Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen Colorado


Rasmussen Reports

Colorado

Pres: Obama 48, McCain 42... McCain 47, Clinton 44

Sen: Udall 47, Shaffer 41

 

Comments
Nickberry:

This is going to be a tight race for both President (whoever the Democratic nominee) and the Senate.

Note: Colorado has 9 electoral votes. Ohio has 20 and Florida 27. I am still trying to figure out how Obama's winning the West offsets losing Ohio and Florida.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

All he has to win is NM, CO, PA, WI, and Iowa and he wins. 270 is the number and that clinches it.

____________________

Nickberry:

I do not know how you get there because the guys who analyze the electoral votes says Obama has to win several other states in addition to those you listed.

New Mexico (5EV), Iowa (7EV), WI (11 EV) and Pennsylvania (21 EV).... Kerry won Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2004 and still lost with 251 votes. And it looks like McCain is going to win New Hampshire (4EV) which Kerry won. So we are down to 247 (based on adjustment for NH) and add NM (5) CO (9), and Iowa (7)... which only adds up to 268.

Also note that according to Rasmussen polls McCain is ahead of Obama by 4 in Wisconsin and statistically tied in Iowa.

Any other candidates?

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Ah but Kerry had a faithless elector in 2004 (from Minnesota) and should have had 252 electoral college votes. If Obama wins NM, CO and IA (where his margin has shrunk considerably) he gets 269 and there is a tie. In a tie Obama will win thanks to congress though.

____________________

camronghia:

A good site to look at the delegate math is www.270towin.com. It has an interactive map where you can play with the results.

I think a tie is very likely this year. Obama's gonna hold on to Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. So, it does come down to Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico. His ground games in Iowa and Colorado are ridiculously good, and I think New Mexico is ready to go blue.

It'll go to Congress. Obama will win. While his vote for McCain won't change the outcome, I'll still have one more reason to hate Joe Lieberman.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

I'm sorry I also forgot Nevada in which Obama is leading McCain currently which adds up to 274.

____________________

Nickberry:

You still have not factored in losing New Hampshire to McCain.

I also do not yet see the "ridiculously good" ground games in Iowa and Colorado when there are so many Republicans in both states.

Also remember that McCain is a Western Senator... and his state borders New Mexico.

The Hispanic vote is the key in New Mexico and Colorado.

____________________

Nickberry:

Nevada??? McCain is leading in Nevada 48% to 43% according to the latest poll (Rasmussen).

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

If we've learned anything from this primary is that regionalism means nothing Obama couldn't carry all the bordering states around him like Indiana and Kentucky. McCain couldn't beat Romney in Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. Hillary lost Vermont and Connecticut. Regionalism only reflects the demographic as good as the rest of the region is.

Arizona looks like John McCain. New Mexico and Colorado are becoming more educated and young than the snowbirds of Arizona.

I've already allocated New Hampshire to McCain in my state list. Obama wins at 274. Iowa has traditionally voted democrat 4 of the last 5 elections. Colorado has a population that emulates Oregon. Conservative rurally but none-the-less a vibrant young population that can easily carry the state for Obama rather than Clinton.

The Hispanic vote is very important

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

If we've learned anything from this primary is that regionalism means nothing Obama couldn't carry all the bordering states around him like Indiana and Kentucky. McCain couldn't beat Romney in Colorado, Utah, and Nevada. Hillary lost Vermont and Connecticut. Regionalism only reflects the demographic as good as the rest of the region is.

Arizona looks like John McCain. New Mexico and Colorado are becoming more educated and young than the snowbirds of Arizona.

I've already allocated New Hampshire to McCain in my state list. Obama wins at 274. Iowa has traditionally voted democrat 4 of the last 5 elections. Colorado has a population that emulates Oregon. Conservative rurally but none-the-less a vibrant young population that can easily carry the state for Obama rather than Clinton.

The Hispanic vote is very important and will be a battleground in many western states I won't deny that.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

I recommend going to:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com

It weights the polls and how old they are rather than solely depending on one magical poll to make a new argument every single day.

____________________

carl29:

If there is something that these past elections has taught us is that with the usual electoral map it takes democrats one state to lose the election.

McCain is praying for Hillary to get the nomination because she runs weaker than Obama in the West, which is good for McCain who runs stronger than her in this area. Do you think that he went to Oregon to talk about his enviromental resume for the sake of droping by Oregon.

In one of Newsweek articles a couple of weeks ago, there was a map fro McCain people in which they would target Oregon and Washington. If Obama is the nominee McCain has no hope. Any doubt? According to Rasmussen

Oregon: Obama 52, McCain 38
Clinton 46, McCain 40

Colorado: Obama 48, McCain 42
Clinton 44, McCain 47

New Mexico: Obama 50, McCain 41
Clinton 47, McCain 41

Washington: Obama 51, McCain 40
Clinton 47, McCain 42

According to Karl Rove, you know Hillary's favorite adviser, Hillary's problem in the West is that there are a lot of independents and Hillary underperforms against them compare to McCain. However, Obama wins independents against McCain.

It does not take a genius to see what McCain's ideal plan is: Hillary gets the nomination and he puts Gov. Charlie Crist on the ticket, so forget about Florida, which is crucial to Hillary's map. So, once he has Florida off the table, he can concentrate on the West to make sure that she does not win New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, tries to bring home Oregon. Have you seen the numbers in Michigan? He is tie with her.

Against Hillary, McCain has the chance of winning a lot of states. Obama would make McCain run all over the map, especially if Edwards is on the ticket.

____________________

Nickberry:

Regionalism? Of course, McCain could not beat Romney in Utah, Colorado, and Nevada... (MORMON!!!).

New Mexico and Colorado have long-time Hispanic populations (aka citizens that vote).... so I give Hispanics more weight. I understand the trends toward more liberal voters in those states... but that is not a done deal. The Democrats who win elections in these states are still more conservative rather than less.. and their Democratic Senator is Hispanic AND conservative.

I have FiveThirtyEight already bookmarked. It still does not show the Nevada polls to make that state a likely for Obama.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Well you disprove your own regionalism argument. And if you look at the website they have Nevada at a 63% win ratio for Obama. Which still makes it more than likely if we are talking math language here.

____________________

Nickberry:

Funny... Edwards on the ticket... It did not work for Kerry, so why should it work for Obama? Edwards will not fly.

I think you missed the point of McCain's visits of late. He is purposefully going to places that are NOT GOP strongholds. You need to update yourself on his tour. Plus... what better place to talk about global warming and climate initiatives than the Pacific Northwest? As well as Hanford cleanup of which Obama did not know a thing about when a voter asked him about it while he was in Oregon. McCain is working on making himself the Environmental Candidate... and actually he has a much longer track record there than Obama.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Hanford is a non-issue for Washingtonians for over a decade (saying this as one for 24 years) you might as well brought up the Spotted Owl as a talking point.

____________________

Nickberry:

I proved my regionalism argument... Romney's base is Mormon, which is REGIONAL.

And I think 63% in Nevada should be a concern since the polls are trending for McCain and away from Obama.

____________________

Nickberry:

Hey... Andrew... I am a Washingtonian (5th generation)... and Hanford Cleanup is a MAJOR Issue.... It is polluting the Columbia River (also a major issue for Oregon.) Probably why an Oregon voter asked about it.

P.S. Spotted owls are also still on the forefront. It has been in the news just this last week.

____________________

Claude:

@Nickberry

Mormons are 11% of Nevada's population and 2% of Colorado's population, if you think that 11% Nevada mormons have the ability to give Romney a 3 to 1 victory over McCain and 2% of Mormons have the ability to give Romney almost a 4 to 1 victory over McCain in Colorado then you need some serious math help.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Wait... how is Nevada and Colorado considered Mormon states? Nevada has like 7% Mormon Population and won the state over McCain and Ron Paul by 37%. Colorado is even more of a discrepancy.

That's the magic of polls. People seem to make these wide sweeping arguments that people aren't going to change their mind the day the poll was released up until the election. Total hogwash.

McCain is having trouble getting money to battle a national campaign and keep what states he has. Hillary doesn't have the money to break her small chessboard (Ohio, Florida) and turn red states purple either. Its about money and even though Obama lost states where he outspent Hillary he reversed polls 20 points against him by at least making up half. That's impressive and can turn more than 10 states purple if it were repeated.

____________________

Nickberry:

I did not say that Nevada and Colorado are Mormon states. But they (and Idaho) have very large Mormon populations who are important in terms of voting demographics. You are also mixing up political "caucuses" and overall voting populations. The correlation is weak at best.

And regarding funds... Romney could not buy the GOP nomination... and Obama far outspent Hillary in West Virginia and Kentucky... did not help much... did it?

____________________

Claude:

A trend is looking at several polls not looking at one particular Nevada poll and citing it as proof of McCain's strength, every single poll before showed Obama winning in Nevada, for all we know the newest poll could be an outlier. According to Gallup Obama is doing better among Hispanics then Clinton is, that makes him much more likely to win some states in the West. McCain is getting hammered amongst hispanics, Bush only lost hispanic vote to kerry by 9 points but McCain is losing Hispanics by 16 to 23 points depending upon which poll you look at. McCain is very vulnerable in west!

____________________

Tybo:

what's missing here is that Obama has been campaign for over a year now, and McCain is just starting.

I've already heard of those sick and tired of Obama's commericials .. he's peaked.

____________________

carl29:

McCain "looks" vulnerable in the West against Obama; however, against Hillary, McCain fares better. Check the polls in the West and see the spread between McCain and Obama and McCain and Hillary.

This is when McCain's dream vanishes. He thought that he could put Minnesota, Oregon and Washington into place. Actually, today the chairman of the RNC in Minnesota was still saying that: "Minnesota will be up for grabs." Yeah!

The Republicans are very aware that Obama is very appealing in the West. McCain is already airing GE ads in Iowa. Why? McCain has constantly been behind Obama in Iowa. So, they want to start "stealing" states from Obama's column. If Hillary were the nominee? McCain would be saving that money because Hillary already trails McCain in Iowa.

The biggest dream come true for McCain is the DNC taking the nomination away from Obama, and as a consequence, AA turnout in key states will be very low, which would make those states easier for McCain to win.
Ex: Ohio and Michigan.

Since Lyndon Johnson, democrats have lost the white vote; however, they make it up with AA. So, for democrats to suceed in the GE, AA's are vital in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Florida.

For example, as a part of the strategy to steal the 2000 election in Florida, the RNC, Katherine Harris to be specific, came up with a database that mixed up the names of AA's so they would not be able to vote, based on a law that banned convicted felons from voting. What do I mean by "mixing up"? Well, the database matched names, date births and personal information of convicted felons with other people who were not. These poor people were noticed that they could not vote. People protested, but by the time that the clearance came, the elections had already past.

Ah! don't forget about Ohio in 2004 and the way that the republicans did everything to keep AA from voting, which resulted in Bush "winning."

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Regionalism continues to be a dumb argument. Demographics of Colorado and Nevada are not up McCain's alley just like Vermont wasn't for Hillary or Indiana for Obama.

"Obama far outspent Hillary in West Virginia and Kentucky"

I don't have figures on this but where do you get yours? I'm pretty sure he didn't compete in those states and rightly his numbers did not change much. If you have those numbers it would be interesting to see.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Andrew, the biggest problem with your analysis is that you are giving Obama states that are within the margin of error (based on the pollster.com average) while ignoring states where McCain is within the margin of error.

The following states are close or likely to switch (based on relatively recent polls, averaged on this lovely site).

Michigan 17 (McCain leads by .4%)
New Hampshire 4 (McCain by 8.6%)
Nevada 5 (not a lot of polls here - McCain led by 6 last time, but Obama has been ahead earlier)
New Mexico 5 (SurveyUSA's latest has this one tied, though on average Obama is slightly ahead)
Pennsylvania 21
Colorado 9 Here is the one clear case of a likely Obama pickup where he leads by a fair margin.
Iowa 7 Obama leads here, but only by about 3 points, and his lead has shrunk consistently over time. Hardly a slam dunk.
Ohio 20 Close as hell just like last election
Wisconsin 10 Obama leads here by .1 points on average (and McCain was up by 4 in the last poll).

So this is hardly a slam dunk for Obama. He has one clear pickup in Colorado, while McCain has a clear pickup in New Hampshire. Obama needs to defend Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, and pick up either Ohio, or New Mexico, Nevada AND Iowa.

What about Clinton?

Clinton picks up
Arkansas 6
Florida by a good margin 27
Solidly wins Ohio 20

she puts into play (Bush '04 states)...
New Mexico 5
Missouri 11
North Carolina 15
Colorado 9

while possibly losing (Kerry '04 states)
Washington in play 11
Oregon 7
Wisconsin 10
Minnesota 10
Michigan 17

and probably loses...
New Hampshire 4

So accounting for the tossups Clinton looks a lot better than Obama.
She goes in with 257 electoral college votes that are leaning Clinton, versus 193 for McCain.

Obama goes in with 219 guaranteed against 244 for McCain.

Fivethirtyeight includes a regression component - their model predicts a Clinton win 57% of the time, versus 51% for Obama.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Oh and I forgot about West Virginia. 5 more for Clinton and NOT Obama.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Half of these battle ground states are in the margin of error for Clinton as well. Where do we cut the line when FiveThirtyEight.com projects both Obama and Clinton winning within a gross average of several margins of errors? I think we have to move beyond status reports of who is the best TODAY, and move to see who has the potential to move numbers tomorrow. I can grant that Hillary probably has a head start on the electoral count in this facet of time but will she be any more capable as Obama to get donations and make red states purple? Signs point to no.

Its a gamble either way and especially when we are rabble rousing over 3 percentage points between states. I'm interested to see the dynamic of a VP candidate that can potentially wipe out several states.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Take a look at surveyUSA, they have veep matches.

____________________

tom brady:

I appreciate the strong support that partisans for Obama and Clinton are showing on this website - so far (knock on wood) you are focusing on polling data to support your arguments, and that's good. My read, based on looking at the various online websites that provide election forecasts based on polls, is that Clinton is clearly outperforming Obama in the head to head matchup with McCain. But this is in the context of an ongoing battle for the Democratic nomination in which Clinton has gotten the better of Obama in recent contests. If Obama gets the nomination (and I'm guessing he will at this point), what happens to those polls? Conceivably Obama's support goes up, although I concede I have no evidence to prove this.

____________________



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