Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 18, 2019, 01:40:36 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
  CO-PPP: No love for Hillary
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: CO-PPP: No love for Hillary  (Read 3057 times)
5280
MagneticFree
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -0.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2013, 02:22:47 pm »

Hilary would win this state against even the fat man.  Remember, folks, Colorado always polls much more R than it actually votes.
That's not true.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,574


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2013, 02:24:33 pm »

Hilary would win this state against even the fat man.  Remember, folks, Colorado always polls much more R than it actually votes.
That's not true.

It's been like that in recent presidential elections.
Logged
Cobbler
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 916
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2013, 02:50:22 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,574


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2013, 02:51:28 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Because she's just not as good of a candidate.

Remember, Obama beat Hillary in the 2008 primary.
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,354


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2013, 07:53:33 pm »

There is definitely something weird going on with Hillary and CO. It is polling almost the same as MS. Did Hillary say something about how the Broncos suck?
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,793
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2013, 12:11:01 am »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Because she's just not as good of a candidate.

Really? I'll take outperforming Obama in 49 states and losing Colorado.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2013, 06:53:35 am »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Because she's just not as good of a candidate.

Really? I'll take outperforming Obama in 49 states and losing Colorado.

There really isn't any state she would flip that Obama didn't win.  Doing a bit better in the ultra benighted South isn't any help.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,183
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2013, 10:13:08 am »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Because she's just not as good of a candidate.

Really? I'll take outperforming Obama in 49 states and losing Colorado.

There really isn't any state she would flip that Obama didn't win.  Doing a bit better in the ultra benighted South isn't any help.

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: December 12, 2013, 11:39:50 am »

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.

No, that's still a win:

Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,183
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: December 12, 2013, 04:57:38 pm »

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.

No, that's still a win:



Isn't that 269-269 (Kerry nor Gore won Nevada)?
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: December 12, 2013, 05:27:05 pm »

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.

No, that's still a win:



Isn't that 269-269 (Kerry nor Gore won Nevada)?

It's 269-269 if Nevada goes R.  But if it goes D, as in the above map, it's 275-263 Dem win.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,183
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: December 12, 2013, 08:08:05 pm »

Hell, even if she wins all the Gore/Kerry states and does as well as their best numbers in the South (45% in West Virginia and 46% in Tennessee and 47% in Missouri) WITH Ohio, she still loses (provided she loses Iowa, which is as bad as CO right now and the house stays R)....even if she is at 48-49% in VA,FL and NC. If Democrats simply focus on the West Coast and consolidating the Northeast+Florida, they lose.

No, that's still a win:



Isn't that 269-269 (Kerry nor Gore won Nevada)?

It's 269-269 if Nevada goes R.  But if it goes D, as in the above map, it's 275-263 Dem win.


and imagine what it will be like after the 2020 reapportionment. I am guessing if a R wins in 2016, he will be heavily favored in 2020.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,296
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: December 12, 2013, 08:19:00 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,625
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: December 12, 2013, 08:23:51 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,183
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: December 12, 2013, 08:36:34 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

For example, one said they would vote for McCain if Hillary won in 2008 because they don't like dynasties. Things of that nature. Something about not being taking for granted.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,296
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2013, 08:41:19 pm »
« Edited: December 12, 2013, 08:43:17 pm by Speaker Scott »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,183
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2013, 08:52:53 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.

I thought of that, too. But Hillary did well in New Hampshire, right?
Logged
WeAreDoomed
outofbox6
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,625
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2013, 08:53:48 pm »

Ah, thanks guys.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,296
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2013, 09:00:13 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.

I thought of that, too. But Hillary did well in New Hampshire, right?

White working-class New Hampshire?  She sure did.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,183
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2013, 09:10:07 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.

I thought of that, too. But Hillary did well in New Hampshire, right?

White working-class New Hampshire?  She sure did.
I thought NH was educated and rural, not industrial.
Logged
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,296
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: December 12, 2013, 09:19:21 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.

I thought of that, too. But Hillary did well in New Hampshire, right?

White working-class New Hampshire?  She sure did.
I thought NH was educated and rural, not industrial.

Clinton won because southeast NH (the most populous, urban part of the state) strongly favored her.  Obama did better in rural NH.

I think this speech may have had a slight impact too, but I'm not sure.  I do know that the NH primary was very close (less than 3% decided it), so it wasn't exactly "made" for either candidate.

But like I said, I can't explain why every state voted the way it did.  Colorado and Arkansas are pretty easy to explain, but many of the primary states were very competitive.
Logged
Edgar Suit Larry
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22,183
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: December 12, 2013, 09:21:28 pm »

So, why does Hillary do worse here than Obama does?

Colorado's Democratic base is very anti-establishment.
Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by that?

Well, Hillary Clinton is a very establishment candidate.  She's a Washington insider, she has a lot of experience, she voted with the Republicans on foreign policy a lot of times, and her ideology as a whole is built around left-populism.  Contrast this to Barack Obama, who was fresh in the political scene at the time he first ran for president and represented a much younger generation of Democrats.  I don't have any statistics to back me up at the moment, but I'd assume that Colorado's Democratic base tends to be younger and ergo favorable to younger candidates.  (Colorado is also a more diverse state than say, Arkansas, so minority Democrats will tend to favor minority candidates.)  If Hillary underperforms with young voters, which I assume she will if she's the nominee, that will cost her states like Colorado where the base simply won't be there for her like they were for Obama.  Those losses could be made up for in states like Arkansas, whose Democratic base tends to be older, whiter, and not surprisingly, very favorable to the Clintons.

Also keep in mind that Colorado has better known universities than Arkansas.  Ergo, younger Democratic voters.

Another way of looking at it is seeing the US as not a collection of red states and blue states, but "libertarian" states and "populist" states.  It's a shoddy way of looking at things, sure, but the lesson from this is that older "white working class" voters tend to favor populist-based establishment candidates, and other states tend to be more supportive of newcomers.

That is, at least, my interpretation of things.  Ask me why Obama carried a rural, heavily white state like Nebraska over Hillary by such a huge margin and I couldn't tell you.  The key to winning a state is empowering the state's base and that should be enough to understand.

I thought of that, too. But Hillary did well in New Hampshire, right?

White working-class New Hampshire?  She sure did.
I thought NH was educated and rural, not industrial.

Clinton won because southeast NH (the most populous, urban part of the state) strongly favored her.  Obama did better in rural NH.

I think this speech may have had a slight impact too, but I'm not sure.  I do know that the NH primary was very close (less than 3% decided it), so it wasn't exactly "made" for either candidate.

But like I said, I can't explain why every state voted the way it did.  Colorado and Arkansas are pretty easy to explain, but many of the primary states were very competitive.
Although I seriously doubt Hillary will be able to actively campaign in Arkansas or have to punt on Colorado.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,668


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2013, 11:52:50 pm »

Christie is the furthest from a libertarian you can get, he's your typical Big Government type Republican. Just look at how he reacted to the whole medical marijuana issue that wouldn't play well in Colorado at all. Hillary would be wise to get in the front of the marijuana issue and support either medical marijuana or full legalization.
Logged
opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47,070


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 13, 2013, 02:30:11 pm »

It's 269-269 if Nevada goes R.  But if it goes D, as in the above map, it's 275-263 Dem win.


and imagine what it will be like after the 2020 reapportionment. I am guessing if a R wins in 2016, he will be heavily favored in 2020.

Not really.  By 2020 Florida and Colorado will be very hard for a GOPer to win. 
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39,620
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2013, 05:18:50 pm »

2020 reapportionment of course won't happen by the 2020 election.  2024 would be the first presidential election using the 2020 census numbers.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC