You know what this means, don’t you? Right: Colorado’s ripe for the picking by GOP nominee Mitt Romney two years from now.
C’mon, it’s been hours since I trolled you guys about Romney 2016. I held out as long as I could.
Obama’s currently rocking a robust 40/56 favorable rating in Colorado, a state he won twice. Mark Udall’s rating: Almost identical, of course, at 40/54. There’s a perfect example, actually, of why O is now shouting from the rooftops that Senate Dems are his loyal toadies who’ll go on carrying his water for the next two years if reelected. Nothing’s going to change those unfavorable numbers now but if he can convince more of the loyal 40 percent to turn out for Udall in the name of supporting Hopenchange, Udall might have a shot. Or … he might not: Not only hasn’t he led in a single poll this month, three different polls recently have showed Gardner with a lead of six points or better. It’s too much to ask for a GOP blowout in a state as purple as Colorado but a “comfortable” win — against an incumbent with a famous last name, no less — isn’t out of the question.
But wait. What about that BuzzFeed story I linked in the O’Keefe post suggesting that Colorado polls might be chronically undercounting Latino voters? One recent poll that showed Gardner ahead had him winning Latinos outright, an implausible result that may have been driven by polling English-speaking Latinos only. Another problem is underestimating turnout: Per BuzzFeed, some polls have been projecting that just five percent to 10 percent of the electorate in Colorado will be Latino in November when it was 12 percent in the last midterm cycle of 2010. Could this Suffolk poll be making the same errors? Er, nope:
Between 13 and 14 percent Latino seems like a highly credible sample. And, via Guy Benson, there’s no fluke result in this one showing Latinos breaking for Gardner to make you question the topline number:
Here’s one more from Dobson, in case Udall fans aren’t already feeling queasy:
The only way to discredit today’s result for Dems might be to question the screen. Suffolk, for some reason, polled “very likely” voters, not “likely” ones as most pollsters do. That may have produced a sample that’s a bit more Republican-leaning than will actually show up on election day. It’s Republicans, after all, who are raring to get out there and pull the lever, and therefore more inclined to say they’re “very likely” to vote. (Not surprisingly, the GOP’s also performing well in early voting in Colorado.) But some Dems will turn out half-heartedly, even though they’re not “very” sure about it right now. They’re Obama’s target audience, in fact, in his “reelect my toadies” pitch. So maybe Gardner’s not really up seven — but he’s up. Comfortably.
Would it be too hubristic to post this now with a long-distance dedication to O? If so, no worries: We’re probably going to crap the bed in Georgia and North Carolina so we should enjoy this sort of prospective gloating while we can.