U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 31, 2006 06:30 PM UTC
18 Comments
What does this stand for, please?
LOL! Everyone anticipates his/her chant: “Gallagher will give Hick a run for his money…What about the poor people…I’m a very good driver…Yeah…”
‘Flamethrower’ is about the kindest word I could think of to describe the aptly-named Crummy, BTW.
I guess he is off doing his private mourning before visiting us.
people which is about, oh, .001% of the population of Denver. Now, that’s a poll that means something significant! What? I don’t know. But, I’m sure it means something to somebody.
You dont poll an entire populace. You take a small sample and extrapolate. This isnt some Zogby interactive poll, this is a regular poll. Look at the MOE to determine the validity.
I’d actually have expected a sample far smaller than that for something that, frankly, doesn’t matter at all. (Yes, I did just say that.) The goal is NOT to poll a significant percentage of the population. In fact, the math behind margins of error all assumes an infinite population, as a simplification.
The one assumption that’s made is that the sample wasn’t chosen in a biased way. For example, if the poll was taken at a mall on Friday morning, then you’d only be polling people who weren’t much affected by the snow and that would invalidate the poll; but I don’t think that’s the case. If you have some reason to believe the sample was biased, then please let us know. The size is fine, though. Even if the real numbers are off by 2 or 3 percent, it still indicates no groundswell of frustration.
Is that the poll was not just registered voters. According to the article, of the 625 polled, only 522 were voters. That means 17% of the responses would never affect an election outcome.
Furthermore, there apparently was no determination if those 522 voters were “likely voters” or merely registered voters. As we see from turn out results in every election there is a significant numnber of registered voters who generally don’t vote with any consistency.
While the poll may an ok baromenter of overall support for the Mayor, I would not look at its numbers with any kind of “campaign-minded” scrutiny.
in addition to “voters” and “likely voter.” When polling in Denver they need a 3rd category of “die hard voter” consisting of only those prepared to spend 6+ hrs. in line waiting to vote.
I am not a Denver resident, so this is based on observations from afar.
I think that Hickenlooper has dodged the bullets so far, because he seems to be listening and taking people’s gripes seriously. It seemed liked he cared that voting went badly and the side streets weren’t plowed – that he wanted to fix the problems for next time. That’s what people want most.
Now, if voting is a disaster again, or another storm hits and nothing seems to have changed, empathy and concern may not be enough.
The second snow storm (I hesitate to call it one, when compared to the 12/21 dump) may have been a blessing for Hick. First, it wasn’t nearly as bad and the 12/21 blizzard. But more importantly, it showed a change in the mayor’s handling of the clean up. Not repeating the same mistakes is a sign of competence and growth.
I thought I saw an S.I.B. posting, complaining over the fact that there were no sleds and chocolate for the kids this time. That sounds like Hick has the snow problem under control.
Correcting the election problem will be a little more difficult because of the calendar involved. Changing the process before the muni election does not allow enough time and will be a mess (fortunately, none of the races look to be contested, so that should make things easier).
However, waiting until after the muni election means the new system (whatever it ends up being) won’t be in place until just before the ’08 election, and that could be dicey, esp. if Colorado is in play at the national level.
no matter what or how she reports. What’s the scoop here?
Last year, she ran a rash of articles attacking various departments of the city government which included a wide variety of factual errors. She got slammed for both the heavy editorializiing she did in her articles as well as appearing to not know what she was talking about due to all of the mistakes.
That makes sense. I thought maybe she was a Dead Guv’s ex wife or something.
the Pols be, today. Ironic that it’s Crummy again who gets your juices flowing.
Even suggesting Gallagher has a chance against the Hick, is ludicrous. The Hick will win a second term.
If he doesn’t, what the hell are we–Gloomy Gusses, that we are–going to be, um, gloomy about for the next four+ years?