Current presidential polling in Colorado

[Statistikhengst]

COLORADO, on the presidential level, was once very much a RED state, but has been a hotly contested battleground since 2004 and polling for 2016 is showing the same kind of "battlegroundy-ness".

That being said, in places where Hillary Clinton is doing exceptionally well in early polling, she is not doing well here. This is one of the really bright spots for the GOP in the early electoral picture, looking at 2016:

First, some background on Colorado (I've been there three times, climbed Long's Peak about half-way in 1990), over a number of helpful links.

All presidential election results since Colorado joined the "Electoral College" in 1880:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=8&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

A electoral "bio" of Colorado, from the end of 2011:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Rank 24 / 28: Colorado

2008 polling from Colorado (will be part of this discussion):

Poll Convergence 12 from 2008

2012 polling from Colorado:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=11


The three 2016 polls of Colorado from 2013 up to the end of October are here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...NUlSZU52bGdZemNzZ2VNVmVRYnc&usp=sharing#gid=6

Since then, three more polls have come in:


Quinnipiac from 11/20/2013:

Colorado (CO) Poll - November 20, 2013 - Christie Leads Clinton In Colo | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Christie +1, Ryan +2, Paul +3, Clinton/Cruz tied.


PPP (D) from 12/09/2013:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_CO_120913.pdf

Christie +7, Paul +2, Clinton +2 over Cruz and +3 over Bush (Jeb).


Quinnipiac, 2/06/2014:

Colorado (CO) Poll - February 6, 2014 - Despite Christie Woes, Clinton | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Clinton +1 over Christie and +2 over Cruz, but Paul +3 and Ryan +5 over Clinton.


So, from six polls, what do we see all over the place?

Lean single digit margins, more for GOP candidates than for Hillary.

-------------------------------------------



Quick analysis:

COLORADO is a 10-for-14 GOP state on the presidential level (since 1960), but it became competitive already in the 2004 re-election of President Bush (43).

President Obama is one of only 3 Democratic Presidents and four DEM presidential candidates to win the state TWICE:

Obama: 2008, 2012
FDR: 1932, 1936 (Willkie took the state in 1940, Dewey retained it for the GOP in 1944).
Wilson: 1912, 1916

-and-

William Jennings Bryan: 1986, 1900 and 1908.

COLORADO has now been a single-digit state in every presidential election since 1988:

1988: Bush (41) +7.78% (this state almost perfectly matched his +7.73% national average in that year and was therefore the bellwether of the nation that year)

1992: Clinton +4.26%

1996: Dole +1.37%

2000: Bush (43) +8.36%

2004: Bush (43) +4.67%

2008: Obama +8.95%

2008: Obama +5.36%


Obama's +8.95% 2008 winning margin in Colorado is the largest for any candidate since Reagan swamped the state in 1984 with +28.32%.

Notice any similarity between Bush (43) and Obama?

Both won Colorado by a LESSER margin in their respective re-elections than in their respective first elections. The last time this happened with a sitting president was with Ike in 1956. In the other three close elections of since 1960 (1960, 1968, 1976), Colorado was not even a competitive state. It is now.

What is it's importance in the electoral college?

Well, look at 2012. Had Romney taken away Florida, Virginia and Ohio away from Obama, Obama would still have won, 272-265 in the EC. In fact, it was after Colorado was called for President Obama that the Romney team gave up and decided to concede, because reporters like John King of CNN made exactly that point. Colorado was called for President Obama at 12:20 am.

Since 1992, Colorado has been called relatively late. The earliest call was 11:13 PM EDT in 2000 (2 hours 13 minutes after the polls closed), on CNN:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...emExbW96SW1tZlNMdktyMmYweEE&usp=sharing#gid=1


So, in a game of strategema, with 9 electoral votes, Colorado becomes a more important player in deciding who gets to 270.

Which makes the polling out of Colorado, all of it, including the early polling, important to watch.

FACIT: at the moment, it is advantage GOP in Colorado.


I also did an EXTENSIVE analysis of COLORADO following the 2008 presidential election, in three parts, which you can read starting here:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The 9.25 pick-up states from 2008 - analysis complete!!!

Specifically:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Egr72sNYBInUglXvJ23vI_oy2329Et8nfJDjpz5Jguk/edit?usp=sharing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And just to remind: here was PPP's (D) and Quinnnipiacs's track record in 2012:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?


PPP (D) was -hands down - the best pollster of 2012 when you compare it's end-polling to the final results.

Quinnipiac also did quite well, but polled less battleground states than PPP in 2012, at least at the end.

Both pollsters are showing that Hillary is currently struggling in Colorado.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As more Colorado polling comes in, I will add it to this thread.

-Stat


[MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=40845]Jeremiah[/MENTION]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

 

[Toro]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

Don't do it Frank!

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!11111!!11!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

Don't do it Frank!

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!11111!!11!

The Party has moved past the Clintons; the Clintons believed they were the center of gravity to the Party. Hillary thought she was supposed to get the coronation in 08. She didn't then, she won't get it in 16. The people running the DNC have other plans

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

Ok....

and what exactly is your reasoning for this.

/sharpening my nails, now...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

Don't do it Frank!

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!11111!!11!

The Party has moved past the Clintons; the Clintons believed they were the center of gravity to the Party. Hillary thought she was supposed to get the coronation in 08. She didn't then, she won't get it in 16. The people running the DNC have other plans

And that is the logic you want to present?


/still sharpening my nails, looking pretty damned good.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

Don't do it Frank!

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!11111!!11!

No, go ahead, do it, frank!!! Do it!!!

 

[RandomVariable]

First of all thanks for the post Statistikhengst for the collection of information. I learned a lot. My apologies for not pouring over these pages, and pdf, enough to give a better assessment of what is here but I will give what struck me as significant. I believe there is a strong case for the state going either way by about 5% points. I don't know if that means Colorado will go either way for 5% point or if they cancel each other out to a chad count.

First the colors are reversed on the uselectionatlas.org, red/blue. The wins and margin of wins show absolutely nothing out of the ordinary for the nation, perhaps for the state, which is the question, but not for the nation. The one item that does catch my eye however is the 5.36% in 2012. The size of that margin is a definite show of support, or anti-Romney, I don't know.

The Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS . Has information also in other pages so I will discuss the more raw form of the data there. (Why is your name on this?) Poll Convergence 12 from 2008 I don't see what is significant about this page. https://docs.google.com There is some significant data here but will discuss that further down also.

Colorado (CO) Poll - November 20, 2013 – Several items in here. One is that Ryan was not in another page which did many other lineups. Here he is shown to have a +2% over Clinton. I believe a Clinton/Ryan head-to-head might end with about this margin. I don't think Clinton can show anything for Colorado that Ryan can't show. Given a different match up a successful campaigning could put Ryan at a particularly uncomfortable disadvantage in a state such as Colorado. There are some factors that are a page or two down which I will go into this further. A note about Christie here. Those who do not experience George Washington bridge traffic and politics of retribution might not give as much weight to the bridge scandal as do other people do. Trying to make the bridge scandal into a negative political ad in Colorado in 2016 would be difficult. Don't count Christie out just yet. Also of note here is that voters of Colorado seem to very much want a moderate POTUS. The fact that Obama has the lowest approval rating of any state of the nation given his +5.36% margin is almost shocking. The next set of statistics might explain some that however, “With a negative 34 - 48 percent favorably rating, the Tea Party movement has a net negative that matches the Democrats' negative 39 - 54 percent favorably. Republicans get a negative 34 - 56 percent.” This is one extremely cynical state. I believe this is reflective of a national sentiment. There, perhaps, might be a candidate who could present both an address of the root of the cynicism and yet be a very moderate politician. I did not see anyone mentioned here but there should be someone. Now if I could only think of who that might be. I don't know, perhaps someone with some native understanding of many of the people of Colorado. Some who would find a certain form of negative advertising just a little bit offensive. I am not suggesting they would go on the warpath or anything. Noticeable on #15 is that moderates political philosophy give Clinton/Christie 45%/35%, Clinton/Cruz 55%/29%. That right there might give the state to the Democrats. As has been said by several people in several places on this board, Republicans have a problem. Also #15, moderates political philosophy Clinton/Ryan 54%/31%. Why? Left over from Romney/Ryan?

Public Policy Polling – This survey was fun. Those polled were actual voters. Q3: Clinton/Christie 39%/46%. ? Q8: Same sex marriage 53% for, 39% against. Welcome to the 21st century. Q12: Bronco's quarterback; Manning or Tebow 76%/10% Q10: Very liberal, Somewhat liberal, Moderate, Very Conservative 14%/16%/29%/27%/14% With the numbers discussed up this point and a moderate to very conservative of 70% Republicans running around in panic mode. I'll not go into Q22-Q24 but it does add some to the greater understanding of the survey.

The last document is the same as one above but 2 ½ month later, for the 2016 election I don't expect too much has changed so I did not compare the two.

Conclusion:
Like I mention I have not taken much time to analyze the data but here are some thoughts anyway. Number one is it is too early to tell what is going to happen in 2016, but everyone already knew that. People identify themselves as conservative and they find the Republican party not matching their definition. The 5 point spread I mentioned starting is this: 5 points Republicans: Colorado identifies themselves as conservative and is several ways it will be difficult for a Democrat win a majority. I believe the first document shows this fact. The problem the Republicans are going to have is to show they are honestly a 21st century conservative party. Given the cynicism in this state it will be hard to convince anybody of anything. 5 points Democrats: Republicans keep doing what they have been doing. Colorado wants a Christie Republican. Even the Democrats have to overcome the cynicism and that means getting some of the 70% moderate-very conservative vote, how much is +5% I don't know. Colorado went for Obama pretty big in 2008 and not bad in 2012. If Democrats can catch whatever that was they have their margin. The cancel-out will be if they want to vote conservative but don't like the Republican candidate but still won't support a Democrat in replace of. Hope someone liked this. Encounters of the Third Kind could happen in the next two years however and we might have a third party candidate, in other words, a lot will happen in the next two years, it's the one thing we can count on.

 

[Truthmatters]

they just refuse to believe what the demographics have been saying for decades.

instead they cheat in elections to win

 

[Statistikhengst]

First of all thanks for the post Statistikhengst for the collection of information. I learned a lot. My apologies for not pouring over these pages, and pdf, enough to give a better assessment of what is here but I will give what struck me as significant. I believe there is a strong case for the state going either way by about 5% points. I don't know if that means Colorado will go either way for 5% point or if they cancel each other out to a chad count.

First the colors are reversed on the uselectionatlas.org, red/blue. The wins and margin of wins show absolutely nothing out of the ordinary for the nation, perhaps for the state, which is the question, but not for the nation. The one item that does catch my eye however is the 5.36% in 2012. The size of that margin is a definite show of support, or anti-Romney, I don't know.

The Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS . Has information also in other pages so I will discuss the more raw form of the data there. (Why is your name on this?) Poll Convergence 12 from 2008 I don't see what is significant about this page. https://docs.google.com There is some significant data here but will discuss that further down also.

Colorado (CO) Poll - November 20, 2013 – Several items in here. One is that Ryan was not in another page which did many other lineups. Here he is shown to have a +2% over Clinton. I believe a Clinton/Ryan head-to-head might end with about this margin. I don't think Clinton can show anything for Colorado that Ryan can't show. Given a different match up a successful campaigning could put Ryan at a particularly uncomfortable disadvantage in a state such as Colorado. There are some factors that are a page or two down which I will go into this further. A note about Christie here. Those who do not experience George Washington bridge traffic and politics of retribution might not give as much weight to the bridge scandal as do other people do. Trying to make the bridge scandal into a negative political ad in Colorado in 2016 would be difficult. Don't count Christie out just yet. Also of note here is that voters of Colorado seem to very much want a moderate POTUS. The fact that Obama has the lowest approval rating of any state of the nation given his +5.36% margin is almost shocking. The next set of statistics might explain some that however, “With a negative 34 - 48 percent favorably rating, the Tea Party movement has a net negative that matches the Democrats' negative 39 - 54 percent favorably. Republicans get a negative 34 - 56 percent.” This is one extremely cynical state. I believe this is reflective of a national sentiment. There, perhaps, might be a candidate who could present both an address of the root of the cynicism and yet be a very moderate politician. I did not see anyone mentioned here but there should be someone. Now if I could only think of who that might be. I don't know, perhaps someone with some native understanding of many of the people of Colorado. Some who would find a certain form of negative advertising just a little bit offensive. I am not suggesting they would go on the warpath or anything. Noticeable on #15 is that moderates political philosophy give Clinton/Christie 45%/35%, Clinton/Cruz 55%/29%. That right there might give the state to the Democrats. As has been said by several people in several places on this board, Republicans have a problem. Also #15, moderates political philosophy Clinton/Ryan 54%/31%. Why? Left over from Romney/Ryan?

Public Policy Polling – This survey was fun. Those polled were actual voters. Q3: Clinton/Christie 39%/46%. ? Q8: Same sex marriage 53% for, 39% against. Welcome to the 21st century. Q12: Bronco's quarterback; Manning or Tebow 76%/10% Q10: Very liberal, Somewhat liberal, Moderate, Very Conservative 14%/16%/29%/27%/14% With the numbers discussed up this point and a moderate to very conservative of 70% Republicans running around in panic mode. I'll not go into Q22-Q24 but it does add some to the greater understanding of the survey.

The last document is the same as one above but 2 ½ month later, for the 2016 election I don't expect too much has changed so I did not compare the two.

Conclusion:
Like I mention I have not taken much time to analyze the data but here are some thoughts anyway. Number one is it is too early to tell what is going to happen in 2016, but everyone already knew that. People identify themselves as conservative and they find the Republican party not matching their definition. The 5 point spread I mentioned starting is this: 5 points Republicans: Colorado identifies themselves as conservative and is several ways it will be difficult for a Democrat win a majority. I believe the first document shows this fact. The problem the Republicans are going to have is to show they are honestly a 21st century conservative party. Given the cynicism in this state it will be hard to convince anybody of anything. 5 points Democrats: Republicans keep doing what they have been doing. Colorado wants a Christie Republican. Even the Democrats have to overcome the cynicism and that means getting some of the 70% moderate-very conservative vote, how much is +5% I don't know. Colorado went for Obama pretty big in 2008 and not bad in 2012. If Democrats can catch whatever that was they have their margin. The cancel-out will be if they want to vote conservative but don't like the Republican candidate but still won't support a Democrat in replace of. Hope someone liked this. Encounters of the Third Kind could happen in the next two years however and we might have a third party candidate, in other words, a lot will happen in the next two years, it's the one thing we can count on.

Bolded no. 1: correct. David Leip was already programming his software with these colors before R= GOP / B = DEM became standard.

I also agree that it is very early.

The main point is that these numbers, in comparison to the many polls of Virginia (of which Hillary has won each and every matchup, mostly in double digits) or Florida (similar story), show much more resistance to Hillary in Colorado. It will be an interesting (possible) battleground state to watch.

And in 2008, I called the monthly polling reports "polling convergence"s.

In 2012, I called them "Electoral Landscapes" - thought the term was better!!!

BTW, the +5.36% in Colorado made it definitely the tipping-point state.


Thanks for stopping by.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

Ok....

and what exactly is your reasoning for this.

/sharpening my nails, now...

The Clintons are finished as the Democrat candidates. The Party has no use for Hillary, she thinks she has her own Loyalists and will control the Party and set the agenda but she was shown her error in '08.

The Party will pick the candidate and it won't be someone who thinks they have a power base apart from the Party.

I never took a single Romney bet on this board because I had a bad feeling about Dems ability to Vote manufacture in a few key swing states. I feel just as strongly that the Dems Power does not want Hillary at the helm.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

Ok....

and what exactly is your reasoning for this.

/sharpening my nails, now...

The Clintons are finished as the Democrat candidates. The Party has no use for Hillary, she thinks she has her own Loyalists and will control the Party and set the agenda but she was shown her error in '08.

The Party will pick the candidate and it won't be someone who thinks they have a power base apart from the Party.

I never took a single Romney bet on this board because I had a bad feeling about Dems ability to Vote manufacture in a few key swing states. I feel just as strongly that the Dems Power does not want Hillary at the helm.

Got some facts to back up that fact-free fancy of yours???


The DEMS won all of the battleground states except one in 2012: NC

Obama won: FL, VA, OH, PA, WI, IA, CO and NV. Romney won: NC

MN, MI, NM and AZ were never really battleground states, ever. Just smoke and magic show.


Care to try again? Or did I already wear you out?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ok....

and what exactly is your reasoning for this.

/sharpening my nails, now...

The Clintons are finished as the Democrat candidates. The Party has no use for Hillary, she thinks she has her own Loyalists and will control the Party and set the agenda but she was shown her error in '08.

The Party will pick the candidate and it won't be someone who thinks they have a power base apart from the Party.

I never took a single Romney bet on this board because I had a bad feeling about Dems ability to Vote manufacture in a few key swing states. I feel just as strongly that the Dems Power does not want Hillary at the helm.

Got some facts to back up that fact-free fancy of yours???


The DEMS won all of the battleground states except one in 2012: NC

Obama won: FL, VA, OH, PA, WI, IA, CO and NV. Romney won: NC

MN, MI, NM and AZ were never really battleground states, ever. Just smoke and magic show.

Care to try again? Or did I already wear you out?

Did you read my post? Dem Inner City Vote manufacturing machines swung those states for Obama. Anyway, all that matters is I stand by my read that the Dems will select someone besides Hillary as their candidate in 2016.

I'm all-in

 

[RandomVariable]

Bolded no. 1: correct. David Leip was already programming his software with these colors before R= GOP / B = DEM became standard.

I also agree that it is very early.

The main point is that these numbers, in comparison to the many polls of Virginia (of which Hillary has won each and every matchup, mostly in double digits) or Florida (similar story), show much more resistance to Hillary in Colorado. It will be an interesting (possible) battleground state to watch.

And in 2008, I called the monthly polling reports "polling convergence"s.

In 2012, I called them "Electoral Landscapes" - thought the term was better!!!

BTW, the +5.36% in Colorado made it definitely the tipping-point state.


Thanks for stopping by.

Oh, I fully agree. Colorado is a great state to watch. I don't how much it it a bellwether of a state but it does have an excellent balance of factors. This might be one of those states which really show how well the Republican party can pull in the moderates. North Carolina is cited a lot but I feel the dynamics there makes for poor analogies. If you post another one of these please pm me.

 

[RandomVariable]

Hillary won't get the Dem Nomination

I'll take any bet you're willing to make on that

Ok....

and what exactly is your reasoning for this.

/sharpening my nails, now...

The Clintons are finished as the Democrat candidates. The Party has no use for Hillary, she thinks she has her own Loyalists and will control the Party and set the agenda but she was shown her error in '08.

The Party will pick the candidate and it won't be someone who thinks they have a power base apart from the Party.

I never took a single Romney bet on this board because I had a bad feeling about Dems ability to Vote manufacture in a few key swing states. I feel just as strongly that the Dems Power does not want Hillary at the helm.

As much as I loath agreeing with a nut-case like you this is exactly right, except that part about the Vote manufacture. The way she held on to her 'Loyalists' after she lost the primaries was borderline Palin rogue stuff. I believe it proved out Obama had those votes with or without Clinton's blessing. If she did indeed secure Secretary of State in a deal she also traded in any hopes of the Presidential nomination. No one likes to be held hostage.

 

[Samson]

they just refuse to believe what the demographics have been saying for decades.

instead they cheat in elections to win

Yeah,


Damn Clintons!

 

[jillian]

Don't do it Frank!

NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!11111!!11!

The Party has moved past the Clintons; the Clintons believed they were the center of gravity to the Party. Hillary thought she was supposed to get the coronation in 08. She didn't then, she won't get it in 16. The people running the DNC have other plans

And that is the logic you want to present?


/still sharpening my nails, looking pretty damned good.

My friend frank sounds like he's expressing his wishful thinking. There isn't anything in the reality most of us live in that would indicate anything in Hillary's way.

That said, had you asked me at this time in 2006, I'd have said the same.

 

[Samson]

The Party has moved past the Clintons; the Clintons believed they were the center of gravity to the Party. Hillary thought she was supposed to get the coronation in 08. She didn't then, she won't get it in 16. The people running the DNC have other plans

And that is the logic you want to present?


/still sharpening my nails, looking pretty damned good.

My friend frank sounds like he's expressing his wishful thinking. There isn't anything in the reality most of us live in that would indicate anything in Hillary's way.

That said, had you asked me at this time in 2006, I'd have said the same.

Hillary is her own worst enemy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Party has moved past the Clintons; the Clintons believed they were the center of gravity to the Party. Hillary thought she was supposed to get the coronation in 08. She didn't then, she won't get it in 16. The people running the DNC have other plans

And that is the logic you want to present?


/still sharpening my nails, looking pretty damned good.

My friend frank sounds like he's expressing his wishful thinking. There isn't anything in the reality most of us live in that would indicate anything in Hillary's way.

That said, had you asked me at this time in 2006, I'd have said the same.

The one and only time I played poker in a casino instead of online I was in the Big Blind with 97s. Guy in MP raises, one caller, then I call. Flop comes 9 7 4 rainbow. Raiser bets half the pot, caller folds, action is on me. I size him up and put him on big pocket pair JJ-AA, so I raise him. He seems genuinely annoyed at me, like I have nerve to try to push him of this hand, so he reraises me. I ask myself, "How sure are you he has a big pocket pair" and answer that I'm willing to be my tournament life on it, so I shove all-in.

He calls, showing JJ and my 2 pair hold up.

Hillary is not getting the nomination, the Dems have move past her.