|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2020, 05:34:01 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls
  2014 Senatorial Election Polls
  CO-Sen, Quinnipiac: Gardner in the lead
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: CO-Sen, Quinnipiac: Gardner in the lead  (Read 2597 times)
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2014, 03:05:45 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

I still think Udall will win, but if he doesn't, I really don't see what else he could have possibly done to win this race. The difference between candidates is clear here.

It's the six-year itch at play. Most of these Democrat Senators came in with the "historic" Obama victory in 2008. As with most two-term Presidents, that loving feeling is gone. It doesn't shock me that the marginal winners with D next to their names from the '08 class are: 1) vulnerable and 2) likely to be defeated by their Republican opponents. It's politics 101 at the end of the day.  It's how George W. Bush lost the House in 2006.
Logged
Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,533
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 16, 2014, 03:07:06 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

I still think Udall will win, but if he doesn't, I really don't see what else he could have possibly done to win this race.
Campaign on more than one issue. If he really wanted to win this, he should have both bragged about his overall record in the senate and attacked Gardner on multiple issues. Instead, he assumed 'Gardner = Buck' (which is wrong on so many levels) and simply spent the last several months saying things along the lines of "I support Abortion, Gardner doesn't" over and over again, hoping it would work.

Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 16, 2014, 03:09:48 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

I still think Udall will win, but if he doesn't, I really don't see what else he could have possibly done to win this race. The difference between candidates is clear here.

It's the six-year itch at play. Most of these Democrat Senators came in with the "historic" Obama victory in 2008. As with most two-term Presidents, that loving feeling is gone. It doesn't shock me that the marginal winners with D next to their names from the '08 class are: 1) vulnerable and 2) likely to be defeated by their Republican opponents. It's politics 101 at the end of the day.  It's how George W. Bush lost the House in 2006.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,541
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2014, 03:14:16 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

I still think Udall will win, but if he doesn't, I really don't see what else he could have possibly done to win this race. The difference between candidates is clear here.
If that's the attitude the Democratic party is going to take, then we will keep making the same mistakes over and over.  We need to learn from failure, not pretend that nothing is wrong to try to save face. 
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,594


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2014, 03:15:07 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

Colorado has only very recently become lean Dem, and it's swung back and forth before. This is the kind of seat Dems should expect to lose in a decent Republican year which is unfortunately what 2014 is starting to look like.

Dem incumbents in more diverse swing states (VA, NC, even LA all things considered as a non-swing state) are holding up much better than Dems with much less diverse electorates (CO, IA) and for that reason I'm seeing Scott Brown as a surprise winner now.
Logged
Chance92
Rookie
**
Posts: 104


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2014, 03:23:39 pm »

This is physically painful. I'm just six hours north of these people.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,541
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2014, 03:25:56 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

Colorado has only very recently become lean Dem, and it's swung back and forth before. This is the kind of seat Dems should expect to lose in a decent Republican year which is unfortunately what 2014 is starting to look like.

Dem incumbents in more diverse swing states (VA, NC, even LA all things considered as a non-swing state) are holding up much better than Dems with much less diverse electorates (CO, IA) and for that reason I'm seeing Scott Brown as a surprise winner now.
This isn't a Republican year.  There are 5 senate races in 2012 swing states (NH, VA, NC, CO, and IA).  Democrats are on track to win 3 and loose 2 of those.  The reason why the Democrats are going to loose big is because they have a lot of seats in heavily republican states (MT, WV, SD, AK, LA, and AR).  In a neutral year, you'd expect Democrats to loose those kinds of races.  Similarly, you don't see the Republicans competing well in any of the lean Democrat states (MI, OR, NM, or MN)
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,651


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2014, 04:04:32 pm »

Just start calling him Mark U-Haul because he's doing some major packing soon!
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2014, 04:31:39 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

Colorado has only very recently become lean Dem, and it's swung back and forth before. This is the kind of seat Dems should expect to lose in a decent Republican year which is unfortunately what 2014 is starting to look like.

Dem incumbents in more diverse swing states (VA, NC, even LA all things considered as a non-swing state) are holding up much better than Dems with much less diverse electorates (CO, IA) and for that reason I'm seeing Scott Brown as a surprise winner now.
This isn't a Republican year.  There are 5 senate races in 2012 swing states (NH, VA, NC, CO, and IA).  Democrats are on track to win 3 and loose 2 of those.  The reason why the Democrats are going to loose big is because they have a lot of seats in heavily republican states (MT, WV, SD, AK, LA, and AR).  In a neutral year, you'd expect Democrats to loose those kinds of races.  Similarly, you don't see the Republicans competing well in any of the lean Democrat states (MI, OR, NM, or MN)

Have you seen the polls? Of course it's a Republican year. Just like 2006 was a Democrat year.
Logged
krazen1211
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,376


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2014, 04:40:36 pm »

It's important to note that this poll is sorely lacking in the number of whites. Unskewing the poll to correct this would naturally further enhance Gardner's lead.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,541
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2014, 04:45:15 pm »
« Edited: October 16, 2014, 04:49:30 pm by Mehmentum »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

Colorado has only very recently become lean Dem, and it's swung back and forth before. This is the kind of seat Dems should expect to lose in a decent Republican year which is unfortunately what 2014 is starting to look like.

Dem incumbents in more diverse swing states (VA, NC, even LA all things considered as a non-swing state) are holding up much better than Dems with much less diverse electorates (CO, IA) and for that reason I'm seeing Scott Brown as a surprise winner now.
This isn't a Republican year.  There are 5 senate races in 2012 swing states (NH, VA, NC, CO, and IA).  Democrats are on track to win 3 and loose 2 of those.  The reason why the Democrats are going to loose big is because they have a lot of seats in heavily republican states (MT, WV, SD, AK, LA, and AR).  In a neutral year, you'd expect Democrats to loose those kinds of races.  Similarly, you don't see the Republicans competing well in any of the lean Democrat states (MI, OR, NM, or MN)

Have you seen the polls? Of course it's a Republican year. Just like 2006 was a Democrat year.
Of course I've seen the polls.  Did you see my post?  Democrats losing races in conservative states should not be surprising. 
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,958
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2014, 05:53:39 pm »

Udall ran a really sh**tty campaign. Even the polls underestimating Dems and mail in voting might not save him at this point.

Though it's not like Colorado was ever a reliable Dem state, it's starting to look more and more like it's not that Hillary is particularly weak there, but that Obama was particularly strong there.
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2014, 08:14:57 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

Colorado has only very recently become lean Dem, and it's swung back and forth before. This is the kind of seat Dems should expect to lose in a decent Republican year which is unfortunately what 2014 is starting to look like.

Dem incumbents in more diverse swing states (VA, NC, even LA all things considered as a non-swing state) are holding up much better than Dems with much less diverse electorates (CO, IA) and for that reason I'm seeing Scott Brown as a surprise winner now.
This isn't a Republican year.  There are 5 senate races in 2012 swing states (NH, VA, NC, CO, and IA).  Democrats are on track to win 3 and loose 2 of those.  The reason why the Democrats are going to loose big is because they have a lot of seats in heavily republican states (MT, WV, SD, AK, LA, and AR).  In a neutral year, you'd expect Democrats to loose those kinds of races.  Similarly, you don't see the Republicans competing well in any of the lean Democrat states (MI, OR, NM, or MN)

Have you seen the polls? Of course it's a Republican year. Just like 2006 was a Democrat year.
Of course I've seen the polls.  Did you see my post?  Democrats losing races in conservative states should not be surprising. 

Out of the 10 tossup states, the Republicans have the lead in seven. This is your natural corrective action in a sixth year of a Presidency. These Senators that were elected in 2008 no longer have the POTUS-elect's coattails/good feelings that got them elected and the electorate is tired of the incumbent.

It doesn't matter what the party affiliation of the President is. The six-year-itch is alive and well.
Logged
Free Bird
TheHawk
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,923
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2014, 09:10:37 pm »

If voters are stupid enough to actually elect Gardner, that's not Udall's fault. Sometimes, voters are determined to elect the worst possible candidates to office.

No. Dem incumbents with a good record in a lean-D State in a neutral year don't normally lose reelection. Udall screwed up, there's no other way to put it.

Colorado has only very recently become lean Dem, and it's swung back and forth before. This is the kind of seat Dems should expect to lose in a decent Republican year which is unfortunately what 2014 is starting to look like.

Dem incumbents in more diverse swing states (VA, NC, even LA all things considered as a non-swing state) are holding up much better than Dems with much less diverse electorates (CO, IA) and for that reason I'm seeing Scott Brown as a surprise winner now.
This isn't a Republican year.  There are 5 senate races in 2012 swing states (NH, VA, NC, CO, and IA).  Democrats are on track to win 3 and loose 2 of those.  The reason why the Democrats are going to loose big is because they have a lot of seats in heavily republican states (MT, WV, SD, AK, LA, and AR).  In a neutral year, you'd expect Democrats to loose those kinds of races.  Similarly, you don't see the Republicans competing well in any of the lean Democrat states (MI, OR, NM, or MN)

Have you seen the polls? Of course it's a Republican year. Just like 2006 was a Democrat year.
Logged
KCDem
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,929


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2014, 09:18:20 pm »

Junk poll!
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.106 seconds with 15 queries.