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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 29, 2011 12:48 PM UTC

Shock Poll: Hancock by 10

  • 66 Comments
  • by: redstateblues

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

UPDATE:

How about a little spin with your Sunday morning coffee? Romer and Hancock respond:

Hancock:

In the words of Wellington Webb, “A poll is just a snapshot in time. The only poll that actually matters is the one on Election Day.”  

We know from early ballot returns that our opponent has strong support, and these poll results will only make our opponent and his allies more likely to step up their attacks against us.

This is pretty much the same message Hancock has had for the entire second round. The e-mail goes on to make a fund raising ask, which is pretty easy to do when you get a poll like the one published this morning.

Romer:

The poll itself has significant flaws. The sample size is very small. It is a push-button poll, not conducted by actually talking to voters – whoever answers the phone just punches numbers. And most importantly, this pollster has a history of polls that are wildly at odds with actual results.

Romer’s campaign is correct in pointing out previous Survey USA polls have incorrectly predicted the outcomes of races–most recently in the US Senate primary between Andrew Romanoff and Michael Bennet. However, Romer Campaign Manager Adam Dunstone’s criticism of Survey USA’s accuracy in this particular race, which centers on James Mejia’s apparent drop compared to May 3rd’s result, ignores a couple realities: 1) By Survey USA’s own analysis of their polling, Mejia’s performance was dependent on Latino voters turning out, something that did not end up materializing, and 2) Carol Boigon’s withdrawal from the race, and subsequent endorsement of Hancock, occurred largely as a result of that poll and changed the dynamic of the race.

Original post follows

————————————————–

With just 10 days left in the race to become the next mayor of Denver, a new poll shows a clear front-runner–Michael Hancock. As Fox 31’s Eli Stokols reports:

Hancock has 49 percent support, and Romer has 39 percent in a telephone survey of 548 likely voters conducted last week by SurveyUSA.

Eleven percent of voters remain undecided with just 10 days left until mail ballots are due on June 7.

Hancock’s advantage in the poll was even larger than many anticipated earlier in the week. [rsb emphasis]

Previous polling done by RBI Strategies and Colorado Pols showed Hancock with a four point lead in the early stages of the second round of voting. Naturally, the reason this poll is so shocking is that despite a nearly daily barrage of attacks from the Romer campaign on issues ranging from abortion, to evolution, to (most recently) immigration, Hancock’s lead has not only grown, it’s grown to double digits.

Political analysts, like Eric Sondermann in the article quoted above, are pointing out that time is running out for Romer to make a move; at ten days out, though, you don’t have to be a political insider to see that this poll shows Romer is in deep trouble. Romer’s problem isn’t just a matter of time, either. Given the tenor of the campaign, it’s possible that not only have Romer’s swings come up empty, but they’ve turned off people who are making up their minds based on likability factors, as Sondermann points out in the Fox 31 article:

“I don’t think voters think the stakes are terribly big or if there’s that big a philosophical difference between the candidates,” Sondermann said. “So if there’s not that big a difference, go with the guy you like.”

Of course, if this race was always going to be about personality and likability, then there really shouldn’t be anything shocking about this poll.

Tweet
Share

Comments

66 thoughts on “Shock Poll: Hancock by 10”

  1. A few weeks ago, a post here by C Roark asked if the fat lady had sung because Mejia endorsed Romer. I said that the pulse of the street was not favorable to Romer. It still isn’t and his problems from his outright negative push polls, embrace of Republicans, not-truthful mailings, questionable banking background, pandering to the Latino community, red herring pro-choice/creationism in schools, I am-not-for-vouchers-but-I-told-Peter-Groff-I-am-open-to-them, intimidation of the MMJ community have all backfired.

    In debates, Hancock has had to explain to Romer nuances and processes of City Government. Being City Council President does have its’ advantages, shocker.

    If you are unwilling to build coalitions and communicate your strengths, don’t be shocked when you get burned. All demographics except seniors are for Hancock. This is not a shock to progressives and people who are willing to step outside of their own cliques and inner-circles.

    This is a sound, outright rejection of the establishment and I hope this will translate to a final vote tally.

    Not shocked or awed, just pretty happy today! 🙂

    2. I said NOTHING about the fat lady singing. Re-read the post if you have to.

      Second, I am not openly supportive of either of the candidates for mayor. I actually add something to the conversation and write diaries, as opposed to only commenting on the mayoral race.

      Third, I never would have envisioned Hancock regaining momentum after the Mejia endorsement, but the RBI poll numbers did just that. I was mistaken in how I called it. And for some nagging reason in the back of my head, I believe it would be just as stupid to call this one for Hancock right now. Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.

      But damn! 10 points? JHC.

      1. Your diary on May 9 was a total Romer love-fest:

        http://coloradopols.com/diary/…

        True that it was Pols who piggyback-shilled by adding their wishful “fat lady” malarkey at the top when they front-paged it,  but the whole diary was pro-Romer rah-rah flackery.

        Does this sound familiar?:

        Romer has been considered the clear frontrunner from the beginning of the campaign for Denver’s next mayor, and this endorsement will only further cement that position in the run-off.  … Any hopes of an “anti-Romer” coalition forming have effectively been ruined.

        1. I could really give a shit about the race so think what you want, sockpuppet. Your opinion is hardly valid when you joined on the 16th and all your comments are about the mayoral race.

          And I stick by what I said. Romer was the front-runner for most of this race, no? I also thought, if Mejia endorsed Hancock, that a coalition opposing Romer would be very powerful.

          So fuck off.

          1. To your point of us coming out of the woodwork I am a proud unpaid Hancock shill. In fact in a weird twist I actually give money to the Candidates I believe in.  I have this all wrong.

          2.  I understand you support Hancock. I’ve met you. You’re a real person. That is just fine. You’ve written diaries here and been on the site much longer than the mayoral race. I have nothing against supporters of either candidate.

            But me calling “Arthur2ShedsJackson” a sockpuppet and “Polssux” a shill is an accurate portrayal. Both of these accounts were created during the mayoral election. 27/27 of polssux comments are on the mayoral race. I’m just calling it how I see it.  

                1. At least that’s what i was told by c rork in person.

                  Your point is well taken though.

                  its kind of like a household that’s tired of campaign calls and just states that they already voted for the other guy.

          3. Metholodology does count.The Latin vote can and does split. It is anything but monolithic. It’s the critical vote if the general election voting patterns remain constant. It’s possible that they won’t stay constant. It could well be that Hancock is picking up conservative vote.

            With such  low volume banked, it’s the ground games that take over.

          4. How could I be a shill? I openly scorned both candidates in the race as “reprehensible.”  So exactly who do you claim I’m shilling for?

            Do you even know what the word “shill” means? Hint — shills profess objectivity while emitting breathless spin like this: “Romer has been considered the clear frontrunner from the beginning of the campaign for Denver’s next mayor, and this endorsement will only further cement that position in the run-off.  … Any hopes of an ‘anti-Romer’ coalition forming have effectively been ruined.”

          5. Hancock: 70,780 58%

            Rumor, I mean, Romer: 51,082 41.9%

            Spanked.

            You are just mad because you were dead wrong and I called you on your poorly thought out post. Yes, all the way back to the 16th, as I said.

            But *you* can fuck off now. Thank you for playing.

  2. Just as a reminder to the people who called me a shill because I was new to the site, my response to the article I referenced earlier:

    >> Not So Fast <<

    Haha, err. I think this article was written in a cubicle somewhere before a check to see which way the wind was blowing. Lots of Mejia supporters I talked to today were fuming and will not go with Romer. Five are pavement-stompers for Mejia and see him as an opportunist – for himself, not for the agenda at-large. Romer’s values don’t align with the Mejia supporters I know, so I am not of the mind that people are going to sheeple out.

    Hancock should make Romer’s shady banking practices front and center.

    by: polssux @ Mon May 09, 2011 at 18:46:54 PM MDT

    …and I bid you good Memorial Weekend. 🙂


    1. Just as a reminder to the people who called me a shill because I was new to the site

      They were right.  And you’re still a shill.  It doesn’t have so much to do with being new to the site, as that the only thing you ever want to talk about is the Denver mayoral race, and when you do, it’s always using the current thread only as a springboard to generic pro-Hancock statement.  When you do that, it’s impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you; instead, you’re just here to get pro-Hancock positions in a public place.

      You’re still a shill, whether Hancock wins this election or not.

        1. Considering other recent polls showed Hancock up a little, I’d say that even if this particular poll is not terribly accurate, it’s most likely that Hancock is headed toward a win.  Not inevitable. Low turn out elections tend to be tough to poll accurately.  I do think a Hancock win, if it happens, would mean that the not enough  negative feeling was drummed up about creationism and not enough was gained from the Mejia and Pena (who cares about Pena anymore?) endorsements to overcome Romer’s serious lack of likeability which certainly wasn’t helped by his all negative campaign.  

          If I were a Denver voter I’d vote for Hancock, disturbing as his childish, magical thinking attitude about faith vs science is to me, because I think he can get good, practical things done by bringing people together and doing the nuts and bolts work in cooperation with others.   I don’t see Romer suddenly learning to play well with others and failure there is a recipe for disaster in a mayor.

          1. You live in a major cocoon if you think it is. And yes, even in Denver.

            Teaching creationism in public schools is unpopular, not to mention unconstitutional, but Hancock was clear to correct his initial statement about that, and people seem to have accepted it. But creationism as a belief, no, that’s not unpopular at all, among Democrats as well as any other demographic.

            1. his fourth or fifth try.  Naturally this is about teaching creationism as science. People are welcome to believe whatever magical nonsense gets them through the day as long as they don’t impose it on others in our secular public schools.

              I don’t live in a cocoon. I know that, inexplicably, there are lots of grown ups running around believing in all kinds of collections of ancient religious writings, myths and fairy tales. I was speaking for myself, not for Dems in general when I said that I (that’s just me) was disturbed by his childish attitude, as evidenced by his refusing to answer a question on whether he believed in evolution except by saying he believed in God, quickly followed by his no hesitation “yes” to the question of whether creationism should be taught in our schools. He was for it before he finally, after several ambiguous non-answers, came out with the definite against it statement you refer to.

              And teaching creationism in schools is actually a wildly popular conservative idea, with legislation being proposed all over the country to force schools to do so. I believe Bobbie Jindal is signing one of them.  That’s why it so important that we have unambiguous support for science only in science classes from Dems.

              But, hey, I said I’d still vote for the guy so I don’t think I’m either living under a rock or blowing it out of proportion. Romer may be fine on the science front but I think he’d make a  profoundly lousy mayor.

    2. Not to worry – the regulars (old timers?) get over it if you stick around.  They just give you a bad time on general principle after that. 🙂

      1. But when your user name is “Pols Sux”, no matter what you’re posting about, you probably shouldn’t be surprised to be greeted with skepticism.

      1. in the mayoral race, except it is nice when Denver elects a mayor who has some concept that the Western Slope exists.

        But perhaps Romer’s problem stems from, or is compounded by, his endorsement and support from the Golden Boy, Josh Penry.

        Just a thought.

          1. you might be misunderestimating how dirty and low-down a political player Penry is, and how much oil & gas money he has to play with.

      1. Adding to that, if any campaign ever tells you that they have no control over 527 messaging on their behalf (as the Romer campaign has claimed) there is one correct reply to that assertion: BS.

        1. I know that local ( HD,SD and City Council) campaigns I volunteered on recently were much more strict about maintaining an absolute line then they used to be out of awareness of very close scrutiny.  It really used to be much more wink, wink.

          But here’s what candidates can do and what it says when they don’t. They can come out and denounce sleazy 527 ads. The 527s probably won’t desist but they might.  If a candidate does NOT specifically denounce the ads, it’s because the candidate loves them.  A lame “it’s not our ad” with nothing more means the 527s poison is much appreciated.  The Romer campaign is an example of the latter.

  5. Both candidates have disappointed me (and that was very hard for Romer to do since my expectations of him were extremely low). The voters have disappointed me by allowing the Hancock campaign to shy away from substance and sit around discussing TV ads for the entire runoff. The shills even disappoint me. Too obvious and too whiny.  

      2. I liked Hancock quite a lot–I really did–but I like him less with every time I see him talk about positive campaigning instead of policy issues. That and the whole thing where it ain’t exactly a POSITIVE campaign if all you can talk about is how much your opponent’s commercials suck and how he isn’t running a positive campaign. That’s kinda negative, knamean?

        I hated Chris Romer from the beginning and I still do now, with a fiery passion.

        The only possible outcome of this race that will please me is if Romer gets elected, names Mejia Deputy Mayor, and immediately steps down to primary Diana Degette, leaving Mejia as Mayor.

        1. I still think Mejia would be a fine mayor even though his endorsement of Romer pissed me off big time. Romer couldn’t buy my vote with a house payment. I liked Hancock early on, very early, and I abandoned him only when Mejia made a better case. As for the Repub endorsements, they were merely extra nails in Romer’s coffin, but they got me to talking to neighbors and actually trying to bring more votes against him. Anybody that invites Penry into bed has got to be into nasty Colfax Ave skanks too. The thought of Penry having access to the City County building makes me want to take hand sanitizer to wipe off the door knobs.

  6. I agree with Sonderman’s comment above, which really does reflect the majority sentiment in this race.  It reminds me of another race where the perceived differences were slight, so the impassioned supporters on both sides fought over the relative degree of the negative campaigning on one side or the other.

    As infuriating as it may be to some, Hancock has successfully projected an image of being the more empathetic candidate.  Romer’s image of making only calculated moves (he even uses the term), including his decision to run a negative campaign from the start, has not endeared him to the voters.  The endorsements by Mejia and others may be seen as merely calculated, not particularly impassioned, diminishing their impact with voters.

    A few years ago at a GOP dinner honoring a friend of ours, a gentleman was introduced as the “Father of Negative Campaigning”.  It occurs to me now that the essential problem with the GOP is that they have taken negative campaigning to its logical extreme (pun intended).  Perhaps the backlash has finally begun, and candidates, GOP or Democratic should take note of the changing tide.

  7. But the one bright spot in this poll is that it shows a failure of Pols’ pro-Romer shilling to affect the mayoral race.  Hopefully that pattern will continue in other races, for the sake of Colorado and democracy itself.

    1. Not hard to see that about Romer, but what’s wrong with Councillor Hancock? Is it just the lack of specificity in his campaign? Because that’s just Politics 101, and there isn’t a candidate (a smart one, that is) on Earth who wouldn’t do the same thing if his opponent is self-destructing and his lead keeps growing and growing. Why put up a target? Hickenlooper did the same thing in the the gubernatorial last year.

  8. but I would have to consider this a vindication of the previous Hancock internal poll.

    Still, “no way”?

    I just don’t understand why people don’t like Romer.  Oh, wait . . .

  10. He ran [almost unopposed] for state senate, won, and then resigned 2 days later.

    Now, my state senator is some no-name who was “elected” in a smoke-filled back room.

    Chris is an SOB who knew he was going to resign his senate seat after winning it. That is a scumball.

    1. Your senator is Dr. Irene Aguilar who is arguably one of the smartest people in the state Senate right now and certainly among the very most progressive.  Many would say that she is an improvement upon Sen. Romer (whom I support for mayor).

      Sen. Aguilar was elected by a vacancy committee in the auditorium of South High School, where no smoking is allowed.  She worked very hard for the seat and walloped Rep. Beth McCann.  

      Sen. Aguilar was an outsider who beat a sitting representative and also beat a Democratic party official.  She came from the outside, won with hard work, and is a fine legislator.  You may not like Mr. Romer, but that’s no reason for impugn Sen. Aguilar or the process by which she was selected.

      Tom Russell

      1. Is a great progressive Senator. That said the way in which Chris ran, won and then resigned straight away and therefore did not allow for a proper election is totally without class.

        And I have no problem with smoke filled back room process as I was one of the 60+ who voted for Michael Johnston during the vacancy committee for the seat that Groff left for a much nobler reason, like serving our President.  

      1. and really really REALLY cynical. Romer’s just a guy in the family business who won’t stop resigning and running for higher office until he gets farther than his daddy. There really isn’t much else to it.

        1. I agree.

          I also have to agree that Sen. Aguilar was a fine choice–I don’t believe we should impugn her based on what Romer did.  Rather, we should judge her based on her actions now that she is a state senator.

  11. RBI Strategies released its poll for Denver mayor on May 12 and Survey USA on May 27.  I listed the ‘who are you voting for’ numbers for each candidate for each poll.  In each instance the numbers are in order of the candidate, his opponent and undecided, RBI first.

    Among Conservatives for Romer:

    57-24-18

    39-50-11

    Among Liberals for Hancock:

    55-27-18

    57-35- 8

    Moderates were split about even both times.

    Total Numbers for all voters (Hancock, Romer and Undecided):

    41-37-21 (RBI Strategies on May 12)

    49-39-11 (Survey USA on May 27)

    It looks like in trying to outflank Hancock on Left, Romer lost his conservative base, who defected to Hancock, and did not pick up Lib support either, which stayed with Hancock.

      1. Didn’t pass Romer’s “purity” test.  I think it backfired big-time because it was seen as an assault on the First Amendment, and because it was done so heavy-handed.

        But the “Romer commercial” also offended as did the attack over Safe Communities and the “Tancredo endorsement.”  Romer, and the Romer campaign lost credibility with most of the voters, which is why I think a big turnout could blow Romer completely out of the water.

        It looks like a lot of “new” voters are showing up who didn’t vote in the first round. Stay tuned.

        1. He’s suggesting, and it’s not an outlandish suggestion, that when Romer told everyone Hancock was a creationist, that’s what caused a huge swing in conservative support from Romer to Hancock.

          All those robocalls saying Tancredo endorses Hancock couldn’t have hurt in that regard either.

  12. though who the mayor of Denver is affects all Coloradoans to some degree. But, I bet lots of folks wish Linkhart were one of the finalists.

  13. All of the comments here about Chris Romer personally or politically miss the truth –most Denverites only know him from commercials. I really struggled with understanding what the cupcake truck thing did for Chris. That said, both candidates have their strengths and their weaknesses. Both would be better than the average Mayor, anywhere.

    I have long said Denver always goes the underdog (Webb, Pena and Hick were all underdogs), and I believe, prefer a minority candidate, as well. Hickenlooper’s quirkiness was the thing that got him elected, not his qualifications. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think Denver wants “cool”. Chris Romer seems like a good guy (I do not know him well), but his cool factor is kinda low. Statewide, white guys with mainstream connections do well in elections; in Denver, not so much.

    In regard to election results, do not underestimate the ground game of Adam Dunstone and co.

    1. I do not know Michael Hancock at all. I have heard great things about him, but several people who know him well have told me they think he is “not ready” to be Mayor and wish he waited another election cycle or two.  

  14. This is far from over, this is now a ground game.  TV has worn itself out so has the countless pieces of direct mail.

    I spoke to some Hancock supporters this weekend and talked them out of voting for Hancock without much trouble.  There are very few for sure voters in this race esp between the Mejia and Linkhart voters.

    Romer has a much larger field effort with the addition of Mejia’s field unit which was by far the best one in the race.  They have to go sell someone that no one really likes that is for sure.

    Election night the shills will be out to tell everyone how they knew all along.  This race will be alot closer and no one is winning by 10 points.  

    Andy S. – Romer Supporter – Nope not a paid person. 🙂  

    1. “There are very few for sure voters in this race esp between the Mejia and Linkhart voters.” Agreed, field is everything. Based on my friend’s posts on fb, it seems most of the Linkhart folks went over to Hancock, though. Romer’s mainstream allies did not help with the progressive vote.  

    2. And you and I have talked extensively about this, so you already know how I feel: Romer has a ceiling. That ceiling has been reached. Seven days of field efforts can definitely make it respectable, especially with Mejia’s team doing the heavy lifting. Nobody’s winning by 10, but…

      1. Suspect Hancock will pull it out by a much smaller margin. Whatever the outcome, wouldn’t rank it a shocker either way. More like mild surprise if Romer wins.

          1. then you’ll be right that a Romer win would have been shocking.  If it’s pretty close, that will show that neither should be considered as shocking as dysentary.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

85 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!