DfP in Colorado: Sanders 34%, Warren 20%, Pete/Bloomberg 14%

There’s been an unusual shortage of polling of the Democratic presidential primary race in Colorado with Super Tuesday now just a week away–so a new poll from Dem pollster Data For Progress is getting a rush of interest this afternoon:

After his victory in the Nevada caucuses, Sanders is leading in Colorado and Virginia. Sanders has a 14 point lead over his next closest rival, Elizabeth Warren in Colorado and a 9 point lead over his next closest rival, Biden in Virginia. In both of these states, several candidates are hovering right around the 15 point threshold for delegate allocation with significant effects on overall delegate counts depending on how many candidates hit this threshold.

Sanders continues to perform extremely strongly with voters under 45, with a majority of these younger voters in each state supporting him. His vote lead is substantially larger in both states among voters with their minds made up and voters who are extremely enthusiastic about their vote choice.

CO
Sanders – 34
Warren – 20
Buttigieg – 14
Bloomberg – 14
Biden – 10
Klobuchar – 6

Here are the crosstabs for DfP’s Colorado poll. We don’t have a lot of experience with Data For Progress, but they correctly forecast a bigger-than-expected win for Sen. Bernie Sanders in the recent Nevada caucus. These numbers are generally in line with the trends in the race we’ve observed, and fans of Sen. Elizabeth Warren in particular will gain fresh hope from her pulling into second place. Warren has targeted Colorado as key to her Super Tuesday comeback play, and it looks like that effort has borne fruit.

With that said, if the 66% of Colorado voters who support someone other than Bernie Sanders don’t consolidate behind a single alternative, he’s the comfortable favorite to win the state.

0 Shares

36 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. MADCO says:

    "…consolidate behind a single alternative…"

    Also- most won't be viable.

  2. Moderatus says:

    Long live the socialist revolution! Bernie is going to cost Democrats the House on his way down…..

  3. Meiner49er says:

    Alternatively, if that picture becomes a ticket by April, I'd say everyone else is done. Probably won't happen, but it is another way out of the Democratic dilemma so many seem to take joy in celebrating.

    • kwtree says:

      A Sanders / Warren ticket is what I want, for sure. And it would be unstoppable – the “unity ticket” people are dreaming of. And it’s possible – you notice that Bernie and Liz are still careful not to trash each other, and careful to say that they’re friends, and agree more on policy than they disagree.
       

      The big kerfuffle over whether Bernie actually said that a woman couldn’t win the Presidency seems to have died for lack of feeding. He probably did say it, or something along those lines. Bernie is not known for tact or diplomacy- but Liz seems to have moved on. 
       

      If she is the nominee, though, I think that she’ll choose Julian Castro as Veep.

      The GOP / Russian troll alliance will be promoting division between the Sanders and Warren camps from here out, as a Dem unity ticket is the last thing they would want.

      • Gilpin Guy says:

        I'd take Castro as the VP.  That would be a class move from an utterly classless person.  I hated her TV ad trashing Bloomberg for donating to Republicans without bothering to mention that he helped fund 24 candidates in 2018 against Republican incumbents of which 21 won.  That was over half of the 40 who won to retake the House.  She and Sanders are very fortunate that Bloomberg hasn't responded in kind.  You know he has had the oppo research done and could torch them in a moment if he behaved the same way they do towards him.

  4. Canines says:

    In an important primary like this, I would only vote for someone who I know for sure is going to get over 15%. Maybe even someone who previously won the Democratic caucuses in Colorado, in 2016, by close to 20 points.

    • MattC says:

      Shh

      makes sense – but the current discussion is not about making sense.

    • DENependent says:

      There is no candidate for sure to be over 15%. Polling is an imprecise science. Sanders is more than 90% certain to get 29%-39% (rounded outward to be extra sure, the margin of error is plus or minus 4.5%) and that still leaves room for far end weirdness happening. Not at all likely, but it can happen.

      If I were doing the reporting I would report 90% confidence for these numbers:

      29-39% Sanders
      15-25% Warren
      9-19% Buttigieg
      9-19% Bloomberg
      5-15% Biden
      1-11% Klobuchar

      It would make it clearer that polls are just probabilities, not actual counts. Sanders and Warren are very likely to pick up delegates while Biden and Klobuchar are very likely to not pick up any here. How good a night Warren and Sanders have is going to be a bit up to their support here, but also about how good or bad Buttigieg and Bloomberg do.

      Also, that is statewide. Colorado does award some delegates by Congressional District so there is still hope for your favorite candidate to get a consolation prize even if they don’t get delegates statewide.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      Who has no accomplishments of substance to his credit, has been funded by the NRA and has zero chance to enact any of his pie-in-the-sky schemes.  Obama had 67 Democratic Senators to start his term and barely squeaked the ACA by.  There aren't going to be an unicorn voters magically showing up on election day and the probability that Democrats are going to let this one slip away increases by the day so yeah go ahead and vote for a done-nothing loser.

      • JohnInDenver says:

        Obama didn't have 67 Democratic senators .. he briefly had 60 (between Franken's eventual seating and MA going Republican in the special election — 5 months, if I remember correctly).

        And it is easy to spin out reasons for and against election success — for Sanders AND for every other candidate.  Record of Presidents not getting a second term is pretty bad.  2 in my lifetime (Carter, Bush 41).  Versus 7 who did (Eisenhower, Kennedy/Johnson sequence, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43, Obama). 

        I'm guessing events are going to be key — if COVID-19 stays as lethal as it appears to be and flares into epidemic status, the Trump/Pence ticket is going to look bad, and new approaches to health insurance are going to look pretty good.

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          He did only have 60 but that was enough to invoke cloture. And not so coincidentally, ACA passed with 60 votes.

          Warren wants to repeal the filibuster rule. Good luck with that. Hypothetically, let's say there are 51 Democratic senators come January and 49 Republicans. President Warren tells Majority Leader Schumer to get rid of it.

          Hypothetically, let's assume Schumer becomes a toady like Mitch McConnell and does as he's told by the president. (I know, a big "if." But humor me.)

          He moves to amend the rules at the start of the first day. He ends up with about 44 votes in favor of eliminating the filibuster. Why?  Because Senators Angus King, Joe Manchin, Bernie Sander, Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper, John Tester and Dianne Feinstein vote against it. Among the 56 "no" votes:  Massachusetts GOP senator who is a temporary replacement for Warren.

          I know, I know…..she has a plan. <yawn>

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          Can we agree that a president elect Sanders won’t have 60 Democratic Senators on inauguration day. Between the economy crashing and the deficit exploding, his plans are DOA on arrival at Congress.  It’s possible that Dems will lose the House in this senseless move of self-destruction.  He has not gotten anything done of substance despite being in Congress for decades so it is entirely reasonable that none of his free programs will be implemented in his first term.  Why would we believe that a charlatan who hasn’t ever produced anything so far can deliver on programs that are unrealistic to begin with.

  5. davebarnes says:

    Amy! Amy!
    A moderate midwestern midget.

  6. Voyageur says:

    The only problem with voting for sanders  is that our vote might ultimately go to Sanders!

    On value alone, I’d go Amy.  But Elizabeth at least talks to moderates and respects us.  In honor of my wife, my daughter and my granddaughter, I’ll vote for warren.

  7. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    The continuing Dem food fight is entertaining to watch. Keep it coming!

    My vote in the Republican primary was real simple: former Governor Bill Weld. Like Nancy Reagan famously said, just say no (to Trump).

  8. Gilpin Guy says:

    I'm hoping Bloomberg gets to 15%.  His is an American success story of working hard and accomplishing a lot.  He is going to put a lot of pressure on Trump when he releases his tax returns and of all the candidates, he is the one that Trump fears the most.  He has the resources and resume to battle Trump in every state.  The goal this year should be to beat Trump not wage a losing revolution.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      Well, Bloomberg SAYS he is going to devote the resources to beat Trump whether he is a candidate or not — so that half of your formula seems pretty irrelevant. 

      As for resume — I'm skeptical.  In the mind of most of the country, which is more impressive?  12 year mayor of New York City (8 million citizens) or 14 years as lead on The Apprentice (yearly average of viewers ranging from 20 to just under 5 million).  Somebody who ran a media company most had not heard of or somebody with his name on buildings all over the world?

      On the whole, I'd agree with you.  But as Adlai Stevenson pointed out, "It isn't enough … we need a majority."

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.