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
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
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
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 23, 2006 08:00 AM UTC
19 Comments
Just took my poll. Lamm has at least one vote…
I am not sure if an online survey of 25,000 internet users who are not necessarily registered voters in CD-7, really sheds much light on the race other than to indicate how tech savvy progressives across Colorado might vote.
Who, other than Terry Snyder, would think that audience gave any better of an indication of the Be The Change poll did?
Sorry about the messed up grammar in the last sentence there. I was busy taking a poll at the time.
Looks like if I wanted to I could take the poll another thousand times.
Add ballot box stuffing to the potential problems with this poll. I don’t care if Ed wins this one easily, or if Dave Chandler runs away with it. I am not buying the claim that it shows much of anything.
Hey, I saw this the first time it was on the front page and you didn’t mention CD-7 once. Trying to up your credibility, CoPols? Hoping a random internet survey will support your wildly speculative claims?
The pointlessness and problem with this kind of thing is all it feeds is the partisans citing some kind of unscientific and meaningless execise as some kind of justification that their candidat is ‘winning’. Then, ColoPols and the Hill can cite this BS as reason to suggest that one candidate or another will be winning.
I will go on record as saying regardless of any of these BS shenanigans, and no matter what the ‘expert’s’ pontificate, at the end of the day, Marc Holtzman will give Both Ways Bob a real run for his money in the primary (and may well win) and Ed Perlmutter will be the eventual nominee of the Democratic party. Spin, Jump, Deny, and other wise wish yourself to your desireddd outcome. I am telling you what I believe. We will all know after the August Primary, but until then it is pure speculation and/or wishful thinking. I will however, stand behind my prediction – if I am wrong, then I am wrong. Worst thing that might happen to me. It has happened before, and I survive.
If you re-enter the survey after having taken it, you can re-arrange your existing form submissions (which reeappear), but your original results are not changed and the new one is not saved.
For those of you who want to get all obsessive and delete your cookies so you can actually get another one recorded, we will de-dupe the results by email and IP address. It’s a macro.
We feel that’s safeguard enough to accomplish our objective, which is understanding what is important to our large base of progressive Coloradans. Everything else is scenery for people to have the same arguments about that they would be having anyway.
I swear to God if I ever get Permutter and Lamm in the same room I will force them to hug each other with frigging waterboarding if I have to. Hug and make nice and compliment each other’s hair and frigging clothes. Have I mentioned recently that I really hate this crap?
I have seen Ed and Peggy together in many rooms, and it is always cordial. They get along far better than many of their supporters do, and agree on far more than divides them.
Email and IP checks would hardly slow me down if I wanted to stack this one. Too many easy ways to use proxies. I am more ethical than that, and I have far too much respect for the people at Progress Now to play that game, but I suspect that there are some people to invested in the outcome to resist.
Even if it was done cleanly, I don’t think an argument can be made that this reflects how voters in CD-7 are going to vote, nor do I believe it is the intentiopn of this survey to establish any such claim.
Or let me rephrase that… Despite the fact that argument is inevitably going to be made by whatever side finds itself with an edge, the argument is an insincere one, and one that I myself will not be making no matter what the outcome.
Scientific surveys are one thing.
Self-selected polls are a horse of a different color.
The initiative repsonses are much more interesting than the candidate polls anyway, most of which are unsurprising (totally unloaded statement). Right now, there appears to be some trending ambivalence towards eminent domain restriction and legalized pot. So much for that theory, righties…
I am forever amazed at the hysterical analyses of polls on this website. The latest notion of accepting a blanket internet poll of supposed democratic primary voters from a population of 25,000 statewide is incredible. And to think that you are contemplating projecting those results into the 7th district race is LAUGHABLE!
I’m sure there are just throngs of people eager to manipulate the survey via proxies. I hope ProgressNow has heavily invested in security for their internet surveys…
I just conducted a like totally scientific poll of me, my family, my dog, and three randomly-selected chipmunks.
The trend line is clear – the Progress Now poll is the most bogus faux news story ever hyped on ColoradoPols.
Alan,
You da man! Don’t lower yourself to dealing with these f@!*ers. I’ll grant everyone that the survey is meaningless in determining what might happen in any particular race.
The reality is that those boys and girls at RMPN, oh, my bad, ProgressNow, are just trying to gauge the attitudes of their Colorado network. The fact that they are getting traction is just gravy for them, as garnering attention is always at the forefront of any political groups agenda.
Ya. It is just entertaining. I am one of the center/lefties who has “surprized” them with ambivilence toward “legalizing” marijuana. Not to be too picky, but there is a difference between legalizing and decriminalizing…and the devil is in the details.
And as a center/leftie I am not ambivilent on eminent domain- not by a long shot. If I could (yes, I know that it is wrong!) I would vote dozens of times to eliminate the use of eminent domain for eco-devo. I would eliminate the use of the word blight altogether. Unless something needs to go in for pure public use, eminent domain is an outrageously huge governmental hammer. Like abortion, it should be legal but rare.
oh, and on abortion…
Warren Hern!
Stop with the figgin’ multi-page ads in the Statesman!
Geeze! We get it!
You are a one-trick-poney. You are a one issue voter. Get over your damn self!
The rest of us “lefties” have about 99 other issues we care about too, and we think Ritter is with us on them.
Now, Warren you can shut the “F-word” up!
Yeah, these people need to get a grip. PN didn’t represent this as anything more than it is, and if people get obsessive enough they can freep any poll.
I filled out the survey 10 times and there is no control. I guess the precent of error on this online survey is 100%. No surprise since M. Huttner has something to do with it.
Yeah, I guess nobody should ever post an online poll ever again. What a bunch of pinheads.
Look — I can vote a dozen times on CNN’s poll! They obviously have no credibility.
You’ve gotta be kiddin’! Do you really think an online poll is going to reveal ANYTHING about the CD7 race? And to think I once thought this site had some insight. Geez!