CO-Sen, Quinnipiac: Gardner in the lead

[Recalcuate]

The poll indicates that this is a tied race.

Gardner only leads Udall by 3 among Indies (which is well within the MoE) and Udall actually leads Gardner among Indies in the 3rd-party-less matchup.

If Democrats and Republicans turn out in roughly equal numbers on election day (which is not impossible), then it's a 50-50 race and not a 6-point lead for Gardner.

No, I'm pretty sure that's s six-point lead for Gardner.

Do you know anything about MoE?

An honest assessment of this race puts this poll well within the margin of error. Gardner has had a consistent lead in all of the polls in the two-to-six point range this month. Unless all of the polls are wrong, it looks like it is Gardner's race to lose at this point.

I'd even surmise to say that Colorado is now ahead of Iowa when it comes to which state is more likely to change control of the Senate in rank order.

[Recalcuate]

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.

Yeah, those voters vote for the Democrat that promises them things  and doesn't deliver. How's that unemployment rate in the African-American community under the Obama Presidency? But I digress... It's amazing how your worldview changes based on your ideology.

[Recalcuate]

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.

[Recalcuate]

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.

[Recalcuate]

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.

[Recalcuate]

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.