Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

CO: 49% Buck, 40% Bennet (Ipsos 8/20-22)

Topics: Colorado , poll

Ipsos/Reuters
8/2022/10; 601 registered voters, 4% margin of error
453 likely voters, 4.6% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Ipsos release)

Colorado

2010 Senate
49% Buck (R), 40% Bennet (D) (chart)

2010 Governor
41% Hickenlooper (D), 33% Maes (R), 16% Tancredo (AC)
45% Maes (R), 45% Hickenlooper (D)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Gov Ritter: 46 / 50 (chart)

 

Comments
Bukama:

Interestingly, the poll shows Tancredo drawing equally from Hickenlooper (D) and Maes (R). I suspected that even without Tancredo, the Republican nominee was going to have a hard time against Hickenlooper. This is why Tancredo has still left open the offer to drop out if Maes will drop out too. This would allow the Republicans to name a new candidate, like a Hank Brown who is pretty popular state wide.

But it isn;t going to happen. Maes is in it to stay, and Hickenlooper will be the next Governor.

Buck is looking very strong for the Senate seat.

____________________

ath716:

Nate Silver's new Senate model is up at nytimes website. Buck is a 69% favorite.

____________________

CUWriter:

Buck will win this pretty easily. Bennet is not particularly popular and he's a Dem incumbent in a terrible year for Dem incumbents.

I think you'll see a lot of ticket-splitting though and Hickenlooper is at least even money to win the governor's race.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Bukama,

Have you seen Hickenloopers ludicrous ad where he keeps going into the shower with his clothes on?

Even better is the DSCC ad that they are running against Buck. They say in it that Buck supports repealing Coloradoan's 'right' to vote' by repealing the 17th amendment. Then it says Ken 'Buck is too extreme' for Colorado.

Hysterical since the 17th amendment REWROTE the constitution. There is also no 'right' to vote in the constitution to begin with but that's besides the point.

____________________

Paleo:

Not surprised, although the 5% MOE is kind of high. I've said all along that Democrats would have been better off nominating Romanoff rather than the uninspiring Bennet.

____________________

Field Marshal:

If Romanoff was the candidate, he would be down by 12 or more in this poll.

____________________

Paleo:

"Even better is the DSCC ad that they are running against Buck. They say in it that Buck supports repealing Coloradoan's 'right' to vote' by repealing the 17th amendment. Then it says Ken 'Buck is too extreme' for Colorado.

Hysterical since the 17th amendment REWROTE the constitution."

What's your point? Repealing the 17th amendment would take away a Coloradoan's right to vote for senator. That it wasn't in the original constitution is neither here nor there. A constitutional amendment is of the same force and effect as the original text.

____________________

Paleo:

"If Romanoff was the candidate, he would be down by 12 or more in this poll."

You don't know that. Especially since some of his supporters are now supporting the Green candidate.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Omam Obamas' endorsement seems to have been a real boost for Bennet. (SARCASM)

Palin 11
Omam Obama 1

Dear Omam, Please keep the endorsements coming.

____________________

Paleo:

The bigot, TPR, is back.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Ahhhh thanks Paleo, you obviously missed me. Wish I could hang out here more often but unlike most of you Libs I have to work for a living.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Repealing the 17th amendment would take away everyone's ability to vote for their senator and revert it back to the way the founding fathers in article 1, clause 2 and 3. It doesn't give a 'right' to vote. There is no right to vote in the constitution.

My point is that saying Buck wants to rewrite the constitution by removing something that rewrote the constitution makes him too extreme is ironic and laughable.

You don't know that. Especially since some of his supporters are now supporting the Green candidate.

Most polls indicated so. In addition, i have no doubts in my experience with CO politics that Romanoff would have been trounced in the general once the rest of the state found out about his stances on issues.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Definition time children.

Bigot = Can't think of any reasonable defense of my sorry ass Dem party so I resort to calling others names that have lost all meaning because of their unfounded over use. "Bigot"

____________________

vincent106:

@paleo

You forgot that hes clearly racist too.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

vincent you forgot to mention my Klan membership. That's a lib fav.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

300 or 400 count, it's hard to pick the right sheet.

____________________

Paleo:

"My point is that saying Buck wants to rewrite the constitution by removing something that rewrote the constitution makes him too extreme is ironic and laughable."

I guess, on some level. But it's factually accurate.

That there isn't an express "right to vote," and the phrase is used in the 14th amendment, doesn't mean that the right of the people to vote isn't in the constitution. In its original form it required the House to be chosen by the People. Since then, 18 year olds have the right to vote. Poll taxes are banned. The right to vote can't be denied because of race or gender.

____________________

Paleo:

"Faganopolous."

You hit a twofer with that one. Although you're probably not bright enough to realize it.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Sorry it's only a single. Apparently you're not bright enough to see it.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Faganopolous, ahh yea, sometimes I even crack myself up.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

If my comments offend you, then you're probably part of the problem.

____________________

Xenobion:

Uh oh... looks like the Tea Party learned how to use the internet. Question is how long will it take for this site to get inundated with link spam to RedState or Politico with completely non-related articles in each poll thread?

____________________

Bukama:

FM

I've seen the shower ad. I don't get it, but I have to say it is endearing. This is precisely why Hickenlooper will be really hard to beat. Remember, he beat two other Dems and a Republican for Mayor by running that ad where he was walking down the street putting quarters into expired parking meters. He's cute and personable, and generally inoffensive, so he will get a lot of independents.

As for the 17th Amendment ad, that is hardly the worst thing the Dems will throw at Buck. It is ludicrous, because repeal of the 17th Amendment is not even a blip on anyone's radar and not a Republican plank. At beast it is an interesting discussion for people who like representative gov't (ie, the State legislatures would elect Senators, so people would still have a vote.

It's hypocritical, because it is mostly Democrats who supports referenda in various states to undercut the Electoral College. We had Amendment 36 a few years ago, that would have proportionately split Colorado's electoral votes. Then their is the effort to institute a direct national vote for President. Colorado Dems are seriously considering joining other states in a pact whereby Colorado's electoral votes would be given to the presidential candidate that wins the national vote count regardless of the in-state vote! Talk about disenfranchisement! Talk about extreme!

____________________

Mike E:

"Then it says Ken 'Buck is too extreme' for Colorado. "

LOL, LOL, LOL.

Bennet was a huge Obamacare supporter and BUCK is extreme.

Very funny.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Buck is an ass. Hopefully he won't win.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

256 Democrats/Lean Democrats (RV); 275 Republicans/Lean Republicans (RV)

That is not good polling. I bet Buck is still ahead, but not by 9 points.

____________________

Dave:

"Buck is an ass. Hopefully he won't win."

Exactly why I hope he wins. Had quite enough of this bipartisanship nonsense, thank you very much.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This poll came out before Buck questioned the 17 ammendment? What is that all about?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Last year, Buck did tell a group of voters he thought the 17th Amendment has had "a horrendous effect" on federal government spending and expressed some support for its repeal.

But the candidate has since backtracked on that statement. Buck now says he does not support repealing the 17th Amendment. Campaign spokesman Owen Loftus said that was a position he clarified just one day after his original statement.


"The DSCC and Bennet want to talk about anything other than the Obama-Bennet record that helped push over 90,000 Coloradans to the unemployment lines and brought the nation's home sales to their lowest point in 15 years,” Buck campaign manager John Swartout said in a statement Tuesday.

The Democratic line of attack is one they will continue against Buck through the fall. According to one strategist, the national party plans to be "aggressive in defining Buck as the extremist he is."

____________________

Paleo:

"It's hypocritical, because it is mostly Democrats who supports referenda in various states to undercut the Electoral College."

How is it hypocritical? In both instances they seek to advance direct democracy where everyone's vote is equal. And not indirect forms of democracy, such as election by state legislatures and the "electoral college."

____________________

nick283:

Always a good sign for a party when its incumbents want to talk about anything other than what they have done while in office.

I hope they try to use this 17th amendment thing against Buck... It will just show how desperate they are to talk about anything other than their "accomplishments."

____________________

Xenobion:

"Exactly why I hope he wins. Had quite enough of this bipartisanship nonsense, thank you very much."

Working with others is bad? Is this really the state of the Country we are gunning for. You think conservatives or liberals can simply ignore each other when the Country is practically 50/50 split? Maybe we need another civil war to essentially divide up the Country since we can't get along with each other anymore.

____________________

Dave:

Xenobion: More so that I'm sick and tired of people in the media complaining about how polarized Congress is. My view is, elections have consequences. The Democrats won, so they have every right to try to get their bills passed, they shouldn't have to make deals with the Republicans, and the Republicans should be under no pressure to work with them. If people don't like that set up, vote someone new in at the next election.

____________________

nick283:

Bipartisanship is kind of a loaded buzzword anyway. Usually used as something a politician says he aspires to or tried to achieve. Or there is using bipartisanship as a defense for why an unpopular decision wasnt such a bad idea at the time... Basically saying, yeah my idea wasn't great in retrospect, but the other guys went for it too.

____________________

Xenobion:

If we do that we just erase the last session of congress. We'd essentially be voting people in office every year to eliminate what happened last session. You want a strong minority party to check legislation and represent the interests of what they can get integrated in that legislation.

____________________

Mike E:

Oh my, Bennet runs from the failed policies of Obama. Buck should be able to make some great commercials out of this.....

Michael Bennet, D-Colo,at a town hall meeting in Greeley last Saturday, Aug 21 said we had nothing to show for the debt incurred by the stimulus package and other expenditures calling the recession the worst since the Great Depression. [...]

Regarding spending during his time in office he said, “We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet” and, “in my view we have nothing to show for it.”

____________________

Field Marshal:

That there isn't an express "right to vote," and the phrase is used in the 14th amendment, doesn't mean that the right of the people to vote isn't in the constitution. In its original form it required the House to be chosen by the People.

Yes, the constitution does say you cannot restrict voting based on age, race, sex, etc. but there is nothing in it that says those that meet those standards have an implicit right to vote.


Bukama,

Yeah, i remember that amendment. I voted against like i do most referendums we have.

If the only thing the DSCC and Bennet can throw at Buck is a trivial reference he made about the 17th amendment, it should be an easy pickup for the GOP. Additionally, Bennet is completely on the defensive with the ad Mike E is talking about running as fast as he can from Obama and the nutty left. Too bad he ran TOWARDS the left in the primary and Buck will surely use his words and ads against him.


____________________

Farleftandproud:

Buck is only ahead because he has an R next to his name. I doubt there are people who are probably upset about a few issues they don't understand with the Obama administration and just because a candidate is a Republican they will vote for them without knowing just how extreme they are. 1994 didn't have as many extremists as 2010, but misinformation got people to vote for those people, and their obstruction started to turn them off 2 years later.

____________________

Thaddeus:

FM- So using you're logic we could take away the freedom of speech or to own a gun for example since it wasn't in the original constitution, just changing a "rewrite" of the "original constitution".

4.6% MOE is huge. is it that hard to add some more people and get down in the 3% range?

____________________

Field Marshal:

FM- So using you're logic we could take away the freedom of speech or to own a gun for example since it wasn't in the original constitution, just changing a "rewrite" of the "original constitution".

Where did i even come close to saying anything like that? My point is that the DSCC ad is dumb and paradoxical.

FLAP,

Buck is only ahead because he has an R next to his name.

How is that any different than in 2006 and 2008 with the D next the name? People voted in the current congress because they were against the GOP controlled congress and President Bush without knowing how VERY EXTREME they were. Know they are waking up to that fact and are regretting it dreadfully.

____________________

nick283:

The problem for the Democrats and Obama is that people do understand. They don't want it. Republican candidates being ahead in states that obama won just because they have an R by their name is a pretty good sign.

Also, the Republicans kept the House from 1994 to 2006. I don't think the 94 Republicans turned people off in 2 years. Clinton got re-elected, but he also moved way to the center in order to do so and even then he didnt get 50% of the vote.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

The GOP didn't have any huge gains between 1994 and 2006 in the House. THey had some good years for awhile after 9/11 but the balance of power between the bluer districts and the redder ones was pretty good.

____________________

Thaddeus:

FM-
"My point is that saying Buck wants to rewrite the constitution by removing something that rewrote the constitution makes him too extreme is ironic and laughable."

So rewriting the 1st and 2nd wouldn't to extreme either then right?

TPR: The WSJ has Obama endorsements with a 10-1 record, what's Palin's overall record? I know the WSJ is a liberal rag but I'll assume they've kept a decent count.

____________________

nick283:

Thaddeus - while i think changing the 17th amendment is a non-issue, amending the constitution isnt always extreme. Yeah, getting rid of parts of the bill of rights I would call extreme. I don't think it was extreme to lower the voting age to 18 or to set new pay rules for congress. Just saying, just because he is "changing the constituion" does not make him extreme or even make the change that big of a deal.

I dont like the idea of getting rid of direct election of senators, but at the same time, i can see the merits in having them chosen by the state governments if they are there to represent the state.

Not sure how Obama has a 10-1 record by the way considering Specter lost, Corzine lost, Coakley lost and Deeds lost. You just talking about Obama endorsing incumbents in primaries and then those incumbents winning the primary? Somehow that doesnt seem that impressive.

____________________

Field Marshal:

So rewriting the 1st and 2nd wouldn't to extreme either then right?

You're either completely misinterpreting my point on purpose or i'm having trouble getting my point across.

The point of the whole thing is that the DSCC ad calls Buck extreme for wanting to change the constitution but the change Buck wants to make was a change to the constitution itself in the first place. See?

____________________

Mogando669:

seriously, can someone get Tancredo off the ballot? a vote for him is a vote for Hickenlooper

____________________

Thaddeus:

FM-
Exactly, the freedom of speech and right to own guns we're changes to the constitution as well (1st Amendment, 2nd Amend and the 17th your referencing). I'm just extending your point, that if say a dem wanted to change the second amendment the GOP shouldn't call it "extreme", since it's just changing what was a change.

Nick-
I agree that it is not "extreme" to just want to change the constitution, and as it applied to an election it's just a wedge issue, as the chances of having that happen are not even worth discussing really. It's just another sad way in the parties efforts to drive up negatives, then discuss the issues. I don't see much of an issue with moving to a popular national vote for presidents. I think it would disenfranchise more people to think of state legislators electing senators, as people already feel like "Washington is disconnected", imagine if they didn't even have to go talk with the public?

I believe the WSJ article was looking at primaries, where Coakley, Corzine and Deeds were not primaries. And I believe it was written last week, so it wouldn't have counted yesterdays primaries anyhow. WaPo has Palin at a 20-10 record with endorsements. But in the end, who cares, the Palin/Obama match won't come until 2012.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Thaddeus,

Exactly. So the DSCC is being foolish and circuitous in their calling Buck extreme for wanting to change a change to the constitution. Its an absurd ad.

____________________

Cederico:

I know everyone here is debating the merits of the DSCC charging hit Buck on the 17th Amendment. But I think the main point is being missed.

The DSCC could probably care less about that issue except it is the opening salvo in their campaign to define Buck as out of the mainstream...ie extreme. The key to winning this race is getting moderate independents to side with Bennet against an "extreme" Buck.

Now you might dismiss their characterization of him. But that again would miss the point...they know the key to painting him this way is to say he is "extreme" over and over and over. And if they can get key quote from him that are out there then all the better.

The GOP does this technique all the time to good effect. They always find a seemingly small incident or comment from a DEM candidate and then repetitively use it to paint the DEM as "soft on" crime, illegals, terrorists, whatever. Doesn't matter if they are correct as long as they get the public to view them as correct. The key to it is to not go off script and keep repeating it over and over.

____________________

BigMO:

It looks like according to the good people of Colorado it's Bennett, not Buck, who's the extreme one. Buck will win by double-digits here. And I have to say that I'm actually surprised that Hickenlooper is only pulling 41% against two terrible, terrible conservative candidates. I think that tells you just how sour the state is on the liberal agenda. It really is stunning just how fast Colorado has moved so quickly and so far to the right after voting for Obama just two years ago.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"imagine if they didn't even have to go talk with the public?"

And just get yelled at?

If you want to go to original intent... the founders didn't want to be handicapped by the people. They wanted the people to be represented, but they didn't want them to make decisions. They were to leave that to the natural aristocrats (as opposed to the British-style hereditary aristocrats).

I'm not big on this "talking to the people" stuff. At least not in public meetings. For one, they are elected to represent, not to parrot. The people elect them to use their judgement, not vote based on theimmediate passions of public opinion. That's very clear in the federalist papers. The way to deal with a rep that doesn't vote the way you like is to vote against him/her in the next election.

Reps and Senators can tally phone calls, letters, e-mails, etc... to get a sense of what their districts' attitudes are. These townhall meetings and the like are just forums that exhibit the local crazy people or the local sycophants.

When these angry people ask questions, they're not asking anything. They're making a statement and it doesn't matter what the answer is, an answer is not what they're looking for.

It's not just the feds. I see it at local levels too. People yell at city council meetings I've been to.

____________________

Thaddeus:

I agree with you Aaron about the town hall caraziness. But what would the system be like with 49 people in Nebraska electing 1/50 of the Senators? Would they even need to answer their "consitunent" phone for four years, or just keep 25 of the 49 most likely to be reelected happy?

____________________



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