Magellan Strategies - CO: Clinton+6

[Speed of Sound]

Among 500 LVs, Nov 1-2:

Clinton 44 (+4 since mid-October)
Trump 38 (+3)
Johson 7 (-5)
Stein 2 (-3)

http://magellanstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Magellan-Strategies-Colorado-US-President-Survey-Summary-110316.pdf

[Horus]

Looks right. Clinton isn't losing Colorado.

[Snek!]

Isn't that Rove's outfit? If that is true, Trump gets fvcked and not proper fvcked.

[HokeyDood]

SMASHING!!!  

Sweet poll!

[Neoliberals Are Pro-Choice Republicans]

Looks right. Clinton isn't losing Colorado.

Her ceiling seems to be around 45%. We don't know how undecideds will break, or if Johnson voters switch to Trump on election day.

[Lief 🐋]

Wow, nice. Clinton on track to win by high double digits here.

[BoAtlantis]

Isn't this a Republican firm?

Yet +6 Clinton?

[Ronnie]

The firewall stands as strong as ever!  As long as Clinton holds Nevada and Pennsylvania, which seems highly likely, things look very good for her.

[Ljube]

Colorado is 100% absentee vote. No chance for a Republican in such a setup.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Colorado is 100% absentee vote. No chance for a Republican in such a setup.

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Colorado,_2014

[Ljube]

Colorado is 100% absentee vote. No chance for a Republican in such a setup.

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Colorado,_2014

The best imaginable Pub candidate against the disastrous Mark Uterus by just 40k votes.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Isn't this a Republican firm?

Yet +6 Clinton?

Yes it is. Poor Trump.


It is a "C" pollster according to wise white man Nate Silver

[ApatheticAustrian]

karl rove is #nevertrump....just sayin'.

[Moderate Pennsylvanian]

Looks right. Clinton isn't losing Colorado.

Her ceiling seems to be around 45%. We don't know how undecideds will break, or if Johnson voters switch to Trump on election day.

If you don't know how undecideds will break, then you don't know that her ceiling is around 45%.

[Neoliberals Are Pro-Choice Republicans]

Looks right. Clinton isn't losing Colorado.

Her ceiling seems to be around 45%. We don't know how undecideds will break, or if Johnson voters switch to Trump on election day.

If you don't know how undecideds will break, then you don't know that her ceiling is around 45%.

Why would someone willing to vote against Trump not have decided against him by now? What the hell could they possibly be waiting for?

[Snek!]

Looks right. Clinton isn't losing Colorado.

Her ceiling seems to be around 45%. We don't know how undecideds will break, or if Johnson voters switch to Trump on election day.

If you don't know how undecideds will break, then you don't know that her ceiling is around 45%.

At any rate, if Hillary loses in Colorado, the whole election would have been called for Trump before Colorado is called.

[Ozymandias]

[Speed of Sound]

Site's back up. Here's the full data:

http://magellanstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Magellan-Strategies-Colorado-US-President-Survey-Summary-110316.pdf

[Snek!]

Site's back up. Here's the full data:

http://magellanstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Magellan-Strategies-Colorado-US-President-Survey-Summary-110316.pdf

Maybe too many Hispanics, but 15% could happen...if they are really THAT motivated. Let's say its like 12-13%... then still Hillary is leading by like 4. 

[Moderate Pennsylvanian]

Looks right. Clinton isn't losing Colorado.

Her ceiling seems to be around 45%. We don't know how undecideds will break, or if Johnson voters switch to Trump on election day.

If you don't know how undecideds will break, then you don't know that her ceiling is around 45%.

Why would someone willing to vote against Trump not have decided against him by now? What the hell could they possibly be waiting for?

So you're saying you do know how undecideds will break, and they'll all break for Trump. That's ridiculous.
To turn your question around, why would someone willing to vote against Clinton not have decided against her by now? Who knows, but as long as there are undecideds, some will end up voting for Clinton, some for Trump, some for third parties.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Survey Weighting Decisions
Our survey weighting decisions take into account the age, gender, and party turnout
demographics of the 2012 Presidential election in Colorado and the demographics of
current returned ballot data.

Methodology seems legit. I think, Trump should be concetrating on other states now, given that 65% has already voted in CO. Though a few addional polls would be nice.

[Hammy]

Looks right. Clinton isn't losing Colorado.

Her ceiling seems to be around 45%. We don't know how undecideds will break, or if Johnson voters switch to Trump on election day.

If you don't know how undecideds will break, then you don't know that her ceiling is around 45%.

Why would someone willing to vote against Trump not have decided against him by now? What the hell could they possibly be waiting for?

So you're saying you do know how undecideds will break, and they'll all break for Trump. That's ridiculous.
To turn your question around, why would someone willing to vote against Clinton not have decided against her by now? Who knows, but as long as there are undecideds, some will end up voting for Clinton, some for Trump, some for third parties.

It's entirely likely many of those undecideds don't vote at all as well, so you can't just automatically assume they're all Trump just because your pessimism is disrupting your ability to use logic.

[Eraserhead]

Isn't that Rove's outfit? If that is true, Trump gets fvcked and not proper fvcked.

It's not like Rove is going to spin anything for Trump.

[Snek!]

Looks right. Clinton isn't losing Colorado.

That actually seems plausible. The numbers of people who said that aren't entire sure they will vote is close to the people who say they don't know who they are voting for.
Her ceiling seems to be around 45%. We don't know how undecideds will break, or if Johnson voters switch to Trump on election day.

If you don't know how undecideds will break, then you don't know that her ceiling is around 45%.

Why would someone willing to vote against Trump not have decided against him by now? What the hell could they possibly be waiting for?

So you're saying you do know how undecideds will break, and they'll all break for Trump. That's ridiculous.
To turn your question around, why would someone willing to vote against Clinton not have decided against her by now? Who knows, but as long as there are undecideds, some will end up voting for Clinton, some for Trump, some for third parties.

It's entirely likely many of those undecideds don't vote at all as well, so you can't just automatically assume they're all Trump just because your pessimism is disrupting your ability to use logic.

[mark_twain]

Great poll!