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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

70%↑

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
September 28, 2007 11:36 PM UTC

1 + 1 = 3, Says Hill Research Consultants

  • 19 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

Environmentalists disputed the poll results suggesting public opinion “solidly backs” energy drilling on northwestern Colorado’s Roan Plateau.

One called the wording of the question used in the survey “dishonest.”

The survey suggested 60 percent of those polled would approve allowing energy companies to drill for oil or natural gas on the Roan to cut the state and the nation’s dependence on imported oil…

“It’s dishonest to link drilling on the Roan to oil imports,” said Chiropolos. “Producing natural gas anywhere in Colorado isn’t going to reduce the country’s demand for oil.”

He said the Roan has no crude oil deposits and no “recoverable” oil that can be gleaned from shale.

Noting the poll’s linkage of Roan drilling to the nation’s dependence on imported oil, pollster Lori Weigel said “the context of the question is critical to how people will respond.”

Fact is, if it were based in reality it wouldn’t be a very good push-poll, would it?

Note that this is the same Hill Research polling firm responsible for recent highly questionable polls done on behalf of the Bob Schaffer Senate campaign–one would hope the same specious methodology wasn’t applied to those.

Excuse us, apparently it was.

Comments

19 thoughts on “1 + 1 = 3, Says Hill Research Consultants

  1. The resource being extracted from the 2/3 of the Roan Plateau planning area already under control of the energy industry is natural gas, about 2 months US supply if the rosier estimates are accurate.  Thus, the notion that drilling the last bit of unleased public land on this Colorado treasure will do absolutely nothing to reduce our foreign oil dependence.  It will not lower the prices ‘at the pump’ and will have no noticeable effect on energy prices at all.  In fact, as more of Colorado’s gas is shipped to the MidWest (where most of it is currently being sold at bargain basement prices) Colorado consumers can expect to see their energy costs rise, according to an industry analyst speaking at the recent COGA confab.

    Drilling the Roan: Not worth it for Colorado

  2. If I don’t take the word of a guy from Western Resource Advocates. 

    I think they may be a little bias.  Not to say the other side isn’t biased, but the only reason Mike Chiropolos is questioning their methedology is because he wants to advance his environmental agenda.

    1. A poll asks if we should drill for natural gas on the Roan to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and you question someone pointing out that the two are almost unrelated because he has an agenda?

      It’s a frickin’ push-poll with a false question!  Who cares who points it out!

            1. The point is very simple: drilling for natural gas will not reduce the nation’s dependency on oil, because natural gas is not oil.

              There is no commercially viable oil on the Roan Plateau.

              This is therefore a fundamentally misleading poll.

              Perhaps we’re missing something you’re trying really hard to say, but it seems pretty academic.

              1. He’s here to loudly echo right-wing talking points, facts be damned – witness the SCHIP exchange the other day. 

                Not sure who’s paying him, but it’s obviously someone pushing whatever is on is on the BushCo agenda for the day.

              2. I am glad that you know with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no oil on the Roan Plateau.

                I am also glad to know that you know with 100% certainty that there is absolutely no way that natural gas will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

                this supposed “push poll” doesn’t seem academic to me at all, It seems to be more a matter of opinion. 

                1. They did not say that there is no oil in Roan, you made that up. They made a reasonable assertion that natural gas will not reduce the nation’s dependancy on oil, because it is not oil. You are taking their words to such extremes (interesting, because you take people to task for doing the same thing you are doing now).

                  So, an obviously flawed poll can be disregarded because the obvious flaws are a matter of opinion? Good to know.

                  Your accusatory tone makes me think you have some ace up your sleeve that you are going to bust out, but someone has to ask for it. Well, feel free to post it.

  3. Like the majority of municipal governments and elected officials in Garfield County; 98.5 % of the 75000 comments received on the BLM’s EIS; 72% of people polled int he 3rd CD; organizations like CO Trout Unlimited (they have an agenda too–to protect the conservation–i.e. genetically pure–population of cutthroat trout on the Plateau; CO Wildlife Federation (again, with an agenda, to protect the incredible wildlife habitat left in the undeveloped portions of the Planning Area…  really, the list does go on and on and on.

    In any case, the methodology sucked.  The question is rigged (there is no OIL under the Plateau, and drilling the last little bit will do absolutely NOTHING to reduce our dependecy on ‘foreign oil imports.’ 

  4. Education needs to be a top priority in this state/country. The ability of the citizenry to think critically takes away the ability of special interests to manipulate opinion and votes.

  5. http://www.wildernes

    Talmey-Drake May 2007

    d. [Split sample with c] Colorado’s public lands should not be sacrificed any more than they are now to meet the energy needs of the country, particularly when we have clean energy alternatives like wind and solar power available, as well as many opportunities for conservation [n=289]…………………………………………….. strongly agree 46% somewhat agree 25%

    Anzalone-Liszt August 2007

    Almost three-quarters of 3rd District voters (72%) want restrictions on oil and gas drilling on the Roan Plateau. 23% are opposed to any additional drilling, and 49% want to ensure that any additional drilling is restricted to existing sites near the base, while the upper plateau remains protected for wildlife.
    •
    Just 19% of voters believe that additional oil and gas drilling should be allowed throughout the Roan Plateau.

  6. These poll results are very similar.  The history of public support throughout the 9 year Roan planning process clearly backs up these numbers as well.  The Chamber poll is not only a dishonest push poll, but it is an extreme outlier.  If we had good reporters covering the state (other than the Sentinel which did a decent job) we might have reporters asking these questions. 

  7. “Environmental groups this afternoon challenged one of the poll’s findings — that respondents solidly back Roan Plateau drilling, especially if tax revenues are used to fund higher education. Sixty-percent approve and 31 percent disapprove.

    “The groups point out that the question posed to respondents — whether they support drilling on the Roan to reduce dependency on foreign oil imports — is leading. Roan drilling would be for natural gas, and would would have no impact on oil supplies.

    ” ‘Natural gas is very much a different substance than oil,’ said Deborah Frazier, communications director for the state Department of Natural Resources. ‘Oil you can run your car off of, natural gas we tend to equate with home heating and energy needs.’

  8. is called that because it is designed to push the entire electorate, not just a subsample of 400 or 600 respondents.  Every political pollster in America includes messaging information in their polling.  But that’s not a “push” poll. 

    I understand that you all question the accuracy of polls that include information, like mentioning reducing oil imports by importing natural gas.  That’s a legit question about a poll.  But that doesn’t make it a “push poll”.

    That’s just a poorly worded and biased question.

    The idea behind a real push poll is to convince people to stay on the phone, just so that you can spread information about someone (like Bush supporters in 2000 calling tens of thousands of South Carolina primary voters, telling them that McCain has a “black daughter”, thus suggesting he had an affair, when he simply adopted a daughter from Bangladesh).

    1. This is a little more than a “poorly worded” question, it’s an outright deception. I personally think claiming the Roan Plateau can free us from foreign oil is as bad as saying John McCain had a black baby (not that there’s anything wrong with that anyway).

      May not meet your according-to-Hoyle “push poll” standard but it’s no less dishonest. If it hadn’t been exposed as a fraud it would be at the top of Face the State right now.

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

77 readers online now

Newsletter

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