CO-Mellman (D): Udall+3 in internal
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:15:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls
  2014 Senatorial Election Polls
  CO-Mellman (D): Udall+3 in internal
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: CO-Mellman (D): Udall+3 in internal  (Read 2495 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 18, 2014, 10:43:44 AM »

44-41 Udall

This analysis represents the findings of a survey of 800 voters representing the likely 2014 general electorate in Colorado, who were interviewed by telephone October 13-15, 2014. The study was conducted by live interviewers who contacted both cell phones and land lines. The survey utilized a registration-based sample which models the likely electorate.

38% of the sample was made up of registered Republicans, 32.5% registered Democrats and 29.5% unaffiliated or members of other parties. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points at a 95% level of confidence. The margin of error is higher for subgroups.

Link
Logged
SPQR
italian-boy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,705
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2014, 10:45:00 AM »

Meh.
Logged
backtored
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 498
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2014, 10:45:47 AM »

Well, I did my own internal at Burger King and Gardner is up 36.7%.

Link coming.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2014, 10:47:31 AM »
« Edited: October 18, 2014, 10:52:26 AM by Invisible Obama »

Not a bad result for a +6 Republican sample. No one should be surprised if the Dem internals end up being accurate again. Democrats just don't mess around when it comes to internals, they can't afford to.

5150s will be needed very soon....
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2014, 10:49:09 AM »

38% of those sampled are Republican while 32.5% are Dems and U-Haul is up three? Ok, guys. What kind of massive lead must the soon-to-be-former Senator have amongst Idependents for that to be realistic?
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2014, 10:52:02 AM »

League of Conservation Voters (LCV) launches $1.6 million grassroots field campaign to re-elect Colorado Senator Mark Udall

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.lcv.org/media/press-releases/LCV-Launches-1-6-Million-Field-Program-to-Re-Elect-Mark-Udall.html
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2014, 10:54:04 AM »

Not a bad result for a +6 Republican sample. No one should be surprised if the Dem internals end up being accurate again. Democrats just don't mess around when it comes to internals, they can't afford to.

Yeah, because internals aren't released to look favorable to the candidate to rile up their base or anything to make it look like they have a chance.

All the non-partisan Senate polls are wrong. (Except those in Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire that show the Democrat ahead, right?)
Logged
backtored
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 498
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2014, 10:54:59 AM »
« Edited: October 18, 2014, 11:01:49 AM by backtored »

Notice how Udall is only at 44% despite incumbency and the fact that, oh, you know, voting is already underway. Sometimes it is just easier to say, yeah, our despicable abortion-on-demand meets Xnfinity-on-demand campaign isn't working too well, so please give us every last cent and minute you have to help us salvage this train wreck. That kind of honesty would probably by itself garner a few more votes.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2014, 10:59:06 AM »

Not a bad result for a +6 Republican sample. No one should be surprised if the Dem internals end up being accurate again. Democrats just don't mess around when it comes to internals, they can't afford to.

Yeah, because internals aren't released to look favorable to the candidate to rile up their base or anything to make it look like they have a chance.

All the non-partisan Senate polls are wrong. (Except those in Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire that show the Democrat ahead, right?)

Again, in 2012, the internals were better at measuring the actual turnout, because a lot of the public pollsters were assuming a bigger drop off in turnout which ended up not happening.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2014, 11:02:18 AM »

Not a bad result for a +6 Republican sample. No one should be surprised if the Dem internals end up being accurate again. Democrats just don't mess around when it comes to internals, they can't afford to.

Yeah, because internals aren't released to look favorable to the candidate to rile up their base or anything to make it look like they have a chance.

All the non-partisan Senate polls are wrong. (Except those in Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire that show the Democrat ahead, right?)

Again, in 2012, the internals were better at measuring the actual turnout, because a lot of the public pollsters were assuming a bigger drop off in turnout which ended up not happening.

Fair enough. So how about you go by Udall's internal polling and YouGov and I'll go by literally everything else?

I don't really care what you go by, your opinion doesn't shape mine and I'm not obligated to agree with you.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2014, 11:09:29 AM »

Looks like we're only doing slightly worse here than we are in New Hampshire.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2014, 11:11:28 AM »

Considering Mellman has the third strongest Democratic house effect out of tens of pollsters in Nate Silver's rankings, and that Udall would release the best of all polls available to him, again this seems in line with a race that is currently about Gardner+2.
Logged
Recalcuate
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 444


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2014, 11:15:26 AM »
« Edited: October 18, 2014, 12:10:43 PM by Recalcuate »

Not a bad result for a +6 Republican sample. No one should be surprised if the Dem internals end up being accurate again. Democrats just don't mess around when it comes to internals, they can't afford to.

Yeah, because internals aren't released to look favorable to the candidate to rile up their base or anything to make it look like they have a chance.

All the non-partisan Senate polls are wrong. (Except those in Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire that show the Democrat ahead, right?)

Again, in 2012, the internals were better at measuring the actual turnout, because a lot of the public pollsters were assuming a bigger drop off in turnout which ended up not happening.

Again, 2012 was a Presidential election year. A good number of pollsters still got it right. This is a six-year election for a two-term President. Off-year elections favor Republicans. Six-year elections are usually bad to the party of the two-term President.

Could Udall be ahead in Colorado right now? Probably not. He's behind in most polls from non-partisan sources with the exception of the YouGov poll. These polls have Gardner ahead at the fringes of the margin of error. 

If you cite a D+3 poll in Iowa, that's one thing, it's around the MOE and plausible. But Udall +3 in Colorado? It doesn't match the other margins. Most reasonable minds would have to conclude that this is your typical internal poll where you are trying to rally your base.

And note: I am not saying that Udall can't pull this off. The status of the race on October 18 suggests otherwise, however.
Logged
Panda Express
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,578


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2014, 11:19:04 AM »

Well, I did my own internal at Burger King and Gardner is up 36.7%.

Link coming.

That's a little messed up. I'm sure the people just wanted to eat their food in peace and not be harassed by some weirdo asking political questions.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2014, 11:20:55 AM »

Not a bad result for a +6 Republican sample. No one should be surprised if the Dem internals end up being accurate again. Democrats just don't mess around when it comes to internals, they can't afford to.

Yeah, because internals aren't released to look favorable to the candidate to rile up their base or anything to make it look like they have a chance.

All the non-partisan Senate polls are wrong. (Except those in Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire that show the Democrat ahead, right?)

Again, in 2012, the internals were better at measuring the actual turnout, because a lot of the public pollsters were assuming a bigger drop off in turnout which ended up not happening.

Again, 2012 was a Presidential election year. A good number of pollsters still got it right. This is a six-year election for a two-term President. Off-year elections favor Republicans. Six-year elections are usually bad to the party of the two-term President.

Could Udall be ahead in Colorado right now? Probably not. He's behind in most polls from non-partisan sources with the exception of the YouGov poll. These polls have Gardner ahead the fringes of the margin of error.  

If you cite a D+3 poll in Iowa, that's one thing, it's around the MOE and plausible. But Udall +3 in Colorado, it doesn't match the other margins. Most reasonable minds would have to conclude that this is your typical internal poll where you are trying to rally your base.

And note, I am not saying that Udall can't pull this off. The status of the race on October 18 suggests otherwise, however.

We'll see what happens on election night. Everyone's predictions will be proven right or wrong then. I'm not going to flip out if my predictions are wrong.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2014, 11:24:32 AM »

Not a bad result for a +6 Republican sample. No one should be surprised if the Dem internals end up being accurate again. Democrats just don't mess around when it comes to internals, they can't afford to.

Yeah, because internals aren't released to look favorable to the candidate to rile up their base or anything to make it look like they have a chance.

All the non-partisan Senate polls are wrong. (Except those in Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire that show the Democrat ahead, right?)

Again, in 2012, the internals were better at measuring the actual turnout, because a lot of the public pollsters were assuming a bigger drop off in turnout which ended up not happening.

Again, 2012 was a Presidential election year. A good number of pollsters still got it right. This is a six-year election for a two-term President. Off-year elections favor Republicans. Six-year elections are usually bad to the party of the two-term President.

Could Udall be ahead in Colorado right now? Probably not. He's behind in most polls from non-partisan sources with the exception of the YouGov poll. These polls have Gardner ahead the fringes of the margin of error.  

If you cite a D+3 poll in Iowa, that's one thing, it's around the MOE and plausible. But Udall +3 in Colorado, it doesn't match the other margins. Most reasonable minds would have to conclude that this is your typical internal poll where you are trying to rally your base.

And note, I am not saying that Udall can't pull this off. The status of the race on October 18 suggests otherwise, however.

We'll see what happens on election night. Everyone's predictions will be proven right or wrong then. I'm not going to flip out if my predictions are wrong.

The tradition isn't 'flipping out'; it's 'slinking away quietly'.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2014, 11:26:43 AM »

Not a bad result for a +6 Republican sample. No one should be surprised if the Dem internals end up being accurate again. Democrats just don't mess around when it comes to internals, they can't afford to.

Yeah, because internals aren't released to look favorable to the candidate to rile up their base or anything to make it look like they have a chance.

All the non-partisan Senate polls are wrong. (Except those in Georgia, North Carolina and New Hampshire that show the Democrat ahead, right?)

Again, in 2012, the internals were better at measuring the actual turnout, because a lot of the public pollsters were assuming a bigger drop off in turnout which ended up not happening.

Again, 2012 was a Presidential election year. A good number of pollsters still got it right. This is a six-year election for a two-term President. Off-year elections favor Republicans. Six-year elections are usually bad to the party of the two-term President.

Could Udall be ahead in Colorado right now? Probably not. He's behind in most polls from non-partisan sources with the exception of the YouGov poll. These polls have Gardner ahead the fringes of the margin of error.  

If you cite a D+3 poll in Iowa, that's one thing, it's around the MOE and plausible. But Udall +3 in Colorado, it doesn't match the other margins. Most reasonable minds would have to conclude that this is your typical internal poll where you are trying to rally your base.

And note, I am not saying that Udall can't pull this off. The status of the race on October 18 suggests otherwise, however.

We'll see what happens on election night. Everyone's predictions will be proven right or wrong then. I'm not going to flip out if my predictions are wrong.

The tradition isn't 'flipping out'; it's 'slinking away quietly'.

I remember quite a few overconfident Romney supporters doing that.
Logged
Panda Express
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,578


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2014, 11:28:27 AM »

drscholl takin' on everyone
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2014, 11:57:19 AM »

Can we ban him if when he's wrong?
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2014, 12:14:01 PM »

Mellman was the only one to get Reid's victory right in 2010.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2014, 12:16:40 PM »

Mellman was the only one to get Reid's victory right in 2010.

Yup, this poll actually gives me some hope.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2014, 12:29:55 PM »

Mellman was the only one to get Reid's victory right in 2010.

Exactly.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2014, 12:57:08 PM »


Yes. Therefore this specific internal poll 4 years later in a different state with a different set of candidates is most likely correct ... because math and science. And because Gardner is an extreme extremisty extremist. Abortion!
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,594
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2014, 01:01:13 PM »

Sorry fellow red avatars, there's no way I'm trusting an internal.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2014, 01:06:22 PM »

Who cares? It's an internal.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.054 seconds with 14 queries.