CO-Quinnipiac: Clinton loses to Paul, but beats Bush, Christie, Huckabee

[Mr. Morden]

Quinnipiac poll of Colorado:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2060

Clinton 42%
Christie 40%

Paul 46%
Clinton 43%

Clinton 44%
Bush 40%

Clinton 44%
Huckabee 41%

[Mr. Morden]

Christie vs. Clinton by age:
18-29: Christie +4
30-49: Clinton +6
50-64: Clinton +6
65+: Christie +11

Paul vs. Clinton by age:
18-29: Paul +7
30-49: Paul +2
50-64: Clinton +5
65+: Paul +13

fav/unfav %
Paul 39/28% for +11%
Huckabee 36/29% for +7%
Clinton 48/48 for +/-0
Christie 34/37% for -3%
Bush 31/36% for -5%

[BlueSwan]

Pretty bad poll for Clinton. Really don't see her actually losing Colorado, but the polls sure aren't great there.

[Person Man]

Pretty bad poll for Clinton. Really don't see her actually losing Colorado, but the polls sure aren't great there.

This is from the same poll that has the straight-R express in the lead and this sort of expected.

 OTOH, along with the Iowa poll, this would mean that maybe Clinton will be neck and neck competitive at best or maybe Clinton will be stuck in the Northeast and have to rely on just on Florida or trying to win a state that hasn't voted Democrat this century. Maybe the strategy of winning Kerry + Ohio + Florida will barely work for her but after 2020, Democrats simply won't have enough votes.

[eric82oslo]

Pretty bad poll for Clinton. Really don't see her actually losing Colorado, but the polls sure aren't great there.

This is from the same poll that has the straight-R express in the lead and this sort of expected.

 OTOH, along with the Iowa poll, this would mean that maybe Clinton will be neck and neck competitive at best or maybe Clinton will be stuck in the Northeast and have to rely on just on Florida or trying to win a state that hasn't voted Democrat this century. Maybe the strategy of winning Kerry + Ohio + Florida will barely work for her but after 2020, Democrats simply won't have enough votes.

What are you talking about? She can easily win the election without Colorado. She can easily win it without Colorado and Iowa as well, although she is currently leading all opponents by 4% or more in Iowa. Remember that she's currently ahead of everyone even in North Carolina, which is in fact a more important state than Colorado and Iowa put together. Right now she is on a path more crushing than that of Obama 2012.

[5280]

Why are they still polling Huckabee?  That guy is a big government neocon republican.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

CO is a weakish state for Clinton, especially against Paul. That being said, Quinnipiac seems to have an R house bias in CO. In 2012 they had Romney up 5 at the beginning of August, when PPP had Obama up 6 and even Rasmussen showed a tie. Out of the three polls they did in CO, only one of them ever showed Obama ahead, and it was by a single point (he won by almost 6).

[Person Man]

CO is a weakish state for Clinton, especially against Paul. That being said, Quinnipiac seems to have an R house bias in CO. In 2012 they had Romney up 5 at the beginning of August, when PPP had Obama up 6 and even Rasmussen showed a tie. Out of the three polls they did in CO, only one of them ever showed Obama ahead, and it was by a single point (he won by almost 6).

My guess is that democrats really shouldn't be worrying as much as this poll suggests. The only way I can see Republicans doing as well some polls may suggest is because a lot of oilers may have moved to region, causing conservative growth in conservative areas. Though mining has been part of the state economy since time began and I doubt the change in population caused by such movement is significant to the overall story.

Pretty bad poll for Clinton. Really don't see her actually losing Colorado, but the polls sure aren't great there.

This is from the same poll that has the straight-R express in the lead and this sort of expected.

 OTOH, along with the Iowa poll, this would mean that maybe Clinton will be neck and neck competitive at best or maybe Clinton will be stuck in the Northeast and have to rely on just on Florida or trying to win a state that hasn't voted Democrat this century. Maybe the strategy of winning Kerry + Ohio + Florida will barely work for her but after 2020, Democrats simply won't have enough votes.

What are you talking about? She can easily win the election without Colorado. She can easily win it without Colorado and Iowa as well, although she is currently leading all opponents by 4% or more in Iowa. Remember that she's currently ahead of everyone even in North Carolina, which is in fact a more important state than Colorado and Iowa put together. Right now she is on a path more crushing than that of Obama 2012.

In 2008, Hillary did well in the non-deep south in polling, but I am uncertain if that support would hold. The point is that we can't really put all our eggs in one basket.

[pbrower2a]

Pretty bad poll for Clinton. Really don't see her actually losing Colorado, but the polls sure aren't great there.

This is from the same poll that has the straight-R express in the lead and this sort of expected.

 OTOH, along with the Iowa poll, this would mean that maybe Clinton will be neck and neck competitive at best or maybe Clinton will be stuck in the Northeast and have to rely on just on Florida or trying to win a state that hasn't voted Democrat this century. Maybe the strategy of winning Kerry + Ohio + Florida will barely work for her but after 2020, Democrats simply won't have enough votes.

She consistently wins Virginia and Ohio, which would be enough for her even if she lost Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.

Colorado has a loud libertarian movement, which probably explains why Paul does so much better (due in part to the reputation of his father Ron) in Colorado than other Republicans. 43% is likely close to his ceiling.  It is a limited constituency, as shown in Colorado for the last six years.

Colorado tends to break late for Democrats, likely due to the fast-growing Hispanic population that tends to get ignored until late. Libertarians do not do well among Hispanics.

[Never]

CO is a weakish state for Clinton, especially against Paul. That being said, Quinnipiac seems to have an R house bias in CO. In 2012 they had Romney up 5 at the beginning of August, when PPP had Obama up 6 and even Rasmussen showed a tie. Out of the three polls they did in CO, only one of them ever showed Obama ahead, and it was by a single point (he won by almost 6).

My guess is that democrats really shouldn't be worrying as much as this poll suggests. The only way I can see Republicans doing as well some polls may suggest is because a lot of oilers may have moved to region, causing conservative growth in conservative areas. Though mining has been part of the state economy since time began and I doubt the change in population caused by such movement is significant to the overall story.

Pretty bad poll for Clinton. Really don't see her actually losing Colorado, but the polls sure aren't great there.

This is from the same poll that has the straight-R express in the lead and this sort of expected.

 OTOH, along with the Iowa poll, this would mean that maybe Clinton will be neck and neck competitive at best or maybe Clinton will be stuck in the Northeast and have to rely on just on Florida or trying to win a state that hasn't voted Democrat this century. Maybe the strategy of winning Kerry + Ohio + Florida will barely work for her but after 2020, Democrats simply won't have enough votes.

What are you talking about? She can easily win the election without Colorado. She can easily win it without Colorado and Iowa as well, although she is currently leading all opponents by 4% or more in Iowa. Remember that she's currently ahead of everyone even in North Carolina, which is in fact a more important state than Colorado and Iowa put together. Right now she is on a path more crushing than that of Obama 2012.

In 2008, Hillary did well in the non-deep south in polling, but I am uncertain if that support would hold. The point is that we can't really put all our eggs in one basket.

I wouldn't rule out Hillary winning states like Ohio and Virginia even if she loses Colorado and Iowa, but if she can't win in those latter two states, I have my doubts that North Carolina would fall in her column. Florida could still go for Hillary in this scenario, but if she's already lost Colorado, it could take several days after election night to call the state for her, the same way it took so long to call for Obama in 2012.  

Anyhow, I will say that I strongly suspect this Quinnipac poll is overestimating the GOP's chances in CO. If she's winning at least 270 EVs, this state should vote for her. Paul might overperform compared to other Republicans, but I just don't see him beating Clinton by three points.

[Person Man]

Needless to say, Paul ' nomination and election would be the biggest upset since Reagan, if not moreso.

[pbrower2a]

Pretty bad poll for Clinton. Really don't see her actually losing Colorado, but the polls sure aren't great there.

This is from the same poll that has the straight-R express in the lead and this sort of expected.

 OTOH, along with the Iowa poll, this would mean that maybe Clinton will be neck and neck competitive at best or maybe Clinton will be stuck in the Northeast and have to rely on just on Florida or trying to win a state that hasn't voted Democrat this century. Maybe the strategy of winning Kerry + Ohio + Florida will barely work for her but after 2020, Democrats simply won't have enough votes.

Republicans so far rely heavily on a coalition of Corporate America, religious fundamentalists, and resource-extractors. That is not a coalition for long-term winning.

Keeping a coalition together for twelve years is a rarity in American politics. Such requires winning. FDR did it. Reagan didn't. When the Republicans elected Hoover in a landslide they thought that they had a permanent majority. By 1930 they were disabused of that idea.

By 2020 the Republicans will either start building a new coalition or they will be increasingly irrelevant.