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

52%↑

48%↓

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
October 27, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Pueblo Loves Salazars, But Still Likes Allard

  • 33 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The Pueblo Chieftain has some interesting poll numbers that show Senator Wayne Allard with unexpected popularity in Pueblo:

Three members of Colorado’s congressional delegation are very popular in Pueblo, according to an opinion poll conducted Oct. 1-2 of 403 likely voters in the city.

U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, his brother Rep. John Salazar and Sen. Wayne Allard showed up well as the members of Congress to whom Pueblo residents look for representation in the nation’s capital. (U.S. senators represent all the state, each congressman only one-seventh of the whole population.) The telephone poll found 75 percent of Puebloans had a favorable impression and just 17 percent an unfavorable impression of Ken Salazar, the junior senator from Colorado.

John Salazar, the 3rd Congressional District representative, received an impressive 72-to-16 percent favorable rating.

The results were not altogether surprising for the Salazars, who are Democrats with deep family roots in the San Luis Valley and are well-regarded in traditionally Democratic Pueblo. The poll, indeed, closely mirrored Pueblo’s actual party affiliation- 61 percent Democrats, 24 percent Republicans and 15 percent unaffiliated voters.

Yet, Allard, a Republican and the state’s senior senator from Fort Collins, did remarkably well with a 61-to-25 percent favorable rating, beating the old party odds in Pueblo. Allard’s good showing no doubt was a reflection of his tireless work for the entire region, from Great Sand Dunes National Park to the Pueblo Chemical Depot, in the U.S. Senate.

This is interesting news, particularly given that Allard recently was shown to have the lowest approval ratings of all 100 U.S. Senators in a Survey USA poll.

Tweet
Share

Comments

33 thoughts on “Pueblo Loves Salazars, But Still Likes Allard”

  1. This is not an interesting post, particularly given that every Coloradopols post seeks to present republicans in the poorest possible light under the false pretense of stimulating discussion.

  2. You’re smoking dope, anon.  The news here is that Wayne Allard is kicking butt, 61-25, in a county that is  64 pct d, 24 R, 15 unaffiliated!
    Awesome Allard Rides Again. 
    If the dead govs want to put Republicans In “the poorest possible light” they would hardly puyblish this poll.  Indeed, as they say, the Salazars only barely beat the point spread in this democrat turf.  Allard Rocks!

  6. what was weird in that poll is that women supported Allard more than men.  How is that?  Usually men like the GOP guy more than women.

    Oh well.

  7. Okay, you disagree with me.  I understand that.  But isn’t it interesting that this impressive showing by Sen. Allard in southern Colorado is couched with the phrase “This is interesting news, particularly given that Allard recently was shown to have the lowest approval ratings of all 100 U.S. Senators in a Survey USA poll.” 

    Pols did not put that in there to stimulate discussion.  Pols put it in as a backhanded statement that says, “Allard’s support in Pueblo is an exception, and here is our poll to ‘prove’ it”.  Despite the fact that people there support him for what he has done.  And it’s like this in every post.  I can go on and on.  The Cheney visit is “bad timing” for ROD rather than “more cash and high priority from the white house”. 

    It’s because the founders of this site are all voted for Tom Strickland, they all voted for Kerry, Schoettler, and they’ll all vote for Peggy or Ed, and they’ll all vote for Bill Ritter or whoever the Democrats nominate.  Tell me I’m wrong Pols.  Name one of you who voted for Allard in the most recent election, or Bush.  In fact, Pols, name one Republican you have ever voted for, ever.  Please.

  8. I voted for Allard twice, and will happily do so again.  Knock off the whining and conspiracy crap, anon.  This is great news for mainstream Republicans like Allard.

  9. Anon’s comments are the one thing about this site that drives me crazy. People like him just want to argue about motive and perceived bias rather than have a real discussion about the topic. It’s what’s wrong with politics in general, in my opinion. DeLay gets indicted, and everybody wants to talk about some conspiracy motive instead of the actual story.

    I, for one, find it fascinating that Allard is polling well in a Democratic area while his overall numbers are very poor. I think that is very interesting. I think tired, repeated conspiracy theory rants are not interesting. They’re boring and stupid, and they happen here no matter what the post is. Argue the points or shut up, but stop making the same lame comments about bias and spin. It’s boring.

  10. Whoa there, who is talking conspiracy?  Delay gets indicted by a D prosecutor and referred to a D judge, I think that’s a relevant fact.  But it only rises to the level of conspiracy theory if the merits of the case against him are weak (and we won’t know that until facts are in).  If Delay money laundered, send him up the river, no question.  But prosecutorial misconduct is no joke in this country, and a prosecutor could indict mickey mouse if he really wanted.

    I just asked a simple question about who Pols votes for, and did you notice how that changed into the word “conspiracy” by someone who disagrees?  Bias is not a conspiracy, and neither is Pols (although it’s telling you immediately got so defensive). Everyone has bias and blogs are no different.

    As far as the facts, what point is there to argue about that post?  Oh yes, the entire one I was talking about, the presumption that Allard is the least popular senator based on the single mentioned poll.  I’m sure I could find a poll that says the opposite, but if I used that as the presupposed fact on which to provoke discussion about positive news for Allard, don’t you think that would be biased?

    I guess I just didn’t realize that Allard’s approval numbers are so very bad.  That’s news to me.  So, Steve, since you are the poster who said “his overall numbers are very poor”, could you explain that?  Which numbers?  The ones from Denver?  Boulder, perhaps?

  11. Any way to look at this, it bodes well for John Salazar.  He has higher name ID in his largest county than does the governor or the Senior Senator.  Being a Dem county doesn’t make high name ID for any Dem (I’m sure Bush has 99% name ID in Pueblo); being popular makes name-ID.  And, for that the John Salazar supporters should be happy.

  12. Anon, look up the First Law of Holes:
    When you’re in one, stop digging.
    Good news for Republicans is hard to find these days.  Relax and enjoy this demonstration of Allard’s popularity and quitcherbellyaching!

  13. I’m for anon.  Anyone who challenges a posting or the spin behind it gets either attacked as a conspiracy theorist or gets some sort of sarcasm response that attacks the poster.  Neither is a meaningful response.  The dead guvs only response to bias complaints is to try to belittle the person who posted the complaint.

    There are plenty of examples of bias on this site.  It is the so-called “Dead Guv’s” prerogative to post whatever they want.  That is fine with me.  But that doesn’t make it the truth or unbiased and I for one will point out their bias.  I hope others do as well.

    If this site was honest about its mission, like Redstate.org or Daily Kos, it would be different.  I personally don’t bother with either one.

    If you want conspiracy theories, why don’t you check out the postings of Sir Robin, Marshall, Kevan, etc…

    BTW, before you say it.  I would love to just ignore this site.  However, there are plenty of people who read this and seem to take the assertions on this site at face value.

  14. With those kind of numbers for John Salazar, Scott Tipton is going to be crying just like Greg Walcher and his campaign manager, Josh Marshall,in the last election. Remember Marshall’s famous one word quote the day after the last election to describe what happened in Walcher’s loss: “Pueblo”. 

    With John Salazar having close to a 5 to 1 favorable/unfavorable ratio in the biggest county in the 3rd Distict he is looking strong. The voters of Pueblo have had some time to see what they got with John Salazar and they like it. John Salazar will be tough to beat.

  15. I’m not here to defend this site by any means, but I just get tired of the arguments being about what everyone thinks is bias against their own beliefs. I’d rather discuss the points in the post. I want to discuss things besides what you or I think the bias is, and I honestly don’t see the bias in this post anyway.

    According to the survey usa poll Allard has really bad numbers, yet he has high numbers in Pueblo. I find that interesting and I’m not sure what to attribute it to. Maybe the survey usa poll numbers aren’t 100% accurate but they aren’t off by 20 points. One way or the other Allards numbers overall aren’t that great in Colorado.

  16. exactly steve…  overall SUSA said Salazar is at a 58% approve, Allard is at a 44%.

    An incumbent being under 50% ain’t good, but I guess he has until ’08 to fix it.  Udall is going to wipe the floor with him.

  17. A lot of men thought they’d wipe the floor with Wayne Allard…in legislative, congressional and Senate races.  Not one has managed to do it, not in primaries, not in general elections.  He told me six years ago he was determined NOT to seek a third term, but he never made a formal pledge.  I hope he runs again and continues his winning ways.

  18. Allard barely won in 2002, when the Dems were rolled over like lap-dogs on the Iraq War Vote, and Bush was fear-mongering (and as we are learning, selling a WMD line he (or at least the VP’s office) knew was a lie).

    Here’s the ’02 Results

    Allard (R) – 707,349 – 51%
    Strickland (D) – 634,227 – 46%

    However, ’08 is a lifetime away.

  19. You call a 73,000 vote, 5 percentage point spread “barely” winning, Pacified?
    I like the way you think…
    of course, I’m a Republican.  Tell you what, how about we agree in 08 that Allard only wins by 60,000 votes and 4 percent?  At that rate of progress, you’d nail the sucker in 2026!

  21. These posters aren’t stupid.  You cite 51 percent as if your man got 49.  Your man got 46!  I call getting just 46 pct being skunked.  51-46 is a comfortable win. Keep on thinking the way you do, and I see many more Republican victories to come.

  22. Okay, I’ll quit my whining Harriet, but I still think there is Democrat bias in virtually every pols post, I agree with Malcontent.  And I don’t even think the Allard example was the best one.  But, you cannot deny that saying that Allard has “the lowest approval ratings of all 100 U.S. Senators”, which I checked the site and it looks like one is lower or at least tied with him, is a pretty extreme way to describe a 44% approval (admittedly not good) rate when there are plenty of Senators in the 40’s. Especially when you are talking about a single poll. 

    It is obvious to me where the Pols people come down, and that in itself should show the bias, even if I am influenced by my own.

    For example, I offer the results of the most recent election with the Pols founders votes omitted:

    Allard (R) – 707,349 – 52.7%
    Strickland (D) – 634,224 – 47.2%

  23. You produce the same aggregate numbers pacified does, anon., but he claims Allard got just 51 percent.  You’re both “right” you allocate the vote betweent he two of them.  PAcified adds in third party votes to make the Allard plurality look smaller.  Either way, it’s a 5.5 pct spread, a tidy victory if no landslide and about the same spread Allard ran up in his original race against Strictland.  But I’m puzzled by your reference to the dead guvs.  They put up the original post. all the rest is us bloggers.  Wayne Rules!

  24. And just to show you what a good guy I am, here are Salazar’s #s.

    Salazar (D) – 1,081,188 – 51%
    Coors (R) – 980,668 – 47%

    I would also say Salazar barely won his seat–but Salazar currently has a 58% approval, compared to Allard’s 44%.  Again, 2008 is forever away, so all of this doesn’t matter.

    Finally, you’re whining again with your “PAcified adds in third party votes to make the Allard plurality look smaller” baseless accusation.  The 51% I used represents the percentage of voters who pulled the lever for Allard–you know, how elections are decided.

  26. This will come as a shock to you, pacified, but elections are won by getting more votes than the other canddidate.  In Allard’s case, a whopping 73,125 more, or 5.5 percent.  What gave you the idea there is a runoff if no candidate gets more than 50 percent?  A plurality does it.  My accusation isn’t baseless, your sneaky manipulation with figures is obvious.  As for I was There, it’s no great trick to pack a meeting with a rude cheering section.  So remind me: who won that election, anyway?  Hint, the winner had a 73,125 vote margin and his name wasn’t Strickland.  But please, don’t wise up.  I’d love to see Allard whip your whining fannies again in 2008.  Let’s make it a fair fight — and bring Dick Wadhams back into the fray! Tee Hee.

  27. You stepped in it HarrietMiers. The following quote from your post… “this will come as a shock to you, pacified, but elections are won by getting more votes than the other candidate” Have you been on another Planet Harriett. Don’t know your history do you…..

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

546 readers online now

Newsletter

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