U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(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) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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%
September 07, 2010 09:35 PM UTC
18 Comments
Have you no shame, Sir? At long last, have you no shame?
The national and local media have been in a tizzy about these generic “trends.” Local Republicans have said that these “trends” mean that The Big Line is woefully inaccurate. But when you forget the trends and look at each race, one by one (which is how voters will do it, by the way), then things look differently. National “trends” say that Republicans should destroy Democrats in the race for governor, for example, but does anybody really think that Dan Maes is going to beat John Hickenlooper?
that voters tend to re-elect their own congressional members even as they rail against that person’s party or incumbents in general. This is not to say that seats never change hands or that Dems won’t lose seats but it does mean that H-man and Co may be counting quite a few chickens prematurely. Also the time between now and th election is still long in terms of what can still happen. Polls from before Labor Day should never be considered definitive.
But we’ll still have to put up with H-man boasting and taunting a dozen times per thread and the general invasion of the talking point spewing Ditto head army in the meantime. Wouldn’t seeing Perry the secessionist loon lose in Texas be loads of fun!?! No chicken counting here, just fingers crossed.
Below in my link and post. You guys have very effectively created a meme that you are going to win. Maybe the Reps peaked to early with their plan. Now will the momentum shift back? Maybe the Republican polling firms (Rasmussen, Magellan etc) will now have to make their polls more real so they aren’t so far off what actually happens in the election. Maybe Rasmussen will even have to come down to earth (see recent poll of Nevada showing Reid leading). It’s not ColoradoPols who has a “facty truthy” problem, it’s the pollsters who have been cooking the books for a year now. Pols is right in another way too. There are 180 Republican Congressional Districts in the country. If they’re all about 70% Republican, that’s going to skew the numbers for the rest of the country and not change one race, because that district already has a Republican representative. The “generic ballot” is worthless. Show me the “truthy facty” polls in each district. And yes, even though KOS is a Democratic blog, at least they disclose clearly the Democratic and Republican poll bias.
was never elected to the U.S. Senate.
He was appointed by Gov. Richards in Jan. 1993 to replace Lloyd Bentsen, who had become Clinton’s treasury secretary.
Krueger lost the special election for the seat later that year. His opponent was Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.
and Krueger just replaced him. Same basic time frame.
Thanks for the catch — Bentsen’s last re-elect was 1988.
Longtime pundit Bob Ewegen advanced the Everybody Stinks but Harley Rule to explain why polls showed Congress so unpopular even though Congress’ re-election rates were higher than that of the old Soviet Politburo!
Congress consists of 535 fools, bounders and idiots — each of whom is the sole exception to that rule. That’s why generic match-ups mean little when actual candidates, with real strengths and weakness, enter the picture. Add the ability of staff work to sway voters by doing what they’re supposed to do for the home folks, and you’re back to Tip O’Neill’s rule, All Politics is Local.
See here. This meme about the Republican surge was created intentionally by Republican pollsters. It’s been effective but now the Dems are fighting fire with fire. See this wrap-up on KOS.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/…
Voters don’t like members of either party. The only thing that means is that incumbents are screwed.
In case you were wondering, Dems have the sizeable advantage of incumbency. Are the dots starting to connect yet? A lot of geniuses on this board, I’m sure someone can figure out the syllogism.
This will be most clear in districts where incumbents represent districts where they’re in the minority (easy Voyageur, this isn’t a racist thing). This group consists almost solely of Dems.
So it’s it’s quite conceivable that a few Republican incumbents will lose as well (though I wouldn’t bet against Perry). But the crystal clear outcome for those outside Pols-world is that Republicans are going to have sweeping gains. One match-up at a time.
Conservatives have been shilling those Rassy polls showing a Republican tidal wave. If it doesn’t materialize, if R’s don’t take the House and Senate, they’re losers.
Not just Rassmussen has been showing that Republicans should make big gains. Most are saying we will come close/ have a chance at taking House. Very few are saying we’ll take senate back.
Though, if we come up a seat short in each chamber, we’ll find a way to live with being losers.
as “loyal opposition” went out the window Jan 20, 2008.
“Crybaby obstructionists” is an even better description.
I give you as examples:
Colorado SoS
Colorado AG
Colorado Treasurer
I would bet that not 1/20 of the voters could tell the names of any of candidates.
I asked this question in a slightly different form on an earlier topic.
Does anyone have any data on what happens in this situation?
2006 was similar, a Dem wave. What happened to the second tier state candidates then? The elected incumbents won, even though they were from the counter wave party.
An interesting corollary to this thesis (which I agree with) will be the national results vs. Colorado results.
Real candidates matter and here in Colorado, where the Republicans have been working hard to turn the tide of what is supposed to be a favorable year against them, we may see those effects running contrary to the national trend.
Nationally, the Rs have been running an obstructionist strategy in conjunction with firing up the fear and anger astroturf movement. But they lost control of the beast in some places (Colorado, Alaska, Nevada, possibly Delaware). So that, in a few places they may have nominated unelectable candidates and here in Colorado, the Republican party has turned into such a circus that it may have a significant impact down ballot.
(CO Sen and Gov, NV Sen, AK Sen, and especially DE Sen) I will personally buy each and every regular TEA Party poster on this board a (good) beer. (Any 4 of those races will do; I’m pretty much giving you CO-Gov for free since Hickenlooper is watching the rest of the field tear itself apart.)
The fact that Harry Reid might survive a re-election in Nevada, and that uber-popular Republican Mike Castle might lose his primary in Delaware (thereby guaranteeing a Democratic hold for the Senate seat there), is a testament to just how whacked out the TEA Party Republicans have become. Nearly the same can be said for the possibility that Scott McAdams could win against Miller in Alaska. It takes talent to lose those kinds of races.