Friday, March 12, 2010

Colorado Senate tied

Our first look at the Colorado Senate race since last summer finds that Jane Norton's entry into the race has not helped Republican chances of defeating Michael Bennet- and may have even hurt their prospects. Bennet and Norton tie at 43% apiece. Bennet trailed Bob Beauprez 42-39 in August before Beauprez decided not to make the race.

Bennet continues to be pretty unpopular- but Norton is too. Bennet's approval rating is 32% with 46% of voters unhappy with his job performance. 25% of voters have a favorable opinion of Norton with 35% viewing her negatively.

In their head to head match Norton leads Bennet 44-35 with independents, but Bennet ties it overall because he has his party more unified around him (79% support) than Norton does hers (77% support.)

Andrew Romanoff actually leads Norton 44-39, reflecting other recent polling that has shown him doing better in general election matches than Bennet. I would be cautious about declaring Romanoff to be the more electable candidate based on these early numbers though. Bennet has had all the negatives of incumbency- being associated with an unpopular majority party during a recession- without the positives- defining himself positively to the voters on the airwaves in the context of a statewide campaign. If Romanoff is still doing better than Bennet four or five months from now once the voters have started really paying attention the electability argument might carry more heft.

Bennet and Romanoff both hold solid advantages over the lesser known Republican candidates. Bennet leads Ken Buck 46-40 and Romanoff leads him 44-36. Bennet has a 45-37 advantage over Tom Wiens and for Romanoff it's 45-34.

All three times we've looked at this race over the last year it's come out very close, and I think the Colorado Senate race will prove to be one of the most competitive in the country this year. Neither Bennet nor Norton has made the best first impression on voters in the state and it will be interesting to see if they can turn it around- or if a Romanoff or Buck could pull off an upset in the primary. We'll have numbers looking at that on Monday.

Full results here


Anonymous said...

Why has PPP dropped its likely voter screen since Scott Brown's election? Your numbers in MA Senate were spot-on WITH the screen. Given that the intensity is with the GOP this cycle, are you not by dropping the screen painting a picture of the electorate that is more favorable to the Dems than is warranted?
Scot from CO

Anonymous said...

This is the same sample that showed Hickenlooper +11 while Rasmussen has it +6 for McInnis.

Have you done work for Bennet, Romanoff, Hickenlooper, or any of the other subjects of the poll?

Has PPP or its executives made contributions to those candidates?

Full disclosure, please.

Unknown said...

Tom, you are missing the big story in Colorado: Romanoff has much more grass roots support than Bennet (even though you folks on the East Coast haven't gotten the memo yet). Look to see what happens in next week's Democratic caucuses. In the end it won't be close; Romanoff will trounce Bennet and beat Norton.

You heard it here first.

Anonymous said...

Tom, I trust you very much, but please answer me if you use so early in the campaign likely voter screens? Thanks

Anonymous said...

Colorado already has impressions of Bennet and Norton. WE DONT LIKE EITHER OF THOSE FOOLS.

And second the polling work question. a 17 point gap is impossible within a few days of polling (especially THIS early). Sombody is dead wrong

Anonymous said...

Mr. Jensen,

While you/P.P.P. show Norton and Bennet even at 43% each and Romanoff leading Norton 44%-39%, Rasmussen has it with Norton leading both Bennet 48%-39% and Romanoff 44%-42%. Though I would like to give you/P.P.P. the benefit of doubt, it has, for me, become quite clear that you/P.P.P. can't seem to separate your ideological/ political bias from reality. Clearly, "the proof is in the pudding" - that being actual election results coming this next November. In the meantime, I would suggest that you/P.P.P. try to be a little more objective and balanced in your presentation of "polling" numbers and commentary. Keep in mind one word - CREDIBILITY.

Unknown said...

LOL@all the angry little teabaggers turning on PPP now that the polling is slightly favorable to Democrats. Tom must be cooking the books!

Yea thats it :re

Web Statistics