Talk Elections

Colorado voters back any leading Republican contender over Clinton by wide margins:

    Rubio over Clinton 52 - 36 percent;
    Carson leads Clinton 52 - 38 percent;
    Cruz tops Clinton 51 - 38 percent;
    Trump beats Clinton 48 - 37 percent.

Sanders runs better than Clinton in general election matchups;

    Rubio over Sanders 52 - 39 percent;
    Carson beats Sanders 52 - 40 percent;
    Cruz tops Sanders 49 - 42 percent;
    Trump gets 46 percent to Sanders' 44 percent.

Clinton has the lowest favorability rating of any top candidate in Colorado, a negative 33 - 61 percent. Trump also gets a negative 34 - 58 percent favorability rating. Favorability ratings for other candidates are:

    49 - 30 percent positive for Carson;
    46 - 25 percent for Rubio;
    37 - 33 percent for Cruz;
    40 - 37 percent for Sanders.

Colorado voters say 67 - 30 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy and 57 - 37 percent that Trump is not honest. Rubio has the best score for honesty, 58 - 28 percent, with Sanders at 56 - 30 percent, Carson at 57 - 33 percent and Cruz at 50 - 35 percent.

Carson has the lowest grades for having strong leadership qualities, a divided 45 - 44 percent, with Sanders at 45 - 43 percent. Trump leads on leadership, with 58 - 39 percent, followed by Rubio at 56 - 30 percent, Cruz at 52 - 35 percent and Clinton at 51 - 47 percent.

Colorado voters say 56 - 43 percent that Clinton has the right kind of experience to be president, the best rating for this quality, followed by 50 - 35 percent for Rubio and 50 - 38 percent for Cruz. Trump has the lowest rating on experience, a negative 35 - 62 percent, with negative ratings of 37 - 54 percent for Carson and 43 - 46 percent for Sanders.

...

From November 11 - 15, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,262 Colorado voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones. The survey includes 474 Republicans with a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percentage points and 404 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 4.9 percentage points.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2303

New Poll: Colorado President by Quinnipiac University on 2015-11-15 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2016/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=820151115015)

Summary: D: 37%, R: 51%, U: 9%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/colorado/release-detail?ReleaseID=2303)

CO is now blue on the poll map.

Calling BS on this.

QU has been weird and the idea of the Dem (regardless who it is) getting 'crushed' is a joke.

QU always shows GOP bias in CO. As we get closer, CO will get close too.  Lets see a PPP poll.

So, Hillary is down by an average of 14% and Sanders by 9% ...

51-37 vs. 50-41

That's not true. And you don't need a PPP poll for everything, it's not like they are the most accurate thing around...

Anyways it is indeed a bit strange that the Democrats are losing in such a fashion that makes this look like an atlas blue state. But well, Reps are also getting crushed like this in WI.

The Ben Carsin numbers are inflated, once he isnt going to be nominee, those Trump numbers will go down.

A Democracy Corp poll contradicted this poll showing Clinton up by 1. QU had Beauprez winning and had Gardner winning, which 1 of them were wrong. 2014. PPP correctly predicted both races

Colorado will be nothing in the same realm of "crushing defeat", but Hillary is going to struggle taking it from a competent 'pub like Marco.

Wisconsin has been polled by many pollsters. Mostly Quinnipiac is pushing the Clinton doomed in CO polls.

COLORADO would have gone to Jeb, Co always find ways to vote for Bushie, but it is a tossup,  despite what polls say with Trump.

So sad that such a progressive state is turning into a southern-style GOP hellhole so fast.

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

Don't forget they put an absurd poll out that Hickenlooper was down 10 but he won by 3. They get closer as the election nears.

Junk poll, Hillary wouldn't lose CO by half that much in a Pepiblican landslide.

Colorado was close to the national average the last three elections. So unless someone believes that Clinton will lose McGovern style I don't see how he can take seriously this poll.

You are living an illusion as big as ExtremeRepublican's electoral map predictions if you think CO is that safe in Hillary's hands come 2016, friend.

Why are you people acting surprised? Isn't this exactly what every astute observer expected of Clinton in Colorado?

The Carson numbers are unreal, he wont win by this much, and poll after poll, he keeps large leads. AS was stated earlier, QU has a GOP bias in CO, 2014, they incorrectly had Beauprez winning. Final poll had him up by 2.

Co will be close at end.

Still, those are some crazy margins she is posting...clearly not too accurate.

BEN Carsin will led the GOP to triumph in COLORADAA.

Clinton has provided Dems comfort, in knowing that Latinos are in her corner. And CO a Latino state.

This poll looks like Colorado back in the 1980s.

I must say that regardless of the polls I expect Hillary to lose Colorado against a strong GOP candidate. We'll see.

Against Carson, but against Trump, it will be very close. But, Jeb given, before downfall will have won it.

Could Colorado win by 8-10% over the Democrat candidate for the 2016 presidential election?

Agreed. I believe we're mainly arguing the same point. :-)

2016 will be a bit of a different landscape for the rocky state with Hillary on the ticket and as long as the GOP doesn't succeed in nominating one of the ninwits then CO is reasonably anyone's to take and will come down pretty close. Within <2% either direction.

While these numbers are clearly questionable, colorado is certainly cold to hillary and this state might be R+1 or R+2 range against hillary.

They also had Gardner winning by 2 and Gardner won by exactly 2 points.

Do, you believe these numbers and Bennet is winning 50-44. CO has mail in ballots and it is one of the four tipping pt states other than Iowa,Va, or OH.

Q had Gardner up 8 the whole time and cheated at the end to conform to other pollsters. I'm sure Trump will withstand the scrutiny if he is actually nominee.... :).

Lots of "I don't like this poll, so it's junk" posts in here.

But seriously, what does Colorado have against the Clintons?

You seriously are sounding way dumber lately.  Check your inflated image of your party (a collection of liberal arts majors and poor people), and consider that you don't have to be "southern-style" or a "hellhole" to vote Republican.  And, if anything, CO is returning closer to its traditional status after being abnormally attracted to Obama.  It's not "such a progressive state" and many of its voters have a "stay out of my life" attitude that doesn't lend itself well to your nanny-state policies on fiscal issues and gun rights.

well

Republicans gain support in the wake of terror attacks, as they usually talk tougher than Democrats. Republicans in recent years have been able to get away with the harshest, cruelest, and even most irrational rhetoric (Kill! Smash Islam! Ban Sharia Law! Keep Syrian refugees out! Maybe even loose the nukes!)

It might not be good public policy, but it is the strongest tool that Republicans have in their campaign.

We may be seeing this now, and for now it looks bad for Democrats. The Colorado polls may reflect this. Live with it. If it sticks, then expect Democrats to lose the Presidency and even net losses in the Senate as Republicans make serious bids at Senate seats that now seem safe.

President Obama plays chess, and his opponents play slot machines. He also seems to prefer to serve revenge cold (pardon the Star Trek reference). He blusters only after the fact. He has the tact to let the French do the current air assault on ISIS.

Colorado has swung in recent years from a very right-wing state to a slightly-liberal state. Maybe that reflects exhaustion of agendas that give openings one way or the other.

So how has the state voted?

2012 51-46
2008 53-46
2004 47-52
2000 42-50 (Nader 5)
1996 44-46 (Perot 7)
1992 40-35 (Perot 22)

Colorado may be cyclical. The Colorado Right is about as far to the right as the Wyoming Right; the Colorado Left is about as far to the left as the California Left. Maybe a few years after one Party gets a majority it goes too far for the swing voters and the state then swings. The state seems to vote to an unusual extent for Third Part candidates (it gave 11% of its vote for Anderson in 1980).

That's one possibility. The other for now is that for now, the prospective electorate nationwide looks like one characteristic of 2010 or 2014, in which case America elects a very right-wing President and strengthens the GOP hold on both Houses of Congress. Another is that demographics return the 2008-2012 pattern in Colorado and we have a blip that won't stick. Pick your interpretation. You have no accountability for it now.

It's easy to see a cycle as a long-term trend.  How can we know the difference? We can't. Extrapolation of a short-term trend that does not have some irresistible cause is one of the riskiest projections possible. Republicans are not going to win 100% of the vote in a free election in West Virginia.

  

 

I wasn't arguing it was safe for Hillary, I was arguing that she'd only lose it by mid-high single digits in a Republican landslide, since Republicans would have to win the popular vote by a similar margin.

Colorado will probably be close. It's not New Mexico, but people who think it's Safe R are the delusional ones, not me.

lol quinnijunk

Trump's surge in polls, isnt substainable. He will go back down when the General election comes around and Clinton should pick a VP like Hickenlooper that appeals to CO.

It makes sense in view of a terrorist strike that brings out the worst fears in people even if it is in another country. Fear promotes right-wing authoritarians, and all Republican candidates for President are right-wing authoritarians. Not one of the prospective nominees for President is simply a conservative who prefers a measured response to danger than exploiting fear for every possible advantage.

Polls this week in Florida, Iowa, and New Hampshire show much the same trend. It's not only Colorado. If the Presidential election were to be held today, then just about any Republican nominee would defeat Hillary Clinton in a landslide.  Such is this moment of time. The only states with ten or more electoral votes that she would win would be California, Washington, Wisconsin, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and perhaps New Jersey.  You can fill in the gaps in the description, but in general the only state that Hillary Clinton would win if the election were held today the only states that aren't on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts would be Vermont and Wisconsin. It is that bad.

Right-wing authoritarians thrive on fear -- fear of ethnic and racial minorities, fear of crime, fear of terrorism, fear of conspiracies, fear of other religions, fear of Divine judgment, fear of hostile powers, fear of arcane conspiracies, and fear of the general demise of civilization. Solutions? Such would take away the appeal of fear-mongers and the whole basis of right-wing authoritarianism. It's hard to sell people on hierarchy, inequality, and repression for their own sake if they endure them; people tolerate them only in fear. Oddly a real danger that requires some economic regimentation (global warming) is out of their sight.

Although there is some diversity among objects of fear of right-wing authoritarians, fear is the cornerstone of them all. Adolf Hitler had little to offer but fear, and had no qualms about provoking the most destructive assaults by foreign enemies as proof of some apocalyptic danger. We all know about the Klan and the Birch Society. Theocratic rightists like Mike Huckabee and Pat Robertson may eschew racism (modern antisemitism is racist in its seedy philosophizing) but see a deterioration of Christian faith as the cause of an impending ruin of Western civilization.   

Radical reforms (the Far Left) or even measured responses (conservatism) might work better in solving problems, but they require rational thought.  Because it is his nature President Obama can hardly consider anything other than a measured response to a terrorist threat. Unlike the authoritarian Right which can bluster as intensely and recklessly as it wishes while calling the President 'weak' and 'indecisive'. Republicans gain in a climate of fear and lose only when either someone else solves the problem or the Republicans fail catastrophically.

That 'weak' and 'indecisive' President has dispatched plenty of terrorists to the Infernal Inn that the damned never check out of.  I expect more of the same.   

You'd think mail in ballots would've prevented Cory Gardner from winning too. Anyways, the right republican candidate who can increase margins among anti establishment white voters and Latino voters can definitely turn this state republican for the election. We aren't talking an election against Obama but Hillary who the anti establishment Colorado electorate is much cooler to.

PPP poll has yet to poll this race, which take out the GOP house effect will poll at some point. Poll done Oct 28th showed a 1pt Clinton lead. It will be with 3-4 percent, not 9.

OH/Va/Iowa/CO are the tippong points, of the election

I could see Marco Rubio winning CO by at least 5-10% if Hillary Clinton was on the ballot.

You are puttuing alot on Rubio being nominee, if he isnt, then GOP chances fade.

This is true, but I'd add that there's nothing wrong with an area being a little more "redneck-y" or "Southern."  I think those are great aspects of our culture; I love the fact that those areas "cling to their guns and religion" rather than to secular humanism or liberalism, much to our President's chagrin.  If the Democrats weren't so blatant in their bashing of the South, maybe they'd do better in those areas.

QU uses Registered voters, and just like in Pa, it polls right before the Likley voter polls come out. That's why it is 9 points towards GOP.

Trump or Carson or Rubio arent going to win Colorado by that size margin. It polls close to natl average.

Also call BS...throw it in the trash

I would say the election for 2016 in Colorado would be:

47% Hillary
52% Republican candidate

Roughly a 5 pt margin

Clinton is gonna pick up some Latino support when she selects Castro as VP and not Kaine. Kaine's was already discounted by teamsters due to vote on Fast Track.

Shots fired. Check your inflated image of your party (A cult of mentally ill, bigoted, heavily-armed culture warriors and a bunch of rich assholes). You want to talk about a nanny state? Ask women in Virginia who were nearly subjected to state-sanctioned vaginal ultrasounds by Bob McDonnell and the Republicans. I'm a Democrat because I understand math, sorry Ted, but subtraction doesn't equal addition. I'm a Democrat because corporate welfare offends me far more than school lunches do. I'm a Democrat because I can't support a party that panders to a religious fundies that would like to see me and people like me executed. THAT is why I hate conservatives, Republicans, and conservatism, and THAT'S why I plan to run for office.

I like how everyone assumes that Colorado only went Democratic in 2008 and 2012 because it had Obama fever, and it's actually a red state at heart. I didn't realize Republicans had won every other statewide race there in the past ten years.... maybe that's because Gardner's ultra-landslide win of 1.9% last year is the only time Republicans have won a statewide race in Colorado in the past ten years. Hard to argue that it's a red state.

Colorado seems very polarized between Left and Right with little center. When the Left gets its way the center goes with the Right after the Left goes too far after a short time. When the Right gets its way for a few years and goes too far, the center goes Left. Colorado was a hotbed of the Sagebrush Revolt a couple decades ago after having seemed to have gone rather progressive. 

Both Colorado and OH or Va are bellweathers and they have voted that way every election since 2000. Sooner or later one will give anyways. Eventhough, Dems lost in 2014, it seems like 2014 all over, CO in the center and OH, right of center, in which Udall barely lost, Hick won.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=8&year=2014&f=0&off=7&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=8&year=2010&f=0&off=7&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=8&year=2006&f=0&off=7&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=8&year=2014&f=0&off=8&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=8&year=2010&f=0&off=8&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=8&year=2014&f=0&off=9&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=8&year=2010&f=0&off=9&elect=0
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=8&year=2006&f=0&off=9&elect=0

Colorado is a "purple" state, has been for a long time. And it's not as politically polarized as, say, Wisconsin or Oregon. :P Sure, you have Boulder, Denver (proper) on one end of the spectrum and Colorado Springs, Douglas County, etc. on the other, but I think you'll find that most people there (including most voters!)  are rather "moderate - or at least, hold a mix of liberal and conservative positions. Though that's true of most places, to one extent or another.

Notice how at the statewide and Congressional levels, Colorado has often elected a mix of both Democrats and Republicans.

lol

Can we take the QU poll with a grain of salt. They didnt poll the senate race and Clinton was ahead in the Democracy Corps poll. Co, NV, Iowa, Pa & NH are must wins for Clinton.

Its Irony that back in 2004, the GOP could have split the electors 5 for R and 4 for Dems, but Dubya won it, and now it is the 272 blue wall.

I was referring to senate and governor races, but fine. Point taken. My point is that Colorado is not North Carolina. You could argue that North Carolina is pretty red state, since Democrats have had virtually no luck there other than in 2008. Obama's win there could be considered an anomaly. His wins in Colorado, not so much.

The numbers look awfully friendly to Republicans but this is of course a state where Clinton will perform poorly compared to Obama.

Joe Biden who was selected to counter Obama more liberal positions was instrumental in Obama carrying Va and CO.

As soon as Clinton picks a running, someine like Castro, can appeal more directly to the voters in the state. But, I wouldnt assume CO goes GOP, if Jeb isnt on ballot, because TRUMP is much weaker.

Barack Obama is, except for LBJ in the weird electoral year of 1964, the strongest Democratic vote-getter as a Democratic nominee for President in a binary election since FDR.  So on the average one would expect any Democratic nominee to do worse than he did.

Q may underpoll Hispanics, a voting bloc that has recently sealed elections for Democrats in Colorado.

Note that this poll is after the terrorist attacks in Paris, and Republicans typically gain in polls in a climate in which fear of terror is intensified -- even if the Republicans have bumbled into it or the Democrats are blameless.

Republicans win the Presidency in 2016 if they can make national security the focus.   

The gun violence issue is just as important as terrorism.  Look what happened in Colorado.  JEB is the only one that can win in Colorado and he isnt going to be on ballot.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/grumpy-cat-obama-republicans/

he started. "I'm going to be supporting ... whoever the nominee is. What are you laughing about?"

The attack on the Planned parenthood office/clinic in Colorado Springs looks like (pending a full legal investigation and an adjudication of any criminal case) an act of terrorism in itself.

Even more reason why Clinton can steal Colorado away from Trump, not Jeb, because Planned Parenthood reminds voters in Colorado of Columbine.

I expect Clinton to win it, now.

When  I spoke of terrorism as a political advantage for Republicans, I spoke only of terrorism with an international flavor. Lone-nut terrorism (and Robert Dear seems as nutty as they get) shows what is wrong with our lax gun laws and inadequate treatment of mental illness.

How about lone-nut terrorism perpetrated by home grown Muslims?

Do we really care what the religious beliefs of Robert Dear (Colorado Springs, Colorado) or Dylann Roof (Charleston, South Carolina) are?

The San Bernardino atrocity is another instance of workplace violence more than anything else. He went after supervisors first, indicating that something was very wrong in his relationship with management.

People of many faiths have committed horrible acts of terrorism. Mental illness, personal revenge, and racial bigotry (Nazi-style antisemitism is typically racist in origin and practice) seem more  problematic than any religious heritage.

Mainstream Islam clearly and unequivocally opposes murderous outrages. To be sure, ISIS, Boko Haram, and al-Qaeda are not mainstream Islam any more than Nazi or KKK butchery  is part of mainstream Christianity.

I am sure that the personnel files of the male shooter will be under close investigation. What I see so far is evidence of a very troubled person.

Let's not be hypocritical. The worst act of terrorism in recent American history was committed by someone brought up as a Christian and never was accused of formally abandoning Christianity.  We can't blame Roman Catholicism for Timothy McVeigh, can we?

The terrorism issue just solidifies what the divided electorate. And the race will come down not with the Appalachian corridor but the Rockies. The gun issue doomed Conway's chances in KY and reaffirmed the Latino vote looms large in CO.

Actually, before Paris, 2015, already foretold us what was gonna happen anyways. DEMS did well in Pa & La, and GOP did well in Appalachia, holding ground in Va and KY.