CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 05, 2010 10:05 PM UTC
51 Comments
Whoa! Talk about spin!
Let’s read Rasmussen’s lead paragraph on this poll:
Ok, that isn’t really palatable for BennetPols.com. Understood. But let’s take another look at the “veries:
NET veries–Very favorable minus Very unfavorable:
Bennet: minus 10
Romanoff: minus 2
Norton: zero (16% for both very fav. and very unfav)
Interesting number, that 2. In the overall poll, it’s Norton 44 Romanoff 42, versus Norton 48 Bennet 39.
Seems the “veries” margins and the overall results are basically in line!
Read it yourself: http://www.rasmussenreports.co…
Bennet has the funds to better his numbers and AR does not. Do you know how much AR has in his coffer??
Also, sometime I wonder about Rasumussen polls since they are known to lean left. Could they possibly be trying to help AR in these polls so that it forces a bloody primary? Gotta wonder…
KOS leans left and showed Bennet winning in the last 2 weeks.
OFA polls have Norton by 3 over Bennet.
This quote however,
First, whose “we”? Are you officially with the campaign, or did you mean “we” as in Bennet supporters?
Second, the fact that Romanoff is only down 2 points – within the margin of error, while Bennet is still down 9 is significant.
I am glad that they both have risen 5 points, but an objective viewpoint is that Romanoff is the stronger candidate.
As for the claim about Bennet’s money, all the money in the world won’t matter if he does not make it out of the Primary.
Pols front paged it.
“we” = Colorado Pols.
Interesting – Colorado Pols doesn’t see anything noteworthy about Romanoff’s numbers – so you know, even though he is polling stronger than Bennet vs Norton, Bennet remains 8-1 and Romanoff will remain 20-1. That’s how Colorado Pols sees things – illogically.
We said there was nothing particularly noteworthy about Romanoff’s favorable/unfavorable numbers. Overall they aren’t good or bad.
and looking forward to the outcome of this race.
As for your claim…
You obviously aren’t being realistic here or else you don’t give a damn about keeping this seat blue. What part of “you need to raise big dollars to win a Senate seat” don’t you understand? Pretty stupid comment
that if Romanoff wins the primary the DSCC won’t support him financially?
Do you think it’s up to the DSCC to raise Romanoff’s funds for him by dumping millions of dollars into a race that he himself cannot fund raise enough to finance so far?
And if I remember correctly, and I do, Romanoff has already indicated he will not accept DSCC monies because of his stance regarding PACs so isn’t your question a mute point?
Romanoff will be successful in the primary. But if Bennet should win the primary he will not win in the general because with all his showboating he still has accomplished nothing except collecting money from the banks and Wall Street. His inexperience and opportunistic politics are shining through and the voters in Colorado see this for what it is.
and it is true that the DSCC’s job is to support D candidates, whether they accept the help or not.
i will ask this though –
if Bennet loses the primary, what happens to the millions he raised?
Conversely, what happens if Romanoff loses? What happens to the hundreds of thousands he’s raised?
I will mention this, Wade, because I know you have been on campaigns so there’s no point in us pretending to be naive here–if Romanoff wins the primary and has little money going into the general, the DSCC isn’t going to dump into a race for a candidate that couldn’t finance his own campaign and is going to go dark 3 weeks before election day. You know it. I know it. The DSCC knows it. The DCCC knows it. And they do it all the time–thus the diaries on Daily Kos begging people to put in a plug for their candidate to convince these committees to pony up for their candidate. Romaoff has to prove he can raise the kind of money it takes to win a race this size (think Udall’s $15 million race.)
And don’t you find it hilariously ironic that Bennet gets shit for raising money out of state and Daily Kos BRAGS about how much out of state money the progressives are raising for Blanche Lincoln’s primary opponent? Oh, the irony. The irony. The irony. The irony.
Bennet raises money from the likes of Wall Street and the banks – corporate money if you will while Daily Kos raising money for progressive candidates from progressives.
Nice try though but Bennet’s connections with the banks and Wall Street is not going to help him in this election. As for your other point about Romanoff don’t you think where he is going to win the primary you should start contributing to his campaign?
Oh and Sharon? Blow me.
if Romanoff wins the primary, the White House, the DNC, the grassroots, and the DSCC are not only not going to give money to him to beat an extreme right republican, but they are going to purposely not fund him, because it would be a waste?
that’s a pretty defeatist attitude.
and Sharon is right, fellow conservadem raises most of her money from PACs and corporations (who are out of state) and Halter’s donations are small dollar individuals, just like the kind that elected Barack Obama.
look, I think this poll gives Romanoff supporters such as yourself reasonable cause for celebration, and there’s an electability argument to be made against Bennet (not that I would necessarily say it’s compelling, but I think Bennet supporters like myself should recognize that numbers like these provide at least some warrants for such an argument).
However to suggest that a correlation in favorability differentials with support differentials means that the support differentials are meaningful in any way at this point is ridiculous. I can think of no methodological reason that would justify such a claim. If you have one, please explicate it, I would be thrilled to hear it, but correlation does not equal causation and these questions are measuring two different aspects of the race with different implications/meaning at this point.
By all means, I think you are right to harp on Romanoff’s better net favorables, but let’s not overly distort facts, ok?
We said the same thing about the Hickenlooper/McInnis poll last month. We don’t put much stock in any head-to-head polls that measure hypothetical general election matchups — not just this poll. It’s not a big anti-JO conspiracy.
Those head-to-head results don’t mean anything until the candidates all start advertising heavily, because 95% of voters don’t know who any of these people are. If you add up the total very favorable/unfavorable numbers, nobody even breaks 50. Two of them (Buck and Wiens) are barely above 20. Voters don’t know any of these candidates.
You can discuss net favorables if you’d like, but the reason we don’t bother is because they are all so low. Ken Buck has a net favorable of +1, but barely 20% of respondents even have a solid opinion of him, so who cares? That means nothing.
on net favorables is in the stratosphere. It’s meaningless to say one candidate is “minus 2” and another “minus 10” and think that means anything. Especially not for candidates who have never run statewide before (on their own, since Norton did when she was Gale and when she was Bill’s No. 2).
Is the following sentence from the second paragraph your opinion or based on empirical evidence: “As we’ve said over and over, head-to-head polling (of general election voters) matching up candidates from different parties is virtually meaningless at this point in the race.”
I actually don’t know because I haven’t looked at the numbers over a substantial period of time for a sufficient number of races around the country. However, I’d like to know, so, if possible, please give us the numbers that brought you to this conclusion. Thanks.
My poll results are completely different. That’s odd since I pulled them out of the same place Rasmussen did.
There is no point in wasting time with an invalid polling institution, not to mention the early point in this race.
Back to nap-nap.
that was meant to be snarky (if not, then just, you know, wow!), because your dismissal of this information is no better than AR supporters dismissing Bennet’s very relevant fund-raising numbers. I support Bennet as well, so I’m hoping that his supporters don’t stoop to JO and Sharon Hanson’s level of just dismissing whatever they like instead of actually engaging credible arguments where they exist. When all candidates and supporters disregard actual differences, we’re forced to focus on the unimportant ones, and that does no one any good.
there are better polls with more useful data.
And I’m not claiming caroman has seen them either, but I think he can Pols are right. Pols with solid methodology and large numbers can be useful when they ask the right questions of the right people. Neither Rasmussen nor R2000 have done that.
Does anyone know why Rasmussen has not done a poll on the respective primary races?
If the bulk of Bennet’s unfavorable rating is just a reaction to him being an incumbent, that means he can quickly move those numbers and pick up support.
But if the bulk of the unfavorables stems from a genuine dislike of Bennet the person, then those numbers will be very hard to change.
Do people not like Jane Norton? Or do they not like one of the other well-known Nortons that have been active in Colorado politics?
If respondents know exactly who Jane Norton is, and they still don’t like her, then that’s a lot different than if they said they don’t like her because they think she’s Gale Norton. You can fix the latter, but it’s harder to change a solid opinion like the former.
Over two months of polling, Norton is flat to declining.
disillusion, or dislike of incumbents, based in the current case on the seeming inability of the Senate in particular to get much done–regardless of the role or non-role of any one incumbent–then it’s far from obvious to me that Bennet “can quickly move those numbers and pick up support.” How does he do that? What’s he waiting for?
I would think it even harder for an “incumbent” like Bennet who doesn’t have a long record of favors for Colorado constituents to point to, which would be the usual advantage of incumbents. Ergo, Bennet suffers the worst of both worlds: object of anti-incumbent sentiment, but not a “real” incumbent with a record to fall back on.
I realize that Bennet is trying to establish a record of running against the Washington establishment, such as drafting legislation to overturn the Senate rules–a gesture that seems fairly transparent–and unlikely to make any dent in the problem–as I observed here the other day.
Perhaps there are past examples of an era of general disgust with incumbents, a sense of “throw the bums out” in which approval of Congress is in the 20% range at best, in which an incumbent quickly overcome his/her incumbency. I’d be interested in knowing what election that might be. I’ll keep an open mind on the subject.
I would make a similar observation about fund-raising. Sure, funds buy advertising, robo-calls, etc. But in Bennet’s case, they also carry the burden of having come from corporate PACs and from out of state (including a healthy portion from DC)–a potent argument for an opponent, such as Brother Romanoff, in an era of anti-Washington sentiment.
In the words of the Rasmussen poll:
I want this seat to stay Democratic. I have met Bennet 3-4 times. I have tried to like the man for all the reasons that have been mentioned here ad nauseum. I can’t make myself do it. If he wins the primary, I will hold my nose and vote for him, but I will not work on his campaign.
for our Democratic candidates. Their numbers are steadily ticking upward while they close the gap with Norton. No matter who you support in the primary on the Dem side, this poll is fairly good news. That’s if you trust Rasmussen. Unfortunately, I don’t because of their past track record.
All I know is that Republicans will still point to the fact that all the Republicans beat the Dems, but that is going to be tougher, if not impossible, to say should the current trend continue.
in one month. This makes me happy.
In states where the incumbent is a Republican, is the GOP candidate doing as poorly in a hypothetical matchup? Are the anti-incumbent sentiments nationwide intact for all incumbents, or is it only for Democrats since they are seen as the “incumbent party.”
and it seems to be for all incumbents, not just Dems. Senators seem to be doing far worse than House Reps, mostly because I think House members are seen as actually doing something while the Senate appears to be where good legislation goes to die.
BTW, most Democratic incumbents in tough races are getting creamed and their numbers are going down, not up like in this race.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
Conventional wisdom seems to be that both the House and Senate are in play for Republicans this year, with 23 Democrats and 10 Republicans up for election in the Senate. If they make big gains this year, it’s conceivable that they could reach a super majority in 2014.
than RCP’s write up.
http://dyn.politico.com/prints…
should adjust the Big Line.
Who is Dean Madere in CD4? Who is Lang Sias in CD7? And how the hell could these guys be at 14-1 and 17-1 in their races when AR is 20-1 in the Senate race? Come on now. Atleast give AR 15-1.
I am still uncommitted/undecided in the Senate primary, but, that line doesn’t even pass the straight face test.
Still think you are a bit too tough in the CD2 Big Line comments. JP has been the most visible Congressman in Colorado by far.
now you have “piss”, “shit”, “fuck” and “blow me”. Bravo!
You do get that, right?
made you upset!
I’ll give you that one, Wade.