Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Harstad: Norton 43%, Bennet 40%

by: Colorado Pols

Fri Jan 15, 2010 at 21:12:59 PM MST


Sen. Michael Bennet's campaign is pushing back hard on a new Rasmussen poll released today showing GOP candidate Jane Norton with a significant lead. We've reprinted the Harstad poll memo after the jump, says Bennet campaign manager Craig Hughes in an accompanying release: "Rasmussen has long been identified as a partisan polling outfit whose survey results are consistently wrong, and always favor the Republican candidate. This race is a toss up right now."
Colorado Pols :: Harstad: Norton 43%, Bennet 40%
To: Interested Parties
From: Paul Harstad and Chris Keating, Harstad Strategic Research, Inc.
Date: January 15, 2010

Re: Michael Bennet in Deadheat with Jane Norton in Colorado Senate Race

According to a recent, January 2010 survey of 605 voters in Colorado, Michael Bennet and Jane Norton are virtually tied in a campaign for U.S. Senate.
Overall, 43% of voters support Jane Norton, 40% of voters support Michael Bennet, and 17% are undecided. The pivotal independent bloc of Unaffiliated voters currently prefers Bennet over Norton by a 10 point margin -- 42% to 32%.
Currently, 29% of voters feel favorably toward Michael Bennet while 27% feel unfavorably. And 23% of Coloradans feel favorably toward Jane Norton while 17% feel unfavorably.

The sample in this internal survey represents a conservative look since it includes a 5% Republican advantage (39% registered Republicans, 34% registered Democrats, 27% registered unaffiliated) - despite the fact that the most recent statewide registration tallies actually show a slight Democratic edge in Colorado.

Of the 300,000 increase in registered voters over the last two years in Colorado, a 57% majority are Democrats, just 12% are Republicans, and 28% are Unaffiliated.

The survey was conducted by Harstad Strategic Research among a cross-section of 605 likely voters in Colorado. The overall results are subject to a statistical margin-of-error of plus-or-minus 4%.

Based in Colorado, Harstad Research has been the successful pollster for the Senate campaigns of Ken Salazar and Mark Udall, has polled for President Obama from 2002 to the present, and polled for the Obama campaign in 22 primary and general states including the pivotal Iowa presidential caucuses.

Harstad Research has a remarkable record of accuracy in recent elections in Colorado and elsewhere. In 2004, it's last Senate poll showed Ken Salazar winning by 4.4% while he ended up winning by 4.9%. In 2008, Harstad's final Colorado poll got Mark Udall's winning margin within 0.3% of the final spread and Barack Obama's winning margin within 0.1% of the final spread.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Harstad: Norton 43%, Bennet 40% | 30 comments
Take That Rasmussen Fans!
And I mean you, JO!

I especially like the paragraph about how accurate Harstad Research is, particularly compared to Rasmussen.

"Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed," Bob Loblaw

Keep dreamin'
n/t

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.
[ Parent ]
Sen Bennet is going to win this
Just Jane Norton talking and banning freedom of speech are probably enough.  

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.Paul Simon
[ Parent ]
I too think Bennet will win
But he's definitely got a fight in front of him.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
Norton still wins- so your work is done.

[ Parent ]
Go Janie! n/t


"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  
She'll Be Thanksgiving Turkey
With plenty of time to spend with her family.

LB, please save this posting for later ;-)

[ Parent ]
ZZZZZZZZZZ
Janenortonownedbylobbyistslikeherbrotherinlawcharlieblack-saysanygoddamncrazythingteabaggerswanttohearpetrifiedofvideocameras-prozacandstrifezzzzzzzzzz

Sorry, but as much as you try, I just can't buy in to the idea that every Democrat is evil except for Andrew Romanoff.
[ Parent ]
Yesss!
You're back!

It's only witty and funny when I do it.

How brutal is it going to be for you when she wins?  She's up by 12 in the latest poll, and we're looking at a major implosion if Bennet votes for Obamacare.

If Kennedy's seat is in play in blueblueblue Mass., don't you think Bennet's sweating a little right now?

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
So...
You're going to get every teabagger and Rush Limbaugh proselyte to max out in every Senate race in the country? Apples and oranges, but intellectual fraudulence is nothing new to you.

I know you've got a GOP poll, I'll match it with Harstad showing the race inside the margin of error with better methodology.

Speaking of which, do you agree with Norton that we should abolish the Department of Education and the federal government should have "no role" in health care? Do you believe Obama cares more about "terrorist rights" than your safety?

Also, since we've bargained away everything you used to call "Obamacare," why do you still call the current bill that? Is it because you are a hack who has to disparage the bill no matter what for pure politics - like all Republicans?

Sorry, but as much as you try, I just can't buy in to the idea that every Democrat is evil except for Andrew Romanoff.

[ Parent ]
Ok.
Speaking of which, do you agree with Norton that we should abolish the Department of Education and the federal government should have "no role" in health care?

1. Yes, for now.  We need to scrap the whole system and outlaw the union, and start a new union that is actually interested more in kids' success than their fucking union.

2. The Government should have a very limited role in health care.  I'd like to see available government insurance and subsidies for people that can't get health insurance or can't afford it.  But I don't believe in that option being a trojan horse to eliminate private insurance, which is exactly what the public option in the House bill was.  I also don't believe the government can mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Do you believe Obama cares more about "terrorist rights" than your safety?

No.  But I think that's the result of his desire to appear to be fair, and some terrible decisions regarding civilian vs. military trials.

How's that for straight answers to your questions?

BTW, I call it Obamacare not as a pejorative, but just for identification.  It's whatever comes out of Congress at this time.

Here's the real test:  can you respond without insulting me?

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
Ok
1. I think you are more interested in bashing unions than in rationally comprehending what they do. Having said that Obama's Education Department is making reforms that the union may not like but are steps in the right direction. "Abolishing" Ed is silly Teabagger ranting. And btw, you're not confusing the Department of Ed with the NEA, are you?

2. Cool. Norton answered "yes" when asked if the government should have NO ROLE. How do you reconcile that with what you say you want, however limited? Again, Norton is spewing nonsense.

3. So you do not agree with Norton? Why do you think she would say something so incendiary then?

And to conclude:

BTW, I call it Obamacare not as a pejorative, but just for identification.  It's whatever comes out of Congress at this time.

Is laughable but most revealing, I'm going to stop before I insult you 'cause that's basically the next thing to do.  

Sorry, but as much as you try, I just can't buy in to the idea that every Democrat is evil except for Andrew Romanoff.

[ Parent ]
What would you like me to call it? n/t


"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  
[ Parent ]
The World's Greatest Healthcare
[ Parent ]
Then why don't you call it "Congresscare?"
It's whatever comes out of Congress at this time.

[ Parent ]
Then why don't you call it "Congresscare?"
It's whatever comes out of Congress at this time.

[ Parent ]
OK.
Did you get JeffcoBlue's approval, though?  Let's get something and stick with it.

Um, David - I know you couldn't possibly have had a straight face when you typed that.

"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"  

[ Parent ]
What does Harstad say
about Romanoff-Norton?  
Why?
Even if it was Romanoff 80, Norton 20 - he still needs to win the primary first. And that just isn't happening.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
If they asked

it wasn't published.

[ Parent ]
If Norton had $$ parity ....
I'd laugh off the Harstad numbers as desperation in a losing situation (Rasmussen is only about 3-4 points GOP leaning ... not like they're off the reservation completely). But since Norton's fundraising was miserable this quarter ($500k is a good take for a HOUSE race, not a Senate, and she's still got a primary to fund with one self-funder in it) and she's only got three quarters to go, she's still a big underdog. It seems as though the energy in the GOP is not in her corner, and that's deadly. Bennet is going to be able to outspend her 5:1 at this pace, more if as expected Romanoff drops out or he self-funds (which he can). By the usual metrics that's worth 10 points at least.

Money talks, especially in statewide races.  

I might add ...
that the 4th quarter of the year before the election is traditionally the biggest quarter of them all. You aren't doing ANYTHING except raising bucks.

I think they're a lot of GOP institutional supporters wondering if one of the others might just be a better candidate right now ...

[ Parent ]
I think Norton's not saying what she will do is hurting her bad
The tea-partiers don't trust her and are holding back. The big money is worried she will go the tea party route and is holding back. Sometimes standing for nothing is deadly in politics.

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?
[ Parent ]
David, did she ever agree to an interview
with you? I can't remember for the life of me. And has Andrew done one? I thought he did? I know he agreed to. And McInnis is still a no response?

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie
[ Parent ]
Yes then no
It went from we will do this ASAP (Oct) to we will do this soon (Nov) to we'll get back to you (Dec/Jan). I think as they realized the tea partiers could kill her nomination they didn't know how to position her and decided to go quiet.

Romanoff did do a very nice interview with me. McInnis is still a "no thanks."

My recommendations in the 2010 primary?

[ Parent ]
Trying one more time
This is additional information about Rasmussen sent out with the poll Pols posted:

RAMUSSEN REPORTS: REPUBLICAN AND WRONG

Polling Conducted by Rasmussen Reports Consistently Favors Republican Candidates and Causes. This isn't especially surprising, since Scott Rasmussen is a Republican Pollster. Moreover, there's plenty of reasons to believe that the firms current polling model is flawed and their results are wrong.

REPUBLICAN

Rasmussen Is A Republican Pollster. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Scott Rasmussen, Inc. received $95,500 from the Republican National Committee in 2003 and 2004. The payments were for "Voter Data," "Survey" and "Survey Cost." [Center for Public Integrity, accessed 1/15/10]

Rasmussen Polled for George W. Bush. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Scott Rasmussen, Inc. received $45,500 from George W. Bush in 2004. The payments were for "Survey Research." [Center for Public Integrity, accessed 1/15/10]

Rasmussen hides is background. Reported Politico, "While Scott Rasmussen, the firm's president, contends that he has no ax to grind -- his bio notes that he has been "an independent pollster for more than a decade" and "has never been a campaign pollster or consultant for candidates seeking office."" [Politico, 1/2/10]

Rasmussen Backs Conservative Narratives. Mark Blumenthal: "Rasmussen produces a lot of data that appear to produce narratives conservatives are promoting." [Politico, 1/2/10]

Rasmussen: Republican Results. Reported Politico, "He polls less favorably for Democrats, and that's why he's become a lightning rod," said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who studies polling. "It's clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person's results." [Politico, 1/2/10]

Nate Silver: Rasmussen More Favorable to Republicans. Wrote Nate Silver on his blog FiveThirtyEight.com, "Rasmussen's polls this year have tended to be more favorable to Republican candidates and causes than those of most other polling outfits." [FiveThirtyEight.com, 1/8/10]

Rasmussen: A Republican-Leaning House Effect. Wrote Nate Silver on his blog FiveThirtyEight.com, "Rasmussen's polls have a slight, Republican-leaning house effect." A "house effect" reflects the "tendency of certain polling firms' numbers to tend to lean in the direction of one or another candidate." [FiveThirtyEight.com, 8/25/08]

Rasmussen's Final Polling Results Showed House Effect in 2006, 2008 Senate Races. In 2008, Rasmussen's polling results were an average of 0.97% more favorable to Republicans than the actual outcome of the race. In 2006, that number was 1.84%. [Analysis of Rasmussen Reports 2006 & 2008 Senate Scorecards, RasmussenReports.com]

Rasmussen Most Favorable McCain Pollster in 2008. According to a 2008 Pollster.com article by Charles Franklin, "The poll most favorable to McCain is Rasmussen's Tracking poll at just less than -3 points. [Pollster.com, 8/24/08]

Nate Silver: A 2009 Pro-GOP House Effect for Rasmussen. Wrote Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, compared to other pollsters, "Rasmussen has a different model of what the 2010 election is going to look like, one which will feature a more conservative electorate... What Rasmussen has had is a "house effect". So far in the 2010 cycle, their polling has consistently and predictably shown better results for Republican candidates than other polling firms have. [FiveThirtyEight.com, 1/3/10]

Rasmussen: "Tend To Be Among the Worst Polls for Democrats." Reported Politico, "I think they write their questions in a way that supports a conservative interpretation of the world," said Mellman. "In general, they tend to be among the worst polls for Democrats, and they phrase questions in ways that elicit less support for the Democratic point of view." [Politico, 1/2/10]

WRONG

Only Pollster To Have Bob Schaffer Winning in 2008. Ever. Rasmussen Reports was the only pollster to ever place Bob Schaffer ahead of Mark Udall in the 2008 Senate race, and they did it twice, in polls in November of 2007 and February of 2008. Throughout the rest of the campaign Rasmussen consistently showed a narrower margin of victory for Udall than other pollsters conducting polls in similar time periods, and their final poll missed Udall's margin of victory by four points. [Pollster.com 2008 Colorado Senate Polls, accessed 1/15/10]

Political Scientist: "Huge Concern" That Rasmussen is "Heavily Skewed Toward Older, White Republican Voters." Reported Politico, "Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist, said there was "huge concern right now" that Rasmussen was polling a universe of largely conservative-minded voters. "How is Rasmussen selecting likely voters almost a year before the election? And why would you even screen for likely voters in measuring presidential approval?" said Abramowitz. "My guess is that it's heavily skewed toward older, white, Republican voters."" [Politico, 1/2/10]

Nate Silver: Rasmussen Questions "A Form of Bias." Commenting on the pro-conservative wording of a number of Rasmussen's questions, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com wrote "cases like these happen consistently enough with Rasmussen that I'd say it's a concern. And when they do use unorthodox question wording, nine times out of ten it favors the conservative argument. I would describe this as a form of bias." [FiveThirtyEight.com, 1/3/10]

Rasmussen's Screen Too Tight. Wrote Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, "the Rasmussen respondent always seems ready to take a position on just about everything, including candidates and issues that other pollsters show he doesn't know very much about. This perhaps reflects a form of Type II error or "false negatives" -- leaving people out of your sample who should be included, specifically people who are less well informed but who do vote." [FiveThirtyEight.com, 1/8/10]

Rasmussen Admits Conservative Screen. Reported Politico, "Rasmussen, for his part, explained that his numbers are trending Republican simply because he is screening for only those voters most likely to head to the polls -- a pool of respondents, he argues, that just so happens to bend more conservative this election cycle... But critics note that the practice of screening for only those voters regarded as most likely to head to the polls potentially weeds out younger and minority voters -- who would be more likely to favor Democrats than Republicans." [Politico, 1/2/10]



Sorry, but as much as you try, I just can't buy in to the idea that every Democrat is evil except for Andrew Romanoff.
Yay, that worked!
Pols, can you kindly delete my broken attempts above? It appears soapblox doesn't like special characters, in this case an apostrophe.

Sorry, but as much as you try, I just can't buy in to the idea that every Democrat is evil except for Andrew Romanoff.
[ Parent ]
This seems much more probable to me
Most voters aren't focussed yet and don't know either of the candidates, so it makes sense the numbers would break fairly evenly.  
80 hours a week of Republican progranda FREE to the party on KHOW/KOA
I told you all last March and I keep harping on it.  We have one party control of local radio here. KHOW and KOA have tremendous range throughout Colorado.  Eighty hours a week they have LOCAL hosts who attack the dems, relentlessly. The republicans do NOT pay one red cent for all that free air time.

WTF do you all think that advertising doesn't make a difference???  I am getting calls from dems begging for money so that they can BUY time on the airwaves.  

Talk Radio - The weapon to divide and conquer America....but who is funding it?

Harstad: Norton 43%, Bennet 40% | 30 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?



Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com

Active Users
Currently 22 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search

Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
  More >

















RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

Ultimate Politics

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat



 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox