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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 13, 2010 07:49 PM UTC

New poll shows Buck/Norton expand lead over Bennet; Romanoff makes some gains against either

  • 108 Comments
  • by: MikeD1970

A new poll out this morning shows that Ken Buck is expanding his lead against Michael Bennet in a hypothetical matchup.  If Buck and Bennet are the nominees, Buck is nearing the 50% mark and keeping Bennet below 40%.

A hypothetical with Romanoff shows Buck with a significantly smaller lead, .5% outside the margin of error (with a 4.5% MoE).

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Colorado finds Buck earning 48% support against incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennett who gets 39% of the vote.

If former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff is his Democratic opponent, Buck leads by a narrower 47% to 42% margin.

A month ago, Buck posted a 46% to 41% lead over Bennet and a 45% to 39% lead over Romanoff.

Here are the raw numbers:

Buck v Bennet     48-39

Buck v Romanoff   47-42

Norton v Bennet   47-40

Norton v Romanoff 44-42

Favorable/Unfavorable ratings:

Bennet, the former superintendent of the Denver schools, is viewed Very Favorably by 18% and Very Unfavorably by 30%.

Twenty-five percent (25%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Romanoff, while 18% regard him Very Unfavorably.

For Buck, Very Favorables total 11% and Very Unfavorables 14%.

Nineteen percent (19%) share a Very Favorable view of Norton, but 22% see her Very Unfavorably.

This is the first poll (that I know of) since all 4 candidates have been advertising on TV (including 527 ads for Buck).  Romanoff went on most recently, and has improved his percentages since the last poll.  Bennet, who recently made another large television buy, has slipped more against both Buck and Norton.

Source:

http://www.rasmussenreports.co…

Tweet
Share

Comments

108 thoughts on “New poll shows Buck/Norton expand lead over Bennet; Romanoff makes some gains against either”

  1. I wrote that I see Romanoff’s upward shift partially due to him finally getting up on TV.  It’s been about a week, and should be increasing his name ID (it’s a straightforward message that should help as well).

    Norton is pretty much the same as before, which isn’t overly surprising.

    Buck is clearly benefiting from increased media attention (good or bad, at least they are spelling his name right).

    What I can’t figure out is Bennet.  His unfavorable is high and he is doing worse than previously.  Is it Romanoff’s attacks?  The Republicans attacks?  Are his ads turning people off for some reason (they seem pretty nondescript to me)?

      1. While Bennet is more closely tied to Obama because of the endorsement, if Obama was the cause we would probably not see Romanoff’s numbers improve like they have.  Obama is the public head of the party Romanoff is part of.

        While Obama’s numbers have decreased we haven’t seen anything like the 2008 backlash against Bush that brought a lot of Republicans down.

        1. I think there is still a large number of blue dog, Hillary supporters who resent the hijacking of their party by the left. I don’t really know what else it could be. I guess maybe the fact that he’s never run for office or won an election before?

    3.             Buck      Romanoff     Net

      May         45        40           +5

      June        45        39           +6

      July         47        42           +5

      Seems pretty consistent to me.  The real shift is not because Romanoff went up, it is because Bennet is going down.

                 Buck     Bennet       Net

      May         48       41           +7

      June        46       41           +5

      July         48       39           +9

      I think the focus should not be on why Romanoff is doing better,in fact he is not, rather why Bennet is doing worse.

    4. Anyone stupid enough to cite a Rasmussen poll has to be willing to take this bet:

      I’ll bet anyone $100 that Michael Bennet beats Andrew Romanoff in the primary.

      If you’re not willing to bet, then you’re simply not worth paying any attention; i.e., this diary is just meaningless blather.

      2. Rasmussen has a bad rep. for letting the person/group paying for the poll dictate the demographics of those asked. You ask more R’s, the R candidate does better, etc.

        Since I don’t know who paid for this poll and what demogrphics were used to poll, I have no way of knowing the accuracy of the results.

        1. I believe that you’re right, and so I think it’s important to look at a variety of polls and how the polling trends over time.

          Bennet does consistently have a problem with his favorable/unfavorable ratings.

          Not saying that this particular poll is more/less credible, but that there are some patterns that are emerging in a lot of polling on this race.  I would be curious to see another agency confirm that Romanoff is, in fact, trending better against either Republican candidate, but for now this is the poll we have.

          1. Look it up and report back.

            I know that would be all facty and sourced, but hey, there’s plenty of rounding error in the poll to keep you happy.

            1. But they are usually paid for. May be a candidate, a political party, a group of media outlets or an a non partisan group that tracks voting trends, but Rasmussen makes its money from charging some entity to conduct polls for them.

              1. Ras doesn’t report much about their polls.

                Client, questions, answers, method, model, etc.

                But bj doesn’t know that- and has no sources nor facts.

  4. One thing is crystal-clear in these results.  Andrew Romanoff is the choice we Democrats need to rally behind.  We need to see that since he’s in a statistical dead heat with either Republican, he’s the best choice to help us keep this seat.  His favorables are on the way up, and all most people need are a glimpse of him to decide he’s the one.  The ads he’s gotten on the air, bought and paid for by Coloradans, are showing progress already.

    Get on board, Dems!

    1. Bennet’s unfavorables are somewhere in the neighborhood of BP’s (one of the oil companies that are funding his TV ads).

      Bennet can’t win the general.  Either Romanoff takes him out or the Republicans do.  It’s a clear choice — if we want to keep the seat in Democratic hands Romanoff is the candidate.

        1. Romanoff campaign manager Bill Romjue questioned the poll’s validity because it was an automated poll.

          Rasmussen. Is. Automated.

          Andrew’s folks (and him) are just a PAC of hypocrites anymore…

          1. often helpful if you claiming to quote something.

            Both campaigns will spin polls that are for/against them of course.  There is a serious trend on general election matchups — Bennet can’t win the general.

            1. I just highlighted the hypocrisy.

              But I’m happy to post it again.

              http://www.greeleytribune.com/…

              Romanoff campaign manager Bill Romjue questioned the poll’s validity because it was an automated poll.

              Rasmussen. Is. Automated.

              Didn’t Romjue make sure ya’ll were on message in this morning’s meeting?

            2. Rasmussen (which was hired by the NRCC, FOX News, Bush, and favored McCain) is known for pushing an agenda.  It’s no surprise they want to prop up Speaker Romanoff, they know he would be easier to beat.

              He has no message

              He has no resources

              He has no organization

              He doesn’t stand for anything

              He is only running because he’s scared of getting a real job

              He would be a dream for the GOP

              1. Ok CityParkRebel — you really think these are rigged?  Show us how it’s done.  What is wrong with the methodology?  How are they rigging it to show Romanoff as stronger v. the Republicans?

                You want to prove you’re not just making shit up?  Bring some facts.

                Romanoff has a strong message, he has offices and staff around the state, and he’s gained national attention for the his views.

                1. Andrew gained national attention because he’s involved in a job scandal. I’m sure that’ll play well in the general.

                  Here’s a few clips that outline some of the problems with Rasmussen:

                  Politico:

                  Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist, said there was “huge concern right now” that Rasmussen was polling a universe of largely conservative-minded voters.

                  “How is Rasmussen selecting likely voters almost a year before the election? And why would you even screen for likely voters in measuring presidential approval?” said Abramowitz. “My guess is that it’s heavily skewed toward older, white, Republican voters.”

                  http://dyn.politico.com/prints…

                  Nate Silver:

                  The bottom line is this: the sample included in Rasmussen’s polling is increasingly out of balance with that observed by almost all other pollsters. This appears to create a substantial house effect, irrespective of whether Rasmussen subsequently applies a likely voter screen.

                  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

                  And finally, this other analysis from Nate Silver shows why Andrew is doing so well. Normal people don’t take these polls. Activists do. That’s Andrew’s base. But there are a lot of other voters out there. And they don’t know him or like his style. That’s why he’s going to lose.


                  In general, if you’re trying to understand what makes Rasmussen polling “different”, the key heuristic is to assume that their polls are suffering from significant self-selection bias, and that the people who respond to their polls are significantly more likely to be active consumers of political news. This is probably why Rasmussen polls tend to show extremely large “bounces” associated with seemingly banal political events, and why they tend to show good results for candidates associated with activist movements, even if those candidates are barely known among the broader public. In essence, they’re about half-way toward being polls of political junkies. (I’d love to see the percentage of people in their polls who claim, for instance, to have donated to political candidates, something which we could cross-check against FEC records; I’d bet you that it’s very high.)

                  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

                  Keep wallowing in your misleading polls folks, there’s a reason Rasmussen earns little to no respect outside of Fox News these days…

                  1. you had that pretty quick.  Guess the Bennet camp was prepared for more bad polling.

                    Let’s walk through this.  I’m not a polster (and I’m guessing you’re not either, but please correct me I’m mistaken).

                    The politico piece looks at the presidential tracking poll — that’s an interesting note.

                    If we agree that conservatives are more energized this cycle (the out-of-power party often is), then it does make sense that there are more conservatives in “likely voters.”  They couldn’t actually prove that Rassmussen did that however — so it’s speculation.  Even if true though, it might be a fair screen.  Campaigns, polsters, etc all want to interview “likely voters.”  Talking to random people who won’t vote doesn’t matter, as…well…they won’t vote.

                    As for your activist claim, well if that’s true then I guess all polling is useless?  That would be the actual logical end of your claim.

              2. I never pay attention to Ras polls even if they show my guy ahead. Next poll may show something completely different depending on who is paying for the poll.

                1. It stopped being funny a long time ago.

                  Now that I realize how anxious Bukcredo and Norton/McCain are to get us into a shooting war in Iran and to go to war against our own president, it’s not even close to funny.

                  We’re busy talking about backbone tour busses, interns and photoshop – they’re busy unifying the and GOTV the R base.

                  1. It’s why even though I find the campaign Andrew has run completely detestable, I will vote for him if he wins the primary. Andrew on his worst day is better than Norton or Buck (or any Tea Ass Hat) on their best.  

            1. bj- go look it up.

              I know, I know, stats is the disrespected math. ALl those rounding errors and confidence intervals.

              But if you open a book or find a source you’ll find you are wrong.

              Automated do have advantages- but they also have disadvantages. And while they are more accurate sometimes, they are more in accurate more often.

              Depends on whom is called and who responds.  And what they are asked.  And whether they respond honestly.

        2. it was an automated they paid a company for.

          So you drag up a month old poll?  Month old polling is a lot like month old bread — you just need to throw it away.

          1. You can’t have your cake and eat it to, Speaker Romanoff.  You blast these “automated polls” when they’re bad for you (most of them) and praise them when they’re good for you (occasionally Rasmussen).

            Survey USA and Rasmussen use the same method of polling.

            1. since you are claiming that the other one is valid, you also think this is?

              So Romanoff was down in the primary a month ago when Bennet was dominating TV.  Since Romanoff has gone on the airwaves and Bennet is starting to get bad press, Romanoff is clearly shown to be the stronger general election candidate.

              Glad we can agree that Bennet will get destroyed if he’s the democratic nominee.

              Check.

              You are using a month old primary poll to dispute a general election poll — you don’t see the problem there?  This is showing how Romanoff or Bennet would fair against the republicans.  Your poll was Romanoff v Bennet.  Point being Romanoff is the stronger election candidate — a message that democrats should pay heed to.

              1. I’ll try to use smaller words this time to help you understand. If I had pretty pictures and crayons, I’d use them as well but you work with what you’ve got.

                According, “according” is a big word… let me start again.

                I’m not questioning the legitimacy of the methodology, I’m questioning the legitimacy of the pollster.  Andrew Romanoff was the one who attack the methodology when the Survey USA poll, which is well respected throughout the political world, found him getting trounced. Now he wants to forget about those comments and prop up this poll.

                Just simply pointing out that Speaker Romanoff wants to have it both ways — but that is his record, isn’t it?  

                Romanoff pretends to be a progressive but we all know his record.  He says he won’t take PAC money but he ran a PAC and probably only turns it down because no one will back him. He says he’ll run a positive campaign but is running a scorched earth campaign (a sign of desperation).  His words don’t align with his actions.

                1. You keep saying Romanoff wants to have it both ways.  Maybe I missed it, but has he jumped onto ColoradoPols to talk about this new poll?

                  Frankly, it doesn’t matter what any candidate/campaign wants to say about these — their job is spinning them to the best positive light.

                  The simple truth is that poll after poll shows Bennet can’t win the general election.  You can try and spin it away, but the numbers are plain in front of you.

      2. Otherwise, Stryker, you’d be a hypocrite.

          Oh, this just in  — you’ve already said you will never support the Democratic Party’s choice if it disagrees with yours.  

          What a guy!  

        1. I’m not a hypocrite.  Your point was that dems need to unify — not mine.  I was showing how using your logic Bennet should be the one dropping out.

            1. I’ll vote as I see fit.  The whole point is that there are a large block of people that will vote Romanoff if he’s the candidate who will not vote for Bennet.

              Sorry that you can’t actually understand that it was your argument that is screwing you here, but once again, in simple words:

              Bennet can not win the general election.  Since you think the party should unify, then Bennet should drop out to support the stronger candidate — Andrew Romanoff

              1. You don’t give a damn about the Democratic party and are doing your damnest to elect Ken Buck by promoting the bitterest possible Democratic primary.  You’ve sworn to vote for Buck in the General if Romanoff wins and are doing the best you can to insult Bennet voters to make sure they won’t vote for Romanoff if he wins.  So you are a hypocritical sack of crap to pretend to care about the Democratic Party winning this seat.  

                1. I never said I would vote for Buck.  In fact I won’t.  You can keep screaming, but it doesn’t really matter.  Find where I said it or shut the fuck up.  I’ll save you the trouble.  I didn’t say it.

                  Oh, and once again,

                  Bennet can not win the general election.  Since you think the party should unify, then Bennet should drop out to support the stronger candidate — Andrew Romanoff

                  1. You have said, repeatedly, that you won’t vote for Bennet if he beats Romanoff.  Objectively, that means you will help Buck, either by voting for him directly, or voting for a third party candidate, therefore siphoning off votes from the Democratic candidate.

                      Your reason for Arguing that Bennet can’t win the general election is that you will do everything you can to make sure Bennet can’t win the general election.

                      Now, admit that you are a lying sack of crap and be honest and admit you’re a buck provacateur.  Objectively, every word you type, including “a” “and” and “the” contributes to a Republican victory.

                     

                    1. what’s the point of a democratic majority if

                      they don’t vote for democratic values?  We could have 6 years of Senator Buck, and then run an actual progressive against him.  He said he only wanted one term anyway 😉

                      http://coloradopols.com/showCo…

                      I won’t vote Bennet

                      … I’ve decided that if he (bennet) pulls this off, despite all the information that is coming out him, I can’t in good conscious vote for the guy.  I would probably go 3rd party.

                      http://coloradopols.com/showCo…

                      I know this was a long, long time ago so it maybe hard to recall . July 5, 2010

                      I didn’t invent the term Pumanoff- but if the glove fits, smell it.

                    2. that’s not true.  No – I’m not a Buck fan in the slightest.  Again, please come up with your source or stop already.  It’s embarrassing for you.  If your plan is to continually change what you’re claiming I said, I guess you might eventually get it right.

                    3. If you think a 3rd party candidate could really be competitive, I stand corrected. And that’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard all day.

                      Otherwise, D’s voting 3rd party are only helping the R nominee.

                    4. At least BJ has principles and reasons for his support of Buck, not just a blind hatred of Norton.  I can respect his support for Buck, I can’t respect your shilling for Romanoff (and undercutting the chances of either Democrat of winning in November.)

                        You’re Bucks BFF.  Deal with it.

                  1. The Republican Party no longer accepts true conservatives, being exclusively the party of nihilists.  I’m now a Democrat and will support the winner of the Democratic Primary in November.

                      Realistically, I didnt leave the Republican Party as much as it left me — and all who care about the values espoused from Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt through Reagan (whom I supported.) Now, it’s the party of Doug Bruce and Grover Norquist.

    2. Glad to see you’re touting a Republican shill poll Andrea (sorry, was using your name outing you?)…

      Might note that it’s the only poll – EVER – to have had Bob Schaffer leading Mark Udall.

      http://www.pollster.com/polls/…

      They’ve really done a bang-up job here in CO so far. Wonder why their numbers are so different than, say, everyone elses…

      Rasmussen does polls like Styker/Firewalker/JO/whoever/our new friend MikeD do blogging.

      1. I just asked CityParkRebel the same thing.  You think something is wrong with the methodology?  Prove it.  How are they skewing numbers to show Romanoff as stronger AND the Republicans cleaning the floor with Bennet’s bad hair.

        You really think there is some grand conspiracy?  Prove it.  

        1. Andrew gained national attention because he’s involved in a job scandal. I’m sure that’ll play well in the general.

          Here’s a few clips that outline just some of the problems with Rasmussen:

          Politico:

          Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist, said there was “huge concern right now” that Rasmussen was polling a universe of largely conservative-minded voters.

          “How is Rasmussen selecting likely voters almost a year before the election? And why would you even screen for likely voters in measuring presidential approval?” said Abramowitz. “My guess is that it’s heavily skewed toward older, white, Republican voters.”

          http://dyn.politico.com/prints…

          Nate Silver:

          The bottom line is this: the sample included in Rasmussen’s polling is increasingly out of balance with that observed by almost all other pollsters. This appears to create a substantial house effect, irrespective of whether Rasmussen subsequently applies a likely voter screen.

          http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

          And finally, this other analysis from Nate Silver shows why Andrew is doing so well. Normal people don’t take these polls. Activists do. That’s Andrew’s base. But there are a lot of other voters out there.


          In general, if you’re trying to understand what makes Rasmussen polling “different”, the key heuristic is to assume that their polls are suffering from significant self-selection bias, and that the people who respond to their polls are significantly more likely to be active consumers of political news. This is probably why Rasmussen polls tend to show extremely large “bounces” associated with seemingly banal political events, and why they tend to show good results for candidates associated with activist movements, even if those candidates are barely known among the broader public. In essence, they’re about half-way toward being polls of political junkies. (I’d love to see the percentage of people in their polls who claim, for instance, to have donated to political candidates, something which we could cross-check against FEC records; I’d bet you that it’s very high.)

          http://www.fivethirtyeight.com…

          Like I said before, you guys are off message. Andrew will be calling soon, I’m sure. The campaign’s message last week was robo-polls suck. Stay on message.

          1. I asked the question of two people — you apparently took the tact that if you repeat yourself enough it’s true.

            I address your points the first time you say this.

      2. It is, after all, the name my saintly mother gave me.

        But I was under the impression that the Denver Post/Gannett poll was also an automated poll.

  5. I read through previous comments from a couple of the people; I see you all have histories of supporting Bennet or Romanoff.

    Somewhere lost in the middle are some facts.  I want to try and address a couple things that have been brought up:

    I don’t have a huge issue with automated polls.  Yes there are problems because the wrong person can answer or someone can press the wrong button, but at the end of the day it probably shakes out evenly for everyone.  That said, there are margins of error for a reason.

    I saw the SurveyUSA poll a bit ago — it was probably fairly accurate, as is this Rasmussen one.  I would not be surprised to learn that Romanoff was (is?) down in the primary.  Bennet has been running a very aggressive TV campaign that has increased his name recognition and given him the first chance to deliver a message with voters.  I would be very interested to see a more recent primary poll; that one is now dated and things change quickly in politics.

    Tied to that point, this is a general election poll that does not ask about the primary.  The results seem to track with previous polls — Buck is stronger for the Republicans, Romanoff stronger for the Democrats.

    Comparing the two doesn’t make much sense — they are polling different universes for a different race.

    1. First, welcome… second, you should look through the previous polls and tell me how this tracks.  Rasmussen has been sporadic from the beginning.  Their numbers change based on what narrative they want to communicate and how to best help Republicans.

      Clearly, they see Speaker Romanoff as the weakest candidate and are skewing the numbers to prop him up.  It is hard to find anyone who grants legitimacy to Rasmussen.  

      1. KayKay — you are the 3rd person to claim that they are somehow skewing their numbers to show Romanoff as stronger, but no one was actually backed this up with facts.  How exactly would they do that?  If you want to claim that they prop up republicans, that’s easy — they would interview more republicans.  How exactly would they be creating some magical universe that supports republicans AND romanoff?

      2. This is a decent list.

        You can see some Rasmussen, some PPP, SurveyUSA, etc.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…

        Jane Norton slips as time goes on, and Ken Buck picks up.  For the most part Romanoff does better against either than Bennet.

        It doesn’t (unfortunately) show the favorable/unfavorable over time.  I’ll poke around for somewhere that collects those (but if someone else knows please chime in).  Romanoff has generally had a positive favorable/unfavorable, Bennet negative.  I know that is available on Rassmussen’s site, but I’m not sure where to find it for others.

    1. Voyageur- If Bennet was leading against the Republicans you’re statement would make sense.  Rather, Romanoff is the one who can actually take on either Republican.  If you really believe what needs to happen is the dems unifying, then Bennet should go ask Anschutz for a new job so Romanoff can start the general election sooner.

      Bennet can’t win the general.  Romanoff can.  It’s that simple.

      1. and romanoff has positioned himself too far to the left to win in a state that likes centrists like Hickenlooper.

          Yes, it’s time for Romanoff to withdraw.  Maybe Hick will give him the lt. Gov. slot.

          1. I think the deadline for registering to attend the caucus was Jan. 15, which was ARs last chance to be a Republican.  Now, maybe the Whigs would take him as a vacancy candidate…  

            1. I think you have to be a registered party member for 12 months to run in that party’s primary.

              I could look it up – or just ask Kathleen Curry  – but it’s no longer funny.

        2. if you’re point is that the Dems need to unify now to take on the Republicans, then Romanoff is the candidate to go into the general.

          You say that Romanoff is too far left, but the polling says that Romanoff is better liked and stronger v. either Republican.  You can think whatever you want, but unless it’s grounded in fact it doesn’t really matter.

      2. When you declared that unless your candidate wins the primary, you will vote for the Republican, or perehaps a third party, but that under no circumstances will you vote for the choice of Colorado Democrats  if it disagrees with your personal preference.  

      3. I believe what Voyageur was hinting at was two fold.

        Primarily, that if the D’s and left leaning U’s unite Bennet will win the general.

        I suspect, with no proof, that V was also hinting that perhaps self identified “likely voters, who say they would vote for AR but say they would not vote for Bennet” (like you) are why we are risking losing the seat.

        Bennet can win the general.  But only if team Romanoff gets on board if Benett is the nominee.  If  you go all Pumanoff, then you give the race to Buck-credo or Norton-McCain.

        1. Here is a poll saying that Bennet can’t win the general.  It comes in a long line of polls that say Bennet can’t win the general.  Despite that, you say he can.  You offer no evidence and simply contradict.  Why exactly should we listen to you?

            1. This poll shows that Bennet is far behind and has a very negative approval rating.  It also shows that Romanoff is within striking distance and has a positive approval rating.

              The point is that these polls need to be a rallying cry for the primary — Bennet can’t win and dems need to realize that and get behind Romanoff.

              As far the poll you are citing, again it’s old.  It was prior to Romanoff getting on TV.  It was prior to allegations of the Bennet campaign selling access.

              1. which he’s going to do.  So, at that point, you’ll back him, right — or are you still the lousy hypocrite we all know you to be who says he’ll  vote Tea Party rather than Bennet?  Inquiring minds want to do, shill  boy.

                1. you all are getting good at this.

                  Here is yet another poll that shows Bennet can’t win the general and you want to make this conversation about anything but that point.

                    1. I appreciate your pushback on Stryker’s complete and total idiocy.

                      I tried it one night a week or two ago and I won’t do it it any more.

                      Reading shill-boy on a blog like this is like watching someone self-immolate.

              2. Don’t you find it a little convenient that just when you are in need of a new “rallying cry”  Rasmussen provides?

                Seriously- I can agree with  those who say we don’t really know whatinhell this poll is telling us, and won’t need to know or care in a few days when the real poll is in the field. (Not only the “real poll” the only one that matters – and hapily which has clear questions, clear methodology and by definition perfect timing.)

                D and progressive rallying cry right now is about Buck and his cowering to Tancredo.  Because you continually change the subject to Bennet/Romanoff and who has better hair or more base or whatever, I have to conclude that previous suspicions that you are just here to rile and divide the D’s is correct.

                Please, out someone and be gone.  Or just be gone.  

                1. you like changing the subject, but that’s the cold hard truth.  Bennet can’t win the general election.  Romanoff can.

                  It’s up to you to decide if you want to back a candidate who can take on Buck or Norton.

                  1. but why don’t you guys pick the guy you think would best represent your world view based on how much you like him and let the general take care of whether it makes any difference.  It was not too long ago that line was used by Norton et al and it is not exactly working out that way.  

                    1. Romanoff has the better platform and is the stronger candidate for the general.

                      So…actually I guess I can have it both ways 🙂

                  2. I’m not changing the subject.

                    I don’t care about Rasmussen. At this point I don’t care about any poll  but one. And we’ll have the results of that one soon enough.

                    Do you want to bet how that one will turn out?  I know a guy.

                    You an opinion as conclusion for which you have exactly three sources of information: Rasmussen, the D caucus/assembly, and your head/ass (I can’t tell the difference.)

                    My opinion is counter.  But I’ll vote against Norton-McCain and Buck-credo so whomever is the D nominee will have my support.

              3. around what has always been a Republican leaning poll? That’s your idea of unity? Or your idea of unity is voting 3rd Party if your guy doesn’t win the nomination? Or is your idea of Unity backing ONLY your candidate no matter what any poll states? I’m confused about what Party Unity is, please explain.

        2. It interferes with his ability to spew coffee all over the keyboard everytime I point out that his “Rule or Ruin — if my candidate doesn’t win Ill sulk and not vote” stance is somewhere between hypocrisy and stupidity–not that the two are mutually exclusive.  So far, his greatest claim to fame as a political analyst is his claim that

          Bennet is a shitty human being.

            A creep like that telling me how to unify the Democratic party makes me want to puke.

        3. It looks like I was reading V correctly.

          Further, I know I’m not a real Dem, nor a real Coloradan, nor a real person according to Campanoff, but I won’t be blackmailed into giving up my vote just because of PUMA’s like you.

          See I can do the math too- and I know if the PUMAnoffs are serious about sitting it out if your guy doesn’t get the nomination, Bennet cannot win.  SInce there has not been significant PUMAxcrement from Bennet supporters, your PUMAcy could lead on to the (wrong) conclusion that giving in to you is the best way to hold the seat D.  The best way to hold the seat D is to get behind the party, the President and the incumbent.  

          1. I mean it’s no surprise MADCO — it’s what you do every day on here.  Bennet gets stomped by the Republicans in nearly every poll, yet you claim that somehow he won’t if he’s actually the nominee.

            What party are you saying we should get behind?  I’m with the majority of members of the Colorado Democratic Party backing Romanoff.  You know — the democrats that voted for Romanoff over Bennet by 21 points at the state assembly.  Are you with the majority of county chairs backing Romanoff?  Are you with the majority of the state legislature backing Romanoff?

            1. who favor bennet b  17 points head to head.

              So answer my question, shill boy: Will you vote for the winner of the Democratic primary even if it isn’t the guy you’re shilling for?

                You really hate that question, don’t you?

                Because you know you are a hypocrfite to plead party unity when your real goal is rule or ruin.

              Answer the question, ShillBoy.  Will you vote for the winner of the Democratic primary even if it’s not the man you’re shilling for?

            2. I’m with Obama.

              I’m with America.

              I’m not a Democrat because some guy knocked on my door every cycle for the past howevermany years.  I’m not a D because I think the D party is so awesome and wonderful.  I’m not a D because I’ve always voted D.  I’m a Democrat because the party and CO law required me to be so I could caucus for Obama.

              Yes, I’m a Democrat   because I believe in creating economic and educational opportunities for all Americans, not just a select few. I believe we should empower all Americans to try and achieve their unique version of the American Dream. We should advocate for fairness, especially for better health care, and encourage responsibility, especially the government’s role in protecting our precious civil liberties and the environment.

              But I was perfectly happy believing all that when I was registered R and when I was registered U.

              I’m a D because I had to be to help the President.  My county chair is a great guy/gal.  Your’s could be too. So what?    I get to vote – and they don’t get to tell me whom to support.  (As for the legislature – I’m down with Mr. T. Carroll.  If anyone there could tell me what to do, it would be him.)

              Yes, Romanoff had a great caucus/assembly run.

              But how about that Ken Buck getting reprimanded by John Suthers and leaving the Clinton administration under a cloud?  How about Buck clearly being afraid of offending Tom Tancredo?

              And how about that lunatic Norton thinking that just because she leaves the AARP lobbying gig off her bio we’ll forget it ever happened? OR that she was handpicked by John McCain?

                  1. don’t know if you noticed, but Obama won the caucus states while Hillary won the primary states.

                    So I guess you support the caucus process when candidates you like win it but don’t when candidates you don’t like win it.

                    Got it.

                    1. A caucus is fine, if a bt exclusionary the way we do it here.

                      A voting primary is fine.

                      But we have both.

                      And that’s what makes CO’s primary process strange.  I would ask Senator Miles whether he would prefer a caucus/assembly or a voting primary, but, oh yeah.

                      Why both?

                      The exclusivity I can almost accept (voters are voters after all and should get to vote.    But the fact that in non-presidential years we have a caucus and then also vote seems…. redundant and therefore unnecessarily wasteful.  Ie, a strange process.

                      Let’s talk about it again after Aug when it doen’t matter to this cycle anymore.

                      Except I don’t think you’re going to be here.

                    2. to take it out of context of this race, consider it in the abstract.

                      Let’s say you have 8 people who want to be the democratic candidate for X office.  You do caucus/assembly, and only 3 make the cut based on percentage.  If the other 5 are serious, they can petition on.  Let’s say 1 is and fell short, and 4 are just random people with no real campaign.  Then we can have a primary of those 4 candidates and chose the nominee.

                      It’s a nice system in my mind.

                    3. How about we have just a voting primary with more significant petitioning, fee process.

                      Then if there are 8 names, they each need 25,000 signatures – 2.5% of the registered D’s.   And they pay $5,000 to file.

                      That demonstrates the seriousness of their campaign.

                      Then we do instant runoff voting (look it up) and only get a nominee with real support.

                    4. it is an alternative.

                      Personally I like the community feel of the caucus — sitting and discussing candidates and issues with our neighbors, debating why to support different candidates.  I think it’s really a great example of democracy.

                    5. If that’s what really happened, I would too.

                      It’s not.  I mean maybe in some places, but not in most. Not most of the time.

                      ANd we could have other reasons to do something similar besides spending time. money and volunteer energy to decide what should be a coin toss – ballot sequence.

                    6. My precinct sat around a table and talked.  Believe it or not, we were even all civil 😉

                      Maybe that isn’t what happened everywhere, but we walked in with some undecideds and they engaged in conversation and ultimately joined a camp.

  7. This really has nothing to do with the Rasmussen poll, but seems like a good thread to mention it.

    This year’s primaries are poised to upset the standard notion of “likely primary voters.” This is because of the heavy use of an all-mail election process.

    It is the first year Colorado has allowed all-mail to be used in a primary, so our previously reckoned likely primary voters were the people who cared enough about the primary to get to a polling place and vote or cared enough to request mail ballots for every election.

    This election will likely see a goodly number of voters who have rarely, if ever, voted in a primary because it is now very easy for them to do so. The ballot will come to their house; all they have to do is fill it out and mail it back.

    The $64,000 question now is going to be how does that affect outcome. I have no clue, but it is a concept to consider when reading about one primary candidate doing better than another in the polls. I don’t think there is a really a reliable to guage it this year.

    1. No one can really say what the outcome will be with the changes.  I think it will also change how some people will make their decision.  So often people walk into a booth and just remember a few things.  Voters will have the opportunity to really sit and read about candidates before they vote.  The question is whether or not they will.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

110 readers online now

Newsletter

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