CO-Quinnipiac: Hick down 10

[5280]

If the next poll whether it's PPP or Rasmussen puts Beauprez at +5 is it safe to say the race is lean GOP?

[NewYorkExpress]

Hickenlooper is probably behind, but 10 points is a huge stretch in purple state Colorado.

If I had to guess Bueauprez is leading by at most 2-4 points.

[eric82oslo]

You know that re-weighting polls by party ID is what those "unskewing polls" guys were doing in 2012. I'd suggest not "unskewing polls;" it rather reeks of desperation.

Yet 2010 was the best possible scenario Republicans have seen for decades. It was an even greater cycle than the grand 1994. When a pollster expect Republican turnout to be much higher and Democratic turnout to be much lower than in 2010, some, or rather many, alarm bells should be going off. Especially considering the fact that demographic changes have not made life easier for Republican candidates since 2010 - and that is especially true for Colorado (Georgia & North Carolina are other examples). Of course for some other states - say West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, New Hampshire - demographic changes are not really important.

And the "unskewing polls" guys were weighting party ID to 2008, claiming that it was the "best-case scenario" for Democrats.

They were actually right, even; the 2012 exit polls were similar to 2008 in terms of party ID, and the phone pollsters did have samples with a greater proportion of self-reported Democrats than the exit polls. But the "unskewed polls" were still hilariously wrong. People report their party ID differently in exit polls than they do in phone polls.

The reason why the unskewed 2012 polls were hilariously wrong was of course the very late surge Obama got after the New Jersey/New York hurricane, which showed Obama as a great national leader in times of disaster - contrasting as crazy to the incompetent W preceding him - as well as the heartfelt hugging of Christie, which didn't exactly hurt either. Well, not only that, as his final debate performance - especially his comparison of Romney's fantasy military to the Civil War era - was a performance of utter brilliance, one that will go down in the history books as a prime example of how to do presidential debates, much like Reagan's statement that he wouldn't use his opponent's inexperience against him. Before these two events, Romney had lead most polls for about a month or so - or at worst being tied. Basically every poll showed a Romney lead in Florida up until election day. Even Nate predicted Florida would ultimately go ever so barely for Romney, didn't he?

[Free Bird]

If the next poll whether it's PPP or Rasmussen puts Beauprez at +5 is it safe to say the race is lean GOP?

No then PPP would be garbage, too

[ElectionAtlas]

New Poll: Colorado Governor by Quinnipiac University on 2014-09-15

Summary: D: 40%, R: 50%, I: 7%, U: 3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You know that re-weighting polls by party ID is what those "unskewing polls" guys were doing in 2012. I'd suggest not "unskewing polls;" it rather reeks of desperation.

Yet 2010 was the best possible scenario Republicans have seen for decades. It was an even greater cycle than the grand 1994. When a pollster expect Republican turnout to be much higher and Democratic turnout to be much lower than in 2010, some, or rather many, alarm bells should be going off. Especially considering the fact that demographic changes have not made life easier for Republican candidates since 2010 - and that is especially true for Colorado (Georgia & North Carolina are other examples). Of course for some other states - say West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, New Hampshire - demographic changes are not really important.

And the "unskewing polls" guys were weighting party ID to 2008, claiming that it was the "best-case scenario" for Democrats.

They were actually right, even; the 2012 exit polls were similar to 2008 in terms of party ID, and the phone pollsters did have samples with a greater proportion of self-reported Democrats than the exit polls. But the "unskewed polls" were still hilariously wrong. People report their party ID differently in exit polls than they do in phone polls.

The reason why the unskewed 2012 polls were hilariously wrong was of course the very late surge Obama got after the New Jersey/New York hurricane, which showed Obama as a great national leader in times of disaster - contrasting as crazy to the incompetent W preceding him - as well as the heartfelt hugging of Christie, which didn't exactly hurt either. Well, not only that, as his final debate performance - especially his comparison of Romney's fantasy military to the Civil War era - was a performance of utter brilliance, one that will go down in the history books as a prime example of how to do presidential debates, much like Reagan's statement that he wouldn't use his opponent's inexperience against him. Before these two events, Romney had lead most polls for about a month or so - or at worst being tied. Basically every poll showed a Romney lead in Florida up until election day. Even Nate predicted Florida would ultimately go ever so barely for Romney, didn't he?

Nate actually said Florida was 50-50. However, he said the momentum was with Obama, so gave him a 50.01% chance of victory and Romney a 49.99% chance of victory. He did the same thing, flipped around, with Missouri in 2008.

[eric82oslo]

You know that re-weighting polls by party ID is what those "unskewing polls" guys were doing in 2012. I'd suggest not "unskewing polls;" it rather reeks of desperation.

Yet 2010 was the best possible scenario Republicans have seen for decades. It was an even greater cycle than the grand 1994. When a pollster expect Republican turnout to be much higher and Democratic turnout to be much lower than in 2010, some, or rather many, alarm bells should be going off. Especially considering the fact that demographic changes have not made life easier for Republican candidates since 2010 - and that is especially true for Colorado (Georgia & North Carolina are other examples). Of course for some other states - say West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, New Hampshire - demographic changes are not really important.

And the "unskewing polls" guys were weighting party ID to 2008, claiming that it was the "best-case scenario" for Democrats.

They were actually right, even; the 2012 exit polls were similar to 2008 in terms of party ID, and the phone pollsters did have samples with a greater proportion of self-reported Democrats than the exit polls. But the "unskewed polls" were still hilariously wrong. People report their party ID differently in exit polls than they do in phone polls.

The reason why the unskewed 2012 polls were hilariously wrong was of course the very late surge Obama got after the New Jersey/New York hurricane, which showed Obama as a great national leader in times of disaster - contrasting as crazy to the incompetent W preceding him - as well as the heartfelt hugging of Christie, which didn't exactly hurt either. Well, not only that, as his final debate performance - especially his comparison of Romney's fantasy military to the Civil War era - was a performance of utter brilliance, one that will go down in the history books as a prime example of how to do presidential debates, much like Reagan's statement that he wouldn't use his opponent's inexperience against him. Before these two events, Romney had lead most polls for about a month or so - or at worst being tied. Basically every poll showed a Romney lead in Florida up until election day. Even Nate predicted Florida would ultimately go ever so barely for Romney, didn't he?

Nate actually said Florida was 50-50. However, he said the momentum was with Obama, so gave him a 50.01% chance of victory and Romney a 49.99% chance of victory. He did the same thing, flipped around, with Missouri in 2008.

Yeah, I think I remember 538 shifting Florida to barely Obama the last 2-3 days or so. Yet almost everyone else expected Obama to be near chanceless there.

[backtored]

Hickenlooper is probably behind, but 10 points is a huge stretch in purple state Colorado.

If I had to guess Bueauprez is leading by at most 2-4 points.

I tend to agree with this.

[Suburbia]

My co-workers were arguining over this this morning. They said Hick is toast because the endorsements that the CO GOP have is more crucial than the Democrats, like former Broncos quarterback John Elway, for example. I'm sure he'll endorse Beauprez soon.

[Oakvale]

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You know that re-weighting polls by party ID is what those "unskewing polls" guys were doing in 2012. I'd suggest not "unskewing polls;" it rather reeks of desperation.

Yet 2010 was the best possible scenario Republicans have seen for decades. It was an even greater cycle than the grand 1994. When a pollster expect Republican turnout to be much higher and Democratic turnout to be much lower than in 2010, some, or rather many, alarm bells should be going off. Especially considering the fact that demographic changes have not made life easier for Republican candidates since 2010 - and that is especially true for Colorado (Georgia & North Carolina are other examples). Of course for some other states - say West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Iowa, New Hampshire - demographic changes are not really important.

And the "unskewing polls" guys were weighting party ID to 2008, claiming that it was the "best-case scenario" for Democrats.

They were actually right, even; the 2012 exit polls were similar to 2008 in terms of party ID, and the phone pollsters did have samples with a greater proportion of self-reported Democrats than the exit polls. But the "unskewed polls" were still hilariously wrong. People report their party ID differently in exit polls than they do in phone polls.

The reason why the unskewed 2012 polls were hilariously wrong was of course the very late surge Obama got after the New Jersey/New York hurricane, which showed Obama as a great national leader in times of disaster - contrasting as crazy to the incompetent W preceding him - as well as the heartfelt hugging of Christie, which didn't exactly hurt either. Well, not only that, as his final debate performance - especially his comparison of Romney's fantasy military to the Civil War era - was a performance of utter brilliance, one that will go down in the history books as a prime example of how to do presidential debates, much like Reagan's statement that he wouldn't use his opponent's inexperience against him. Before these two events, Romney had lead most polls for about a month or so - or at worst being tied. Basically every poll showed a Romney lead in Florida up until election day. Even Nate predicted Florida would ultimately go ever so barely for Romney, didn't he?

Nate actually said Florida was 50-50. However, he said the momentum was with Obama, so gave him a 50.01% chance of victory and Romney a 49.99% chance of victory. He did the same thing, flipped around, with Missouri in 2008.

Yeah, I think I remember 538 shifting Florida to barely Obama the last 2-3 days or so. Yet almost everyone else expected Obama to be near chanceless there.

Well, because we all expected that Romney would win at least one battleground state aside from NC - because it just well, made sense, and Florida seemed the likeliest to go - it was the only other battleground where Romney led in the RCP average, after all. Guesses for the second most likely were split between VA and CO, but there was near universal agreement that FL was the most likely state to go for Romney after NC.

[Vega]

Waiting for PPP.  Till then I'll go with the HuffPo average.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Down by 10%? Bull****.

[GaussLaw]

Obviously this is a bit of a crazy outlier, but is the Dunlap situation a really big deal in CO?  That's the most obvious other explanation.

[KCDem]

This poll is a joke.