Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

CO: 2010 Sen (PPP 3/5-8)

Topics: poll

Public Policy Polling (D)
3/5-8/10; 58- likely voters, 4.1% margin fo error
Mode: Automated phone
(PPP release)

Colorado

2010 Senate
43% Bennet (D), 43% Norton (R) (chart)
46% Bennet (D), 40% Buck (R) (chart)
45% Bennet (D), 37% Wiens (R) (chart)
44% Romanoff (D), 39% Norton (R) (chart)
44% Romanoff (D), 36% Buck (R) (chart)
45% Romanoff (D), 34% Wiens (R) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Jane Norton: 25 / 35
Ken Buck: 14 / 18
Tom Wiens: 11 / 17
Andrew Romanoff: 28 / 26

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 47 / 50 (chart)
Sen. Udall: 39 / 42 (chart)
Sen. Bennet: 32 / 46 (chart)

 

Comments
jmartin4s:

I knew something was strange about all those Rasmussen polls showing Norton ahead by double digits. I'm moving this one back from Lean R to tossup. Jane Norton is an absolute nut who literally shouldn't even be trusted to be dog catcher nevermind a United States senator. If she wins in November, it will only be because of the climate and she will be a one term senator.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Norton isn't just against health reform, she wants to try to kill social security too. She is not Us senate material. I don't know enough about Buck, but I think CO. has a pretty strong Democratic base to get out the vote. She comes across as mean spirited just like Sue Lowden. They take cheap shots at their opponents; I think they have taken lessons from the Liz Cheney school of political though.

NH,DE , NDand IL however, I'll admit they have good GOP candidates. From what I know of them at least it sounds like they are trying. Dems will run the most fierce campaign against the most contreversial candidates.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Is Jane Norton related to that evil woman who Bush picked as Interior secretary and wanted to privatize our National parks and develop industrial sites near there. That was Gayle Norton. she was from Colorado.

____________________

BigMO:

Here is your proof that the PPP gubernatorial poll released a few days ago was an outlier. There is absolutely no way that either Bennet or Romanoff is doing this well against Norton. Just as there's no way that Hickenlooper, if he's up at all, is up by double digits. It may be true that Rasmussen's numbers are a little too much, but given Bennet's low popularity in the state, and the fact that Romanoff is not very well known (and way more liberal than the general electorate), it looks like PPP is trying to cheerlead for their candidates in Colorado.

Norton will likely win by several points in November no matter who she faces. Bennet is very unpopular and Romanoff is very liberal. I think it's going to be a very red year in colorful Colorado.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I agree BigMo. The electorate here are firmly against Bennet for his Washington ties. He wont win no matter who he is up against.

Norton has been all over the local news in positive stories about her. To say she is a nut just shows how left (and nutty) the libs on this board are. They would say Castro was a far right nut.

PPP is clearly the outlier here.

____________________

Field Marshal:

And Romanoff is a far left loon that will only play well in Boulder and inner-city Denver. He was speaker of the house (and he sat next to me in a class) and he is definitely WAY outside the mainstream of colorado. Norton will simply post his record on commercials- he is one of the primary people responsible for the huge increase in vehicle registration fees that is very unpopular here.

____________________

jmartin4s:

Meet Jane Norton who said, "Social security has turned into a ponzi scheme."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3OB3NoBiQI
This woman belongs in a mental institution. I hope she enjoys her six years in the senate (if she manages to win in this meltdown) because she's looking more and more like the next Rick Santorum.

____________________

Stillow:

jmartin4s - Uhhh, SS is nothing but a giant ponzi scheme. Most people know that. Most people under 40 are convinced SS won't even be around for them.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Stillow, you beat me to it. SS is the ultimate ponzi scheme. Medicare is another version of it. Madoff is in jail for doing essentially the same thing the government does. Hypocritical? Of course! But the motto of Dems and the government has always been "do as i say, not as i do!"

____________________

thoughtful:

If outgoings exceed income, you have a problem. That is relative to a Ponzi scheme but that's the only similarity of the SS widening hole fed by an enlaged aging population with a greater life expectancy than many decades ago when SS was set up. The argument is surely whether in view of longer life sxpectancy retirement age and thereby drawings should be at an older age as poltically unpopular as that maybe.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Thoughtful,

I would disagree as to that being the only similarity. Ponzi schemes or pyramid schemes take from some to pay to others. Eventually, the ones currently paying get to start receiving because new payers enter into the scheme. However, that's besides the point.

I think you are right on as to the solution. The age should simply be increase gradually from 67.5 to 80. For instance, you can graduate it with people over 55 getting it the same time, people from 45-55 get SS at 72, 35-45 at 76, 25-35 at 78, and under 25 at 80. Thus people would have plenty of time to adjust and save. Medicare is the much larger elephant in the room.

____________________

StatyPolly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

SS is a classic example of Ponzi scheme. The money that's paid out to you, is not the same money plus interest that you originally put into it. That is what makes it a Ponzi scheme.

Exactly what Madoff did too.

____________________

thoughtful:

Field Marshal,

You guys in the US have by comparison with Europe (despite the tax regime)poorly arranged Health industry which accounts for 16% of your GDP! That's a very big elephant in the room. It follows on that an aging population also has higher health costs. The one thing is sure that without health care as a right like education you beget in the end an uncompetitive economy and an unhealthy society due to early preventative costs

____________________

thoughtful:

StatyPolly

what you pay into is a pool along with everyone else, then you get the opportunity to draw out. If you are in your mid 80s onwards you have already pulled out more than you popped in if you have diesd at 70 - too bad!

____________________

Field Marshal:

I agree. Hence the problem with Medicare. Third payer billing is the problem. When a patient and the provider have no idea what costs what, and most of the patients have no idea what they even pay in insurance premiums, there is no way costs can improve. Its grossly inefficient.

I'm in favor of HSAs where people actually know costs and see money leave their pockets.

Thoughtful, where are you located?

____________________

jmartin4s:

Ok this is exactly my argument about how people like Jane Norton get elected. People like Stillow and FieldMarshall will all show up with crazy beliefs and all the dems stay home cause their pissed that Obama has gotten nothing done. Care to comment Farleft.

____________________

thoughtful:

Field Marshall
American citizen residing in UK.
jmartin4s
The Dems and moderate Indies won't stay at home for the midterms. the president is trying to get things done and appears to be the onl;y one in Washington that is. that's why his favourability is going back upwards.

____________________

StatyPolly:

FM,

I haven't paid much attention to SS and Medicare issues, but I never understood why they didn't start raising Medicare eligibility age from 65 when they started raising SS age.

Obviously as life expectancy rises, so should the SS age. So why not Medicare? If people are working beyond 65, they should pay for their own health insurance.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Thoughtful,

According to whom? Gallup and Ras have him at all time lows.

Jmartin,

"Ok this is exactly my argument about how people like Jane Norton get elected. People like Stillow and FieldMarshall will all show up with crazy beliefs"

You mean because we use our minds and recognize SS for what it really is instead of blindly following what we are told by our government masters? Then yes, that is how smart people like Jane Norton WILL BE elected.

My problem, like i said, isn't with Obama. He just is a power hungry, narcissist that wanted to be president. My problem is with the electorate that would put him into the highest office in the land. THAT is what scares me to death. Blaming the King of Fools who is a mere symptom of what ails should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their king. The country will survive an Obama, like we did with Carter. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him president.

____________________

Stillow:

thoughtful - Moderates are abandoning the Dems. I guess you missed the recent elections and all the latest polling showing Obama tanking again hitting new lows. MA had the GOP winning Indy's almost 3 to 1.

As for SS, no one seriously thinks it will be there for 20 years. There is no funding source to keep it going unless you dramatically raise taxes and move up the retirmenet age. I have planned my entire retirment around assuming SS will not be there, I suggest any of you above 40 do the same.

SS accounts should have been private fro mthe beginning with something similar to the g'ment perhaps matching a portion of your contribution like a 401k. If I am forced to take my money I earn and put it away for retirmenet, at least let me keep that money in my own account even if I can't touch it. After all I earned it. Ponzi schemes alway burts....just like bubbles. Madoff finally got busted and the same thing will happen with SS as its simply impossible to sustain.

____________________

Xenobion:

Looks like the political climate is beginning to change. All these Club for Growth/Tea Bag candidates can't hold their own in their local elections and are starting to lose steam. I'm wondering if this red wave will end up being a red puddle that takes only a few seats.

____________________

Mark Adlard:

Sen. Scott Brown has held elective office since 1998. The club for growth/tea party candidates are not performing because they are rookies. They should run for dog catcher first. Or at least attend some GOP convention as a delegate.

On these polls??? It is too early to pit one against the other but what I have found and maybe Pollster can do a study of this is that partisan pollsters tend to get their patisan correct while underestimating the opposition. Therefore, Rasmussen seems to be underestimating the democratic candidates, not overestimating the Republicans. PPP does the reverse.

I take this race to be Norton around 48% and the dem candidates around 44%. Assuming 1% will vote with other parties, that leaves 7% undecided. It looks like Norton's race to lose. It is early and the race may look different after the primaries.

____________________

jmartin4s:

I agree that Norton is favored. A month ago I had her winning around 56% to 41% against Bennet. I think its much closer than that but that Norton would still win by anywhere from 3 to 8 points. If Norton does win and I hope she doesn't win she will likely be a one term senator. She is like a Marilyn Musgrave clone with her crazy talk. In fact, they look like they could be related.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Finally got a chance to examine the crosstabs of this poll and as i suspected, its bogus. The poll had 39% dems, 36% reps and 24% indies. Actual voter party registration as of Nov '08 was 35% Reps, 30% Dems, and 35% indies. And that may include a significant amount of registered voters who don't really exist (thank you ACORN) as the secretary of state hasn't formally certified those numbers. In 2006, the numbers were 37% Reps, 28% dems, and 35% indies.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR