President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 22, 2006 06:51 PM UTC
31 Comments
This poll is crap. Their samples were completely skewed republican. From the 9news website:
“Both candidates can take positives from numbers inside the poll. For example, O’Donnell appears to be avoiding the President Bush fatigue seen in recent polls as impacting other Republican candidates. O’Donnell is leading among male voters (49-41 percent) and still has the support of registered Republicans (85 percent).
Perlmutter meanwhile is dominating among independent voters (48-29 percent) and those who describe themselves as moderate (58-28 percent). He is also leading among women voters (48-41 percent).
While the district is nearly divided evenly among Republican, Democrat and unaffiliated voters, the survey focused on 44 percent Republicans, 33 percent Democrats, and 21 percent independents.”
Okay, Survey USA just got downgraded a notch in my list of reputable pollers. 44-33-21??? I was going to ask if the numbers were weighted to correct for the disparity, but the 9News article seems to make it clear that 45-45 result was from the actual tally, not from a statistical correction. SUSA might say it’s accurate because of differences in party motivation, but I don’t believe for a second that Republicans are that motivated and Unaffiliateds are that apathetic.
can turn out 1/3 more voters than we dems can, we deserve to lose.
The GOP has nothing to crow about in O’Donnell and the unaffiliateds are looking at a lack-lustre GOP and a Dem candidate who its hard to tell if he is covered in more mud than is on his own hands or not. I’m not suprised by lack of enthusiasm from the “no thank yous”.
It will not surprise me if the real story from CD7 in Nov is the low turn-out.
Yeah. 9 News is so biased in favor of Rs.
If you adjust back to the 33-33-33 ratio of voters, Little Ricky winds up with 40% of the vote, Ed winds up with 50%.
Oversampling Republicans and undersampling Independents really changes the results, folks.
The Republican oversample really skews. Moreover, with a lackluster candidate for Governor (and one opposed by some within the R party because of Holtzman) R turnout could actually be down.
Also, I don’t think Ricky can avoid the Bush factor for ever, and he really hasn’t been hit with ads tying him to Bush/Cheney as well as his own position on Social Security.
Someone over on Daily Kos pointed out that the registration was actually more like 38-38-24. That moves the race to 41-46 in favor of Ed, not 40-50.
Someone pulled the registration numbers off the SoS website, and the split is now 31.6 R to 33.8 D to 34.6 U; this makes the race even more lopsided than I originally calculated.
The district *has* been trending Dem since Beauprez won his original 121-vote squeaker in 2002.
Aside from Dave Thomas getting whooped?
Thomas lost for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with voter registration trends.
and don’t forget that Kerry won the district while losing the rest of the state.
Dave Chandler, Green Party candidate for U.S. House of Representatives for Colorado’s 7th Congressional District responds to the 9NEWS report and poll broadcast yesterday evening:
Channel 9’s Adam Schrager in his report tells us that $10 to $12 million dollars is likely to be spent by and on behalf of the Perlmutter and O’Donnell campaigns in the 7th Congressional District.
Let me say it: this would be an obscene expenditure of money and borders on being immoral.
Is it any wonder that cynicism and distrust of our political system is on the increase when big-monied special interests are so eager to contribute such grotesque amounts of money to gain influence in government? You can also be absolutely certain that almost all of this tremendous amount of money will NOT come from individual residents of the 7th Congressional District.
This is wrong … and explains why a recent Gallup poll reports that ‘Americans Increasingly View Most Members of Congress as Corrupt’.
The House of Representatives is supposed to be the legislative body in the national government that is closest to the people; that’s why there are 435 districts and why the House is up for election every two years. When hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars are raised by special interests from outside the district for the express purpose of influencing how we vote — that subverts the intent of the drafters of the Constitution of the United States.
I appeal to the voters of this district to give a resounding rebuke to the system of “legalized bribery” that has corrupted our politics.
There is an alternative to the current corrupt system that has survived with the connivance of the likes of candidates such as Perlmutter and O’Donnell and their big-money, partisan supporters. From my party’s 2004 platform, here are the principles that I support to ensure that this becomes once again a government “of the people, by the people and for the people”:
1. Political debate, public policy, and legislation should be judged on their merits, not on the quid pro quo of political barter and money.
2. We propose comprehensive campaign finance reform, including caps on spending and contributions, at the national and state level; and / or full public financing of elections to remove undue influence in political campaigns.
3. All viable candidates at the state and federal levels should have free and equal radio and television time and print press coverage.
4. We will work to ban or greatly limit political action committees and restrict soft money contributions.
5. We support significant lobbying regulation such as strict rules that disclose the extent of political lobbying via “gifts” and contributions. Broad-based reforms of government operations, with congressional reorganization and ethics laws, must be instituted. At every level of government, we support Sunshine Laws that open up the political system to access by ordinary citizens.
You do not have to put up with the nasty politics that all of the Democrat and Republican campaign money is going to subject you to in the next two months.
If the integrity of our politics in this country is of concern to you … you have a real choice in the contest for U.S. House of Representatives for Colorado’s 7th CD. You can vote to encourage the corrupt, profligate system we now have by voting for O’Donnell or Perlmutter — or you can chose a new direction, you can vote your conscience and make political finance reform a high priority.
See my statement with hot links at: http://www.DaveChand…
Now that cable news is a major source of people’s informational viewing, how do you propose to deal with cable advertising?
BTW, I think you’ll have a hard time gaining traction against Democrats on most of these points. Most people in the Democratic Party support campaign finance reforms similar to the ones you propose. But there is definitely an issue of Free Speech to consider before haring off into all-out public financing; I don’t think the public wants to waste money defending laws that ultimately fall under the SCOTUS axe of Constitutional Law; we may need to amend the Constitution in order to get the system you propose.
For what it’s worth, I think raising large numbers of small donations from individuals is a Good Thing, and a decent indicator of a candidate’s level of support. To me, raising too much in large donations is a warning sign that makes me consider just how much the candidate values regular voters. But the Founding Fathers were mostly well-off, too…
how you feel about the following…
(These are principles stated by Greens for Impact, a portion of your party dedicated to “maximiz[ing] the Green Party’s impact” without hurting Dems in tight races)
h/t to peterco over at squarestate for pointing this out to me a while back
while you try to get to your utopia, those of us who live in the real world will continue to fight to end the war in Iraq; try to stem the rapidly eroding right to safe, legal abortion; ensure that gays and lesbians have equal rights; and ensure that our public schools are adequately funded.
Continue your spoiler campaign/Ego trip.
You are a clone of what gave us Bush II.
yank this crap….
His lead amongst independent voters and women is a very good thing . . . his message and views are appealing to the demographic groups needed to open up a really solid lead in this race.
I’m still hearing whispers about Ed being ‘damaged’ from the primary. I have to say, I think that’s very incorrect. The negative campaigning didn’t seem to impact his electoral success, and very few of the attacks launched at Ed would be credible coming from somdebody like O’Donnell.
Once the spotlight lands on his chummy relations with the White House and GOP insiders, his ethically questionable fundraising, and that social security essay, O’Donnell will fall even farther behind. He’ll hang on to the hardlining male conservatives, but the political gurus have been citing CO-7 as a the country’s most likely party flip for a reason. O’Donnell is going to be fighting uphill the whole way.
Sunday evening, I got a call from a polling firm for what turned out to be a 7th CD poll. Wasn’t the Survey USA poll (there was no mention of the third-party candidates). Detailed position/issue questions, including five or six hot-button positions for both O’Donnell and Perlmutter (“would you be more or less likely to support if you knew …”), surprisingly balanced characterizations of both candidates. Lengthy poll, the woman described it as “three pages,” and it took about 10-12 minutes to answer.
However, after stating my preference between the two about midway through the questions, a very strange question: If you learned that Ed Perlmutter was instrumental in founding his church, volunteers many hours there and has worked with Promise Keepers, would you be more or less likely to support him?
I asked if the question had been meant for O’Donnell supporters; the pollster said, no, it was the question for Perlmutter supporters. I replied that it wouldn’t affect my support because I knew it wasn’t accurate.
It was the only question that was really out of left field — the remainder sounded like good, tough position framing for both candidates, warts-and-all.
Any polling gurus have any idea what this was about? Doesn’t make sense as a deeply buried push-poll because it’s so absurd, and anyone turned off by Perlmutter for Promise Keeping wouldn’t be likely to turn to O’Donnell. Just to determine whether Promise Keepers is still divisive enough to change any position?
That’s an internal poll – likely for Perlmutter – to gauge voter feelings on different issues vis-a-vis both candidates. The campaign wants to know what matters to the participants, what issues make them more or less likely to support each candidate, etc… It helps the campaign know which issues to push hard, which to stay away from, which don’t matter, etc… It’s not a push poll. Perlmutter probably wants to know how much that stuff on him and his religious helps him with registered Republicans and how much, if at all, it turns off Democratic voters.
… but why would anyone want to know what effect Promise Keepers has on Perlmutter perception?
It had the feel of an internal or partisan O’Donnell poll.
I guess it makes sense to determine whether Promise Keepers background jeopardizes support among 7th CD voters. Whether O’Donnell plays this up or plays it down.
It could be O’Donnell – and that question would make sense for an O’Donnell internal if the question was asked about him instead of Perlmutter. The person interviewing could just have screwed up – they aren’t paid all that great and aren’t the brightest. Or maybe for some reason the Perlmutter campaign just wants to know how that background would play for him. I think you’re reading into it too much.
Yeah, that all makes sense except that Perlmutter is famously and actively Jewish, so a background in Promise Keepers would be quite the surprise. Maybe the question was to determine whether anyone even knows what Promise Keepers — a Christian men’s empowerment group — is anymore. Apparently not.
I asked the pollster twice whether she meant that question for Perlmutter supporters or O’Donnell supporters and she assured me it was for Perlmutter.
Le’ts see, Perlmutter has spent a million dollars and hasn’t pulled away. I would say that it GREAT news for O’Donnell. BTW, wasn’t Survey USA the polling outfits the Perlmutter folks were pointing out as legit in his primary, my poll is better than your poll, battle with Lamm???
Corrected for voter registration, Perlmutter’s got a double-digit lead. I don’t think Ed’s got it in the bag yet, but I’d say ROD’s in trouble right now.
SUSA has some pretty variable polls; their single-district polls tend to be a little more variable than their statewide and nationwide polling, mostly because they don’t have a lot of experience with the individual districts (or don’t want to take the time to deal with 468 Congressional races every year). They don’t do statistical adjustments in these early “likely voter” polls – they feel that the people they get on the phone who self-identify as likely voters are representative. But the district is most certainly not going to turn out 44-33-21 in favor of the GOP; I think even partisan R’s have to admit that.
Even if you give credence to the poll, the general campaign season has just started for those two. In a district that Beauprez won by a couple hundred votes, it makes sense that they should be relatively even out of the gate. I wouldn’t say this is good news for O’Donnell – he hasn’t even been hit by the dems yet on social security. No matter how he frames his response to that, his numbers are going down. I’d look for Ed to do some positives, get his name ID up with the general electorate, and then start hitting Little Ricky hard on social security.
Sorry there PR, I will have to disagree with that assessment. O’Donnell hasn’t spent any time on TV, etc.. and is even with Perlmutter. That is BAD news for Ed, who has higher name ID and has already spent almost a million dollars.
respectfully disagree with you. Only someone who works for Rick’s campaign or who is a staunch partisan would write something with exaggerated spin like that: “BAD news for Ed.”
No matter how you look at it, this is in no way BAD news (with emphasis) for Ed. I’m sure he has high name ID among dems who paid attention to the primary and higher name ID than Rick O’Donnell because he’s been on TV, but to expect that just because he spent money in the primary that he should be far ahead out of the gate (and say he’s in BIG trouble when a skewed poll shows the race even) is either ignorant, wishful thinking, or campaign spin.
Both Ways Bob wants to know why he isn’t graded on a curve like Lil’ Ricky was……..