Colorado-Rasmussen: Giuliani leads Clinton by 10%, Thompson and Clinton tied

[Aizen]

Not really that surprising. Hillary can't win Colorado. Bill wasn't very liked in Colorado either.

[Verily]

Although the polls in CO usually favor GOPers by 3 or 4 points. This probably means that Thompson is gonna get beat in CO and that Guiliani is going to win by 46-53.

I don't think so!  Fred Thompson isn't even in the race yet, and he's already tied with the already well known Clinton.  In most states Romney and Thompson are running behind Clinton.  The fact that these two unknowns are actually tied with Hillary in Colorado tells me that the GOP should be spending their time on the senate race--not the POTUS race.  The GOP could win Colorado by ten points and still lose the senate race....

Thompson an unknown? Maybe if you were making this argument in April...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Although the polls in CO usually favor GOPers by 3 or 4 points. This probably means that Thompson is gonna get beat in CO and that Guiliani is going to win by 46-53.

I don't think so!  Fred Thompson isn't even in the race yet, and he's already tied with the already well known Clinton.  In most states Romney and Thompson are running behind Clinton.  The fact that these two unknowns are actually tied with Hillary in Colorado tells me that the GOP should be spending their time on the senate race--not the POTUS race.  The GOP could win Colorado by ten points and still lose the senate race....

Thompson an unknown? Maybe if you were making this argument in April...

Among the low-information type swing voters who usually decide at the last minute, his name recognition approaches 0%.

[Sam Spade]

Although the polls in CO usually favor GOPers by 3 or 4 points. This probably means that Thompson is gonna get beat in CO and that Guiliani is going to win by 46-53.

Not really.  That was a 2004 phenomenon only (as far as we know).  Prior to that, in every race I can remember since 1994, the polls in Colorado consistently understated GOP strength by about 3-4 points.  Granted, Colorado hatred of Clinton, esp. among the evangelicals, may have fueled this. 

In 2006, the polling average was dead-on for the Governor's race - although the individual polls varied greatly.  Same with the two major House races.

[Verily]

Although the polls in CO usually favor GOPers by 3 or 4 points. This probably means that Thompson is gonna get beat in CO and that Guiliani is going to win by 46-53.

I don't think so!  Fred Thompson isn't even in the race yet, and he's already tied with the already well known Clinton.  In most states Romney and Thompson are running behind Clinton.  The fact that these two unknowns are actually tied with Hillary in Colorado tells me that the GOP should be spending their time on the senate race--not the POTUS race.  The GOP could win Colorado by ten points and still lose the senate race....

Thompson an unknown? Maybe if you were making this argument in April...

Among the low-information type swing voters who usually decide at the last minute, his name recognition approaches 0%.

...In which case polls won't change as they get to know him anyway.

[Person Man]

Although the polls in CO usually favor GOPers by 3 or 4 points. This probably means that Thompson is gonna get beat in CO and that Guiliani is going to win by 46-53.

I don't think so!  Fred Thompson isn't even in the race yet, and he's already tied with the already well known Clinton.  In most states Romney and Thompson are running behind Clinton.  The fact that these two unknowns are actually tied with Hillary in Colorado tells me that the GOP should be spending their time on the senate race--not the POTUS race.  The GOP could win Colorado by ten points and still lose the senate race....

I really wonder how Udall could win and Clinton could lose. Their politics are similiar.

Although the polls in CO usually favor GOPers by 3 or 4 points. This probably means that Thompson is gonna get beat in CO and that Guiliani is going to win by 46-53.

I don't think so!  Fred Thompson isn't even in the race yet, and he's already tied with the already well known Clinton.  In most states Romney and Thompson are running behind Clinton.  The fact that these two unknowns are actually tied with Hillary in Colorado tells me that the GOP should be spending their time on the senate race--not the POTUS race.  The GOP could win Colorado by ten points and still lose the senate race....

Thompson an unknown? Maybe if you were making this argument in April...

Also, 2004 was an altogher different scenario than the more consistent elections. I really don't see how Hillary could win Wva and not Colorado. Unless, of course, she plays to more communitarian audiences. One thing I do not understand is how Clinton could be so hated in Colorado and actually do well in places like Arkansas.

Pretty good analysis. 

Thanks. Also the fact that Guiliani is an Italian-American might sway me to vote for him. I, for one, am half-Italian.

So am I...what's your other half? Mine is German.

Mine is Hugonaut (however you spell it)


Anyways, upon viewing the performance rating of BUSH at RR, I see that-
He is at 39 in Ohio
  37 in Colorado
  36 in Florida
  36 nationally
  27 in New Hampshire ...

and with Thompson, Hillary has a one point lead in Ohio, tied in CO and leading by HUGE margins in the east. Also, Florida is less willing to support tax hikes than Colorado... wow.....as conducted by this survey...the toplines are very interesting. I think that Florida might flip and that NH will be as dem as Maine in the next election while it comes down to Ohio and Colorado.

[HardRCafé]

Although the polls in CO usually favor GOPers by 3 or 4 points. This probably means that Thompson is gonna get beat in CO and that Guiliani is going to win by 46-53.

Is that why Strickland beat Allard by a bigger margin than anticipated?

[Tender Branson]

Good time now to answer some of your quotes from the "John Elway for Senate" thread:

Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not).

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)

Even though you're a Democrat, Tender, you're obviously pretty smart.  I think you're dead-on with your polling predictions.  Schaffer, who recently announced, has internals that show him literally neck and neck with Udall.  I think the first poll you'll get will show Udall up by a point or two and it will stay that way until Election Day where Schaffer will take it with the GOP's hard core GOTV.

As far as the presidential race, there's no doubt that the Republican will win (unless the Democrat is uber-popular Bill Richardson--which it won't be, so why bother talkign about it?).  Colorado is a red state.  Period.  Only one Democrat has won this state in the last fifty years!  Heck, even Nixon beat JFK!  (I know Clinton won in '92--but he got helped by Perot.  Colorado was Perot's 8th best state and only won with 35% of the vote.  Without Perot, Colorado stays red).

Kerry in 2004 thought he could put Colorado in play.  He wasted his money and got whooped.  Colorado come POTUS time is a ruby red state.  With other elections it's a crapshoot.  Colorado is a conservative state--though you can never rely on it to vote that way (sort of like Arkansas, I guess).  But there's just no way Hillary Clinton plays well in Colorado.  This is middle America, home to Focus on the Family and James Dobson, and the country's stiffest tax laws.  Trust me, Hillary won't play well here.

It seems my prediction was right for the most part, except when it comes to Giuliani vs. Clinton. I didn´t think Clinton would suck that badly against Giuliani in CO since she was about tied with him in FL, a state Bush won with the same margin as CO.

I thought Clinton would start CO in the 45% range in her first poll rather than 40%, because it trended DEM in 2004 contrary to FL. But I already had a bad feeling about Clinton´s standing in CO when I saw this article about Clinton dragging congressional candidates down.

It seems Giuliani has quite an appeal to moderate COans, probably ahead 60-40 in this group right now, while the other Republicans (Thompson, McCain, Romney) won´t have it in that range. Clinton will have to gain 5% in the next year and Giuliani lose 5% and I don´t know if that´s likely. As I´ve said in this thread before, Clinton´s campaign probably won´t focus on CO at all if she´s still behind Giuliani by 10% after Super-Tuesday. If she can bring Giuliani´s lead down to 3% until September next year, I think it´s still possible for her to win 49-48-3. And I still think CO will be the tightest race next year

BTW: Where do you get Schaffers internals from ? Do you work for his campaign ?

[Person Man]

Good time now to answer some of your quotes from the "John Elway for Senate" thread:

Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not).

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)

Even though you're a Democrat, Tender, you're obviously pretty smart.  I think you're dead-on with your polling predictions.  Schaffer, who recently announced, has internals that show him literally neck and neck with Udall.  I think the first poll you'll get will show Udall up by a point or two and it will stay that way until Election Day where Schaffer will take it with the GOP's hard core GOTV.

As far as the presidential race, there's no doubt that the Republican will win (unless the Democrat is uber-popular Bill Richardson--which it won't be, so why bother talkign about it?).  Colorado is a red state.  Period.  Only one Democrat has won this state in the last fifty years!  Heck, even Nixon beat JFK!  (I know Clinton won in '92--but he got helped by Perot.  Colorado was Perot's 8th best state and only won with 35% of the vote.  Without Perot, Colorado stays red).

Kerry in 2004 thought he could put Colorado in play.  He wasted his money and got whooped.  Colorado come POTUS time is a ruby red state.  With other elections it's a crapshoot.  Colorado is a conservative state--though you can never rely on it to vote that way (sort of like Arkansas, I guess).  But there's just no way Hillary Clinton plays well in Colorado.  This is middle America, home to Focus on the Family and James Dobson, and the country's stiffest tax laws.  Trust me, Hillary won't play well here.

It seems my prediction was right for the most part, except when it comes to Giuliani vs. Clinton. I didn´t think Clinton would suck that badly against Giuliani in CO since she was about tied with him in FL, a state Bush won with the same margin as CO.

I thought Clinton would start CO in the 45% range in her first poll rather than 40%, because it trended DEM in 2004 contrary to FL. But I already had a bad feeling about Clinton´s standing in CO when I saw this article about Clinton dragging congressional candidates down.

It seems Giuliani has quite an appeal to moderate COans, probably ahead 60-40 in this group right now, while the other Republicans (Thompson, McCain, Romney) won´t have it in that range. Clinton will have to gain 5% in the next year and Giuliani lose 5% and I don´t know if that´s likely. As I´ve said in this thread before, Clinton´s campaign probably won´t focus on CO at all if she´s still behind Giuliani by 10% after Super-Tuesday. If she can bring Giuliani´s lead down to 3% until September next year, I think it´s still possible for her to win 49-48-3. And I still think CO will be the tightest race next year

BTW: Where do you get Schaffers internals from ? Do you work for his campaign ?

One thing I don't understand is how Udall would be doing better than Hillary and how Hillary is being singled out in the polls.

Also, other polls show a similar story to Ohio. Could it just be that Guiliani is just really strong in Colorado? His politics match up pretty well except for the sole issue of gun control in Colorado but he could lose the Hispanic vote.

[Jaggerjack]

Good time now to answer some of your quotes from the "John Elway for Senate" thread:

Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not).

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)

Even though you're a Democrat, Tender, you're obviously pretty smart.  I think you're dead-on with your polling predictions.  Schaffer, who recently announced, has internals that show him literally neck and neck with Udall.  I think the first poll you'll get will show Udall up by a point or two and it will stay that way until Election Day where Schaffer will take it with the GOP's hard core GOTV.

As far as the presidential race, there's no doubt that the Republican will win (unless the Democrat is uber-popular Bill Richardson--which it won't be, so why bother talkign about it?).  Colorado is a red state.  Period.  Only one Democrat has won this state in the last fifty years!  Heck, even Nixon beat JFK!  (I know Clinton won in '92--but he got helped by Perot.  Colorado was Perot's 8th best state and only won with 35% of the vote.  Without Perot, Colorado stays red).

Kerry in 2004 thought he could put Colorado in play.  He wasted his money and got whooped.  Colorado come POTUS time is a ruby red state.  With other elections it's a crapshoot.  Colorado is a conservative state--though you can never rely on it to vote that way (sort of like Arkansas, I guess).  But there's just no way Hillary Clinton plays well in Colorado.  This is middle America, home to Focus on the Family and James Dobson, and the country's stiffest tax laws.  Trust me, Hillary won't play well here.

It seems my prediction was right for the most part, except when it comes to Giuliani vs. Clinton. I didn´t think Clinton would suck that badly against Giuliani in CO since she was about tied with him in FL, a state Bush won with the same margin as CO.

I thought Clinton would start CO in the 45% range in her first poll rather than 40%, because it trended DEM in 2004 contrary to FL. But I already had a bad feeling about Clinton´s standing in CO when I saw this article about Clinton dragging congressional candidates down.

It seems Giuliani has quite an appeal to moderate COans, probably ahead 60-40 in this group right now, while the other Republicans (Thompson, McCain, Romney) won´t have it in that range. Clinton will have to gain 5% in the next year and Giuliani lose 5% and I don´t know if that´s likely. As I´ve said in this thread before, Clinton´s campaign probably won´t focus on CO at all if she´s still behind Giuliani by 10% after Super-Tuesday. If she can bring Giuliani´s lead down to 3% until September next year, I think it´s still possible for her to win 49-48-3. And I still think CO will be the tightest race next year

BTW: Where do you get Schaffers internals from ? Do you work for his campaign ?

One thing I don't understand is how Udall would be doing better than Hillary and how Hillary is being singled out in the polls.

Cause Colorado hates, Hillary, but not enough so that Romney will win 60%+ against her

[Person Man]

Why would they hate Hillary but not Udall? Was it because of Hillary care?

[Verily]

Why would they hate Hillary but not Udall? Was it because of Hillary care?

It's just not a populist state, and the Clintons are populists.

[Person Man]

Why would they hate Hillary but not Udall? Was it because of Hillary care?

It's just not a populist state, and the Clintons are populists.

What do you mean by "populist"? Big Government Social Conservative idelogy or just the political style?

Because Udall is no less liberal than Clinton....but appears to work on issues like the environment and sportsmen while Hillary is more interested in violent video games (probably why so many don't like her) and health care.

[Verily]

Why would they hate Hillary but not Udall? Was it because of Hillary care?

It's just not a populist state, and the Clintons are populists.

What do you mean by "populist"? Big Government Social Conservative idelogy or just the political style?

Because Udall is no less liberal than Clinton....but appears to work on issues like the environment and sportsmen while Hillary is more interested in violent video games (probably why so many don't like her) and health care.

The political style, not the upper-left political ideology (though Clinton has a bit of that, too). The Clintons have always been about big, cheering crowds who weren't enthusiastic because of the issues, just because it was the Clintons they were cheering. Gore wasn't about that, nor Kerry, and they did much better than Bill Clinton in Colorado. Bush 43 has some of that, but Dole certainly didn't, and Bush 41 also didn't.

Of course, that suggests that populism is generally a winning strategy, just not in Colorado, an assessment I can agree with.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Why would they hate Hillary but not Udall?

Whoa, whoa, Udall hasn't been elected Senator yet.  We have yet to see how fond Colorado is of Udall.

[Sam Spade]

If there is this much talk about one poll that has not been substantiated by anyone else, I can only imagine where we'll be in a few months.  Once again, the lack of understanding wrt Colorado on this forum is breathtakingly amusing.

[Person Man]

Why would they hate Hillary but not Udall?

Whoa, whoa, Udall hasn't been elected Senator yet.  We have yet to see how fond Colorado is of Udall.

Why is he expected to do so much better?

[Person Man]

Why would they hate Hillary but not Udall? Was it because of Hillary care?

It's just not a populist state, and the Clintons are populists.

What do you mean by "populist"? Big Government Social Conservative idelogy or just the political style?

Because Udall is no less liberal than Clinton....but appears to work on issues like the environment and sportsmen while Hillary is more interested in violent video games (probably why so many don't like her) and health care.

The political style, not the upper-left political ideology (though Clinton has a bit of that, too). The Clintons have always been about big, cheering crowds who weren't enthusiastic because of the issues, just because it was the Clintons they were cheering. Gore wasn't about that, nor Kerry, and they did much better than Bill Clinton in Colorado. Bush 43 has some of that, but Dole certainly didn't, and Bush 41 also didn't.

Of course, that suggests that populism is generally a winning strategy, just not in Colorado, an assessment I can agree with.

Wonder why...

[Rawlings]

If there is this much talk about one poll that has not been substantiated by anyone else, I can only imagine where we'll be in a few months.  Once again, the lack of understanding wrt Colorado on this forum is breathtakingly amusing.

It IS amusing!  Oh well.  Who am I to burst anyone's bubble.  I leave that to the candidates. 

Colorado is actually not that hot for Rudy.  I don't think he plays well here at all.  His positions on gay rights and gun control will probably be the killer for him.  Rudy leaves Colorado's hefty social conservative base at home and leaves the door open for even Hillary to win by a point or two.

But Rudy won't be the nominee so I'm not getting terribly energized about this poll.  One poll is interesting to look at, but I wouldn't read much from it.  I think Colorado stays red but it won't be 60-40 for Rudy. 

As far as the Senate race, who knows?  Schaffer plays well to Colorado's politics but the national environment may kill him.  It may all come down to how well the GOP POTUS candidate does in bringing downticket races with him....

[Umengus]

Tuesday, August 14, 2007


As for the 2008 hopefuls, Clinton is viewed favorably by 46% and unfavorably by 52%.


http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/giuliani_leads_clinton_in_colorado

the only interest of this poll. All people know Hillary Clinton and nobody will change his position. Colorado will be GOP in 2008 (except if the republican candidate is a very bad candidate doing mistakes, mistakes and still mistakes)..

The favor. of giluiani will be down in next months. Thompson has still a margin.

[Person Man]

If there is this much talk about one poll that has not been substantiated by anyone else, I can only imagine where we'll be in a few months.  Once again, the lack of understanding wrt Colorado on this forum is breathtakingly amusing.

It IS amusing!  Oh well.  Who am I to burst anyone's bubble.  I leave that to the candidates. 

Colorado is actually not that hot for Rudy.  I don't think he plays well here at all.  His positions on gay rights and gun control will probably be the killer for him.  Rudy leaves Colorado's hefty social conservative base at home and leaves the door open for even Hillary to win by a point or two.

But Rudy won't be the nominee so I'm not getting terribly energized about this poll.  One poll is interesting to look at, but I wouldn't read much from it.  I think Colorado stays red but it won't be 60-40 for Rudy. 

As far as the Senate race, who knows?  Schaffer plays well to Colorado's politics but the national environment may kill him.  It may all come down to how well the GOP POTUS candidate does in bringing downticket races with him....

This actually goes AGAINST the showing that Rudy is doing AMAZING in CO against the national records in terms of favorability. I was down the entire I-25 corridor weekend and things look better for the dems than last time. My moderate republican father-in-law doesn't like Schaffer that much at all and he has voted for the winning candidates since at least 2004 on all levels. ..and remember, while there are neo-cons in Colo Springs and on the plains, there are tons of traditional western conservatives in the burbs, mountains, and on the plains as well.