Schaffer Poll Shows Udall in Lead

impressive

At this point i would have assumed Udall to have an 8-10 point advantage over Bob, lining up with most national generic ballot testing of R's vs. D's as of late.  Though he is still down in both this poll and in fundraising, this is still good news for Bob Schaffer.

---

by: John Galt @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 17:52:09 PM CDT

I agree...

I think that for a while, Udall will pull away, but it's going to be closer this time next year.  This isn't going to be a blow out for either side

---

by: Haners @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 18:00:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree

This actaully good news for Bob.  I haven't looked at the poll but the more interesting question will be which negatives they tested and how much the numbers moved after the attacks begin.

---

by: mountain man @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 18:00:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know . . .

THis poll was commissioned by Schaffer, and that usually skews things a few points - I think he *is* 8-10 points behind

---

by: Emma Anne @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 18:38:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wonder

how much of Udall's $2.5M are from sources like Hsu? 

I'm sure someone's looking.  I hope Schaffer turns Hsu into Willy Horton.

Hey Bob Schaffer!  I've got the commercial playing in my noodle right now...and I work cheap! 

 

---

by: JeffJ @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 18:05:54 PM CDT

So, instead of discussing what Schaeffer stands for...

...you want to copy what many consider to be one of the most despicable moments in political advertising ever.  Oh, wait.  You have to do that, because your boy doesn't stand for anything.  Except taking campaign money for his vote on the school board. 

---

by: CO Democrat @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 18:48:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Typical

Issues don't matter.
Just winning.
What happens to people based on policy is irrelevant as long as neocons win.

Sound like a Bushie.  Doesn't matter how many die, how many jobs are lost, how many people are hurt by his policies as long as he and his buddies win.

How sad for all of us.

---

by: Jjc2007 @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 20:39:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

World of difference

Bush is little more than a Democrat with testicles (a Rockefeller).  There is a world of difference between Bush and conservatives.  Coors, another Rockefeller, couldn't win because conservatives are tired of the "at least he's better than a Democrat" line the Rockefeller Republicans use to get conservatives to vote for their candidate.

Shaffer doesn't strike me as a Rockefeller.

As far as issues go, I need only recognize one truth: socialism is slavery.  Democrats are socialists, and I'm opposed to slavery.  It makes my choice much easier.

---

by: JeffJ @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:49:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Socialism

So, Dems want the government to own and run the productive sector?

Well, that's news. 

As to "socialism equals slavery", that's a moronic statement if there ever was.  If you mean totalinarianismm, which can be either left or right, that's true.  But the most socialistic countries, the Scandinavians, are democratic.  And they have plenty of room for capitalism, both large corporations (Saab and Volvo?) and storekeepers.

You really need to understand what the hell you are talking about and use the correct definitions.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:57:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

good try

Health care?  Which Democrat wants to deny subsidies to the health care industry?  Education?  Same thing.  Energy?  I could sit here all day and bring up Democrat meddling in nearly every industry. 

Socialism IS slavery.  I work till May to pay taxes to support your bureaucracy.  That's slavery.  Democrats want more taxes and therefore Democrats are the modern-day massa's.  Hayek proved it in "The Road to Serfdom".  It's a quick read if you have the stomach for it.

Democracy is no foil against tyranny.  If it were, there'd be no need for checks, balances, enumerated powers or the Bill of Rights.  Tyranny by mob rule is still tyranny.  Your velvet-clad thumb actually hurts more the harder you press, not less.  When was the last time you advocated LESS government meddling for anybody except gays and illegal aliens?

Strict adherance to our Constitution (federalism) is the only foil against tyranny.  Socialists (you) are merely fair-weather fans of original intent.  That is, only when it suits your purpose. In fact, I believe that most Democrats/socialists would just as soon do away with the Constitution altogether, and most certainly, do away with original intent.

Democrat philosophy:  If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  If it stops moving, subsidize it.

Sounds about right, does it not?

---

by: JeffJ @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 11:30:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Health care, education....

...and the federal government is NOT ownership of the means of production.  That would be, as happened in Britain, Mexico, and other places, ownership of the coal mines, iron factories, auto factories, etc.

You don't seem to grasp that when a majority of Americans want a certain path, and get on that path via their elected representatives, that's the constitutional way.

Democratic meddling?  How about Republican?  Taxpayer monies to corporate welfare, the military-industrial machine, etc?

If you don't understand why we have taxes, you are beyond having a discussion with.  I've never met anyone who likes taxes, but some of us understand the neccessity. 

As someone pointed out here a week or so ago, move to Somalia, you'd love it.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 13:00:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK.

1) Both Democrats and Rockefellers have worked to make sure that the US is a service-based economy, not a manufacturing-based economy.  The "means" of production have left the country.  Socialists gave them a reason (regulations, taxes, etc) and Rockefellers gave them the ability (govt.-managed "free trade" agreements).

2) It doesn't matter what the "majority" of citizens want if it's unConstitutional.  The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the world's smallest minority: the individual.  The tyranny of the mob, 50+1, is still tyranny.  Democrats gave up protecting individual liberty for everybody except gays and illegal aliens a long time ago. 

3) The Democrat Party, as a whole, advocates more meddling not less.  At least within the GOP, there are some who advocate less government.  Those who vote for corporate welfare and military interventionism (where it is unwarranted) are just as evil and complicit as Democrats.

4) I never said taxes or government are unnecessary.  I recognize that the government is necessary, but I also recognize that it is also EVIL.  I guarantee you, it is easier for me to acknowledge the necessity of government than it is for you to acknowledge that government is evil.

---

by: JeffJ @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 07:39:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

OMT

In Marxist theory, socialism is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism. 

What conclusion should a critical thinker draw when people like you advocate the expansion of evil (government) for the "good of society"?

In my world, 2+2 still equals 4.

---

by: JeffJ @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 07:47:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"The Road to Serfdom"

  Is that a privately-financed toll road like E-470, or is that part of the Interstate highway system but with tax dollars?
  Yes, we all pay taxes and we hate doing so.  And yes, we'd all like to get something for nothing but it doesn't usually work out that way.  (That is one of several things I despised about Ronald Reagan was that he convinced the people in this country that they could get things without having to pay for those things.)
  I don't care how much you may brag about your self-suffciency, you derive economic benefits, directly or indirectly, from all levels of government.
  Maybe you, your wife, your children, and your ancestors for several generations have all attended private school (or worse, were home schooled), and as such, you have no need for the public school system.
  However, most of the people with whom you interact every day (be it your doctor, your accountant, your plumber or the grocery clerk at King Soopers) were educated in the public school system, for better or worse.  As much as you'd like to deny that it has impact on you, you can't avoid the fact that you have a vested interest in whether these people can read, write, add and subtract.
  Highways and schools cost money.  Short of taxation, do you have any rational alternatives to funding these "frivolous luxuries"?

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 15:53:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

confounded

You've confounded the desire of a limited government with anarchy.  I'm a classic liberal, not an anarchist.

Govt. is necessary for the construction of roads because road building involves eminent domaine. 

I never advocated the elimination of schools, just the use of coercion to finance them.  Education should be left to the market and charity.

---

by: JeffJ @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 08:04:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't try to re-own that word...

By your posting history, you're no Liberal.

Government doesn't need to be involved in the building of roads due to eminent domain - if you're a true free-market believer, then private entities can certainly manage to convince (with money or logic) private land-holders to part with their land for compensation.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 12:58:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You clearly

know nothing about the policy stands of either Bush or the late liberal Republican Rockefeller.  Yes, there was a time when the Republican party had a liberal wing. Liberal used to be considered a good thing.  Even Ike considered himself liberal.

---

by: f.sage @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 15:12:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Likewise, GW....

...The First, the good one, George Washington.

Proud to say that he was liberal and that he hoped for a very liberal future in America.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 17:18:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now THAT'S laughable

Washington was a classical liberal.  In todays United States, the mantle of classical liberalism is carried solely by the Libertarian Party.

Socialists adopted the label "liberal" to make their brand of tyranny more palatable to the masses. 

---

by: JeffJ @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 06:57:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep rewriting that history!

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 08:41:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Prove me wrong.

.

---

by: JeffJ @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 09:06:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Riiiiiiight.....

Prove an opinion which of neccesity much be done with semantics.  Now there's a fool's errand.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 10:34:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No Semantics Needed

Just find me quotes from Washington where he advocates intrusive, expansive government like modern liberals do.

Any fool should be able to do it if it's true.  That's why I asked you specifically.

---

by: JeffJ @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:37:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You won't find anything about "privacy,"....

...either, in the writings of the FF or the constitution.  And yet, we almost all have come to expect certain levels of privacy guarenteed by the Constitution.  Why?  Times change, interpretations are made, and we no longer live in a world of 1787.  They had no room for air travel, either.

Nor could they envision 50 states, two of them not even physically attached to the other 48.  It takes a different government to, er, govern that than 13 all close by. Not to mention 300 million folks, many of backgrounds other than Anglo.

The reason "privacy" is not mentioned in our documents is that that word, then, meant toilet functions.  "I need a bit of privacy" was code for "Gotta take a dump."

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:48:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yep

Just like I thought.  Normally I'd say, "good try", but you didn't even make the effort.

Don't worry Parsingreality.  The only people who will know what a loser you are are the ones who read our little exchange.

I'll see you, and the rest of the leftists who visit/run this site in about a month.  It's been fun.

---

by: JeffJ @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:02:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Adios!

What a jerk you are. 

You become judge and jury as to the validity of my comments and call me names instead of going a step further.  I would daresay that the majority of folks here would think otherwise.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:10:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You need to hit the books sir

Any form of government can be turned into tyranny, no matter what label it gives itself.
Hitler was not a socialist in any way, shape or form.  Nor was Mussolini.  They were fascists...money and the state working together to opress.

Slavery, what we had here for a couple hundred years, thrived under a government that was an oligarchy.

People like you love to throw words around.  Unfortunately you are clueless about their meanings.
Try reading....and using a dictionary.

Bush is a plutocrat; (noun;someone who exercises power by virtue of wealth) and this band of right wingers are pushing for an oligarchy (Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.)  And unless the populace, the people working together in a community, in social networks stop that mentality pushed by the right wing, we will end up in a fascist oligarchy.  Already with tax cuts for the rich, and spying on people, we are headed there.

Socialism, on the other hand, is  a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Again, any form of government or theory can be distorted into tyranny.  But Plutocracies and Oligarchies have a much longer history of using slave labor than socalism.

---

by: Jjc2007 @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 21:34:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

In a speech

given in Feb 1941, Hitler claims that "basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same".  -Social Research, Vol VIII, No. 4 (Nov. 1941)

American correspondent and former socialist, W.H. Chaberlin, after twelve years in Russia wrote, "Socialism achieved and maintained by democratic means seems definately to belong to the world of utopias."  -A False Utopia (1937) pg. 203

Max Eastman, Lenin's old friend, admits, "instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple," and that it is better described as superfascist".  Eastman then admits that "Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of being inevitable although unforeseen political accompaniment of the natonalization and collectivization which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society." -Stalin's Russia and the Crisis of Socialism (1940) pg. 82

You- "Again, any form of government or theory can be distorted into tyranny.  But Plutocracies and Oligarchies have a much longer history of using slave labor than socalism."

All governments are tyrannical.  That's the nature of government.  The difference is: how much.  Classical liberalism advocates less, much less, than modern liberalism advocates. 

Old-school slavery has been supplanted by the modern-liberal version.  Pluto/oli-crats got away with slavery because the Law didn't forbid it,  modern liberals get away with it because they can vote for its existence and expansion, so long as they can ignore the original intent of the Constitution...and find a ballot big enough to hide behind.

---

by: JeffJ @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 09:01:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

what's that hiding behind the vote and ballots?

modern liberals get away with it because they can vote for its existence and expansion, so long as they can ignore the original intent of the Constitution...and find a ballot big enough to hide behind.

Looks like your issue is actually with democracy. Maybe you should be directing your vitriol towards the Greeks?

---

by: Steve Balboni @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 21:28:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Constitution

is meant to stifle mob tyranny (democracy).

---

by: JeffJ @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:18:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In a rare moment of agreement,

I, well, agree with you.

The FF were terrified of the lower classes.  That's why they built a surprising amount of elitism and bulwark into the Constitution. 

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:50:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agree with the government as tyranny part.

But I have to dispute Hitler's claim - sorry, but an analysis of the Nazi regime shows it to be quite different from Marxist thought. Quote notwithstanding, the Nazis were a corporatist state - just ask all of the U.S. businessmen who wanted to overthrow FDR and install a state in alliance with the Nazis.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 13:03:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

how much of Udall's $2.5M are from sources like Hsu?

  Probably the same amount of money that B.S. has received from Jack Abramoff. 
  And I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Huttner and Progress Now already have the numbers on how much money B.S. took from Tom Delay back when "the Hammer" was Majority Whip and B.S. was a lowly backbencher in the GOP Conference.

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 22:06:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wonder

if JeffJ is capable of engaging in any real debate. Oh well, the idea that Bush isn't a con made me laugh, so JeffJ is good for something.

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 16:31:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's proof

of how little you know about conservatives.  Instead of spending your time reading the leftist tripe that passes for news on this site, or the Post/News, try reading the comments at a conservative site like Townhall.

If you Democrats wanted to impeach Bush for violating Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, no true conservative will stand in your way.

At least, I won't. 

---

by: JeffJ @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 07:08:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you want to rescue the word Conservative

from the neo-cons then this probably isn't the forum to wage that battle. But definitions shift over time and you might better serve yourself fighting for your beliefs than for labels.

BTW, I'm not a Dem. People mistake me for one all the time...

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 16:49:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You called

Bush a conservative.  I was merely correcting you. 

If you were as open-minded as leftists claim to be, you'd spend time on a conservative website and find out what conservatives think about Presidente Jorge Bush. 

"I'm not a Dem. People mistake me for one all the time..."

I can see why.

---

by: JeffJ @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:28:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But I bet you voted for him all the same

and I bet that all the other "conservatives" at the "conservative" websites did as well. And I further bet that none of you "conservatives" expressed any opinion that Bush wasn't one of you before the 2006 election.

I've spent time at redstate.com - since I'm no glutton for punishment I won't bother with many of the others. They say many of the the same things you do, but it didn't start happening til a month or so after the election.

Just so you know, I've known that Bush and his cronies weren't true conservatives for a lot longer than you have. I know the classic idea of limited government was not one actively promoted by either Bush or the great god of the right, Ronald Reagan. Sure, they boosted their careers by making it a big part of their speeches but then they submitted huge budgets that made their tax cuts irresponsible. I argued this with the conservative friends and family in my life and usually they changed the subject to some values line.

So I have to laugh when a so-called "true conservative" such as yourself comes along condemning the man you helped put in power in the first place. Where were you in 2000? Putting a "Sore Loserman" sticker on your bumper?

Get a life, JeffJ. I've seen soap dishes with more depth than you.

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:50:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised it's that close

How is Hill when it comes to accurate polling?  A lot of party-aligned researchers skew a bit toward their side; if they did, this is about as expected, but if not, then Schaffer's doing a lot better than I expected.

"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

---

by: Phoenix Rising @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 18:08:00 PM CDT

The Hill firm is very expereinced in Colorado

The Hill polling firm is out of Houston, Texas and his group is very expereinced in Colorado.  They polled here last year on two amendments and before that they did either Owens' or Allard's polls in 2002. 

The only other issue is how was the election question asked.  It may have been asked with several different scripts or it could have been a push-pull script.  All pollsters are under contract and the candidate they  work for has the final say on how each question is scripted.  No one knows if the elect question in this specific poll was scripted a certain way to make Mr. Schaffer look better or whether it was a straight question that simply asked who would you vote for today Bob Schaffer or Mark Udall.

If it was the straight forward question then the race is close.  In any event, the Hill firm is a well respected polling firm.

---

by: Republican 36 @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:58:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yup.

You spoke my thoughts.

There's a big difference between "Would you vote for Mark or Bob?" and "If you had a choice between a candidate that supported traditional family values and one that was part of the Boulder liberal elite?"

Also, 600 is a pretty small number to ask.  To me, indicates doing it on the cheap. 

Presuming that the questions weren't too much "pro BS", I will say that he did surprisingly well.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:04:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

re:

600 is a standard sample size for a poll such as this.

---

by: John Galt @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 16:35:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you really?

I'm surprised at your reaction, frankly.

This early on, with both candidates with high voter name recognition, in a state that has a hell of alot more registered Republicans?

I think this is good news alright...for Mark Udall.

I never thought this race would be a cake walk but from the look of this poll, which Schaffer refuses to even release any of the details of the polling questions and methods used, Schaffer has even more to worry about than we thought.

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:04:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let's See, Coors.......

.......beats Schaffer in the primary and Coors loses in the general.  And you're excited about Schaffer's chances because why?

"To be a patriot, one had to say and keep on saying, my country right or wrong and urge on the little war. Have you not percieved this as an insult to the nation?" Mark Twain 1906

---

by: Mike Collins @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 18:11:07 PM CDT

Shave 1 to 2 points from Schaffer if Rayburn enters the 5th CD race and Lamborn wins the Republican primary

And those 1 to 2 points may be the difference to Schaffer in the general election.

It's actually in Schaffer's interests to have Jeff Crank win the 5th CD primary.  There will be a clear heads-up winner with a 2 man primary and it's going to be Crank.  The last thing Bob Schaffer should want right now is a 3 or 4 man race in the 5th CD primary and most especially, the baggage of Doug Lamborn on the general election ballot.

One thing Demogirl had right was that Doug Lamborn and his supporters gave dirty politics a bad name. Visit my home page often and decide for yourself. (Demogirl, you inspired me to join Coloradopols. Won't you please come home?)

---

by: CD-5 Line @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 19:18:17 PM CDT

Would it matter?

Because by the general election that is all past.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 20:57:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the GOP in C.D. 5 will really get enthusiastic next November.....

  B.S. will find himself wedged on the ballot between Rudy Giuliani at the top of ticket and Lamborn beneath Schaffer.

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 22:09:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even if it's an 8 point spread...

...this clearly demonstrates to Schaffer donors that this race is well within their grasp. And CD-5 is correct in his assessment... one additional note is that imho Crank will generate better turnout than Lamborn in the General. Why? Look at the Crank margins in the 06 Assembly (double digit victory) -- those are the "base of the base" and explains the extremely poor 06 general turnout for Lamborn.

---

by: GOPpundit @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 19:38:34 PM CDT

Help A Friend

Udall should at least get Hsu a local lawyer.

---

by: dftoad @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 20:41:15 PM CDT

What kind of manure are you spreading?

---

by: Danny the Red (hair) @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 22:02:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The typical shit

that desperate Republicans are spreading in a whole lot of states these days--despite their intense loathing for Hagel, it can't be a good day to hear that he's resigning.

There goes another one, boys.

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:06:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Schaffer at 40%................

Wasn't that the percentage with which he finished the Senate primary in '04?

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 22:11:31 PM CDT

Poll interpretation

Assuming this poll was conducted for the purpose of taking the true measure of Colorado voters, I believe it shows the following:

1.  The race is relatively close which is no surprise; 

2.  Schaffer is weak because he is only polling at about the level of the Republican base vote in Colorado whereas Udall has already captured more than the Democrat base vote;

3.  Add to that the results in 2006, the Republican hold on Arapahoe, Jefferson, Larimer has evaporated over the past decade and other Republican bastions are now break even counties (Weld and Mesa).  Even Douglas and El Paso seem to be shifiting slightly toward the Democrats (Gov. Ritter received 45% in Douglas and 40% in El Paso in 2006 which is better than any Democrat has ever done).  Gov. Romer had over a dozen paid campaign staffers in El Paso in 1994 and only won 35%.

4.  The far right ideologues like Schaffer no longer sell well in Colorado.  The facts on the ground simply don't coincide with their extremist ideology.

---

by: Republican 36 @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 09:10:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow...

....you really know your stuff!

Many thanks for sharing those, and other, thoughts.

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:32:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the note of Jeffco...

...it's possible that our two Republican Commissioners might have to campaign for their reelections in orange jumpsuits. 

---

by: CO Democrat @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 08:02:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

maybe they can design their yard signs to match their orange jumpsuits

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 13:36:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Orange Revolution...

I seem to recall that phrase bandied about on this web site.

---

by: Canines @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 14:40:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

amusing

You got all of that with no crosstabs? Your assumptions of what this poll reflect of CO voters may very well be true, but until more of the poll is released it is hard to know what it shows other then that Udall is leading Schaffer by 5 with 15 undecided.

---

by: John Galt @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 12:25:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What 2005 poll with Ritter and BWB?

In 2005, Ritter was still facing potential primary opposition in his own party.
Had BWB even declared for governor? And, in 2006, once Ritter was the candidate for the dems and BWB for the repubs, was BWB ever ahead?  I don't remember, but I don't think so.

Is that comment coming from our own Coloradopols or the airheads back East?

---

by: dwyer @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 08:05:49 AM CDT

As good as it got.......

IIRC, there were no published polls during the '06 campaign which showed Bill Ritter ever trailing Beauprez.  There was, however, one Zogby poll (using some new, funky methodology) which showed Both Ways running closely behind Ritter.  But all of the other polls pointed to the 17-point blow-out that we saw last Nov. on Election Day.

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 10:00:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

actually...

I'm pretty positive that BWB was leading into April of 2006. I have to run out the door right this second but I'm 99% sure of that. Ritter definitely came from behind to pass and ultimately crush BWB.

So Schaffer's internal polls show him only losing by 5 points and he won't release the methodology? He's shaving more points than an NBA ref folks.

---

by: Steve Balboni @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 12:21:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Check the Wikipedia link on this race.

This wikipedia link has information and polling on the 2006 Colorado Governor's election.  There were a couple of earlier polls that had Beauprez slightly ahead of Ritter.

http://en.wikipedia....

---

by: CO Democrat @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 07:59:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I stand corrected

  Rasmussen had Both Ways either running even with, or splightly ahead of, Ritter in a couple of polls between Jan. and May '06. 
  So I guess once they finished crushing "Holtzy" into the pavement and that dreaded, contested primary was averted, it was smooth sailing for the S.S. Beauprez.

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 13:40:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for the update

But the citation was for autumn of 2005 and I think that part was inaccurate. 

---

by: dwyer @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 17:21:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Gov. race was Beauprez's to lose at one point

Here's the polls

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 10:32:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Come on, Colorado Pols

In October of 2005, Zogby/Wall Street Journal may have had BWB leading Ritter....but that is the only poll out of about the  twenty you displayed. As I have noted before, Zogby makes BIG mistakes in Colorado.....he had Strickland beating Allard in 2002..by six points....the night before the election....

I think the comment that the governor's race was BWB's to lose or that BWB was leading Ritter until Coloradans got to know more about BWB is not supported by the facts...even the ones you showed...

---

by: dwyer @ Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 15:39:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I wonder what the likely voter numbers look like.

You would usually do a likely vote screening question in a poll like this one, and using a registered voter number instead suggests that those numbers may have been withheld.

The discrepency wouldn't be huge since voter turnout is high in Presidential election years, and because Colorado purges its lists more aggresively than some states, but still, it doees leave the question hanging.

The other numbers that would be nice to see is the partisan breakout of the survey'd population.

 

---

by: ohwilleke @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 13:07:33 PM CDT

Solid Lead

THis is a more significant lead for Udall than people here recognize.  Right now, many unaffiliated voters are simply not paying attention, and therefore many (probably 30%) are undecided.

Assuming Udall and Schaffer poll about the same among their own party members, for Udall to have a 5% lead means he leads among Unaffiliated by over 10%, and probably closer to 20%.

Crosstabs would really be great here, but if you assume a 5% GOP registration advantage, then a 5% Udall lead over a year out is a very good sign for Mark Udall. 

---

by: Genius @ Sun Sep 09, 2007 at 13:34:23 PM CDT

This is the poll history.

http://pollster.com/...

Yeah, things could get bad for Schaffer.

---

by: HappyWeasel @ Mon Sep 10, 2007 at 09:46:56 AM CDT