CO-Project New America/Keating Research (D): Obama up 4

[backtored]

Hmm. Maybe Colorado will be The state that puts Romney over 270...

It seems like, finally, the national media and a few pollsters are coming around to that idea.  I've believed it from the start, but I live here.  It evidently takes longer for political trends to reach Washington than it does for cars, bikes, buses or planes.  Or really anything else.  The fact that Romney may do quite well in Colorado--despite real concerns in VA and OH--has been clear to me for a while.

[backtored]

Hmm. Maybe Colorado will be The state that puts Romney over 270...

It'll be hard for him to overcome his 2-1 deficit with Independents.

Despite the fact that Romney and Obama are quite close nationally among independents, you really believe that unaffiliated voters in Colorado are really that in the tank for Obama?  I  can almost guarantee that Chicago doesn't think so, and is therefore probably not exactly cheered by this poll.

[backtored]

Just for consideration. The CO GOP is just a little better organized than the NV GOP but not by much.

I've heard that the Nevada GOP has effectively been taken over by Ron Paul supporters, and that Romney is creating a shadow party to run his campaign there.  http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2012/may/16/rnc-romney-campaigns-will-erect-new-organization-b/ 

In Colorado, the GOP is in probably the best shape it's been in for eight years.  It's hard for Democrats to win in Colorado when the GOP doesn't fissure itself into electoral tizzies like 2010 (or 2006).  Comparing the Colorado GOP with the Nevada GOP is apples and oranges.  In fact, the states aren't really similar, either, and it's why Romney may do much better in Colorado than he will in Nevada.

[backtored]

I emailed Ethan Axelrod (Ethan@ProjectAmericanCentury.com) http://www.projectnewamerica.com/PNACOPresidentialMemo5-29-12.pdf to ask about the partisan sample of the poll. Here is the email I received back:

"Hi Brandon,
Can't provide crosstabs, but 37% of respondents were registered Republicans. 33% registered Democrats., and 30% unaffiliated. That's registered, not self-ID."

If anyone wants to verify the email is from who I say it is, email me at ballenwhite@gmail.com and I'll be glad to forward it to you.

So, the poll sample Project American Century is using is R+4 (37R, 33% D, 30% I). It's not hard to envision Colorado turnout looking like this in November, considering that it was R+1 in huge Dem turnout year of 2008, and was R+9 in 2004. So as you can see, the sample of this poll isnt necessarily overly GOP friendly. Seems almost spot on.

Active voter registration in Colorado has about a five-point GOP advantage, so, yes, the voter screen seems quite reasonable.

Which leads me to conclude that Obama can't win Colorado.  Does anybody really believe that he'll win unaffiliated voters by 27 points--in California, let alone Colorado?  In other words, if Obama needs a 27-point independent advantage to lead within the margin of error in Colorado, he can't win the state.

[backtored]

Though, the GOP curently has like a 1% advantage in voter Registration and the "active" label  can probably be attributed to the Caucuses, right?

What were the 2010 exit polls like for Colorado? Would there be any reason why Democrats would do worse in Colorado than they did in 2010?

The problem with the whole "Colorado Democrats win in 2010" narrative is that it's false.  Republicans took every single statewide office with the exception of the Senate and gubernatorial races, where the Senate Democratic candidate got maybe 48% and the supposedly "popular" Denver Democratic mayor running for governor got 51%.  Not remarkable.  But it's even less remarkable when you consider the fact that there was essentially no credible Republican candidate, other than a really unpopular one who ran on the Constitution Party ticket.  And the "popular" Denver mayor only got 51%.

The GOP took two Congressional seats to pick up a majority for the delegation.  The GOP picked up the state House and one seat in the state Senate.  It was actually a very good year for Republicans in Colorado, but they totally blew easily winnable Senate and gubernatorial races (that may have had major downticket implications that keps other GOP candidates from winning their races).

If Marco Rubio (or even Jane Norton) would have been running for Senate, or certainly if a strong GOP gubernatorial candidate had emerged, the GOP would have swept Colorado quite easily in 2010.

It didn't happen, but there's a real chance that it will in 2012.  So much of the Democrats' success in the state is a result of GOP incompetence, and has very little to do with any supposed "ideological shift" among voters in Colorado.

Obama has a chance to win Colorado.  But it's a R-leaning state, perhaps like Virginia, that will be an enormous challenge for Obama.  I think that it certainly favors Romney.  But I still think that Obama can easily win Ohio and Virginia, and thus the whole election.  I'm not predicting the Romney landslide tha some conservatives think will happen.  I just happen to think that landslide or loss, Colorado goes red again.

[backtored]

Though, the GOP curently has like a 1% advantage in voter Registration and the "active" label  can probably be attributed to the Caucuses, right?

What were the 2010 exit polls like for Colorado? Would there be any reason why Democrats would do worse in Colorado than they did in 2010?

Also, I believe that your registration is only activated by general election voting, because caucuses are run by the party, and not the state.  I don't think that SoS Gessler knows that I voted in the GOP caucuses here, so I think the "active" advantage for Republicans in Colorado has more to do with new registrations more than anything else.  The GOP is truly resurgent in Colorado, and it may take a while for people outside of the state to begin to really understand what has and is happening.