Talk Elections

50% Beauprez (R)
40% Hickenlooper (D)
  3% Hess (L)
  3% Hempy (G)

From September 10 - 15, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,211 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2080

What ?

Ouch.

Waiting for Senate numbers...

Outlier.

Its REALLY oversampled Republicans. Republicans have a registration advantage of .5% yet are sampled 7% more in this poll. It will be interesting to see what happens with the mail in ballot.

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

Is Quinnipiac going the way of Mason-Dixon? Their polls today are met with disbelief even by Republicans.

Agreed

What the heck? This is Colorado, not Montana - Hick shouldn't be down by this much.

This would move my average from Hickenlooper +1.66 to Beauprez + 1.25, but it's enough of an outlier that I'll wait for someone else to verify it even though it's a reputable pollster. CO-Gov still Toss-Up/Tilt D for now.

Hick is losing women by 1; no way thats the case for Udall.

The exit polls in 2010 in Colorado showed a party ID breakdown of

Dem 33%
GOP 28%
Ind 39%

While this poll shows

Dem 27%
GOP 34%
Ind 33%

Plus this poll is 8% Hispanic compared to 12% in 2010. So even assuming 2014=2010(no), this poll is ridiculous as is Quinn P.'s Iowa poll.

Thanks for pointing this out. That means that this sample is tweaked artificially by somewhere between 12% and 15% in favour of Republicans. :D In other words, this poll still shows a Hickenlooper lead. ;)

Like PPP is terrible in West Virginia, Quinnipiac has a bad record in Colorado. I trust that a different pollster will show something different.

This is such a shocking result, it's an understandable outlier.

If it's a Beauprez and Udall win in November, then both sides will be happy.

It will be closer than expected but Hick should.pull it out.

And there you have it.

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.

Looks about as likely as the poll that showed Quinn winning by double digits.

Quinnipiac is garbage and very R-leaning in Colorado. I wouldn't worry about this.

Wait on PPP. Their final calls in the 2008 and 2012 Presidential race in Colorado--as well as the two most recent Senate races in Colorado (2010 to a lesser extent), were pretty accurate.

A 13 point party ID shift is just ludicrous (well, except if you're in WV, but that's another story).

That's a dominating.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Maybe we are pulling on straws, maybe we are not.

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.

Party ID numbers from 2010 should also be taken with a big grain of salt, especially if one is claiming that they represent the "best possible scenario" for Republicans, since (due to a combination of the Tea Party and dislike of Bush) it was a bit of a fad at the time for Republican voters to say that they were independents. Even as Republicans decisively won the election, the proportion of self-reported Republicans was hovering around all-time lows.

And finally, it's pretty easy to believe that the enthusiasm gap in Colorado was more favorable to Democrats in 2010 than this election cycle. Democrats and Hispanics were a lot more fired up to vote against the Tom Tancredo and Ken Buck ticket than the Bob Beauprez and Cory Gardner one. If we extrapolated the 2013 recall results across the whole state, Hickenlooper would be losing by even more than in this poll, and he's only become more unpopular since then.

So this poll is an outlier, and I would like to see confirmation, but there's no reason to dismiss it out of hand. I think the Illinois poll showing Quinn ahead by double digits is believable as well (and in fact, even before that poll, if you put a gun to my head and asked me to pick the winner I'd have chosen Quinn).

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

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.

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?

No then PPP would be garbage, too

New Poll: Colorado Governor by Quinnipiac University on 2014-09-15 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/GOVERNOR/2014/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=820140915015)

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

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2080)

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. :P

I tend to agree with this.

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.

()

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.

Down by 10%? Bull****.

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.

This poll is a joke.