Talk Elections

Q1 Do you approve or disapprove of President
Barack Obama’s job performance?

Approve .......................................................... 48%
Disapprove...................................................... 50%

Q4 If the candidates for President in 2016 were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rand
Paul, who would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton.................................................. 48%
Rand Paul ....................................................... 45%

Q5 If the candidates for President in 2016 were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican
Marco Rubio, who would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton.................................................. 48%
Marco Rubio ................................................... 44%

Q6 If the candidates for President in 2016 were
Democrat John Hickenlooper and Republican
Rand Paul, who would you vote for?

John Hickenlooper .......................................... 47%
Rand Paul ....................................................... 45%

Q7 If the candidates for President in 2016 were
Democrat John Hickenlooper and Republican
Marco Rubio, who would you vote for?

John Hickenlooper .......................................... 47%
Marco Rubio ................................................... 45%

Q8 Do you think John Hickenlooper should run for
President in 2016, or not?

He should........................................................ 21%
He should not.................................................. 65%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CO_423.pdf

Kentucky and Colorado are both toss-ups with Hillary?  Uh, alright..

It's the CLINTON's.

It's the 90s again.

The Clinton's never did well in CO for some reason, while doing well in KY.

The map with her would be totally different in these 2 places, even though I think CO would actually be won Obama-style in the end and KY would be ca. R+5

Hillary just isn't as good a fit here as BHO is.

Hillary isn't viewed to be quite as socially liberal as Obama was, and doesn't have quite as much strength with the base. It's not hard to see Rand or Christie making big inroads in the West if they played their cards right.

()

That's surprising. I knowm she's Clinton and obviously does better in the South than in the West. But, hey, I thought it wasn't '90s anymore.

I find it quite surprising that only 7% would be undecided - this early seems so low.

Bill Clinton won Colorado only once. Barack Obama is an unusually-good match for Colorado -- about as good a match for Colorado as he is a bad match for Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia.   

Yeah Hillary isn't a good match for the state, though I am a little surprised that Hick doesn't do any better. Especially against a supposedly unelectable Rand Paul.

So in the last few months, PPP has given us Clinton vs. Rubio polls showing Clinton leading in Georgia by 3, Louisiana by 3, Kentucky by 6, but Colorado by only 4?  Are you ready for a retro-90s electoral map?

Eh, Colorado is a flirt. It'll be back in the Democratic column next year, unless the Republican wins convincingly. Remember early in Obama's term when it was one of his worst states?

Just like 4 years ago - some state results seem kind of funny when compared to one another. That being said, I'm surprised to see Democrats performing so poorly here - I thought this state was slowly drifting away for us.

CO has enough of a libertarian streak that R's will always have an opening against a populist D.  Rubio being so far down in Florida is more bizarre IMO.

Is that really struggling, though? Last year, Obama has a lot of narrow leads in Colorado polling, but still managed to win it. I think 45% is close to what Paul and Rubio's ceiling would be there.

There's a huge name recognition gap here which has caused Clinton to look unstoppable in 2016 - the fact that she is within the margin of error with the Republicans here should bring some concern to Democrats, though it is still very early.

Remember when SurveyUSA did their 50-state polling in March 2008 with Hillary vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain (even then Hillary did relatively well in KY, not in this one but in other polls by SUSA from KY), while Obama did already as poorly as on election day or worse - The reverse was the case in CO with Obama doing well and Hillary not so much:

() ()

()

Thanks for the map. I guess this is based on these polls ?

I think that Hillary would have done better though in MO (winning by 3 or so), OH (winning by 10), AZ (within 3-5, but hard to say because of McCain's home state factor) than Obama.

You tell me.  You posted it yourself four months ago.  :P

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166156.msg3548738#msg3548738

Ahh, ok. Then it's a map of these poll charts ... ;)

This polls electorate is 81% white and last years exits had it at 78%. Considering the state's rising latino population that number should be 75% or so in 2016. Keep in mind it's a midterm electorate poll and the fact that an actual campaign could hurt Rubio with social libertarians in Colorado (and help him in KY, WV, AR, TN etc). I'd bank on CO being the near the national average again no matter who the nominees are in 2016.

One could not have seen a significant difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in March 2008. Results of a Clinton-McCain election would have been close in electoral and popular  votes to what happened because of the economic meltdown late in the campaign season.

There is a "shy Democrat" factor in the SW to be sure.  Still, I think there is something to this.  Look at how the fis-con/soc-lib vote swung harder than the nation against Obama.  I suspect Hillary's impressive polling is due to a huge swing among Independent women.  In CO, this group is already quite D, so there isn't as much room left for her to improve.

I don't think the margin of error ever makes a huge difference difference here. Name recognition or not, Paul and Rubio are poor fits for Colorado, which is filled with moderates, so I doubt Hillary would lose it to either of them. At this point, most voters aren't even thinking about the race, but if it did come down to Hillary and either of these two Republicans, it's clear who would have the advantage.

Colorado legalized pot, how is that a disadvantage to Paul? Clinton is very statist.

I like how Rand outperforms Rubio with both Hispanics and "Other".

If someone like Rubio doesn't improve with hispanics, CO won't be terribly close. Still, there is no way Hillary can lose whites by 3 and win the state by only 4. Obama lost whites by 10 and won by over 5. If whites vote GOP by a 3 point margin, CO looks like a Hillary victory by 7 to 9 points. Of course this is all pointless speculation but I suspect once Hillary begins defending Obama policies she will stay steady in places like CO, NV, VA but drop significantly in KY, WV etc.

I never mentioned pot at all. On most issues, Paul is very conservative, probably more so than McCain and Romney, both of whom lost the state.

Read my screen name, Colorado has been Californicated.  Moderate is a mask term for sheep who are secretly liberal.

It's not going to hurt to be fiscally conservative.

Hillary must be doing really poorly with white voters here.

I am not all that surprised with polls.

Hillary seems to be strong with the blue collar whites and college educated men, but weaker with the "coalition of the ascendant"

That means that she will need to do something to strengthen her hands in the west.