President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 15, 2010 10:46 PM UTC
57 Comments
Romanoff had better get with the program. This is too important of a race to be dealing with intra party drama, especially with these numbers… Norton is one scary lady, i’d be nervous being in an elevator with her let alone senator
She’s gracious, smart and charming. In the Senate race, at least the GOP is finally putting its best face forward.
Good for her. Elevators can be tricky!
I also got the impression that she’s been spoiled, either by birth or by marriage, and is not exactly the most courageous person. She would cave on her loosely held principles for political purposes in an instant. I’d be shocked, in fact, if she hadn’t already done just that.
Can’t any political party in Colorado put up a good candidate for 2010? Cory Gardner is alright, but I mean statewide…so far it’s a pretty pathetic field on both sides (and no, it didn’t improve all that much by swapping Ritter for Hick).
it’s pathetic on your side and we Dems have a quality slate – but you can’t admit that.
Aside from the fact that Jane Norton hasn’t posed nude, that is.
They are both right wing nutjobs who hide behind being nice and not insane attack dogs.
IT’s raised him 4.5 Mil in 3 days and forced us to play defense in a state where we’ve not lost since 72. She could find that fire too and we would be a purple state again.
And no, by “pathetic on both sides” I definitely, definitely mean pathetic on both sides. Especially Bennet. Apparently the prize you win for ruining the Denver Public School system these days is appointment to a Senate seat.
Luckily the voters get to decide whether or not he keeps his job this November. And I think we’re all pretty confident what their decision will be.
You and David Sirota have done your work very well.
When Polly Baca is quoted as saying she doesn’t know what Romanoff is going to do, that’s troubling.
If it’s true that his heart isn’t in it anymore, and he’ll begrudgingly go along with the campaign if it’s his only option, that’s not going to help someone who’s 12 points down to the likely Republican opponent. Bennet is 12 points down too, but at least he’s pulling in million dollar quarter after million dollar quarter (all evil money, I’m sure.)
Let’s wait for Research 2000 polling results which are supposedly in the field this week.
I trust Rasmussen like I trust Karl Rove.
Is simply not reliable.
…Rasmussen is “an outlier,” but that’s far from the truth. Most polling firms survey “adults,” meaning every half-wit stoner and their mother, while Rasmussen only surveys likely voters, i.e. the people who are even remotely paying attention.
And as noted, they have a long history of being proven right by elections. 2008 included.
…on who paid for the poll and how much sway that group had over the way questions were asked and demographics used.
But it wouldn’t carry through to the relative positive and negatives of Democratic candidates. Bennet’s relatively high negatives are a problem and the steady progression of them getting worse is worrisome. Interestingly, they simply show Bennet getting more negative votes, not Romanoff burning up the track with positive ones. I think that shows the effect of the GOP/right wing/health insurance lobby/ assault on Bennet for daring to consider health care reform.
Rasmussen allows there clients to select things like the wording of questions for polls and the demographics which are asked the questions.
Both of these things can greatly bias the outcome of any poll to favor whatever position the client wants it to.
For example: if the goal of the poll is to show weakness of Democratic candidates, then when talking to unaffiliated voters, they qualify if the person tends to vote Dem or tends to vote GOP and counts the responses from more GOP-leaning U’s, but yet still keep the overall percentage of U’s the same as voter registration so they can say their sample matches likely voters.
So again, it’s all about the who pays for the poll, and how much control did they have over how the questions were developed and how the sample was selected.
Gee, I wonder why nobody likes Republicans. Could it be because Republicans are so thoughtful and polite and full of love?
But our patience runs short when they don’t bother to educate themselves and then pull the trigger for people like Obama at the polls, probably because they were told they should by their roommate’s girlfriends’ dad, who’s on welfare and relies upon Democrats to introduce and expand worthless social programs because he’s lazy.
Some people really need help. Most of the people who get it, don’t. But buying votes with taxpayer money is the oldest trick in the Democrat play book.
I hope you all have made your donations to Scott Brown. I know I have. He may just save the Republic.
Republicans are just way too kind and compassionate for America. That’s probably why they lost so badly in 2006 in 2008. Too full of love.
“Roommate’s girlfriends’ dad, who’s on welfare and relies upon Democrats to introduce and expand worthless social programs because he’s lazy.”
Good thing you guys don’t operate using racial stereotypes from the 80s. I’ll bet Obama voters are also driving Cadillacs and using crack, and probably listening to the rap and living in the projects. And watching Bill Cosby and Eddie Murphy movies because they identify so closely with them. Not that you’re implying they’re all shiftless black people, they could be brownish-black people. You never know.
I have often looked with disdain at the person ahead of me in the checkout line at the grocery store and thought, “Shit. That dumbass has just as many votes as I do.”
They do. Get over it.
Its not about WHO they choose to poll its about HOW they choose to poll
The most politically savvy R’s choose not to use it to get the most accurate info.
I wonder what would happen if you tried to back that claim up with any…um…evidence?
Robocalls. And experience.
I guess thats actually two words…. LOL.
…too much stock into Rasmussen Reports. Something about Bush and hating black people and yadda yadda yadda.
But, as two well know liberal pollsters explain, there’s more than good reason to rely on Rasmussen Reports polls.
I could hardly care less who polls better between Norton and Romanoff. All I can see is that the Republican beats them both by double digits head to head.
n/t
The end.
He should leave and start posting at Free Republic forthwith.
I’d miss him a little.
Aw hell. No I wouldn’t
On polling candidates and elections. I think their issues polling leaves something to be desired, and they do tend to favor whoever is paying them to poll, but your overall point (as well as those of Nate Silver and the two pollsters who wrote the WSJ piece) aside from the Rush red herring, is coherent.
But yes, the bigger story is that, no matter the candidate, Norton is up 12 points on the Democrat. It’s still early, but this should be cause for Democrats to take pause and realize that they can’t just rest on their laurels and expect to win.
with Rasmussen being so clear and all, given that Norton is up 12+ on either D candidate and has been reported saying or not saying some crazy stuff,, would you now reconsider and acknowledge that either D candidate would be better and agree to support the nominee whomever it is?
PATRICK CADDELL AND DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN.
I’ve never heard of either of them. When someone attributes an opinion to liberals writing in the Wall Street Journal op-ed page and describes them as “well-known” without actually giving their names, it’s usually a sign that a conservative is about to lie to you.
Schoen polled for Clinton.
Good point though that they’re not exactly well known. Nate Silver has said things about Rasmussen that is comparable to what they said in the WSJ op-ed though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
To the extent that anyone knows who he is, they know him as the self-described “liberal Democrat” who goes on Glenn Beck’s show and describes Obama as a Communist. Uh huh.
Schoen is a Fox News guy who worked primarily on Clinton’s “Republican-light” image in the 1996 re-election, along with charmer Dick Morris.
So, two very conservative Democrats write in the Wall Street Journal defending a Republican (though nominally independent) pollster whose results are consistently way out of the mainstream and always in the same direction. Yes, I find this very convincing.
And Silver agreed with them only insofar as Silver said Rasmussen is probably not fraudulent, but Silver also said Rasmussen’s application of party filters (without much good reason) is probably skewing his results.
You could have posted that first!
because I had never heard of either of them. But I kind of had a feeling they would turn out to be that kind of guy.
I tend to be suspicious of self-described “liberal Democrats” who write editorials in the WSJ trashing Obama or bolstering his critics. They tend to be dishonest douchebags who are never worth taking seriously. Or Congressmen from CD-2, sometimes that happens too.
Thanks for outing these pollsters and the fact that this was a WSJ.com article.
I have refused lately to argue with Repugs without first establishing a bet that they are wrong. It’s just not worth my time to argue (and win) otherwise.
you must be too young to vote.
Though I know the feeling, sometimes I remember it’s been 15 years since I finished high school, and it creeps me out (especially when I meet students who were born around then).
I didn’t think that the default D to R numbers were that strongly in the GOP column in Colorado.
But, I have a hard time seeing how Bennet or Norton can be polling very far from generic candidate numbers because neither has great name recognition.
Romanoff is much better known, but the fact that he is polling almost identically to Bennet says the general public doesn’t see him in a light very different from a generic Democrat.
Also, the most important date in the race for the Democratic Party Senate nomination is just 60 days away — March 16 is caucus day, and in the Democratic party, the results in precinct caucuses pretty much dictate the ultimate result at the state convention. With this select group of voters (about 1% or so of those eligible), Romanoff has a huge edge, due to his much greater experience with the process.
If I were Bennet, I’d think about going the petition route to get on the primary ballot instead, even though that gives Romanoff an automatic first line primary ballot spot, to avoid the risk of being symbolically dissed by the party faithful, by coming second in the causus (even though both would surely make it onto a primary ballot in the end).
Do we know if Bennet is going to seek a caucus process nomination, or if he plans to petition onto the primary ballot?
nomination or if he plans to petition onto the primary ballot?
IN fact the US Senate race between AR and MB is race being used to determine delegates from one level to the next this year.
Really matter that much? Mike Miles won the convention handily, only to have the snot kicked out of him by Ken Salazar in the August primary election.
Not technically.
But it does get a candidate on the ballot.
a caucus training session in Pueblo next Wednesday.The notice describes the campaign as vibrant.
Which are the generic ones?
Also, your tired claim that Romanoff has a “huge edge” in the caucuses simply because he personally has participated before is tired. Guess what, Bennet has people to help him and they have gone through the process before. It’s true, some people who actually know the process are not AR supporters! And anyway how do you know that Bennet hasn’t participated greatly in caucuses before, as a supporter of someone else?
Bennet has not been to a caucus in at least 3 election cycles. 2004 is earliest caucus I have attendence data for.
should heave ended with “been to one in a while”
no data on head to head to head for a primary, but I suspect the anti-Bennet numbers get bumped from Romanoff’s left leaning backers that believe that the Speaker is progressive.
He’s not. He’s more conservative than Sen Bennet.
The Republicans love the fact that the Democrats have a primary.
I think Hick should offer Romanoff the Lt.Governorship, and that the Speaker should take it. We then could go on the attack against Republicans with 2 people at the head of our tickets that can outraise the tea bag appeasement party.
also shows Obama having the worst falling record of any president pretty much ever.
47% somewhat approve and 52% somewhat disapprove.
Whenever that is mentioned here we are reminded of how unreliable Rasmussen polls are.
So that makes you 8 years old then? Or do you just not do research very well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…
This is quite aside from the fact that Rasmussen has been an outlier in every one of these polls for a year now.
of Gecko. I love it.
Most presidents had a substantial drop after the initial high numbers. And nearly all of them had both very high numbers and very low numbers during their terms. Eisenhower and Kennedy fared the best and Nixon, Carter and GWB bring up the rear.
Obama doesn’t look at all out of the ordinary yet.
Reagan Highest 68 (5/16/86) lowest 35 (1/28/83)
Obama’s “terrible” approval ratings are some of the best of any president: call me when they get to 40%.
Hehehehe.