axcess.me™
the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado

According to Gerald Seib, there are two big questions hovering over this year’s congressional elections: how radical is the mood out there, and do Republicans have a real chance of taking back control of the US Senate? He holds that a way to track both trends is to watch the races in Colorado, Florida, Kentucky and Nevada. In those four states, candidates with Tea Party inclinations and support have either won the Republican nomination or, in Colorado and Florida, are making serious runs for it. A couple of those candidates are people who would have been given little chance six months ago of winning a nomination, much less a general election[1]. I will take them in alphabetical order.

Both of Colorado’s primaries, slated for August 10, are of greater interest than the scant coverage they have received on the national stage. Ken Buck, a Republican Weld County District Attorney, has Tea Party support, while former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton is considered the establishment candidate. On the Democratic side, former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, was recently endorsed by former President Clinton, is battling Michael Bennet, who was appointed to the Senate last year when Ken Salazar was named Interior Secretary, and has received the administration’s support. The Real Clear Politics average has Mr Buck leading by 7, and Mr Bennet by nearly 13.

A July 8 Rasmussen survey of 500 likely voters shows Mr Buck beating Mr Bennet 48-39, with 5% preferring some other candidate and 8% undecided[2]. Although this ties Mr Buck’s high and nearly matches Mr Bennet’s low point, these poll numbers have remained fairly stable. The past results are, March 2: Mr Buck by 44-38, April 5: Mr Buck by 44-40, May 3: Mr Buck by 48-41, and June 7: Mr Buck by 46-41. Mr Bennet, the former Superintendent of the Denver schools, is viewed Very Favorably by 18% and Very Unfavorably by 30%. For Mr Buck, Very Favorables total 11% and Very Unfavorables 14%. The July results show that if the margin of error goes entirely to Mr Bennet and the undecideds evenly split, the race is a tie. Those assumptions don’t bode well for Mr Bennet, but there’s a lot of time between now and November. Importantly, however, is the fact that Independents are split more closely in Colorado than in most states. If they start to line up behind one candidate or the other, that will decide the election.

Two national issues have sway in Colorado – healthcare reform and Arizona’s illegal trespassing law.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of Colorado’s likely voters favor repeal of the national healthcare bill, which Bennet supported as a member of the Senate, while 35% oppose repeal. This is much higher support for repeal than is found nationally and includes 54% who Strongly Favor repeal and 30% who Strongly Oppose it. Mr Buck earns ~70% of the vote from the larger group who Strongly Favor repeal, while the Mr Bennet gets ~85% support from those who are Strongly Opposed to repeal. Thirty-one percent (31%) of likely voters agree with DoJ’s decision to challenge Arizona’s law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%) disagree with that challenge, five points higher than opposition nationally. More than 80% of voters who agree with the Justice’s challenge support Bennet, while Buck carries ~70% of the vote of those who disagree with the challenge. Both of these issues will be aired in the general campaign, and both favor Independents leaning toward the Republican candidate.

Barack Obama carried Colorado with 54% of the vote in the 2008 elections, but just 41% now approve of the job he is doing as president. Fifty-nine percent (59%) disapprove, and that’s a higher disapproval rating than Obama earns nationally.

If after the primaries these numbers hold, I will probably move Colorado from Toss-Up to Leans GOP, and that could represent a fifth seat captured from the Democrats (in addition to Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana and North Dakota, all currently in my Solid GOP column).


[1] See Gerald F Seib, Tea Party and the Path to Power, in Wall Street Journal, July 13 2010, p. A2.

[2] This survey has a margin of error of ±4.5%, and a 95% degree of certainty.


Posted 07-16-2010 12:33 by Eagle Watch

Comments

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-18-2010 4:01

Colorado is a race that as you said is being paid scant attention to. I haven't heard anything about it, at least. All I know about it is that Bennet is in a very tight race against the G.O.P.'s candidate whoever it might be. I'm glad you pointed out that it is pivotal as a gauge of Tea Party power. I of course know about Ky., Nev., and Fla.'s Tea Party candidates and am watching them closely. I'll add Colorado to my list.

I must once again remark about the efficacy of polls and polling, though. You know I question their data all the time. I don't understand how they can come up with such wildly dissimilar results except to conclude that they are influenced by one side or the other's political agenda.

For instance, the Rasmussen poll you cited in your last blog had Marco Rubio leading Charlie Christ by 2 or 3 points. I checked Real Clear Politics the day before you posted that and it's poll had Christ leading Rubio in their latest survey by 7 or 8 points. The banner headline under which this "fact" was listed said, "Christ Surges Ahead in Florida Contest."

As I have said before, you can always find a poll that displays your side in the most favorable light. And I find Rasmussen to be very favorable to Republican and Conservative issues and candidates. And I think the USA Today / ABC poll data always reflects well on the status of the Democratic, Liberal candidates. The same goes for the CNN / CBS polling organization and the NYT / Whoever group...

So it's kind of a question of "who do you want to believe?" as I see it. I guess I trust the Gallup polling organization the most for accuracy simply because they always use a larger survey group than the rest.

Just wanted to express my opinion on polling data [once again].

Eagle Watch wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-18-2010 4:13

Polls differ because it horribly difficult to ask an honest question (assuming, of course, that you want an honest poll).  I use Rasmussen because, after the event, their results have proven to have been the most accurate.  As a past practitioner of politics, I have never been interested in finding a poll that tells me what I want to hear – I want to know what’s actually happening out there.  It should therefore be no surprise that Rasmussen seems to “lean” to the right … that’s the sentiment out there right now.  I also use Real Clear Politics averages a lot, and yes, right now, they are significantly different than Rasmussen.  We’ll see who’s closest to reality after the election.  I know I’ll monitor that.  The number of people polled isn’t as important as who they poll.  Gallup uses “Registered Voters” a lot, and Rasmussen uses “Likely Voters” exclusively.  The later is a more accurate accounting of those who will actually get out and vote, and hence, a more accurate reflection of how elections will turn.  

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-19-2010 3:38

I know you understand polling and polls much better than I do, so I will pay more close attention to the Rasmussen polling results in the future. I'll see if I too find that their projections more accurately reflect the actual results.

The other point I'd like to make about polling data being questionable is it is dependent upon how the question is being framed or asked. That can skew the results dramatically, I think. But that's enough of my opinion on polls. I'll get back to discussing the subject at hand:

I think you are being overly cautious in the number of states that you have in your "solidly G.O.P." column. I would name at least 6. I'd add New Hampshire and Conn. to the list also. And there's another state I'm thinking of, but at the moment I can't recall who it is..(DUH!).

Eagle Watch wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-19-2010 4:45

That’s what I meant that it is very difficult to ask an honest question.  Even if you’re not trying to skew the results, the wording of the question has a profound psychological effect on the answer.  

I have 16 states in my Solid GOP – Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.  I just mentioned Arkansas, Delaware, Indiana and North Dakota in this piece because those represent seats that should be captured from Democrats this cycle, the rest of the Solid GOP races being in, or last in, Republican hands.  I show New Hampshire as Leaning GOP and Connecticut as Solid DEM.  

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-20-2010 3:09

Connecticut as solid DEM? Last I took notice Conn. voters were so upset with Chris Dodd (over the Wall Street financial fiasco) the pundits were predicting that his seat would most likely go GOP. But that was probably 3 months ago. And I probably heard it on FOX news. I'll take your word over theirs and take some encouragement from that news. LOL.

I saw the interview with Tex. Sen. Cornyn Sunday and he said it will probably take two election cycles for the GOP to gain the majority in the Senate. He predicts that the "R"s will pick up six or seven seats this Nov. and get the 3 or 4 more needed in the next cycle. Do you agree with him? I do.

And just a word about the House races: If you remember a while back I fervently wished that Obama would jettison Robert Gibbs. He should have listened to me! What a DORK! I don't blame Pelosi for being pissed over his "Miss-statement".  With friends like him, who needs enemies, huh?

Eagle Watch wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-20-2010 3:26

Yeah, the voters in Connecticut have a fairly flat learning curve … they were upset with Dodd, but since he’s quitting, problem over (I guess).  Actually, three or so months ago, it was considered as a given that Connecticut would go Republican because of the Dodd matter, but the voters are still polling Democrat.  Go figure.  

I’ve been saying three-to-six and four-to-seven Senate seats all along – remember?  

Robert Gibbs is perhaps the worst press secretary I’ve seen.  When Mr Snow or Ms Parino told a reporter “I’ll find out and get back to you”, that was the first item of business the next day – reporters have to ask Mr Gibbs six or seven times before he finally tap dances around, clearly not having “found out”.  The spins he puts on things (all press secretaries spin … that’s their job) are just silly.  No adult would accept some of the interpretations he puts on administration actions.  I think Mr Gibbs is part of Mr Obama’s credibility problem.  

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-22-2010 3:18

I have decided that you are exactly correct about Robert Gibbs. Decidedly the WORST PRESS SEC. EVER! For a while there, I put him about on paar with Andrew Card. But after yesterday's excruciatingly, PAINFUL,embarrassing, obfuscating, stammering, red-faced performance--He wins, hands down!

Hey Obama, if you insist on keeping him as your spokesman, then for God sake send him away to take a course in "Spin-o-logy 101"...PLEASE!

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-23-2010 3:02

I happened to be watching MSNBC yesterday and they did a brief segment on the Colorado primary. You have pointed out that Colorado isn't being paid any attention to by the mainstream media, and the only reason MSNBC featured it was because they wanted to point out that a rather nasty fight is developing between Mr. Buck and Ms. Norton. One of those "hurling insults" kind of things, you know...

Of course MSNBC's purpose was to point out that the Rep. party in Colorado is obviously in disarray, and they tried to insinuate the Mr. Buck "The Tea Party" candidate was being boorish and insulting to Ms. Norton in a sexist way...

Don't you just love the media "spin"? I'm fascinated by it as I have said many times. Just thought I'd mention this in case you haven't heard about it.

Eagle Watch wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-23-2010 3:12

I would get my news from the Cartoon Network before considering MSNBC.  Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Oberman, et al, are way beyond just being mere apologists.  So, no, I hadn’t seen that report, but politics this season is going to be nasty.  Democrats can’t run on their record (except to their base), so all that’s left (to attract independents) is to demonize their opponent.  

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-24-2010 3:18

Well...After I've had my fill of the FOXIES [Hannity, O'Rielly, Van Sustrann, Beck, Cavuto, etc., etc.] I tune to MSNBC for solace and comfort...In order to keep from blowing a gasket! [Chuckles].

But I do agree with you somewhat about Mathews and "Big Ed" Shultz. "We" have dubbed them "Beavis and Butthead". "We" watch them most every evening because my better half absolutely refuses to watch "Professor Beck"...Go figure! LOL

Eagle Watch wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-24-2010 3:31

As I’ve said before, I consider Glenn Beck to be the Oliver Stone of the right, and don’t watch him (or Hannity) either.  It’s not necessary to watch the wing-nuts to get both sides of a story.  I tend to get the “official” side from the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, and the other side from the Wall Street Journal and FOX.  I get serious analysis from think tanks of various stripes.  I also read the press from Europe and the Orient.  

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-27-2010 3:41

I know you are very well-read when it comes to news sources. You are a "serious" student of politics and all matters political. You devote much time and effort into getting serious opinions from both / all sides.

More power to you.

I on the other hand tend to treat the subject more lightly. I chose to treat it as a game of one-ups-man-ship. I am entertained by the repartee that happens between the two sides. The more outrageous the statements, the more I chuckle. I am fascinated by the whole thing as a study in anthropology. I guess it strokes my ego and makes me feel "superior" in that I'm not fooled or taken in by the propaganda from either side and I wonder about the intellect of those who are. And that's why I tune into the daily "rants" from both sides of the 24 / 7 drive by media.

Sometimes I'm ashamed of myself and think that I am no different than those people whom I used to consider with scorn and contempt in the Supermarket check-out line who would avidly scan the headlines of the "World Globe" or "National Enquirer"! But I keep telling myself, "You don't seriously believe this stuff. You just enjoy assessing the gullibility of those who do".

I truly admire people such as yourself who don't want to waste your time on "tabloid-journalism crap". I don't have your guts and fortitude to really STUDY the subject though. And I'd go bonkers if I tried! LOL.

Eagle Watch wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-27-2010 3:59

As a history-lover, I am fascinated by watching it unfold.  I guess that’s what drives me to try and truly understand what’s happening around us – not the spin that each participant is putting on events.  The dynamics of current events are but ripples of the past … inertia set in motion previously.  That’s why both the failure of a politicized Keynesian stimulus, and the insistence to keep trying it, are predictable.  That’s why the intransigence of a DPRK or Iran is rooted in their histories (and why negotiation won’t work on either).  And, sadly, that’s why our current course can only weaken American influence on the world stage, thereby destabilizing the world at large.  

Rome had much about which to criticize, but its demise ushered-in the 1,000-year Dark Ages.  

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-29-2010 4:34

I guess the point of your last sentence is that we must take a lesson from Roman history and do as the Romans did except we must not fail as the Romans did in the end...after 500 years of controlling their world. We must conquer and control the world in perpetuity? Learn from history in order not to make the same mistakes that Rome did? I guess that works if you are a student of history that "lives" in that history. You are a true believer in the adage, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat history's failures". Is that how that goes?

But I see I'm getting way off subject here. Sorry.

Eagle Watch wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 07-29-2010 4:48

If that’s the lesson you draw from history, no explanation will help.  

Libby wrote re: the Quiet Intrigue that is Colorado
on 08-11-2010 3:13

Congratulations. I see Tea Party candidate Buck beat the Republican establishment candidate Norton. I'd say you're on a roll...

With Bennett winning the Dem. primary over Romanoff, I think I'll move Colorado to "R". Bennett strikes me as very mild-mannered and lackluster, whereas Buck is fiery and charismatic. And you know that I place charm and charisma high [est] on my list of deciding factors when it comes to winning attributes. Romanoff would have been the better opponent against Buck, IMO.

Add a Comment

(required)  
(optional)
(required)  
Remember Me?

axcess.me™ is a trademark of Axcess Internet®
The views expressed on personal blogs are the property of the owner and are subject to this disclaimer.