Talk Elections

Full Slate
Gardner (R) 48%
Udall (D) 45%
Other (O) 3%
Undecided 3%

Horse Race
Gardner (R) 50%
Udall (D) 47%
Undecided 3%

Poll Conducted: Nov. 1-2; 738 LV; MOE +/- 3.6%

Crosstabs: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2014/COResults.pdf

RIP. :(

RIP Udall

Pretty much what I expected.

Yeah - that's not what I'd like to see.

Obamas approval seems low. No way he's 8% below his national numbers in a state that's roughly average. That said, gardner probably wins by 1% or so.

()

Ken-gratulations, Senator Gardner!

Gardner will win.

()

Oh, please please please be right and continue your excellent track record PPP. Cory Gardner is the only candidate I direly want to win (Coakley and Don Young I just want to lose - I could care less who their opponent is).

I still believe Hickenlooper holds on in the end. PPP oddly was pretty good here in 2010 with senate but way off with governor. In the end it seems like gardner will win 48.5-47 etc.

Do you hate condoms that much?

He's consistently been in the mid-30s in Colorado polls. Similar story in Iowa.

Ken Buck so humbly gave himself up so that this day could happen. I hope he at least gets to introduce Colorado's next United States Senator, Cory Gardner!

Yep, Ken Buck is headed to Washington.

Oh well, at least there's no reason to have any false hope here now. A Gardner +1 or even a +2 would have been enough. But PPP's not going to miss here by 3%.

My prediction is Gardner by 1-2 points (1.5 to be exact) and Hickenlooper by 1.

This Buck's For You.

For from the Alaskan taiga to the Gulf of Mexico,
The Republican Party is the strongest!

Goodbye, idiot. Hopefully we can elect someone politically competent (and not part of some political dynasty) to win this seat back in 2020.

Speaking of the taiga, wasn't PPP supposed to have released their Alaska poll by now?

I'd love to see a match up between Colorado Dem Internal Polls (D) vs. KEN DA MAN BUCK (R) at some point down the line. Talk about an epic showdown.

Yeah. Approval was 41%, tweeted 35% for some reason but 41 seems legit. Still, the vote by mail adds another wrinkle to this. Gardner SHOULD win this but there's always a chance Udall wins by 150 votes after a long recount.

I'm not big one bit on party ID in polls but the exits in 2010, 2012 all had Dems leading while the pre-election polls mostly had the GOP ahead.

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.

At what point on Tuesday do the hacks around here literally say, "You know, the hard results in this race say one thing but the results said another thing in 2010 and 2012 so...!" ?

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

No doubt that Dems were helped here by the GOP slate of miserable candidates. Made up for the turnout deficit.

Can someone please tell me what is so appealing about Gardner? Some people here have him running for President and he hasn't even been elected to the Senate yet.

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

He's perceived as a moderate.

This race is pretty much over, RIP Udall. Maybe we can get someone not as awful in 2020 who can win re-election.

His record will prove otherwise if he's elected (big if). He's not going to be President, anyway, but with a conservative record, that even further flushes that idea.

Among the Santorum/Huckabee/etc types?  Yes.  Among the Republican Party as a whole?  No.

Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, etc. do not want to ban condoms and even if they did, they would bever, ever try to pursue that legislatively. If you believe otherwise, please stop.

Upshot and 538 both have ~80% chance of Gardner winning.

Keystone Phil has 95% chance that Senator U-Haul has already placed an order for big brown boxes to be delivered to his offices on Wednesday.

Really? I'm quite optimistic Colorado will be moving towards Atlas Blue with the rise of a socially liberal GOP that no longer has to appeal as much to the south once they lose Georgia at that point (and Mississippi/Louisiana becomes like Georgia now). Republicans are quite likely to have a pretty good hold out west as I expect Oregon and Colorado to trend R (even if begin to fall off in Arizona). Just one man's opinion on the future coalitions. Hard to tell so far out, but I think Colorado will be a key GOP piece.

I hope you are not one of those deluded Dems who thinks one party can hold all of the northeast, make rapid gains in the southeast and get rid of the state-level conservative Dems in KY/WV/AR, and change the Rocky Mountains solidly blue due to Hispanic growth without losing the populist heritage of the Midwest. Sorry to tell you, but that is a pipe dream. The Republican Party will not be reduced to Wyoming, Alabama, Idaho and Oklahoma. Parties evolve and the growth of minorities is not going to change that. Hispanics will almost certainly become what Italians and Irish have become, and even if the country moves in a slightly liberal direction (far from a guarantee), realignment will certainly occur and you will not have a one party state. Don't be expecting 49 state wins anytime soon.

My prediction for this one has wavered a lot... if Udall was down less than 3% (as opposed to down by 3%) I would have some hope that he could pick this up. But the mood in CO seems very solidly anti-Dem.

I've decided to put this in the GOP column, but it will be close.

Respectfully smilo, I wouldn't get too excited about connecting the rise of the socially liberal GOPer and Cory Gardener... just saying.

Ermagawd! The man who wants to allow oral contraceptives to be sold over the counter is going to ban condoms now. We know this because he hasn't said he intends to do so. That's how we also know Gardner will ban hopscotch, tweezers, Koi ponds, the 20 dollar bill, and crossword puzzles. Cory Gardner is anti-crosswords! Abortion! Ken Buck! Domestic violence! WAR ON WOMEN!

I have to agree with Phil on this. Maybe, maybe Santorum in his most ultramontane fantasies. The idea of "banning condoms" etc is just so much scaremongering from Dems. What's most frightening of all is that so many seemingly intelligent, well-informed liberals actually seem to believe this.

What a shame.

Udall's campaign was a freakin' disaster these last few weeks though.

No one can predict what the GOP will do next. Regardless, they can't pass a thing if they take the Senate, because they don't have 60 votes and there aren't nearly enough conservative Democrats left to get them over the line.

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.

If you just type Cory Gardner into Bing, BingPredicts at the top of the results page gives him an 88% chance of winning. Completely meaningless but exhilerating nonetheless. :D

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) :(

For the record, Gardner doesn't support banning condoms, and the personhood bill he once supported doesn't ban them either.

Goodbye Udall, and your disgusting, abortion-centered campaign!

Just everything else personhood means...

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

...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.

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

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.

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



In any case...


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).

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

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

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.

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.


Strawman


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.


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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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).

()

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!

?

^^^I agree: JUNK POLL!

Mark Udall has this race on lockdown.

()

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

you are so quaint. stop being so quaint.

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.

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.

Actually, if the current trends continue with Republicans up by 7% to 9% in turnout, Udall would have to win 60% of the independents or more. Rove said 67% but consider the source.

Remember guys, PPP had Bennett up for most of the campaign in 2010 (with the exception of their last poll which showed Buck up by one) while all the other pollsters constantly showed Buck leading. This year all the pollsters showed Gardner up (including PPP), and PPP's final poll shows Garder up by 3 instead of 1.

Unfortunate that Udall was forced to run in such a misogynistic state

This has been over for days,if not weeks.

I'm glad the "Ken Buck!!111" hysteria is over. This will be a very good night for Republicans in Colorado, and it's been pretty clear for weeks now.

The water is rapidly rising when the hacks are saying not to trust PPP...there is chatter in the lifeboats about turning back to save them but it's too late...

And Brownback will be reelected ::)

The only thing more misogynistic than abortion is the idea that women are primarily motivated to vote by a desire to have unimpeded access to abortion.

Women want to have fun and not get pregnant. I know it's hard for you to understand because you don't get laid, but trust those of us who do.

I'm sure you're quite the man about town, KC.

I'm married, KC.

So that explains why you hate condoms.

This thread is so hilarious. The shade is off the charts.

Actually, I'm a Catholic, and I do hate condoms.  But I don't think that Cory Gardner does.

Which Gardner doesn't support banning!

So your anti-condom delusions color your analysis. Good to know!

...I take it back. Please keep going on after this is done. You could make IceSpear look like Snowstalker.

KCDem vs backtored:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1JO47zgtNU

Eh being married is not something I'm desperately craving. In fact quite the opposite. I enjoy maintaining a large harem.

This thread is truly terrifying.

Yet I can't stop checking it.

Load thread into exoskulls and vigorously touch flippers!

Ummm, that's exactly what the anti-choice movement is all about: taking power away from women and giving it to politicians who tend to be disproportionally white and male.

1. "Disproportionately"
2. Read the FULL sentence. Does it say the ISSUE has nothing to do with suppressing women? No, it says the ARGUMENT for being pro-life has nothing to do with suppressing women.
3. There's no such thing as an anti-choice movement (and if there is, they are probably HPs)
4. Abortion does nothing to do with putting males in power. Big Murkowski supporter here. Align with my beliefs and be a respectable human being. I don't care who you are - you can have my vote for a position of power.
5. Get off this forum, you JUNK POSTER. Mods please ban.

Gardner should win this but looking at RCP it is eerily similar to the 2010 Senate race in Colorado. 2.5 average lead for Gardner with most polls having him up 2-3.

Restricting abortion is all about male power. You insult every woman in this country by denying it.

Even though I am pro-choice, I don't think restricting abortion is about male power as much as it is about people (men and women) trying to push their religious and moral beliefs on others.

There are plenty of pro-life women who would deny abortion to other women.

There are pro-life females, in case you weren't aware.

2010. Wasn't that the race with ...

()

Looks like the final result will be about 49-46 Gardner. Meaning PPP once again nailed Colorado.

Basically nailed the governor's race as well. Very impressive.

More like 2.5 for Gardner and 3.5 for Hick. I think Gardner was captured by the RCP average.

Looks like the Buck effect got cancelled out by Republicans underpolling nationally to result in accurate polls in Colorado this year!

By basically a national non-racist(but many here on atlas think it was caused by an alleged rape culture in Massachusetts and Colorado) Bradley effect.

The weird thing is the "CO effect" did seem to happen for Hickenlooper, though.

It's still kind of shocking how Gardner won CO without winning Denver and the suburbs.  That's never heard of before.  I believe turnout outside Denver really helped him out in the end.

He won Larimer by 500 votes, though and the GOP turnout machine really helped in Greeley and Colorado Springs. The Democrats just didn't do a good job in Pueblo, too. If I were Bennet and Hillary, I would really be looking into turning out the vote in Pueblo and the Sangre Del Christos.

The point is that Republicans and Democrats both did fairly well this election but that the Rs are doing much better though the Ds still have much room for improvement.

Not talking about abortion 90% of the time might help turn them out.

I'd imagine that to be the case, too. Its a tough like to walk. You can't just give up on the issue but you can't run on it. That's true for Republicans, too. No one can run as the abortion monster whether you running as "if you have sex, you should immediately expect to be a parent" or "fetuses are  temporary female organs that become a person once they are born ".