CO: Rasmussen: Udall only ahead by 3
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:38:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 Senatorial Election Polls
  CO: Rasmussen: Udall only ahead by 3
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: CO: Rasmussen: Udall only ahead by 3  (Read 6108 times)
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2008, 11:33:44 PM »

No matter how you look at it, it looks like Dems +4 at the end of the night on November 4th.

At a minimum.

It's pretty close to the max. They might be able to get Oregon but not much else.
NM + NH + VA + CO + AK = 5. The latest poll has Merkley ahead in Oregon, making +6 possible. Then there's MS, which is close.

Tie = Merkley ahead? Alright, Mr. Kansas for Obama!
Merkley 43, Smith 41.

43 > 41.

Hope that wasn't too intense for you, Mr. Connecticut for McCain.

Where's that poll? It's not on the polling pages here if it is true. Still a statistical tie and not worth claiming he's ahead now.
Duke, it's never a good sign for an incumbent to poll under 50%. Smith hasn't broken 45% in either camp's polls in a few months.

This is truly the bellwether race of the cycle. If Smith holds on, GOP losses will be held to 4-5 seats. If Merkley wins, NC, ME, and MN could switch parties. That is barring a major collapse  (or another major gaffe -- I'm talking to you, Franken) by any of the Democrats in those semi-long shot races.



Well it would be a bellwether if not for the fact that we should know the fates of Collins, Dole and Coleman before we know Smith's.
Tongue  Darn time zones. Maybe we should amend the old saying. As Maine went, so Oregon might go.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 23, 2008, 12:07:40 AM »


kill!  kill!
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 23, 2008, 12:14:53 AM »


Ras is on a roll!  Cheesy
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 23, 2008, 12:18:41 AM »

Schaffer doing well at the debate probably helped him. Observe.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=aT2SIadYPmQ

Quite well done. I was wondering where Schaffer was going with it. He knew, and I didn't. Smiley
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 23, 2008, 12:18:53 AM »
« Edited: July 23, 2008, 12:21:27 AM by MarkWarner08 »

Amen. According to Ras., Jack Abramoff's parasailing buddy is polling higher than a two-term Senator from Oregon.


Pictorial proof for the imagination-challenged.

Bob Schaeffer and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff sitting in a tree....
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2008, 12:29:43 AM »




Pictorial proof for the imagination-challenged.

Bob Schaeffer and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff sitting in a tree....

Listen, I know you're obsessed over this photo and all so I believe that Jack is there but am I the only one who doesn't see Abramoff?
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2008, 12:33:46 AM »
« Edited: July 23, 2008, 12:38:59 AM by MarkWarner08 »




Pictorial proof for the imagination-challenged.

Bob Schaeffer and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff sitting in a tree....

Listen, I know you're obsessed over this photo and all so I believe that Jack is there but am I the only one who doesn't see Abramoff?
"Jackie boy" probably took the picture. Or maybe he was calling his corrupt buddies at the time when the picture was taken. Anyway, Schaffer's BFF (isn't it fun to be a hack, Phil?) is a convicted felon.

I posted it once before. It's just so devastating, that I couldn't help but post it again. If Udall ever trails in the polls, I'll add the pic to my signature. Wink

Logged
Aizen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,511


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2008, 12:35:34 AM »

I don't understand how Obama is doing better there than Udall.

Early polling showed Obama doing better than Udall. Then they were doing about the same. Then Udall started doing a lot better than Obama. Now it seems to have switched again. Just goes to show you that both the presidential race and the senate race are fluid in Colorado. It seems Schaffer has rebounded. Before he had some embarrassing gaffes and he took a hit in the polls. But he really wants to win... like, really bad. It'll be a pretty good race. Unlike NH, VA and NM (Which are 100% guaranteed Dem pickups), Schaffer does have a chance of winning. But it's still small. This is probably still Udall's to lose. But Republicans need not give up so quickly here.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,602
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2008, 12:37:15 AM »




Pictorial proof for the imagination-challenged.

Bob Schaeffer and convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff sitting in a tree....

Listen, I know you're obsessed over this photo and all so I believe that Jack is there but am I the only one who doesn't see Abramoff?

Three choices. He is the guy who is taking the picture, he is on the top of the parachute thing or he is under the boat.
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2008, 12:37:48 AM »

I don't understand how Obama is doing better there than Udall.

Early polling showed Obama doing better than Udall. Then they were doing about the same. Then Udall started doing a lot better than Obama. Now it seems to have switched again. Just goes to show you that both the presidential race and the senate race are fluid in Colorado. It seems Schaffer has rebounded. Before he had some embarrassing gaffes and he took a hit in the polls. But he really wants to win... like, really bad. It'll be a pretty good race. Unlike NH, VA and NM (Which are 100% guaranteed Dem pickups), Schaffer does have a chance of winning. But it's still small. This is probably still Udall's to lose. But Republicans need not give up so quickly here.
Yeah. Back in 2004, Coors (who was one of the worst candidates the GOP could've nominated) only lost by 4% to Salazar (the most popular Democrat in the state). Colorado is a politically fickle state, and POTUS years are no exception.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2008, 12:39:36 AM »


Jackie boy probably took the picture. Or maybe he was calling his corrupt buddies at the time when the picture was taken, Anyway, Schaffer's BFF (isn't it fun to be a hack, Phil?) is a convicted felon.

Uh...I hope I'm not being accused of being a hack here.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So devastating? Abramoff isn't even in the photo! I would love for Udall to use this so Schaffer could own him again. I'd love for him to say, "Congressman Udall, if you can point out where Jack Abramoff is in this photo, I will drop out of the race right here, right now."
Logged
Aizen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,511


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2008, 12:48:02 AM »

I don't understand how Obama is doing better there than Udall.

Early polling showed Obama doing better than Udall. Then they were doing about the same. Then Udall started doing a lot better than Obama. Now it seems to have switched again. Just goes to show you that both the presidential race and the senate race are fluid in Colorado. It seems Schaffer has rebounded. Before he had some embarrassing gaffes and he took a hit in the polls. But he really wants to win... like, really bad. It'll be a pretty good race. Unlike NH, VA and NM (Which are 100% guaranteed Dem pickups), Schaffer does have a chance of winning. But it's still small. This is probably still Udall's to lose. But Republicans need not give up so quickly here.
Yeah. Back in 2004, Coors (who was one of the worst candidates the GOP could've nominated) only lost by 4% to Salazar (the most popular Democrat in the state). Colorado is a politically fickle state, and POTUS years are no exception.

Coors was kind of dumb but he did beat Schaffer and I don't think he was that terrible of a candidate. He was the moderate, Schaffer was the conservative. The fundies didn't vote for the Beer Guy but he was more popular among independents. Schaffer would be slightly less popular among indies I think but could rally the base more... Schaffer and Coors are probably close to each other as far as raw strength goes.. perhaps Schaffer might be a little stronger because he's smarter. Actually, I'm sure he's stronger and he really wants the seat. Salazar ran as a moderate and when he was elected my initial reaction was "Meh, a moderate". But his record has been drifting to the left at probably the same rate Colorado is going left. Udall is more liberal than Salazar and Schaffer more conservative than Coors... keep in mind how far Colorado has trended left in the past four years though. I'm expecting a similar result in the end to Salazar/Coors. If Schaffer does lose though, and if Colorado goes Dem and if Musgrave loses, Colorado has done a complete reversal and the Colorado GOP is going to be pushed to the brink of irrelevancy. The Colorado GOP cannot afford to lose this senate seat.
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2008, 12:48:46 AM »


Jackie boy probably took the picture. Or maybe he was calling his corrupt buddies at the time when the picture was taken, Anyway, Schaffer's BFF (isn't it fun to be a hack, Phil?) is a convicted felon.

Uh...I hope I'm not being accused of being a hack here.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So devastating? Abramoff isn't even in the photo! I would love for Udall to use this so Schaffer could own him again. I'd love for him to say, "Congressman Udall, if you can point out where Jack Abramoff is in this photo, I will drop out of the race right here, right now."
I'm not accusing you of being a hack. Rather, I was commenting on how fun it is to don the hack cap once in a while.

 I think you've accused me of being a DSCC stooge and a DCCC hack. LOL. Chris Van Hollen probably thinks I'm a right-winger with an agenda if he saw how low I have IL-10 and MO-06 in my rankings.

My Senate race perspective is virtually identical to those of the Cook and Rothenberg Reports. So I don't think I'm too hackish on that front, either.

That would be another great one-liner for the vacuous Schaffer campaign. All he's got are one-liners Dick Wadhams that feeds him right before debates.
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2008, 12:50:14 AM »

I don't understand how Obama is doing better there than Udall.

Early polling showed Obama doing better than Udall. Then they were doing about the same. Then Udall started doing a lot better than Obama. Now it seems to have switched again. Just goes to show you that both the presidential race and the senate race are fluid in Colorado. It seems Schaffer has rebounded. Before he had some embarrassing gaffes and he took a hit in the polls. But he really wants to win... like, really bad. It'll be a pretty good race. Unlike NH, VA and NM (Which are 100% guaranteed Dem pickups), Schaffer does have a chance of winning. But it's still small. This is probably still Udall's to lose. But Republicans need not give up so quickly here.
Yeah. Back in 2004, Coors (who was one of the worst candidates the GOP could've nominated) only lost by 4% to Salazar (the most popular Democrat in the state). Colorado is a politically fickle state, and POTUS years are no exception.

Coors was kind of dumb but he did beat Schaffer and I don't think he was that terrible of a candidate. He was the moderate, Schaffer was the conservative. The fundies didn't vote for the Beer Guy but he was more popular among independents. Schaffer would be slightly less popular among indies I think but could rally the base more... Schaffer and Coors are probably close to each other as far as raw strength goes.. perhaps Schaffer might be a little stronger because he's smarter. Salazar ran as a moderate and when he was elected my initial reaction was "Meh, a moderate". But his record has been drifting to the left at probably the same rate Colorado is going left. Udall is more liberal than Salazar and Schaffer more conservative than Coors... keep in mind how far Colorado has trended left in the past four years though. I'm expecting a similar result in the end to Salazar/Coors. If Schaffer does lose though, and if Colorado goes Dem and if Musgrave loses, Colorado has done a complete reversal and the Colorado GOP is going to be pushed to the brink of irrelevancy. The Colorado GOP cannot afford to lose this senate seat.
All solid points. I don't count Schaffer out at this juncture of the campaign. As long as he has Dick Wadhams, one of the best in the biz, working for him, Schaffer will have a fighting chance.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2008, 12:52:05 AM »

I think you've accused me of being a DSCC stooge and a DCCC hack. LOL. Chris Van Hollen probably thinks I'm a right-winger with an agenda if he saw how low I have IL-10 and MO-06 in my rankings.

You're constantly hyping Democratic Congressional candidates and your posts read like campaign press releases.  Tongue

Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2008, 01:02:36 AM »

I think you've accused me of being a DSCC stooge and a DCCC hack. LOL. Chris Van Hollen probably thinks I'm a right-winger with an agenda if he saw how low I have IL-10 and MO-06 in my rankings.

You're constantly hyping Democratic Congressional candidates and your posts read like campaign press releases.  Tongue


Haha. Well, at least I haven't said "Bob Roggio is going to upset Gerlach."

I may be personally biased toward some D candidates ( Larry Kissell for example), but I use a "buck stops here" policy for that partisan bias when I created my rankings. I have NC-08 as the 15th most likely seat to flip; Spade has it at 16. Not a huge difference.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2008, 06:41:23 AM »

They're within the margin of error, yes, but he's still technically ahead. I didn't say it was a giant lead or anything, but to say that there's no chance Merkley wins at this point means that you're ignoring the facts.
To say Merkley does not have a chance is not ignoring the facts, polls are not facts, especially one poll.  And technically he's not ahead, technically its a tie.
What? That's an incredibly convoluted sentence. Are you insinuating that Merkley doesn't have a chance?
He has about the same chance as others who are polling close like Zimmer, Musgrove, Franken and Tom Allen.  The chance would be so minimal that it is not worth noting.
Logged
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2008, 03:05:29 PM »

They're within the margin of error, yes, but he's still technically ahead. I didn't say it was a giant lead or anything, but to say that there's no chance Merkley wins at this point means that you're ignoring the facts.
To say Merkley does not have a chance is not ignoring the facts, polls are not facts, especially one poll.  And technically he's not ahead, technically its a tie.
What? That's an incredibly convoluted sentence. Are you insinuating that Merkley doesn't have a chance?
He has about the same chance as others who are polling close like Zimmer, Musgrove, Franken and Tom Allen.  The chance would be so minimal that it is not worth noting.
Ahem... Lumping those races together is akin to comparing the NBA title chances of the Phoenix Suns (which are close to Zimmer's -- around 1%), the Detroit Pistons (Musgrove's, because they're always close, but they rarely finish on top), the Orlando Magic (looks okay on paper, like Franken's fundraising, but falter down the stretch), and the the Philadephia 76ers (like Allen, full of talent, but nobody knows if they will gel in time to make a playoff run).

Merkley, on the other hand, is like the Utah Jazz (a solid, yet unexceptional team, that has a decent chance of winning the West if the leader, LA Lakers, struggles). Most prognosticators handicap Merkley's chances at near-even, which is similar to where Claire McCaskill was at this point in 2006.

Here's a look at what Charlie Cook, Stu Rothenberg, and CQ Politics say about the Oregon and the other races you mentioned:

Oregon: Tossup (Cook), Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party (Rothenberg), Leans Republican (CQ Politics)

New Jersey:   Solid D (Cook), Currently Safe (Rothenberg), Democrat Favored (CQ Politics)

Mississippi: Tossup (Cook), Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (Rothenberg), No Clear Favorite (CQ Politics)

Minnesota: Tossup (Cook), Toss-Up (Rothenberg), Leans Republican (CQ Politics)

Maine:  Lean R (Cook), Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party (Rothenberg), Leans Republican (CQ Politics)


I agree with Rothenberg's Oregon rating (Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party), Cook's NJ rating (Solid D), CQ Politics' MN rating (Leans Republican), and Rothenberg's Maine rating (Clear Advantage for Incumbent Party). I disagree with all of the major prognosticators about MS. I think Rothenberg's rating is too safe, but I don't think MS is a tossup, either. I'd classify it as a "Narrow Advantage for Incumbent Party" race like Oregon.


 
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2008, 03:26:22 PM »

I expect to hear a chorus of something on this, but if we want to be reasonable, of the seats that stand a chance of flipping, only one is assured of that right now - VA.

I say that NM is assured of flipping, mainly because Pearce is not the right candidate and this is a state I understand, but that margin will narrow quite a good bit from what the last polls said before election time.  NM pundits themselves interestingly give Pearce better odds than I do - why I don't know.

In the rest of the questionable seats - which is everything out of my safe column - there is much yet to be decided.  If the election were held today - it would be Dem +4-6 (probably more towards four because I have my gut feelings on Alaska), but that can and will move.
Logged
Erc
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,823
Slovenia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 23, 2008, 03:40:51 PM »

I hope we don't end up with Bob Schaffer and Tom Udall in the Senate next year.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -5.22

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2008, 11:53:02 PM »
« Edited: July 25, 2008, 12:20:57 AM by Ogre Mage »

Both VA and NM are done.  Pearce will lose.  Tom Udall is killing him in every metric -- polling, fundraising, cash on hand, infrastructure.  Pearce is a strong conservative in a horrendous political environment for Republicans.  He is running against a very strong candidate.  In a blue-tinged swing state like New Mexico, this is death.  The NRSC does not have the cash to compete with the DSCC, especially when they have to defend 21 seats vs. only 12 for the DSCC.  NRSC head John Ensign has basically conceded VA and NM, a sign Pearce won't be getting help. 

CO and NH are possibly salvageable for the GOP but the prospects look very remote.  Shaheen continues to consistently lead in the polls by an average of 10-11% and in CO the race appears to be moving in Mark Udall's direction.  Sununu's saving grace is his cash advantage and the popularity of McCain in the state.  Look for him to make a late push.  However, he has not distanced himself from Bush effectively and we saw what happened to Republicans in N.H. in 2006, very possibly the worst state-level massacre during the cycle.  Schaffer has been a bumbler with baggage in this race.  Chances are very high that both Shaheen and Mark Udall will win.

After those four, things get uncertain.  Seats in play include Alaska, Oregon, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Carolina, Maine and Louisiana, the one Democratic-held seat in danger.  Given the political environment and the DSCC cash advantage, it would be very foolish to assume the Democrats will not be able to win any of those seats. 

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« 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 0.059 seconds with 13 queries.