CO: PPP - Gardner (R) 48; Udall (D) 45

[KCDem]

Even if Udall were to win due to voter fraud, Colorado will be a solid blue state by 2020 and condom hater will be dead in the water.

Let's just hope Obama and Clinton veto any bills banning condoms the sumabitch tries to pass before then.

Serious question, and I'm sorry to ask it, but do you really think there's a desire to ban condoms among the GOP?

Yes. They generally are unattractives and misogynists who resent those who have sex, thus they want to ban rubbers for those who do.

[njwes]

My bad, I misread your post  I thought you were asking about contraceptives.  I doubt anyone but some of the whacktivists actually want to ban condoms.  It's been a long weekend (and not in a good way)

No worries, and that is a bit different, but I still see it as misinformation/fear-mongering. Even if these politicians sincerely want to ban IUDs or birth control pills or the nuva ring--and I don't think the vast majority do--it's clear enough that a Personhood Bill or Amendment will never, ever be passed into law.

[Vosem]

Guys, remember at the start of 2013 Dr. Scholl literally thought everything Democrats won in 2012 was totally safe for the foreseeable future? Gosh, Tuesday night will be fantastic.

The writing is on the wall here.

Why are you so confident in Land's chances? She's only leading by 2 points here.

Overconfidence, anyone? Look who turned out to be right on that one. You can't do a superior dance here, child.

Two can play at the 'search for the other person in our own archives' game:

This is the first real pickup opportunity Republicans are getting and it's R+14. Outside of the very few heavily Republican districts held by Democrats, there is nothing else out there for Republicans to gain.

And I would not count on there not being another shutdown, there is absolutely no guarantee that there won't be another showdown over something.

In any case...

Guys, remember at the start of 2013 Dr. Scholl literally thought everything Democrats won in 2012 was totally safe for the foreseeable future? Gosh, Tuesday night will be fantastic.

Creepy your fascination with me. You mention my name in your posts more than anyone, how quaint.

...why exactly is it quaint?

That's sarcasm, it's actually not quaint, it's creepy. I edited the post with something more relevant anyway.

You didn't edit it, you deleted it. But you can't go back and delete an entire cycle's worth of failed predictions and hackishness. As for me, I've always been fascinated as to how the failure (or, in your case, numerous failures) of political candidates, which has no bearing on day-to-day lives, can send people going through the Five Stages of Grief. You're still on the first (which is denial).

[Mr. Reactionary]

Shame there's no feature that allows us to award pinocchios to other comments.

[Maxwell]

There is an easy explanation people talking about Gardner's talent. He's run the perfect campaign.

[DrScholl]

Guys, remember at the start of 2013 Dr. Scholl literally thought everything Democrats won in 2012 was totally safe for the foreseeable future? Gosh, Tuesday night will be fantastic.

The writing is on the wall here.

Why are you so confident in Land's chances? She's only leading by 2 points here.

Overconfidence, anyone? Look who turned out to be right on that one. You can't do a superior dance here, child.

Two can play at the 'search for the other person in our own archives' game:

This is the first real pickup opportunity Republicans are getting and it's R+14. Outside of the very few heavily Republican districts held by Democrats, there is nothing else out there for Republicans to gain.

And I would not count on there not being another shutdown, there is absolutely no guarantee that there won't be another showdown over something.

In any case...

Guys, remember at the start of 2013 Dr. Scholl literally thought everything Democrats won in 2012 was totally safe for the foreseeable future? Gosh, Tuesday night will be fantastic.

Creepy your fascination with me. You mention my name in your posts more than anyone, how quaint.

...why exactly is it quaint?

That's sarcasm, it's actually not quaint, it's creepy. I edited the post with something more relevant anyway.

You didn't edit it, you deleted it. But you can't go back and delete an entire cycle's worth of failed predictions and hackishness. As for me, I've always been fascinated as to how the failure (or, in your case, numerous failures) of political candidates, which has no bearing on day-to-day lives, can send people going through the Five Stages of Grief. You're still on the first (which is denial).

Most of the Republican opportunities are in R+ districts, most of what YouGov shows Republicans winning are R+ seats. After 2010 and gerrymandering, there was never going to be another 60 seat gain.

In 2012, my predictions were correct, so even if I make some mistakes now, my record is still better than you, krazen or any of your other good friends on the board. Unlike Republicans, I don't have grief over elections, it's nice to win, but I'm not going to have a mental breakdown over it.

[Vosem]

Guys, remember at the start of 2013 Dr. Scholl literally thought everything Democrats won in 2012 was totally safe for the foreseeable future? Gosh, Tuesday night will be fantastic.

The writing is on the wall here.

Why are you so confident in Land's chances? She's only leading by 2 points here.

Overconfidence, anyone? Look who turned out to be right on that one. You can't do a superior dance here, child.

Two can play at the 'search for the other person in our own archives' game:

This is the first real pickup opportunity Republicans are getting and it's R+14. Outside of the very few heavily Republican districts held by Democrats, there is nothing else out there for Republicans to gain.

And I would not count on there not being another shutdown, there is absolutely no guarantee that there won't be another showdown over something.

In any case...

Guys, remember at the start of 2013 Dr. Scholl literally thought everything Democrats won in 2012 was totally safe for the foreseeable future? Gosh, Tuesday night will be fantastic.

Creepy your fascination with me. You mention my name in your posts more than anyone, how quaint.

...why exactly is it quaint?

That's sarcasm, it's actually not quaint, it's creepy. I edited the post with something more relevant anyway.

You didn't edit it, you deleted it. But you can't go back and delete an entire cycle's worth of failed predictions and hackishness. As for me, I've always been fascinated as to how the failure (or, in your case, numerous failures) of political candidates, which has no bearing on day-to-day lives, can send people going through the Five Stages of Grief. You're still on the first (which is denial).

Most of the Republican opportunities are in R+ districts, most of what YouGov shows Republicans winning are R+ seats.

First off all, you said heavily R, but in any case, Colorado is definitely not an R+ state. Scott Peters, Rick Nolan, and Steven Horsford all object to Republicans not being able to compete in lightly Democratic areas.

After 2010 and gerrymandering, there was never going to be another 60 seat gain.

Strawman

In 2012, my predictions were correct, so even if I make some mistakes now, my record is still better than you, krazen or any of your other good friends on the board.

Well, those aren't available on your profile. I did pretty well in 2012 as well, but as that's not on my profile I don't expect you to believe me either. The only predictions that are attached to your profile are 2010 -- when you significantly underestimated Republican gains, predicting R+4 when the reality was R+6; including a prediction that Alexi Giannoulias, who lost in Illinois would be over 60%. Hint, bro: you're just too hackish to be good at making predictions. Overcome this part of this personality (like some hacks on both sides here are capable of doing) and with time you might become a good prognosticator. You already keep up with polling, but you have to stop disregarding it.

Unlike Republicans, I don't have grief over elections, it's nice to win, but I'm not going to have a mental breakdown over it.

Saying "I'm not having a mental breakdown" in the midst of one is rather self-contradictory, no?

[KCDem]

This poll is glorious news for Mark Udall! Gardner will lose.

[Devils30]

Not a fan of unskewing the polls but no way Udall is losing if he wins indies by 11%. Of course he probably isn't but this poll seems R friendly with party ID and has too many Ds and Rs and not enough Is.

[eric82oslo]

This is what you get when Hillary refuses to campaign in a state - or told by advicers not to. Not a smart decision exactly. She could have energized latinos like crazy there.

[Vosem]

This is what you get when Hillary refuses to campaign in a state - or told by advicers not to. Not a smart decision exactly. She could have energized latinos like crazy there.

Colorado is not a Hillary-friendly state. When PPP polled this race in July, when it still leaned toward Udall, it found Hillary leading Ted Cruz by just 1 percentage point. Hillary would not have helped Udall, and might even have set him back.

Source: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/COMiscResults.pdf

[Devils30]

The combination of landline robocalls and internet polling just makes me uneasy. This final result seems legit but who really knows?

[eric82oslo]

Don't be expecting 49 state wins anytime soon.

Noone are expecting 49 state wins. However, 35 states could be a possibility.

I'd counter that with saying: Don't expect every election from now on to turn into a 25-25 state for each party spectacle.

[eric82oslo]

This is what you get when Hillary refuses to campaign in a state - or told by advicers not to. Not a smart decision exactly. She could have energized latinos like crazy there.

Colorado is not a Hillary-friendly state. When PPP polled this race in July, when it still leaned toward Udall, it found Hillary leading Ted Cruz by just 1 percentage point. Hillary would not have helped Udall, and might even have set him back.

Source: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/COMiscResults.pdf

I know it's not, however latinos there are, and that is all that matters as long as Udall was seen as a clear underdog.

Besides I think that Hillary's numbers in Colorado is mostly a mirror of the current Democratic politician fatigue that the state's residents are experiencing (Obama + Hickenlooper + the entire legislature, as well as Udall obviously). Only one party is getting all the blame in Colorado, unlike what's the case in most other states, and certainly in most other battleground states. Compare that to Kansas, North Carolina and Georgia where Republicans are getting most of the blame.

[Lief 🗽]

Tomorrow would actually be perfect for a surprise Clinton or Obama rally. All the Republicans have already sent in their ballots anyway, so they'd just be there boosting Democratic turnout!

[DrScholl]

Not a fan of unskewing the polls but no way Udall is losing if he wins indies by 11%. Of course he probably isn't but this poll seems R friendly with party ID and has too many Ds and Rs and not enough Is.

Could be that some regular Democratic voters are self-identifying as independent for some reason. With that said, I'm not writing Udall off just yet.

[Maxwell]

The independent thing is strange though - Beauprez actually does better with independents, but Gardner gets through anyways based on Democrats liking him (at least more than Udall).

[KCDem]

A 7-point error in favor of Rossi



A 5-point error in favor of Brady



A 6-point error in favor of Angle



...noticing a trend?

[Maxwell]

A 7-point error in favor of Rossi



A 5-point error in favor of Brady



A 6-point error in favor of Angle



...noticing a trend?

Junk Poll!

?

[KCDem]

^^^I agree: JUNK POLL!

Mark Udall has this race on lockdown.

[Tender Branson]

[Ebowed]

I gave up on this race about 36 hours ago (late to the party, I know), but this poll tells me pretty much all I need to know.

RIP Mark Udall FF

[Panda Express]

Guys, remember at the start of 2013 Dr. Scholl literally thought everything Democrats won in 2012 was totally safe for the foreseeable future? Gosh, Tuesday night will be fantastic.

Creepy your fascination with me. You mention my name in your posts more than anyone, how quaint.

...why exactly is it quaint?

you are so quaint. stop being so quaint.

[Bigby]

The combination of landline robocalls and internet polling just makes me uneasy. This final result seems legit but who really knows?

I have to agree that internet polling has me a little nervous as well. Is there any system in check that ensures only Coloradans are the ones answering the poll? I need to learn about internet polling in terms of statewide elections in order to feel more comfortable about it.

Anyway, it is good to see that Mark Uterus is getting a spanking. One issue campaigns usually don't end well, especially when you become an extremist while your opponent appears moderate about the same issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would tend to trust PPP in CO, as I would in VA and NC.

Cory Gardner's change on personhood reminds me a lot of Mark Kirk's shifts on coal and energy when he went from representing weathly northern chicagoland to the whole state including the poor mining areas of the southern part of the state. The constituency changes and one of the problems the GOP has had is not representing their present constituency as it really is on at least some issues so as to win on the others.