Obama up 4, Udall up 6

from Public Policy Polling for Colorado shows:

The numbers: Obama 48%, McCain 44%, with a margin of error of ±3.2%. … The internals show the two candidates tied at 47% each among male voters, and Obama taking the lead thanks to a 49%-42% edge with women.

Also, the poll gives Dem candidate Mark Udall a 47%-41% lead over Republican Bob Schaffer in this state’s open Senate race

Ok Republicans – spin away…

59 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. redstateblues says:

    That has got to scare the McCain campaign.

  2. Half Glass Full says:

    1. Those numbers aren’t so great for Obama when you factor in the “silent racist” percentage of people who are too ashamed to admit to pollsters that they’ll never vote for an African-American. Sorry, but there IS such a percentage: they usually say “I’m all for Obama, but the country’s not ready for a Black man yet…” Or even “I’d vote for Obama, but I’m worried if he gets elected he’ll be assassinated.” (True story: two different people have told one Obama caller in Colorado that particular nonsense!) Obama needs to be leading by 5 or more to make up for those idiots.

    2. Looks like McCain’s “celebrity” ads have been a huge flop. And rightfully so. Whose bright idea was it that showing lots of images of exuberant people chanting “Obama!” and pictures of a smiling, youthful Barack would turn folks off? Plus, McCain has squandered his reputation for integrity and personal honor. (Those types of ads should have been left to an “independent” group where McCain could have “plausible deniability.”) The subtext of these ads have been: “Gee, we can’t think of anything BETTER to pin on this guy, so let’s attack how POPULAR he is!”

    3. Udall-Schaffer looks about right.

    • One Queer Dude says:

         Agreed….the first time I “saw” that ad, I had the TV on in one room and I was in another.  I heard the chanting and the narrator, and I thought, “This is a McCain commercial?”

    • ThillyWabbit says:

      If those concerns are code for racism then call me a racist. And yourself.

      I’m working my heart out to make sure Obama gets elected. I want him to get elected. A lot. And I worry that some crazed moron with a sniper rifle will try to take him out. And I am concerned that the country is not ready for a black president, and I too credit the Bradley effect for masking that concern in the poll numbers.

      I think this is totally winnable and I’m doing my level best to contribute to that win, but I don’t think that acknowledging racism is a racist act in and of itself.

      • bob ewegen says:

        I’ve learned that the ones to worry about are those that don’t recognize the prejudices they grew up with and work to neutralize them.  And having lived through the murder of two kennedys, King, and many others, I too fear the act of a madman may negate everything we do.

        • Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

          We have so much more technology, psychology of profiling (we can figure out the “type” of person most likely to this) and much better understanding of security at our fingertips.

          I have to believe he will be just fine.  Not saying there won’t be many arrests over the next 8 years for really stupid attempts, but I believe Barack will dance at his daughter’s weddings!

          • Disinterested17 says:

            and McCain.  We’ve had four Presidents assassinated in the US, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy (not to mention his brother).  

            There have been one or multiple attempts against Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George Bush Sr., Clinton and George Bush Jr.

            Some were crackpots with a pistol, some that opened fire on the White House with a rifle, some Kuwati terrorists with a plan.  The point being that all you need is a kook with a gun, and that has happened to every President in the last 40 years going back to Nixon.

            It doesn’t matter who is elected according to recent history.

             

      • sjintheknow says:

        All you will get ThillyWabbit is heartache because McCain will be President.

        Why because people of America do not Trust Obama on many levels.

        On Racism…Like Dr. Phil says what you do not acknowledge you can not fix.

        This is why you Dems picked another Loser!

    • RedGreen says:

      but I’m not sure the McCain people expected a bump out of the celebrity ads — they are laying the groundwork for the general election campaign, which will build on the impression Obama isn’t serious, he’s a media creation, flash in the pan. We’ve already seen two subsequent versions advancing that theme — it will underlie and frame future McCain communications, but the original celebrity ad was just softening up the public, like with any product rollout.

  3. poopiscomingout says:

    needs to pull something worthwhile out of his ass instead of his fetish with shoving stuff up other people’s.

  4. mr science says:

    Interesting Economist article on Colo politics:

    http://www.economist.com/world

  5. Whiskey Lima Juliet says:

    Obama needs to peak at the right point.  August is not that point.

    The “silent racist” is not really a true factor depending on how the questions where asked.

    Example: Is Obama too Liberal for you to vote for?  How about your friends, would they vote for Obama?

    Not saying those are the questions (I am not pollster) but there are ways around the question of would you vote for a Black guy.

    • sjintheknow says:

      Whiskey Lima Juliet the American People are NOT that stupid.  But of course a Democrat thinks the American People are Stupid because they keep voting some of you in.

      • Sir Robin says:

        A Pew Research Center poll recently released found that the share of the American public that approves of REPUBLICAN President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.

        An unscientific poll of professional historians completed about the same time produced results far worse for a president clinging to the hope that history will someday take a kinder view of his presidency than does contemporary public opinion.

        In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the REPUBLICAN presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

        Asked to rank the REPUBLICAN presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history.  

        “No individual president can compare to the second Bush,” wrote one. “Glib, contemptuous, ignorant, incurious, a dupe of anyone who humors his deluded belief in his heroic self, he has bankrupted the country with his disastrous war and his tax breaks for the rich, trampled on the Bill of Rights, appointed foxes in every henhouse, compounded the terrorist threat, turned a blind eye to torture and corruption and a looming ecological disaster, and squandered the rest of the world’s goodwill. In short, no other president’s faults have had so deleterious an effect on not only the country but the world at large.”

        “With his unprovoked and disastrous war of aggression in Iraq and his monstrous deficits, Bush has set this country on a course that will take decades to correct,” said another historian. “When future historians look back to identify the moment at which the United States began to lose its position of world leadership, they will point-rightly-to the Bush presidency.

        Thanks to his policies, it is now easy to see America losing out to its competitors in any number of area: China is rapidly becoming the manufacturing powerhouse of the next century, India the high tech and services leader, and Europe the region with the best quality of life.”

        One historian indicated that his reason for rating REPUBLICAN Bush as worst is that the current president combines traits of some of his failed predecessors: “the paranoia of Nixon, the ethics of Harding and the good sense of Herbert Hoover. . . . . God willing, this will go down as the nadir of American politics.” Another classified Bush as “an ideologue who got the nation into a totally unnecessary war, and has broken the Constitution more often than even Nixon. He is not a conservative, nor a Christian, just an immoral man . . . .” Still another remarked that Bush’s “denial of any personal responsibility can only be described as silly.”

        “It would be difficult to identify a President who, facing major international and domestic crises, has failed in both as clearly as President Bush,” concluded one respondent. “His domestic policies,” another noted, “have had the cumulative effect of shoring up a semi-permanent aristocracy of capital that dwarfs the aristocracy of land against which the founding fathers rebelled; of encouraging a mindless retreat from science and rationalism; and of crippling the nation’s economic base.”

        “George Bush has combined mediocrity with malevolent policies and has thus seriously damaged the welfare and standing of the United States,” wrote one of the historians, echoing the assessments of many of his professional colleagues. “Bush does only two things well,” said one of the most distinguished historians.  “He knows how to make the very rich very much richer, and he has an amazing talent for f**king up everything else he even approaches.  His REPUBLICAN administration has been the most reckless, dangerous, irresponsible, mendacious, arrogant, self-righteous, incompetent, and deeply corrupt one in all of American history.”

        Need I say your REPUBLICAN friends were lock step with Bush for eight years while the country went to hell!



        Get some education before posting your swill!

        • RedGreen says:

          And, except for one or two notable examples, which he has since renounced, McCain has been in lock step with the Republican leadership for 26 years.sj really hopes Americans (people of America) are stupid. Otherwise, she hasn’t a prayer.

        • bob ewegen says:

          who rank Bush worse than even James Buchanan, who left his successor a civil war.  But I’d also worry about the 1.8 percent who call Bush a “success.” 😉

          • Sir Robin says:

            Time will tell whether leaving a civil war to Lincoln that freed the slaves, compares to leaving a civil war in Iraq (still a distinct possibility!) in the middle of the worlds oil reserves!!

          • Ray Springfield says:

            The Civil War was born the day they signed the Constitution. 70 odd  years of compromising the definition of all men are created equal handed the mantle to Lincoln.

            I’ve never seen 3.5 of a erson before. Have you?

            Bush is the worst in reference to deficits by far.  

          • DrewKerin says:

            who would presume to make such an assessment while a president is still in office.  Using their same ill-conceived logic, Harry Truman would have been considered a total failure in 1952.  That is hardly how he is perceived today.

            No legitimate historian would even consider rating a sitting president against his predecessors.  These “scholars” sound more like liberal hacks than legitimate historians.  

            • Sir Robin says:

              and his toady Republicans have wrought. There are literally billions of people worldwide that agree with the sentiments expressed by them.

              Anyone who can defend this administration has a serious problem facing facts.

              • DrewKerin says:

                From the July 11, 2008 issue of The Week in the Best Columns: Europe

                Bush deserved better than we gave him

                Germans will miss having George W. Bush to kick around, said Berthold Kohler in Frankfurt’s Frankfurter Allgemeine.

                We’ve gotten used to blaming him for the world’s ills, whether for interfering unnecessarily or for failing to act. During Bush’s visit here last week, left-wing politicians and pundits shook their heads sadly, saying they always knew a Republican from Texas couldn’t be trusted. Not at all like that “nice Mr. Putin,” to whom they bade a warm farewell when he stepped down from Russia’s presidency.

                But Bush’s critics are wrong. He does deserve to be excoriated for his handling of Iraq, for which the U.S. has paid dearly in lost credibility, dead soldiers, and drained coffers.

                But to accuse him of not fighting for human rights is downright dishonest-that’s largely what the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan were about. Left to themselves, the Europeans, though “always Гјber-moralists when it comes to geopolitics,” would still be wringing their hands over the horrors inflicted by Saddam and the Taliban.

                Just as Ronald Reagan’s toughness with the Russians, though deeply unpopular in Europe, paved the way for the liberation of Eastern Europe, so history will view Bush’s intolerance of Islamic oppression as a strength, not a weakness.

        • Yokel says:

          Those are some intelligent history professors, opening young minds to the wonders of the human story, humanity’s triumphs and failures, and our places in it all.

          /Sardonic

          Seriously, I could care less about what historians think.  Hell, the founder of modern popular historiography was a plagiarist.  On the whole, they’re ivory-tower idiots who make up the facts to fit their own world view, rather than writing down facts regardless of their world view like, you know, historians do.

          Though I note that you don’t mention Nancy’s and Harry’s approval rating.  As if that matters either.

        • DrewKerin says:

          A Pew Research Center poll recently released found that the share of the American public that approves of REPUBLICAN President George W. Bush has dropped to a new low of 28 percent.

          Sir Robin @ Mon Aug 11, 2008

          A recent poll also showed the current Democratic controlled Congress to have a nine percent approval rating… an all-time low.  Mark Udall is part of that poorly regarded Congress, yet he now wants us to “promote” him to the U.S. Senate?  This irony will not be lost on voters this fall.  

          • ThillyWabbit says:

            Congress always has low approval ratings, while individual congressmen have much higher ratings. People hate Congress but love their Congressmen.

            Incidentally, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll, 51% of people blame Bush and the Republicans in Congress for the fact that Congress can’t get anything done. 25% blame Democrats and 22% blame both.

            Republicans are deluding themselves if they think Congress’s low approval ratings are somehow good news for them.

            • DavidThi808 says:

              Congress as a whole has a low approval rating. But if you ask about the Republican part of Congress vs the Democratic part – big difference. It’s the Republicans lowering the curve…

              • DrewKerin says:

                First, Bill Ritter tells us that Democrats couldn’t get their agenda through the General Assembly because the minority Republicans wouldn’t let them.  This despite the fact that Democrats control both chambers and the governor’s office.

                Now it is the minority GOP that is lowering the curve on the public’s current approval of this Congress???  The fact remains that the Democrats control both houses of the Congress.  This is their track record, not the Republicans.

                What is clear, in both cases, is that there is a real vacuum of leadership and absence of political courage on the part of the Democrats once they gain the majority.  

            • DrewKerin says:

              Never seen 9%, but I have seen 13%

              ThillyWabbit @ Tue Aug 12, 2008

              Only 9 percent of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job, according to a Rassmussen Reports poll. It was the first single-digit approval rating in Rasmussen’s history.  

              • DrewKerin says:

                Here is the Rasmussen report, which actually came out on July 8, 2008, not July 10.

                The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

                Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

                The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

                Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

                Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

                Voters hold little positive sentiment about the future. Just 41% find it at least somewhat likely that Congress will address important problems facing our nation in the near future, while 55% find this unlikely.

                Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

                (So much for people thinking that their representative or senator is doing a good job.) My editorial; not part of the article.  

                • redstateblues says:

                  were in the minority the Republicans did nothing but criticize any attempts to block legislation. Now the GOP is in the same position, and being even more of an obstruction, and they are praised as heroes by the right. Polls are polls, and facts are facts, and the fact is that the GOP is blocking every piece of legitimate legislation that the Democrats bring up–and even when they pass something, the President vetoes it.

                  You guys had your supermajority for 6 years, and come November you’re going to see what it felt like for us. Welcome to the Blue era.

                  • DrewKerin says:

                    You guys had your supermajority for 6 years, and come November you’re going to see what it felt like for us. Welcome to the Blue era.

                    by: redstateblues @ Tue Aug 12, 2008

                    I do understand and appreciate the excitement Democrats are feeling about the upcoming general election.  But this growing sense of overconfidence and self-perceived entitlement could very well be the Democrat’s undoing in some key races, including the presidency.

                    Let’s face it, Democrats have a more frequent history of “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory” than Republicans do.

                • DavidThi808 says:

                  Many of us Dems think that the Dems in Congress have done a lousy job these last 2 years. You get the feeling that no matter how many seats we win, it will never be enough for people like Udall & Salazar to actually do something substantive.

  6. sjintheknow says:

    I am a woman and as I have said before I have voted for Democrats.  Worked for and voted for Carter and voted for Clinton the first time.  So I am middle of the road.  I vote for the person not the party.

    I know hard for you all to believe but it is the truth!

    • I voted for Bush 41 over Clinton and was a registered R until I moved to Colorado.  I figured the party was lost in ’99 and switched affiliation; haven’t regretted it for a single day.

      BTW – you do note the irony of “I vote for the person not the party” alongside your signature, don’t you?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.