U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 13, 2008 12:06 AM UTC
41 Comments
because, until the last week or two, they have been in dead heats or McCain had the advantage. Both campaigns have treated them as battleground states all summer and into the fall. They are also mostly states that voted for Bush or Kerry by a small enough margin both parties felt they could switch this year. The current margins speak for themselves, but it would be a disservice to readers to forget that the states have been hotly contested (as opposed to solidly Republican or solidly Democratic states). It’s not media bias, it’s accurate framing.
but visit the Colorado Election Center for more information on voting between now and Tuesday Nov. 4.
I have heard the tv pundits say repeatedly that the race factor accounts for as much a 6 percentage points. It’s unclear to me if that means Obama would be leading by more if not for race, or if it means that these figures could be off by 6 points. Either way, as much as I hate to say it, I think polling is skewed because there are lots of racists who will not admit it to a pollster. However, to some extent, I think that is balanced by the lack of young people who are included in polls, and who are overwhelmingly going to support Obama/Biden.
How much “Race” is embedded in the poll
This is how I get a starting number.
Ask a generic “who do you support in congress generic R or D” you get a +10% D.
Ask “Who do you support Obama or McCain” Obama is about +7%.
That means that the +Obama polling is only 3% less than the +D polling. It was much lower this spring.
There is only a 3% deviation that must include Race as well as other factors (Experience, McCain’s personal narrative, etc.)
In addition there is the Bradley effect which is reflected in overpolling (Obama’s poll advantage is too high.) That may be an additional effect, more likely it is countered by under polling of Pro-Obama demographics and even a reverse Bradley effect in some states.
I think Obama will over perform poll numbers based on GOTV, but that will not mean that there wasn’t a Bradley effect only that it was less than the organization impact.
the last measured “Bradley effect” was TWENTY YEARS AGO (it’s also the Dinkins effect and the Wilder effect — both based on 1989 races, at least more recent than the 1982 Bradley race — but alarmists forget to mention there was ZERO Dinkins effect in 1993 in his second race for mayor).
There are all kinds of ways race can skew polls, but the Bradley effect is sometimes, correctly, called a theory in search of data, bordering on superstition. Good article on this today.
The last thing that Colorado needs is for Ds to think it’s in the bag and not to do the hard work of GOTV.
The “It’s Over” mentality will only hurt Obama and help McCain. It’s not good to peak too soon.
…for 2 reasons:
1. The country remains very divided.
2. This is still a black man we’re talking about.
Is it November 5th already?
That would be nice.
How old are you? It seems to me that you should have looked at your history a little more. We’re still 20+ days out, and you should know that these polls will tighten between now and election day. Then again, perhaps Pols and you have decided to make sure that you get top billing on the front page essentially stating that the “election is over”,and I wonder why? You should know that it is not, %9 on average are undecided, which still leaves a lot of game to be played.
Every race has been different insofar the timing when the polls break for the eventual winner.
I recent saw an article with a comparison over several elections, but serious googling couldn’t turn up a link for you.
In the meantime, keep up with the wishful thinking. I’m sure McCain can use the good vibes.
I hate editing.
whether this election will be like the last two, where polls swung about in September and then started to show trends in October, and turned into nail-biters by election day … or if it will be more like 1980 or 1992, when the electorate reached a conclusion about throwing the incumbent party out over economic malfeasance, and once opinion started to shift, it kept shifting and wound up indisputable. I think, given Obama’s huge advantage in resources and organization, and the hair-raising news every day and palpable fear over the economy, it’ll be like ’80 and ’92, only more so. But we’ll see.
Gore was ahead, in some polls (mason-dixon, gallup), by 4-7% in 2000. I’m not saying that McCain doesn’t have his problems, I’m just saying that Dave ThiFood has been a little Pollyannish about this year’s election, I know that it worked for the Beauprez campaign,, but there is still a lot of “there” there for this poll. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not an R hack, I’m just making sure that there is the grain of salt in these posts.
a lot can happen in three weeks, though less than could happen in three weeks before there was widespread early voting.
It’s worth pointing out, though, David poses the question rather than states the conclusion. A number of prominent analysts are asking the same question, whether this could be an historic realignment like 1932 or 1980. It’s a fair question and the McCain camp is doing nothing to dispel it.
…”Davidthi” is infatuated with and/or mesmerized by polls. So the whole site is enslaved by them.
Everyone wants to talk about what’s going to happen, and this isn’t a bad way into the question.
Of course, you can always change the channel. It’s a rather loose “enslavement,” you have to admit.
…individuals may dash to freedom once they have their fill, but the site itself remains captive (unless and until the proprietors decide to rescind the license to run amok they’ve awarded DaveThi).
Unless you provide a source, I’m going to conclude you’re just making this up.
Gallup was conducting polls jointly with CNN, and Mason-Dixon has no records I can find.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20…
http://www.pollingreport.com/w…
Lots of major polls, Bush up in all. The only little blips were in early September. I’d almost forgotten how close that one was, I wasn’t old enough to vote in it.
This is now the second time it’s come up, and I had a hell of a time finding anything like that.
you can see that one-day lead is a total outlier. At no other point, besides that one day, did Gore have any significant lead.
October 2: Gore 45, Bush 45
October 3: Gore 46, Bush 44
(no poll October 4)
October 5: Gore 51, Bush 40
October 6: Gore 45, Bush 44
October 7: Gore 41, Bush 48
If you can see an analogy between those numbers and this year’s, you have an active imagination. As for cherry-picking the ONE outlier poll showing Gore with a lead and ignoring all other evidence? Well that’s just disingenuous.
While searching I did turn up a Time article that says
It has a lot of interesting poll numbers, but it’s from 10/01. Gotta love polls, that’s already ancient.
For what it’s worth, http://www.time.com/time/polit…
Going back several elections.
In the meantime here’s sort of the same idea, but still far out from the election.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110…
it’s happened before.
538 gives McCain 5.9% possibility of pulling off a win.
While McCain isn’t quite Ronald Reagan (as much as he would like to be), Obama is just Jimmy Carter all over again.
Wasn’t that August’s talking point? Did you forget to mention Obama is a show horse, not a race horse?
Check your emails, Bob99!
…that one? That ain’t so bad.
it’s Obama who’s in the Reagan position and McCain who’s running as Carter. That’s what hardcore Republican Ed Rollins is saying, at least.
The negative ads have only really just begun. I could see a scenario where Obama wins the popular vote and McCain wins the presidency.
Colorado is still even according to the Denver Post; and yet nationwide it is “learning blue.” This after the Convention, the mammoth voter registration, the all democratic state government, etc. etc. etc.
I am concerned about this whole mail-in ballot crap…I see new young voters not mailing the ballot (Do they know where to even buy a damm stamp??) and then showing up on election day and expecting to vote, anyway. Or trying to drop off a paper ballot at the wrong place, and just saying “the hell with it, Obama is going to win, anyway.”
The devil is in the details…..the negative crap 24/7 on the big right wing radio stations, plus the ugly, negative TV adds, plus three more week of economic hell…..
Plus, where are the hell are the Clinton twins????
That was laughable, the Post’s coverage about the two campaign’s ground operations in the state. Ask anyone involved on either side, the Democrats are outflanking the Republicans on every front by whole orders of magnitude, there’s simply no comparison. For some reason, the Post’s article portrayed the two as roughly even on the ground and, for even less understandable reasons, called the state ‘dead even” based on a two-week old poll commissioned by the Post. Is Colorado still a toss-up state which, for a variety of factors, could go either way? Probably – the proof will be in the pudding. But the Post is lying to readers when it relies on an old poll and absurdly even-handed coverage of the ground operations.
http://ap.google.com/article/A…
I’m not sure the Clintons help all that much in Colorado. Although Clinton won Colorado in 1992 partly with the help of Ross Perot, he lost in 1996. I’ve seen a number of people, even young people, who seem to dislike them intensely. Obama beat Hillary Clinton here in a landslide.
Entirely with the help of Ross Perot. Perot took a quarter of the vote, mainly from traditional Republicans after Bush broke his “read my lips: no new taxes” pledge.
Don’t curse it!
Now go outside, turn around three times and spit.
And pumps up broadcast audiences, too. I know I’m addicted to the coverage, so I guess I have to admit the MSM is getting their money’s worth out of me!
Election is very much over. Just recently, Pres. Obama was a guest on Jay Leno. Instinct might be to ask why Obama is on Jay Leno; doesn’t he have a country to run? However, that isn’t the point. The point is that when the only sitting president to appear on the Tonight Show did so, he went there to talk straight, first about the personal loans that the government made to the banking system. First on the agenda was the fact that funds were already going there and next that there is an end in sight of bailout funding. He also talked a lot about energy technologies, and how he wants to bring that knowledge and expertise back home. If it does some good somewhere, then that is an acceptable reason for there to be Obama on Jay Leno, instead of Obama at the desk in the Oval Office.