PPP Polling for President in Colorado

12 Comments

by: Colorado Pols

That’s the message we got last night–automated polling firm Public Policy Polling is surveying Colorado voters on the 2012 presidential elections. The poll begins with favorables on President Barack Obama, then compares Obama in a generic matchup between against a “conservative” or “Tea Party” Republican. After that, it’s a head-to head matchup between Obama and potential GOP contenders Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney. For good measure, respondents are asked at the end for their opinion of Gov. John Hickenlooper, Attorney General John Suthers, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Obviously, a poll this far from anything election-related can’t really tell us much, except that its existence shows national players are looking at Colorado very early in the 2012 cycle–PPP selected Colorado based on a vote on their website, which is itself frequented mostly by fellow pollsters and political junkies. With Colorado broadly considered a key presidential battleground next year, our state’s voters can expect to be inspected, dissected, and put on display as often as possible from here on out.

And admit it–even though you know it doesn’t mean much, you are curious, aren’t you?

12 thoughts on “PPP Polling for President in Colorado”

cologeek says:

February 6, 2011 at 5:28 pm

After all it’s been 3 whole months since the last election. Who can expect to go that long without being bothered about the next one?

Log in to Reply
1. redstateblues says:
  
  February 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm
  
  an important Denver municipal election in 3 months or anything.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. MADCO says:
    
    February 6, 2011 at 7:14 pm
    
    Let’s have big D primaries in CD’s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. And have a primary challenge to the President.
    
    The more contentious and bloody the better. Let’s start now. Or next month.
    
    In fact, let’s have big, bloody D primaries in CD 5 & 6 just becase, well because we can
    
    Then by the time we get to caucus 13 months from now, we’ll be so battle weary and battle tested, we’ll be ready for anything. Or so burned out we won’t care.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. redstateblues says:
      
      February 6, 2011 at 7:26 pm
      
      you want contentious D on D bloddletting, look no further than those Denver muni elections I mentioned. There are no fewer than four (five if you include the fact that there are two at-large seats) highly contentious races, with the Mayoral race being the blood-soaked gem.
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Ralphie says:
        
        February 6, 2011 at 7:41 pm
        
        “contentious bloodletting”
        
        I call it “natural selection.”
        
        Political Darwinism.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        MADCO says:
        
        February 6, 2011 at 7:52 pm
        
        But I’ve got no dog in that hunt.
        
        Just so whomever is elected isn’t a total dickhead.
        
        Log in to Reply
        
        Rainidog says:
        
        February 6, 2011 at 7:54 pm
        
        Log in to Reply
    2. Ray Springfield says:
      
      February 7, 2011 at 1:11 am
      
      I think that if we are going to have primaries now that we must insist that at least one candidate in each race pledge to state that their opponent changes votes for contributions, and then also insist that they never used the word corrupt.
      
      After all, what is a good primary without double speak skills.
      
      Log in to Reply