We’ll See That Rasmussen Poll and Raise You One…

Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, that is. Highlights:

Michael Bennet is statistically tied with Jane Norton in this poll, technically leading 40% to 39% with 21% undecided. Men prefer Norton 45%-35%, women refer Bennet 45%-33%. Gubernatorial candidates Scott McInnis and John Hickenlooper are similarly tied at 43% each.

The benchmark favorability ratings for the parties and President Barack Obama fall within the range consistent with other polls. Read the full results and methodology here.

Bottom line? We’re not saying this poll is any more valid than Rasmussen’s poll from a few days ago, or the Harstad Research poll released at the end of last week. Taken together, all of the polling done by the various firms, each with their own methods and possible biases, assemble a composite picture of a given race. Keep track of the results of different polls over time, and you’ll see clear trends–and consistent outliers–begin to emerge.

85 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. These are all early polls.  Most of the poll samples predate Hickenlooper’s entry into the gubernatorial race.  And they each have different “likely voter” turnout models, too.

    It might be nice to have a tracker; we probably don’t rate a spot on any of the national trackers yet – most of them won’t put up a race until there are 5 recent polls for a race.

  2. JO says:

    Reading further into the Kos poll:

    Romanoff 39%, Norton 41%

    vs.

    Bennet 40% Norton 39%

    Other key number: Margin of error: 4%.

    Since we do NOT have a “very” category in Kos, hard to say what, if anything, this poll signifies, except that raising megabucks from Papa Bankerbucks & Co. hasn’t gotten the Appointed One outside the margin of error.

    If this was the poll that Mike’s admirers thought a few days ago was going to persuade AR that it’s time to drop out, I daresay it might not do the truck (although I have no inside insights).

    • Ralphie says:

      The poll didn’t say what you wanted it to say.

      • JO says:

        Do you see the name “Andrew Romanoff” in the original ColoradoPols post pointing out this poll?

        Given that post, I’d say the translation–if any were needed–is that the poll didn’t say what MB supporters may have wanted it to say, IF they wanted it to say anything or if they even were anticipating a poll.

        This poll, like the Rasmussen poll before it, says pretty clearly: no clear preference for Bennet vs Romanoff in the contest against Norton. Why any betting person would wanna raise the stakes on the basis of the later poll vs the earlier one, I don’t know–but then, I’m not a gambler.

    • Shows the polls are in flux with public opinion, but that Andrew can still pull off a primary and general election win.

      • Ralphie says:

        Agreed, at least until his fourth-quarter fundraising numbers are published.

      • BlueCat says:

        All other advantages go to Bennet.  Maybe that’s why MSNBC’s First Read blog has this to say about Colorado:

        *** More midterm news: In Colorado, Democrats are trying to persuade Andrew Romanoff, who is currently challenging incumbent (and appointed) Sen. Michael Bennet (D), to run for lieutenant governor…

        Not sure who or how seriously. Few here seem to be crazy about the idea of a double Denver white dude ticket. I suppose those who are urging such a thing are a lot more interested in getting AR out of the Senate race than they are in getting him onto the Gov ticket.  

    • MADCO says:

      When did anyone ever say that AR should drop out based on some upcoming poll?

      I remember reading  comments about how Norton was going to win no matter the D nominee.

      I think I also remember someone suggesting that the reported favorables/unfavorables  were useful information.

      But I don’t remember anyone suggesting AR would or should be persuaded to withdraw because of some upcoming poll.

    • Skyler says:

      I like you. You’re an excellent writer, and I think that if you were to be a little more civil, you’d be one of the top contributors here on Pols.

      As it stands, though, you resort to somewhat childish (believe me, I would know) attacks using delightful terms like Papa Bankerbucks & Co and the Appointed One.

      If you want to attack Bill Ritter, Michael Bennet, or anyone, really, that’s just fine. But I struggle to take you seriously when you resort to name-calling versus any sort of objective examination of these candidates.

      There are those that post here who do not support Andrew Romanoff, and they don’t typically attack him with the remarks of third-graders.

      You’d be much more credible as opposition if you were to do the same. In fact, you make Andrew and his support base look a lot less civil, and a lot less ready for the general election.  

      • JO says:

        Papa Bankerbucks, btw, was a takeoff on Daddy Warbucks of Little Orphane Annie fame; you got that, right? Suggesting that Bennet was raking in megabucks from financial institution PACs–which I believe to be the case and believe will be further demonstrated in coming days after examining details of his 4Q contributor list–versus poor Little Orphan Andrew (akh! there I go again!). It was intended to cause you to smile–in fact, to lighten up the tone a bit–not to cost me my milk and cookies.

        Should I take myself more seriously? Maybe so; then I’d be like…

        Never mind. Thanks for the compliment.

      • MADCO says:

        those of us who support Bennet, disliked Andrew.

        Apparently, most of us like him. I do and Have said so many times.

        So what you are really chiding JO about is that JO’s opposition  really appears to be about disliking Bennet.

        I agree.

        It would certainly elevate the discussion if someone would articulate the significant policy differences between Senator Bennet and Romanoff.  We all know AR has decided in this campaign that accepting PAC money or other corp donations is bad. What else?   Oh yeah, not starting with single payer was starting negotiations at the “50yard line,” the reason  we got a less than great bill and somehow something he would have changed.

        What else?

    • BoulderDem says:

      am I looking forward to the thread following AR’s 4th Quarter fundraising number. We could see a World and Olympic Record for competitive rationalizing …

      Wasn’t “Andrew is a better general election candidate” the whole reason he’s running? If not that, what does he have?

  3. Particulrly, Mayor Hickenlooper and Sen.Bennet

  4. Middle of the Road says:

    it puts either of them within margin of error against Norton and that is goods news to me. Of Halstad, Rasmussen and Research 2000 polls, only one of the polls seems wildly different from the other two and that’s the one favoring Norton.

    On a plus note, it is nice to see some of our posters here branching out and over to Daily Kos. Colorado can always use more representation there and it’s good to see that this race motivates them enough to engage on multiple sites.

  5. caroman says:

    As a Democrat I’m not exactly happy that we’re in a statistical tie with Jane Norton.  I wish we were up by 15 points.  But, these polls are telling us the political reality that we’re in a dogfight and we’ll need to bring everything we’ve got to win the Senate and the Governor’s races.

    To me, that means that unless Romanoff raised at least as much as Michael Bennet in the 4th quarter ($1.16 million) he needs to drop this quixotic primary race so we can focus on Norton.  

    • indipol says:

      I agree with Dave T: Bennet needs to get into an early fight so he can get a taste of blood in his mouth before he goes up against the R noise machine.  As long as AR doesn’t get nasty and personal and write the R’s talking points for them, a primary fight between them is good for Bennet, not bad for him.  And, if AR wins despite a money disadvantage, then we know who the stronger candidate is, don’t we?  

      I’m sure that every Bennetfan on this site who thinks there’s no way AR can win also never dreamed the D could lose Massachusetts’ Senate seat.  

      • But I think I’ll be trusting someone else’s judgment if that’s the kind of ‘sure’ you are.

        Not that I’m either a Bennet fan, or in the Romanoff can’t win camp.

        • indipol says:

          I’m not sure of anything.  Except this: last night Bennet sent 3 people to the Pols meetup.  AR sent nobody.  I’m sure sure sure sure sure that means something

          • JO says:

            …though whether AR’s rep(s) w(as)ere in uniform, I don’t know, not having been there myself.

            • indipol says:

              only Bennet people ID’d themselves as such while I was there.

              Maybe AR had official moles there.  What good would it do him to keep a hidden mole there?  If you’re a candidate running for office, you’d do well to go and shake hands with 20-30 very active political bloggers, smile and nod at them, listen to their concerns, etc.   Not slink around and … listen to the noise?

          • sxp151 says:

            was working for the Romanoff campaign in some kind of official role, though I could be wrong.

            • indipol says:

              could have been, but weren’t introduced as such while I was there.  But I wasn’t there all night….

              • JO says:

                …to say how anyone should run his campaign vis a vis the blogosphere. BUT, I can at least imagine–inhale…hooolllddd…exhale!–an argument that actively campaigning at a BennetPols.com social event might not have gone done well with everyone there, possibly as a matter of some sort of mysterious politesse de blogosphere. In any case, this doesn’t sound like a game-changer, d’ya think?

                • indipol says:

                  does that make your head spin when you walk outside?

                  Wake up and smell the roses, JO.  This is not a Bennetfan site.  There are plenty of people on here who are.  But I’m neutral and I see more of us than I see Bennetfans. What makes it seem maybe a tinge more pro-B than pro-R is that people like you and Sharon Hanson are making asses out of your war pony.  The difference between B and R on this site is that nobody is hyperventilating over B, so it makes him and his supporters seem way more reasonable and likable.  Still, despite that, I’m still neutral.  Can you dig it?

                  • wade norris says:

                    that, somehow, this site left out the mentioning of Andrew Romanoff being included in the poll.

                    Doesn’t that seem at least a little partisan towards Bennet, even if unintentionally?

                    I am sure the editors here could edit this story to include the fact that both Romanoff and Bennet are within the margin of era versus Norton, instead of only mentioning Bennet’s numbers.

                • redstateblues says:

                  Then you might have been able to talk about it without sounding ridiculous. People who work for both Democratic US Senate campaigns came, but none of them were there in any official capacity.

                  Maybe come to the next one? We don’t bite. Really.

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                but nobody identified himself/herself as part of the AR campaign while I was there.  In contrast, three Bennet campaign people identified themselves as such.  Did your AR folks say they were with the campaign or just, like me, admirers of AR?  

          • redstateblues says:

            People who work for both campaigns came, but none of them were there in any official capacity.

            But you’re right that the only people who ID’d themselves as being staff of any particular campaign were the Bennet people.

            Anyone was free to come, lurkers or posters, and people came–some of whom work for the two Democratic US Senate campaigns. Nothing nefarious at all.

            • indipol says:

              You don’t think the Bennet staffers were “sent?”  I actually thought it was a good stroke (and was trying to imply it above).  If I was running a campaign like this, I’d want my people there and I’d want them there making friends.  So I was impressed that Bennet’s people were.  And it was noticeable to me while I was there that nobody ID’d as being from the AR camp.  

              • redstateblues says:

                I thought that they’d been sent as well, and I thought it was totally inappropriate. If they had been sent, it would only be reinforcing JO’s conspiratorial accusations.

                What happened was that one Bennet staffer hadn’t RSVP’d, and he didn’t want to go alone. A couple of co-workers joined him, and the only reason it seemed like they were there officially was because of how we all introduced ourselves.

                The crowd-shy Bennet staffer’s coworkers didn’t stay that long, but he did and he got into a great conversation with a Romanoff supporter. Very reminiscent of some of the conversations that happen on the blog, but without all of the acrimony.

                I had a great time. It was very nice to meet you even though we didn’t talk very long, and I hope your kids weren’t horribly bored. 🙂

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              and saw nothing wrong with that, since they were from the campaign and we were voters.  If they weren’t “sent” that’s fine too.  But aren’t campaigns supposed to woo voters?  So what’s nefarious if they were “sent?”  

               I picked up some cards that said “For a good time, call …” Oops, that was at the after party.  All the Bennet cards said was “Health Care Reform Now!”

      • Middle of the Road says:

        but I think the fact is that this race is going to be close and depend on how the economy is going in the next 11 months. And it is a wee bit of comfort to me to see both of our Democratic candidates for the Senate within margin of error.

        I’ll be quite interested to see where the mayor’s race stands the next time they poll it since this was prior to Hickenlooper announcing.

      • That is an emotional response and not reality. In today’s political environment, money is king. Like it or not.

        Democrats are in big trouble this November and we don’t need spoilers making it worse. AR and Bennet are essentially in policy lockstep and Bennet’s is the incumbent. Sorry to say, it’s just not AR turn. He would be wise to focus all his funds on Nort-bag and then drop out.  

        • indipol says:

          plenty of self-funding millionaires have fallen on their asses.  Money is big, the biggest next to a clean past, a clean face and a clean sheet of recycled talking points, but it ain’t everything.  And again, if AR does beat MB, what does that say about money being king?

           

          • Money is king in general races. The NRSC and 527s are going to pound on the Dem nominee.

            Primaries are another matter. Just because he can do it in a primary doesn’t mean he can pull it off in the general.

            The important point here is that AR is running a spoiler race. Hope this doesn’t turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

            • indipol says:

              A spoiler race?  Before Bennet got appointed all of 15 people outside of Denver had heard of him.  I’m totally agnostic on who should win this — both will be fine.  But Bennet getting appointed didn’t automatically make him the choice of the Colorado D electorate.  No it didn’t.  It didn’t.  Shut up, it didn’t.  Really.  Didn’t.  

              Anyway, again, on this race I’m considering myself a neutral observer, and I absolutely want either of them to beat Plain Jane in the general.  And I want a goddamned primary!

    • Ralphie says:

      Shit happens.  Gotta have good candidates who run good campaigns.

      • JO says:

        …MB fans, given his huge lead in contributions (the lack of AR’s 4Q fin statement to the contrary notwithstanding). How come he ain’t doing much, much, better — better than North AND better than AR? Would AR be doing better with big bucks?

        IF MB hasn’t connected with voters yet, one year on — and I’m referring here to his essential tie with AR vis a vis Norton in the two most recent polls — given his seemingly much bigger campaign war chest and the advantage of “incumbency” (if that is, in fact an advantage this year) is there something we haven’t discussed?

        Would AR’s absence from the race have made a difference for MB in either of these two recent polls? Maybe so, but it’s not clear to me how, or why.

        What, in fact, is Coakley’s problem in MA? Money? Or is she an uninspiring campaigner (my guess from afar)? Or are people mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore (or somesuch), in an essentially irrational, irascible mood that can’t be explained by incumbency, campaign contributions, or anything else?

    • MADCO says:

      1) Eliminating the Department of Education sounds interesting and like a huge savings. How will it save anything other than the Secretary’s salary? Is this part of a larger plan to eliminate public investment in education? Will vouchers be the next step?

      2) She believes President Obama values the rights of terrorists over safety of American citizens. Does she propose proactively incarcerating all Muslims?  Banning all Muslims from flying? Or travelling around the US? Perhaps if not proactively, then just incarcerating them without trial or access to counsel? Does she want the US to declare war on …Islam? Yemen?

      3) Jane Norton believes that the best leadership when someone calls the President a non-American Muslim and  says that he advocates letting babies die on the side of the road like garbage is to affirm that persons passion and point out that  it should be shanneled into R get out the vote.

      4) Jane Norton believes that Federal legislation to reform health care is unconstitutional. No explanaiton why – bue she says it and therefore it must be true.

      5) She has never been elected to legislative office before. Starting at the top is unrealistic. Even Tom Tancredo indicated she wasn’t ready or this high office.

      Then for any of the less than hard right R’s – moderates, U’s and D’s – she’s pretty extreme R on most things. Maybe she’s just courting the TP now and will her campaign language will become more reasonable. Maybe not.

      • Steve Harvey says:

        It’s odd to me that the flag-waving right is so oblivious to what that flag represents. Our legal system is based on the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. There are few things more un-American than claiming that people are guilty before having been proven guilty, and that being thus (declared guilty without due process) they are not entitled to the protections of the Constitution.

        Yes, someone will trot out the Supreme Court holdings that seem to limmit the mandatory application of Constitutional protections, to some vague extent not completely fleshed out, to people who are either citizens of the United States, or are on American soil (it’s not clear, in fact, that others aren’t protected from American actions that would be unconstitutional under those conditions). But those protections were put in place because we know what happens in their absence: Dumping them at our convenience, even when it can pass judicial review, is a betrayal of our commitment to human rights.

        Everybody who knows anything about how terrorist suspects become terrorist suspects knows that it is a net which catches a lot of false positives: Many of those who have been suspected of terrorism, who have been kidnapped, imprisoned, rendered, and tortured by and at the behest of the American government, have been completely innocent. That’s what happens when you deny people due process.

        Even if it were true that denying these individuals due process would marginally increase our own security, committing crimes against innocent others to do so is not defensible. Otherwise, every act of brutality any nation or junta has ever committed in its own interests has been justifiable by the same logic.

        That’s not who and what we are. That’s not who and what we should ever have let ourselves become. And that’s not the kind of leadership we should ever support.

  6. Pam Bennett says:

    I think this is showing the name recognition that Romanoff has. It is way early in the year for most people to turn on the listen switch whenever something specific is happening in D.C.

    During my current attempt to be part of the private civilian life I hear a lot about how PO’d people are with our Congressional representation.  The Blue Dogs and Republicans are sharing that earned distinction; very few people even know what or who a Blue Dog is, but they know their health care has been sold to the health care industry.  Even the Republicans who bought into the anti-everything (teabaggers and Mitch McConnell’s) recognize that Congress has messed things up and it will cost them in money and health care. I am not sure how much they recognize Bennet for his work in the stew pot, but there is a healthy bit of sceptical thinking going on.  

    • I think people are predisposed to not like their congress people, D/R. Everyone tends to think that making decisions on health care, national security, energy, etc is easy and a black and white process. Except for the folks blogging on pols, most folks don’t know about the difficult realities inherent in the political structure.

      That said, everyone I know who aren’t involved in politics either dislike their representative but don’t know why or simply don’t know who they are.

      Bennet has made all of the right decisions on behalf of Colorado Dems. There’s no reason why we should change our player midstream.  

    • Steve Harvey says:

      The notion that this health care bill is a sell out to the health care industry, and that therefore should be opposed, as should all those that supported it, is a new variation on an old refrain. You would have heard it during the debates to ratify the U.S. Constitution, to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and any time that progressive initiative come up against the real distribution of influence and power.

      The United States was formed as a compromise to influential vested interests (both the larger states and the southern slave owners), and wouldn’t have been formed without “selling out” to them.

      This is a step forward, an opportunity to have a piece of legislation that can then be amended and refined. That’s the way it works.

      I don’t want for us progressives to die a painful death on crosses lining the Appian Way, wondering in our agony if the moral victory of having said “I am Spartacus!” was really the best of all deals to cut. Rather, I want us to get on with lives made just a little better by our efforts. And then get back to the business of doing it again.

      • WesternSlopeThought says:

        Social Security, Medicare, voting rights and every other great social progress we have made in our county have been strengthened with time.  Had Progressives cast themselves in stone this past year, we would have ended up with nothing on healthcare.  

        If there is a lesson to be learned from the continuing incredible shrinking Republican Party, it is that adherence to extremist ideology turns off the voting public.  And when control of a party gets in the hands of those extremists, they display a penchant for destroying a party rather than look weak to their backers through compromise.  D’s have these people also.  But at least they are not controlling the party.  R’s seem to be doubling down on their extremists by encouraging brain dead teabaggers and sticking with the likes of Janet “Bestiality” Rowland, putting Josh “I think I’ve done enough damage to make money now” Penry in leadership positions.  D’s learned the lesson of going too far in the 80’s.  R’s have yet to learn that lesson.  

  7. Ellie says:

    Having worked with polls for years, I’m finding they are becoming less of a barometer until the very end as in MA.  They can however be tools for raising money or identifying problem areas that need to be addressed.  

    Performing comparisons between polls with different methodology and run in different time periods with our 24 hr. news cycle and the internet, I don’t find terribly reliable.

  8. Vincent Lynn says:

    One trend that I’ve seen over past 10 years or so is how media reporting influences all polls.  Right now you may be saying to yourself “No duh”, but specifically I think the Republicans have done an amazing job of spinning their messages and talking points through the media in a way that gets to large portion of the electorate without a majority of them realizing that they are being spoon fed the RNC talking points.  In fact, Republicans have done such a good job that the popular assumption is that the media has a liberal bias even when the majority of coverage and airtime has a conservative leaning.

    This relates to the polling in a few ways.  First, if you remember, the media really started covering how bad the economy was in August of 2008.  The conditions had really been the same for at least a year leading up to that, but the Dow, other finanicial indicators, and consumer confidence (polling) remained relatively stable.  It was until about a month of the continuous coverage that the consumer confidence started trended downward and shortly after all other indicators followed.  Second, this same scenario happened with the Health Care Reform.  For the first month or so, the numbers in support of reform were high, but after continued coverage of the Tea Baggers, support dipped (polling).  The bill didn’t change in that time, only the media coverage of it.  Lastly, the same thing is happening with the Mass. election and the Midterms.  The story that is being covered is how bad of shape the Dems are in.  

    If you think about where our country was one year ago, we are remarkably better off.  While I don’t think this is a direct result of anything the Democrats have done, by talking to the average apathetic voter they’d probably tell you that the country is in worse shape because of the Dems, completely forgetting where we were at one year ago.  

    We can debate all day about which polls are accurate and what they are pointing to, but I can tell you to watch the media coverage and the polls in about a month will follow.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.