are talking on the driveway across the street and they’re all Democrats…get Bennet over here and he’ll be elected!!! [Shit, they went inside before I could type the last exclamation point. Oh well, that proves it. We’ve gotta nominate Bennet, ain’t no choice, never was.]

                1. …I drink it, per above, from Caleb at Veritas (2 for $8, three for $6).

                  But point taken.

                  You want more Return engagements.

                  Can do.

                  BTW you passed the Herzenbracker-Schnitzelbergen Attention Retention Test with flying colors.


                1. No, I don’t think Michael Bennet has a file on you. I don’t think the UN is out to get you. I don’t think al Qaeda watches you masturbate.

                  I do think your mom wishes you’d stop wetting the bed. But I think she’s learned to accept disappointment from you.

  5. It is Great To Be A Republican and Rich with the ability to ignore stupid Democrats!

    LOL, if the economy does not come back the Democrats are doomed no matter who runs against a Democrat.

    You people are still up to the same game, calling people shills, poor writers, demeaning personal comments, about any Conservative who has a view on this fourm.

    Democrats are sad people.

    1. The presence of one obnoxious troll brings another out of hiding! Is this how you begin your mating ritual?

      Funny how you all think you speak for all conservatives, too. There’s a reason why Haners, Newsie, Yokel, or Another Skeptic never speak up in solidarity with you, GOPwhiner, et al.

  6. You Dems on this site are not worth wasting time on since you hate all conservatives. But I just love to bring out the worst in all of you it is just too much fun! LOL

    1. And WE are LOL to think that we bring out the BEST in you, as in: “That’s it????”

      Still, why not encourage Republicans make the case for (a) improved education and (b) social services networks for the developmentally disabled by encouraging them to offer evidence of just how severe these problems can be in the form of their own posts online, freely given, no enhanced interrogation techniques required!  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

94 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!