U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
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) Somebody
90%
10%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 14, 2008 10:40 PM UTC
42 Comments
Probably not. 55% of respondents were female, 45% male. 40% Dems, 36% Reps. And age-group & ethnic poll demographics didn’t appear to conform to the actual makeup of the Colorado voting population. If those polled were skewed to the moderate/left side of the equation, it may be that Obama isn’t as comfortably ahead as the results seem to indicate. But what do I know? Living here in the Springs, where Doug Lamborn has been and will be elected, gives one a jaundiced view of the judgement of one’s fellow Americans…
I saw a story today on another website (Huffington, I think), that said there is one demographic that doesn’t get polled – people who have ONLY cell phones, no land lines. This tends to be younger voters who would be more likely for Obama than McCain. The article said the lack of polling of this demographic could be responsible for a 2 percent difference in actual polling numbers.
I never get polled-on the other hand, I’m part of the only demographic that supports McCain, according to the poll. Geezers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your medicare…
But I always get the robo calls from candidates. Honestly, I would rather get polls on my cell then the robo calls (I’m Doug Lamborn, and I’m having a town hall meeting tonight-just like last night and tomorrow night)
and I not only got polled by the city of boulder about a month ago, but I get calls from candidates all the time, and not just robocalls, real people
Let’s be honest, it’s probably because you’re more important then me
At least he’s actually paying for his Robo-calls as opposed to filling your mail box with franked mail!
Do you have one of those easy-to-use cell phones with only nine huge buttons?
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Of course it’s July and low single digit leads are usually considered toss up. Leads of 9 points at this point are considered leaning. Still very good numbers for Obama and Udall in a state that has not voted for a Dem presidential candidate since Clinton’s first Perot assisted election (not since Johnson before that) and with Udall considerably more liberal than the most recent Dems to win state wide, Ritter and Salazar.
And found it did not make a difference. It might this time because Obama is pulling in more young people. But it also may not be significant.
The question is not does it miss a class of voters, it’s does that class vote differently from those they do hit.
Cell phone use has increased substantially, and in this particular election, Obama’s biggest supporters are disproportionately represented by cell phone users – and they’re groups Obama has specifically targeted for increased turnout.
There are some cell phone use polls out there right now, so we’ll see after the election if they’re a factor. Gallup separated their cell phone poll numbers from their landline poll numbers before Obama clinched the nomination and found that polling cell phones added 4% to Obama’s numbers vs. McCain. CBS says no detectable difference so far, but it’s early.
I just scanned through my address book and there’s not a single person under 40 with a land line, they’re all cell exclusive. (Substantial number for those over 40, too, maybe one-third without land lines.) That wasn’t true four years ago.
when you’re arguing with him. Anecdotes are fine with me (and with parsing when they support his points).
I just remembered an exchange between you two about anecdotal support for an argument. I should have come up with some hard evidence!
People with answering machines on their landlines who never pick up the phone until they hear your voice.
We have had an answering machine for 15+ years and we don’t pick up right away. We wait for you to speak.
This eliminates many robots and some humans.
The male/female numbers are probably not as far off as you think; females have been out-voting males in recent years in many places. The 40% Dem / 36% GOP weighting is either way off, or self-identifying. A lot of folks don’t self-identify as Republicans this year, so there’s an outside chance the number is “accurate” by actual registration and just looks off because of self-identification.
No time to do actual analysis, and no commentary on the several websites I’ve seen as of yet.
cover of the newest New Yorker magazine.
Haw haw haw.
Great stuff. And you get used to it BHO!
Is that what you see? The New Yorker cover?
It was supposed to be satirical. Didn’t go over well with the BHO crowd, but was supposed to be a send-up of all the idiocy from the RRRs.
you are the person the cover was making fun of.
The article is about the ludicrous, untrue things low information voters and mouth breathing partisan hacks believe about Obama.
“Haw haw haw.”
He realizes it and he’s proud of it.
Hussein getting bashed. You guys don’t like it, do ya. You can sure dish it out though.
I find it hilarious the way you all get so defensive when anyone, even the New Yorker, pokes fun at your glorious one term senator saviour.
This will be a fun year.
He’s going to be in the White House for 8 years so there will be lots of this stuff from racist idiots (like yourself) making the rounds during his administration.
I’m sure he is already used to it…you don’t become a successful African American without encountering such idiocy along the way….it probably just makes success all that sweeter!
15% undecided is a very important number in that poll. Also the fact that only 1000 or so people were polled should give it more than a 3% margin of error.
1000 people is a good sized sample, and 3% is the correct MOE for a sample of that size.
I think McCain’s choice of VP will give him a bounce, regardless of who it is.
Obama has established a number of good arguments for his campaign – with a good deal of help from the Republicans.
McCain still has a lot of selling to do before he persuades his own party to come around, but if history applies to this case they eventually will. No matter who McCain chooses it will give cover to the Republicans that are still on the fence to say that they see a reason to fall into his camp. If it is Romney that will obviously be a faster conversion.
If anything, I think this poll underestimates the likely female and Democratic vote. Colorado women vote more then men, and up and down the ticket Democrats have a lot more reason to show up this year than the sinking ship crew does, but while they are well ahead at this point (and I predict a November win) I think the numbers will narrow before they widen.
Recent Rassmussen polls (7/9-7/10):
SD: M47-O43
IA: M38-O48
MI: M39-O47
MN: M34-O52
MO: M45-O45
MI was considered important for McCain; MN and IA were swing states, too. SD wasn’t even competitive in 2004. MO as a swing state is McCain’s best showing in this lot, IMHO.
that even showed Obama leading McCain in Montana 48-43.
Link:
http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
never seems right, but Polling isn’t my area
They tend, if anything, to give a couple-point boost to Republicans, but they’re consistent, their methodology is sound, and they’ve got a good reputation in the polling analysis business.
If you look at RealClearPolitics, Rasmussen seems to be all over the place compared to some of the others and seems to vary more from day to day. I think the averages of several polls give a better picture.
As far as the problem with cell phones, caller ID etc. some of the primary polling still managed to be pretty accurate. Of course both primary voters and land line users tend to be older. I’m not counting any chickens at this point but being a bit ahead is certainly more encouraging than being behind.
I still think he should do that.
Rasmussen Jul. 01, MO: M43-O48
FYI, Rasmussen Jul. 08, ND: M43-O43
These numbers are consistent across the northern Mountain/Plains states. Not sure if they’re at all accurate considering the normal not-in-play nature of the states, but Rasmussen’s methodology is at least reasonably consistent across the region.
I thought there was a newer Rasmussen that contradicted the 07/01 poll, but it’s not up at E-V.
The national polls are close, consistently showing a 3-6 point Obama lead (that 15-point Newsweek poll turns out to have been an outlier), but state by state Obama has a commanding lead. I really like DemConWatch’s regular forecast, sampling the best projections to arrive at consensus. There’s also a fantastic interactive map with loads of data. Here’s the Sunday night forecast. An update is promised tomorrow to reflect Monday’s new polling numbers:
http://www.demconwatchblog.com…
Note that their site breakout doesn’t show slight leaners, only 5+ point margins. They do break it out in the “projected Obama” total, though.
They predict that the Dems will hold 55.6 Senate seats come January. What exactly constitutes 0.6 of a Democratic Senator? Robert Byrd on a good day? Joe Lieberman on issues unrelated to Iraq?
is pretty short….perhaps she’s the .6 Senator.
Look how low Salazar’s approval rating is: 38%
Right now they have him within the margin of error against Owens, and that is during a Democratic wave. Imagine what it is going to be like in a year or two.
What does this say about ColoradoPols Dems-should-run-to-the-Right strategy?
I think if we get a Dem president and at least 55 Dems in the Senate and the trend is more progressive, Salazar will vote more progressive and have little trouble as an incumbent in 2010. And Salazar, to be fair, has supported some very good legislation. Two years is forever in political time. Anything could happen between now and then.
but you’re probably completely wrong. Salazar’s reelect and approval numbers are fine. 1 in 4 people don’t know what the hell they think of him. Further, he still beats both potential challengers in this poll. That’s the funny thing about MOE. Sure, he could be in a statistical tie w/ Owens…or, he could lead by 6. It goes both ways as you know.
Like BlueCat says, 2 years is a long time. If KS is in “trouble,” it’s the exact type of electoral trouble a moderate incumbent loves to be in…
probably pissed off 100% of his constituents at one point or another…probably on multiple occasions.
That happens when you are a moderate. I don’t think that that automatically translates into “I want him gone and Tom Tancredo in his place” for most voters.
He leads McCain amongst Hispanics by 58% to 34%.
And it wouldn’t have been possible without all the hard work and bigoted ranting of Tom Tancredo.
THANKS TOM!