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%
May 12, 2011 07:54 PM UTC
77 Comments
Did they release any more data on the poll? I wonder what they considered a “likely” voter to call, weighting, etc.
I don’t think you can dismiss this poll merely on the merits of thinking Hancock couldn’t possibly be up this much.
The reason the top 3 got 25% is because there were 10 candidates on the ballot. With 8 days until ballots go out for the runoff, it’s quite possible that people have broken already based on 2nd and 3rd choices.
Dismissing this poll because it JUST COULDN’T POSSIBLY BE TRUE is as spin-o-matic as it gets.
Hancock has the big MO. Also, birther boyles has endorsed Hancock. Need I say more?
has for some time. But that doesn’t necessarily mean this poll is true, I just think the rationalization of it as JUST UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE is blind to a lot of factors that do in fact make it possible–if not probable. I think Hancock is probably somewhere between the 4 and 15 point lead these two polls have him at, most likely much closer to the 4 than the 15.
And if Boyles proves to be as meaningful as Caplis was for Mejia, then Hancock should get roughly…. 1 vote.
boyles has a video of himself and hancock on the website. He promotes his support of hancock – but it is not clear if boyles is promoting his own show or promoting hancock….
That is probably a more accurate statement. AND, that will enhance boyles’ credibility with the birthers who are sitting on the fence since the issue of the second legal Obama birth certificate.
Such a hancock win would also complicate “for the masses”..(.not you smart asses polsters.)…exactly what constitutes a “valid” COB….issued by the city and county of Denver…
Also, Larkin is out of prison and will not doubt appear on the boyles show….
Will Hancock be known by the company he keeps?
Also, has the gay issue surfaced at all in the mayor’s race and if so, how did I miss it???
We’re not doubting that Hancock could have the lead over Romer, but there’s no logical reason he could be ahead by 15 points.
Pols, come on. It’s a two-way race now. People had 2nd and 3rd choices for Mayor during the general. Now they get to vote for that person in the run-off. If more than half the Mejia supporters are going to Hancock (like the RBI poll said) then it’s possible that a lot of the political left who backed also-rans and Linkhart/Spahn or voted for Boigon before she dropped out have now gone to Hancock.
This isn’t rocket science. I’m agreeing with you that the lead probably isn’t that big, but it’s not as improbable as you are making it out to be.
is far more problematic than Evan Dreyer’s pro-Hancock spin. I mean, at least Evan openly discloses that he’s getting paid for spinning in favor of a particular candidate. What about you, Pols? How much have Romer’s corporate masters coincidentally donated to ProgressNow lately? Oh, that’s right, that data is a secret. Shh! Sorry for intruding on your clever little business model.
Dreyer’s goal was achieved. The media is reporting Hancock ahead in two polls out today.
noboby dislikes Romers corporate masters more than I do, and many here share the same opinion, but really, your self righteousness is just fucking annoying.
“No, you shut the fuck up!” — “No, YOU shut the fuck up!” … Is that how your conversations typically play out? Moron.
over to the Amazon tax thread, please.
maybe you could start a petition drive to ban me from pols. I hear you’ve been quite successful at these types of efforts.
I’ve never been involved with any recall petition drive.
I forgot, you’re the one who tried to blow up the school. I keep getting you nutters mixed up. Sorry about that.
Whom are you accusing of trying to blow up a school? Thanks in advance.
Because it doesn’t.
Try harder next time. Here’s a clue: you can only insult me if I respect you. You have a ways to go.
That should be “What a MAROON!”
Now go finish that term paper on the corporate plutocracy in 21st century municipal elections.
You are both pretty.
You don’t have to have a bias to use logic. Rather than shooting the messenger here, why don’t you explain to us how it would make sense that either candidate for Mayor could have a 15-point lead a week after the pre-runoff election?
Yes, but now there are only two candidates. His previous 27 percent was among a field of 10 candidates. Plus, there have been developments in the race since that time, which arguably have given Hancock momentum.
Do you really think people aren’t capable of seeing through your false logic? You are not the “messenger” as you claim — you are crafting the “message.” If you were simply the messenger, you wouldn’t be spinning the RBI poll as gospel and the other poll as presumed false. That’s not what messengers do.
Simple. Romer has a ceiling, and Hancock was the second choice of a lot of Mejia, Linkhart and Boigon voters, and voters who decided to sit out the first round but are planning to vote in the runoff like Hancock. Any of these things could be the case, maybe all of them.
Anybody but Romer, eh?
Is that a knock on the man’s height? Kidding!
I think 15 points is a pretty ambitious outlier too though. I guess we need a few more polls to know for sure.
Yes, the Pols/Bennet conspiracy is acting itself again. The evil corporate plutocracy that gave you Michael Bennet is once again clearing the field for its new fav son, Chris Romer. That’s what you’re saying, right “quadraguardian?”
But wait, what’s this?! DPS School Board Member Andrea Merida–SUPPORTS ROMER TOO?! OMG!
http://blogs.denverpost.com/th…
Holy shit, quadra! Either your whole delicate theory is bullshit, or they’ve gotten to MERIDA too! How is this possible, oh paranoid oracle?
I’ve never even met her in person. She’s entitled to her opinions, and she expresses them very well. My personal inclination is to support neither Romer nor Hancock, but there is sound reasoning behind the decision to hold one’s nose and choose one or the other candidate in this two-person race.
Differences between Ms. Merida and Pols:
– Unlike Pols, Ms. Merida is not a front group clandestinely operated by a 501(c)(4) political organization that’s integrated with nationwide astroturfing operations and accepts undisclosed corporate funding.
– She is stating her endorsement openly and transparently, where as Pols assists their chosen candidates by pretending to be neutral while actually distorting the “coverage” on this blog in favor of the candidates they support and mudslinging against candidates they oppose. There’s a word for those tactics, and that word is “shill.”
– Ms. Merida has a solid history of working hard in favor of pro-democracy principles and progressive candidates, whereas Pols has a track record of doing just the opposite. She openly states in her endorsement that she has many differences with Romer and that the endorsement is less than enthusiastic.
Please link to a post where Pols transparently discloses its support for Romer, its reasoning for that endorsement, and any overlap between Romer’s corporate funders and ProgressNow’s corporate funders. What, you can’t provide such a link? Funny thing about that, huh?
Hypocrite much? Look, many of us are anonymous, but you portray lack of transparency in who’s supporting whom as the greatest sin in politics — your bashing of c rork & demanding to know his job, etc. So, please tell us who the fuck you are, or STFU about how you’re holier than thou because others aren’t “transparent” about their background or motives.
The only reason I raised the issue of C Rork’s job was that he was trying to imply that he was just some poor independent college kid with no connection to the corporate-Dem money machine. Same thing with Pols: They pretend to be an independent voice when they are really far from it. These matters should be of concern to you.
In fact:
– The whole damned reason you know what to accuse Rork of is this: he uses his real name. So no, he’s not misleading you about who he is; he’s being more up-front about who he is than you, or me, or most Polsters.
– I remember Pols, when Romanoff fans said Pols wasn’t being “neutral,” saying it’s not a newspaper with an obligation of neutrality.
Andrea Merida is a person. Colorado Pols is a website.
Colorado Pols is a political blog, therefore you will find opinions about politics here. You don’t have to support or oppose a candidate, campaign or issue in order to have an opinion about it.
Colorado Pols is, and always has been, an independent political blog. Nothing more. Nothing less. People like you, quadraguardian, insist on trying to make these comparisons between Pols and some other animate or inanimate object, but you do it completely out of your own obsession. You manufacture your own conspiracy and then try to prove it correct. That must be terribly exhausting.
We don’t compare ourselves to anything. We don’t say that Colorado Pols is anything other than a political blog. If you want to compare us to Andrea Merida, The New York Times, or a piece of fruit, then go right ahead. But you’re not challenging anything, and you’re not proving anything right or wrong…because we never claim to be anything else.
I don’t see a margin of error posted on either poll; apologies if I missed it. Assume a 4-pt margin:
– RBI’s poll says 4-pt lead; that means the lead could be 0-8.
– Hancock says 11-pt lead; that means the lead could be 7-15.
So the polls do overlap in their possible diagnosis of the race: Hancock’s lead could be 7-8; or it could be 6-9 if the error margin is 5 pts.
Look, I think RBI’s is more reliable; neutral polls do simple things like rotate the order of names so as to minimize “who’s first” bias. But when two polls overlap within the margin (even just a little), you sound flat-out stupid declaring that one poll makes the other “absurd” — much less “as absurd as we have seen in a long time.”
The details for Hancock’s internal was 500 respondents, +/- 4.3% MoE.
That a 6.7-point lead is “absurd” because pols’ own poll shows a 4-pt lead.
Credibility is a good thing, Pols, and you generally have it. Don’t blow it here. Not for Romer, at least.
Hancock says 11-19 pts; RBI says 0-8; so the latter in no way makes the former “absurd” — and if you don’t believe me, pols, then believe Kevin from RBI:
The maximum likelihood occurs near the mean. As you get closer to the tails of the MOE, the likelihood drops significantly.
I guess what I’m saying is that within that range of 11-19, it’s fairly unlikely to be either 11 or 19 and much, much more likely to be 15.
Secret conspiracies. Ooooohhhh! Scary!
Stop wasting electrons (and our time) with such a pathetic post.
you’re against wasting time and electrons, you say? You have a strange way of showing it.
I really don’t care what you’re on about, nor do I care how accurate Hancock’s poll is, but I think you’re the only prolific Pol-troll who hasn’t called me any names yet. I’m feeling a little left out.
The only way to get me to call you names is if you first attack me with unwarranted ad hominems and/or mindless vulgarity, or if you habitually bully decent third parties in the same way for sadistic sport(a la Ralphie, MotR, Voyageur), and I don’t think you’re the type to do any of that.
… Or, you probably could also get me to call you names if you were operating a purportedly independent political blog that in reality served as a shill megaphone for moneyed anti-democratic interests.
… would that qualify? I agree that would be “ad hominem” and “vulgarity” but I’d defend myself by saying it’s not “unwarranted ad hominems and/or mindless vulgarity,” because (a) I wrote this very “mindfully,” and (b) it’s entirely “warranted” given the extraordinarily broad consensus on Pols, as to which Romer and Hancock folks seem quite united, that you are an extraordinary douche.
And to be clear, I’m as anti-Romer as you are; I’m just not indiscriminately douchey to pro-Romer folks.
You’ve already proven yourself an asshole many times. No need to go overboard. Save yourself the effort. … And I’m still not convinced you’re not Ray Springfield. You guys have remarkably similar posting styles.
And people who can spell generally have a visceral action of repulsion to publishing outrageously misspelled things, even in order to consciously obscure their identities.
I’m pretty sure Springfield is the knockoff if one of them is…
When he posts as Raymond1, he runs his diatribes through spell-check to throw us off his trail.
It’s a pride thing of some sort, I can’t help but figure. Nah. I’m not buying it. That would be like saying Libertad and Libertad 2.0 are the same jus’ cuz they have the same name sorta.
… for sussing out that, to hide my identity as “Ray Springfield,” I chose “Raymond1” as a secret identity. Kind of like how, before coming up with the “Superman” persona, Clark Kent initially concealed his identity with a costume bearing “CK,” calling himself “Clark1.”
If you don’t yet have a private practice as a detective, you definitely should open one, because you’re really an amazing dick.
Dun shoot the bystanders please!
Apologies for the confusion. I do plead guilty to Quad’s “asshole” charge, but I’m not an indiscriminate asshole to everyone who disagrees with me like s/he is; I’m just an asshole to those who deserve it.
The actual, hypothetical, imaginary comparison would be quadraguardian and triguardian. Hypothetically.
this race was always going to come down to “Romer v. ‘the not Romer’ candidate”. If this poll was taken prior to Mejia endorsing Romer, I think the margin could have very well reflected where the race was at that time.
Which was Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, so this was the day of the Mejia endorsement, and then the proceeding two days.
Kevin Ingham pointed out that part of the discrepancy between the two likely resulted from different targeting universes for who would receive the poll. One was just people who voted in the first round, and the second was 81% first round and 19% people who were waiting to vote until the runoff came around–which is a more historical model.
Isn’t it possible for Hancock’s poll to be on the very high end of the margin of error, and the RBI poll on the bottom end?
As a Mejia voter, I know Hancock was my second choice, and I would never vote for an investment banker who screwed the working class.
Denver Post Jay Fawcett v. Doug Lamborn 50 / 50, we lost by a lot. What do polls mean? A nice snapshot of what “could” happen.
There are some nasty rumors about Hancock and a few about Romer, we have all heard them, now which ones have the legs to come into the light and when?
Politics change daily. My bet Romer is the new Mayor of Denver. Name recognition and not a good year to be the Black guy. Some Republicans do vote in Denver, or so i have heard. Anyway, there is only one poll that counts and that poll will be taken on June 7th.
ColoradoPols is demonstrating some irrational Romer-luv
Romer has his good points – he supported the DREAM ACT and marched in gay pride parades, but Hancock has also supported both groups, so on those issues, it’s a wash
Romer lost me the day he asked for toll booths on I-70 and never apologized for it
Nonetheless – I don’t understand the CPols CRUSH on Romer??
I don’t understand the crush either, so my working theory/guess is that whoever Pols is, s/he thinks Romer is the winning horse and shares Spahn’s and Mejia’s visions of getting a job from Mayor Romer.
He’s got my vote then.
Too bad I don’t live in Denver, but I’m sure he appreciates my moral support.
What does this mean?????
Who? What? Where? Do we get paid? Did I sleep through something important?
And WTF does quadraguardin mean anyway?
ColoradoPols is essentially operated (but not technically owned) by ProgressNow, which is a 501(c)(4) political org that does not disclose where its funding comes from. They make a half-hearted attempt to conceal this relationship, but just ask around among Dem insiders at the Capitol and you can confirm this for yourself.
ColoradoPols – is this true?
Sigh. We get tired of answering variations on these blind accusations every time somebody has a new idea. “Ask around” is a frequent explanation for “proof” of these nefarious plots. Just “ask around” and you’ll find out that we’re paid by George Soros. “Ask around” and you’ll hear that we were created by Marc Holtzman to run for Governor. Just “ask around” because everybody knows, and if someone has an opinion or has heard a rumor, then it’s definitely true.
Colorado Pols is an independent blog owned by an LLC, and it’s always been that way. It is not “essentially operated” or even “sort of operated” by any organization or entity. We have never had any funding, corporate or otherwise, although if you’d like to write us a check we’d be happy to accept it. We make a little money off of advertising, but not much more than it takes to just pay the bills here. We get why these conspiracy theories take off — they’re much more interesting than the truth. But they’re just not true.
Also, Thank you for taking my request seriously.
(As always.)
We’d write it in crayon if we could, but how’s this: Colorado Pols is not operated or owned by Progress Now or any other organization. Colorado Pols has always been an independent blog. That’s all.
Could we possibly be any more clear?
So somebody wrote something on another blog that says otherwise? That’s only happened about two dozen times since Pols came online in 2004, and it will certainly happen again. There’s no big secret here. Sorry.
http://www.squarestate.net/sho…
That’s why the yapping Yorkies here at Pols have a seemingly inexplicable vendetta against SquareState — because Fong exposed the man behind the curtain at Pols and thus the scheme that Pols and ProgressNow don’t want you to know about. So while Pols’ “denial” above may be technically “true,” well, you know.
Actually, it’s because we think many of you at SS are assholes.
But hey, if you want to call it a vendetta, go for it.
You SquareStaters have pasted that link so many times, I’m sure everybody has seen it by now.
Two questions:
1. Do you have any proof that what she says there is true? Any of it? Why should I believe her more than Pols or anybody else who posts comments on a blog?
2. Even if it’s true, and I have no idea if it is, who gives a shit? Do you think that this blog is written by politically ignorant Joe Six Packs? I personally expect that the authors here know what they are talking about. And – shocker! – I expect them to have an opinion, too.
Suppose they gave a scandal and nobody cared? That’s you, and SquareState, in a nutshell.
By the way, who are you? Who do you work for? Why do you post what you post day after day? What are your real motivations? If you’ll answer those questions, most importantly the first, maybe others will entertain your accusations.
Until then, you’re just making a fool of yourself. And nobody cares.
Right here:
http://www.squarestate.net/sho…
Or do you deny being the same “bullshit!” who accidentally let that acknowledgment slip out?
If there’s nothing inappropriate about the Pols-ProgressNow connection, why then are you so upset that more people are finally finding out about it? Why isn’t there a disclosure posted on this site acknowledging that much of the content, labor, and agenda here at Pols comes from ProgressNow?
This is more pathologically fucked up than I ever imagined. I am not the “bullshit!” who wrote that comment. I have never seen that comment before now. Obviously those comments are meant to look as though the same “bullshit!” here at Pols (me) wrote them. I do not have an account at SquareState at all. The truth is, I don’t know anyone who writes for Colorado Pols, although this comment was written to make people think I do – as well as “confirm” rumors spread by SquareState. This is just incredibly slimy and devious behavior.
I’m seriously creeped out right now. Somebody over there at SquareState is truly a sick fucker.
But I’ll say it one more time: I am NOT the person impersonating me at SquareState. And I won’t be intimidated by obsessive assholes like you, Quadra.
You and your SquareState buddies are a bunch of obsessive, psychotic liars, and you just proved it in stunning fashion.