CO-Quinnipiac: Gardner +8

[Never]

Article

Gardner: 48%
Udall: 40%
Shogan: 8%

Without Independent Steve Shogan, Gardner leads by 10:

Gardner: 52%
Udall: 42%

[RogueBeaver]

Definitely waiting for PPP.

[Never]

Definitely waiting for PPP.

With these kinds of numbers, that's definitely a good idea.

[RogueBeaver]

Gardner tied with women? Really?

[Knives]

...

Either Udall is ed or Quinnipac is ed in the head. I lean towards the later...

[Tender Branson]

Lean towards "massive outliers" in both CO and IA.

SUSA, which has been pretty good in CO in 2008 and 2012 showed completely different numbers.

[Never]

Gardner tied with women? Really?

At least that's fairly consistent with their poll of the governor's race showing Beauprez up a point with women, though in reality, Gardner tying with women does seem dubious.

[Never]

Does anyone think that Independent candidate Steve Shogan is actually as strong as this poll is indicating? I just have trouble believing that he is garnering 8% of the vote, considering Suffolk only had him at 1%, and SurveyUSA had him at 3%.

[eric82oslo]

From now on, I'm just gonna refer to Quinnipiac as QuinoaPAC.
That's how stupid these last two polls (in Colorado) have been lol.

[RogueBeaver]

Never: No. Lynn Bartels said he's a Some Dude ex-Dem.

[Person Man]

Romney was up 5 in Quin this time last cycle.

[Never]

Romney was up 5 in Quin this time last cycle.

True, Quinnipiac overestimated Romney by way too much (about 6 points or so) in 2012. Still, Quinnipac polls would have to be even more biased towards Republicans this year in Colorado than they were last time in order to completely erase Gardner's lead. If we subtracted 6.4 from Gardner's margin of 8, he still maintains a bare lead of 1.6%. That's not to say that it is impossible for Quinnipiac to have made a glaring error with this polling, but we'll probably need to see some more polls of this race to confirm how inaccurate these numbers are.

[Person Man]

Romney was up 5 in Quin this time last cycle.

True, Quinnipiac overestimated Romney by way too much (about 6 points or so) in 2012. Still, Quinnipac polls would have to be even more biased towards Republicans this year in Colorado than they were last time in order to completely erase Gardner's lead. If we subtracted 6.4 from Gardner's margin of 8, he still maintains a bare lead of 1.6%. That's not to say that it is impossible for Quinnipiac to have made a glaring error with this polling, but we'll probably need to see some more polls of this race to confirm how inaccurate these numbers are.

I'll go with that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What the f-u-c-k is wrong with polls this cycle? They'r all over the place!

[Miles]

Sabato says Quinnipiac had a OH poll out at this time in 2010 with Kasich +17; he said to treat this poll like that one.

[Panda Express]

Why are you all acting surprised? We all knew this was coming in a poll with a sample that had  Beauprez up 10.

[DrScholl]

Yes, with the gubernatorial poll being so inflated, this was to be expected. I can't really see these numbers being accurate at all, these are way too inflated from what we've seen from other polling outfits.

[Maxwell]

Sabato says Quinnipiac had a OH poll out at this time in 2010 with Kasich +17; he said to treat this poll like that one.

Quinnipiac occasionally throws out crap numbers. Otherwise they're a good pollster. This is one of the crap ones.

[Person Man]

Sabato says Quinnipiac had a OH poll out at this time in 2010 with Kasich +17; he said to treat this poll like that one.

Quinnipiac occasionally throws out crap numbers. Otherwise they're a good pollster. This is one of the crap ones.

Yeah. He won by 2, right?

[backtored]

So an NBC News poll showing Udall with a comfy lead is totally plausible but a Quinnipiac poll showing Gardner with a similar lead is not?  Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

Either way, Democrats here and elsewhere have pointed to Udall's consistent lead in the polls as evidence of the supposed "lean D" status of the race.  In two days you have as many polls showing Gardner winning, one of which is well outside the margin.  Is he up eight?  Probably not. But he may very well be leading at this point, which is means that this race is far from Lean D.

[RogueBeaver]

I'll just throw out "R+7."

[backtored]

I'll just throw out "R+7."

Which is what 2010 looked like.  A reach?  Yeah, probably.  But certainly not crazy.  It is a rabbit chase trying to reconfigure voter screens and rectangle polling like that.  It is better to take it for what it is and throw it in with the rest of the polling data.  If you do that, you get a race that is probably very, very close.  I just happen to think that it will break strongly for Gardner.

[DrScholl]

It's fine if you want to like a poll that produces a result that you find favorable to your own personal view, but you can't expect everyone else to nod in agreement. With an R+7 electorate in 2010, Buck still lost, so this poll could still be off even if you go by that standard. +8 is way too inflated.

[Smash255]

So an NBC News poll showing Udall with a comfy lead is totally plausible but a Quinnipiac poll showing Gardner with a similar lead is not?  Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

Either way, Democrats here and elsewhere have pointed to Udall's consistent lead in the polls as evidence of the supposed "lean D" status of the race.  In two days you have as many polls showing Gardner winning, one of which is well outside the margin.  Is he up eight?  Probably not. But he may very well be leading at this point, which is means that this race is far from Lean D.

The +6 might have been a stretch, but it was at least in the ballpark of other polls (the two before and after it was +4, +2, +3, +4).  This poll is 7 points off from anything else out recently, 6 points off from anything out the entire cycle.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If anyone loses it is Hickenlooper, the Udalls are a team and they are much more li
better campaigners, too.

There will be some ticket splitting maybe AR and Ga and even CO.