timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jul 1, 2020 22:05:45 GMT
That’s why he is a good fit for the State; it’s not all liberal Denver and Aspen; the GOP lady who beat Scott Tipton ran strongly on her husband’s ownership of a natural gas extraction company, and an anti-green platform bordering on climate change denial. There are still parts of the State where that message resonates, and Hickenlooper’s record would have more of an appeal than a more “progressive” candidate. Maybe in those parts, but the state is trending Democratic faster than most and Hickenlooper's politics (from chugging fracking fluid to broken windows policing) don't play well with a base that is young, fairly progressive (it nominated Polis for Governor two years ago and Sanders+Warren cracked 50%) and potentially elastic in its turnout. I happened to agree that any net negative from his resistance to shifting with contemporary Coloradoan politics would be offset by his popularity as a result of being governor until recently, but the ethics investigation was ongoing for a long time and now that potential has flowered into something that is making him run behind Biden and to the extent that the difference between their margins is (apparently) already 6 points. It's probable that lots of independents haven't even yet heard of the ethics/contempt scandal yet and it's not as if this is because Gardner is especially popular compared to Trump - he has often polled as the two least popular Senators in the country. The verbal gaffes and Native American get-up aren't going to hurt Hickenlooper much, but the convictions are hard to relate to and real scandals. This is not Bob Menendez-tier, but it's pretty bad and the fundamentals of Colorado are still more competitive than those of NJ. As it stands, Democrats shouldn't panic too much; he's probably going to be fine. Gardner has at least a 5% chance, though, and that wouldn't have been true against a bog standard moderate or progressive like Romanoff, Neguse, DeGette, etc. I suspect a poll showing him running behind Biden the day after a contested primary merely shows some disappointed Romanoff supporters still in a bad mood. He’s taking nearly 55% of the vote, with over 100 precincts still to report in Denver and is at 60% in the neighbouring counties, suggesting he’s not struggling to motivate the more progressive parts of the state.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 1, 2020 23:11:31 GMT
Maybe in those parts, but the state is trending Democratic faster than most and Hickenlooper's politics (from chugging fracking fluid to broken windows policing) don't play well with a base that is young, fairly progressive (it nominated Polis for Governor two years ago and Sanders+Warren cracked 50%) and potentially elastic in its turnout. I happened to agree that any net negative from his resistance to shifting with contemporary Coloradoan politics would be offset by his popularity as a result of being governor until recently, but the ethics investigation was ongoing for a long time and now that potential has flowered into something that is making him run behind Biden and to the extent that the difference between their margins is (apparently) already 6 points. It's probable that lots of independents haven't even yet heard of the ethics/contempt scandal yet and it's not as if this is because Gardner is especially popular compared to Trump - he has often polled as the two least popular Senators in the country. The verbal gaffes and Native American get-up aren't going to hurt Hickenlooper much, but the convictions are hard to relate to and real scandals. This is not Bob Menendez-tier, but it's pretty bad and the fundamentals of Colorado are still more competitive than those of NJ. As it stands, Democrats shouldn't panic too much; he's probably going to be fine. Gardner has at least a 5% chance, though, and that wouldn't have been true against a bog standard moderate or progressive like Romanoff, Neguse, DeGette, etc. I suspect a poll showing him running behind Biden the day after a contested primary merely shows some disappointed Romanoff supporters still in a bad mood. He’s taking nearly 55% of the vote, with over 100 precincts still to report in Denver and is at 60% in the neighbouring counties, suggesting he’s not struggling to motivate the more progressive parts of the state. He is winning a primary with significant institutional support against a fairly weak opponent who was unknown, got no serious endorsements (unless you count Marianne Williamson) and whose own support was based more on opposition to him than much in the way of attachment to Romanoff's own bid. This is what the SurveyUSA primary poll suggested, anyway (it also indicated Romanoff had crap name recognition, which is a death sentence in a primary): "Are you voting more for Hickenlooper or against Romanoff?" (Hickenlooper primary voters) For 91% Against 5%
"Are you voting more for Romanoff or against Hickenlooper?" (Romanoff primary voters) For 64% Against 31%Hickenlooper's politics might not be much more objectionable to local progressives than Biden's, but the scandal which lots of voters across the spectrum presumably aren't yet fully aware of is a real threat (because it will feature in every GOP ad if the NRSCC still intends to spend here). I agree that 1-2% of respondents who claimed otherwise in the most recent poll might eventually fold behind Hickenlooper and only currently reject him because of the heated primary. However, I'd also argue that the other 4% of that underperformance (and the elimination of Hickenlooper's previous overperformance on Biden's numbers) exists because telling voters to elect a crook is a much bigger ask than telling them to pick someone who's a little too left- or right-wing for their tastes.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jul 1, 2020 23:27:44 GMT
I suspect a poll showing him running behind Biden the day after a contested primary merely shows some disappointed Romanoff supporters still in a bad mood. He’s taking nearly 55% of the vote, with over 100 precincts still to report in Denver and is at 60% in the neighbouring counties, suggesting he’s not struggling to motivate the more progressive parts of the state. He is winning a primary with significant institutional support against a fairly weak opponent who was unknown, got no serious endorsements (unless you count Marianne Williamson) and whose own support was based more on opposition to him than much in the way of attachment to Romanoff's own bid. This is what the SurveyUSA primary poll suggested, anyway (it also indicated Romanoff had crap name recognition, which is a death sentence in a primary): "Are you voting more for Hickenlooper or against Romanoff?" (Hickenlooper primary voters) For 91% Against 5%
"Are you voting more for Romanoff or against Hickenlooper?" (Romanoff primary voters) For 64% Against 31%Hickenlooper's politics might not be much more objectionable to local progressives than Biden's, but the scandal which lots of voters across the spectrum presumably aren't yet fully aware of is a real threat (because it will feature in every GOP ad if the NRSCC still intends to spend here). I agree that 1-2% of respondents who claimed otherwise in the most recent poll might eventually fold behind Hickenlooper and only currently reject him because of the heated primary. However, I'd also argue that the other 4% of that underperformance (and the elimination of Hickenlooper's previous overperformance on Biden's numbers) exists because telling voters to elect a crook is a much bigger ask than telling them to pick someone who's a little too left- or right-wing for their tastes. Romanoff unknown? So being a former Speaker of the State House, his primary challenge against Michael Bennet in 2010 (when he was endorsed by Bill Clinton) and House run against the perennially vulnerable Mike Coffman in 2014 went unnoticed by everybody in Colorado then? He also had the endorsement of two members of the Salazar family, which is like being endorsed by a Kennedy in Massachusetts. If that leads to “crap name recognition” I’d venture it’s a crap poll. Romanoff’s problem was he’s tacked towards Hickenlooper; during his time in the State House, and his previous congressional runs he’s been the über progressive candidate, but this year abandoned that and ran as a centrist, I suspect because he knows that’s how to win in Colorado and didn’t expect Hickenlooper to change his long held “I’ll never run for Senate” position after his Presidential bid fizzled.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 1, 2020 23:51:49 GMT
He is winning a primary with significant institutional support against a fairly weak opponent who was unknown, got no serious endorsements (unless you count Marianne Williamson) and whose own support was based more on opposition to him than much in the way of attachment to Romanoff's own bid. This is what the SurveyUSA primary poll suggested, anyway (it also indicated Romanoff had crap name recognition, which is a death sentence in a primary): "Are you voting more for Hickenlooper or against Romanoff?" (Hickenlooper primary voters) For 91% Against 5%
"Are you voting more for Romanoff or against Hickenlooper?" (Romanoff primary voters) For 64% Against 31%Hickenlooper's politics might not be much more objectionable to local progressives than Biden's, but the scandal which lots of voters across the spectrum presumably aren't yet fully aware of is a real threat (because it will feature in every GOP ad if the NRSCC still intends to spend here). I agree that 1-2% of respondents who claimed otherwise in the most recent poll might eventually fold behind Hickenlooper and only currently reject him because of the heated primary. However, I'd also argue that the other 4% of that underperformance (and the elimination of Hickenlooper's previous overperformance on Biden's numbers) exists because telling voters to elect a crook is a much bigger ask than telling them to pick someone who's a little too left- or right-wing for their tastes. Romanoff unknown? So being a former Speaker of the State House, his primary challenge against Michael Bennet in 2010 (when he was endorsed by Bill Clinton) and House run against the perennially vulnerable Mike Coffman in 2014 went unnoticed by everybody in Colorado then? If that leads to “crap name recognition” I’d venture it’s a crap poll. If you'd told me this at the start of the electoral cycle, I'd have agreed, but our priors on how much name ID that bought were wrong. He's not really had the limelight since 2010 (he ran a doomed bid in a Congressional District in 2014, but that probably didn't do much for his name ID) and the state has changed massively in the meantime. People not knowing who he really was must have been one of the reasons why his fundraising was crap and that is a vicious cycle. As for the poll, it did underestimate the vote he seems to be getting (putting the race at Hickenlooper +30% rather than Hickenlooper +20%), but I thought this was quite illuminating: What was Romanoff's most recent job?Colorado Speaker of the House - 20% (correct)Co. State Senator - 11%Co. Governor - 3%Co. Sec of State - 3%NOTA - 12%Unknown - 52%He just wasn't very well known, even by the end. He actually seemed to catch some flack from progressives for his time as Speaker in which he'd been a mildly progressive Dem who'd struck controversial bargains with the Republican Governor on immigration and budget issues (one doesn't get Bill Clinton's endorsement by being a proud lefty). Presumably, questions about Romanoff's sincerity resulting from this and the pivot from moderate to progressive bid you mentioned is part of why he failed to nab endorsements from the likes of AOC and Sanders etc. (it is why he didn't get at least one other progressive candidate's endorsement). This sort of support was conspicuously absent despite the usual suspects being willing to intervene against DSCC/DCCC-backed candidates in other races, including incumbents. It's not as if progressives still can't win statewide in Colorado, either - the current Governor was a Congressional Progressive Caucus member who backed M4A and was fairly transformative up until coronavirus killed most of the state legislature's ambition. I think a more credible challenger with better fundraising (Joe Neguse?) could have put Hickenlooper in jeopardy. Anyway, I've gone off on a tangent about a race that should still be a lock for the Dems (it is likely D but bordering on safe at the moment). My primary point was that a fair amount of Romanoff's support had more to do with Hickenlooper than his own strengths as a candidate. There were only a few prior surveys of this race, but in all of them, Hickenlooper tended to poll either a point behind Biden or a few points ahead and I think CO-SEN is now going to be a fair bit tighter than CO-PRES.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jul 2, 2020 1:00:41 GMT
We have a couple of calls in New York!
In the Ninth District incumbent Democrat Yvette Clarke has beaten Adem Bunkedekko in a rematch from 2018. Her margin currently stands at 26,459, a substantial improvement on her 1800 vote win last time. She’s an overwhelming favourite in a pretty crowded field consisting of Constance Jean-Pierre who will have the Republican and Conservative Party lines, Gary Popkin on the Libertarian Party line, Joel Anabilah-Azumah on the Serve America Movement Party line, and Judith Goldiner on the Working Families Party line.
In the swingy Staten Island based Eleventh District freshman Democrat Max Rose (who’s also on the Independence Party line) will face Nicole Malliatakis, who having just won the Republican primary will also appear on the Conservative Party line.
|
|
|
Post by thinwhiteduke on Jul 2, 2020 12:34:30 GMT
MONTANA MTSenate: Bullock (D) 47% (+4) Daines (R-inc) 43%
MTgov: Gianforte (R) 46% (+10) Cooney (D) 36%
MT01: Rosendale (R) 45% (+8) Williams (D) 37%
University of Montana 6/17-26
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,117
|
Post by maxque on Jul 2, 2020 16:07:12 GMT
There's also talk of Hickenlooper's stances on energy being a drag for him - so much so that he earned the nickname John Frackenlooper. That’s why he is a good fit for the State; it’s not all liberal Denver and Aspen; the GOP lady who beat Scott Tipton ran strongly on her husband’s ownership of a natural gas extraction company, and an anti-green platform bordering on climate change denial. There are still parts of the State where that message resonates, and Hickenlooper’s record would have more of an appeal than a more “progressive” candidate. Irrelevent. It's like choosing a Labour leader by considering how liked they will be in Tunbridge Wells.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,666
|
Post by European Lefty on Jul 2, 2020 19:59:57 GMT
That’s why he is a good fit for the State; it’s not all liberal Denver and Aspen; the GOP lady who beat Scott Tipton ran strongly on her husband’s ownership of a natural gas extraction company, and an anti-green platform bordering on climate change denial. There are still parts of the State where that message resonates, and Hickenlooper’s record would have more of an appeal than a more “progressive” candidate. Irrelevent. It's like choosing a Labour leader by considering how liked they will be in Tunbridge Wells. Not really. In an election determined by statewide popular vote, getting an extra edge in areas that aren't normally friendly can be vitally important - if the Democrats win Democrat areas 80-20 but Republicans only win Republican areas 70-30 it could swing the whole election. The popularity of a Democrat in GOP areas could be vitally important. We never have elections where the national popular vote determines anything, so the popularity of a Labour leader in Tunbridge Wells will never be relevant.
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 2, 2020 23:08:35 GMT
Irrelevent. It's like choosing a Labour leader by considering how liked they will be in Tunbridge Wells. Not really. In an election determined by statewide popular vote, getting an extra edge in areas that aren't normally friendly can be vitally important - if the Democrats win Democrat areas 80-20 but Republicans only win Republican areas 70-30 it could swing the whole election. The popularity of a Democrat in GOP areas could be vitally important. We never have elections where the national popular vote determines anything, so the popularity of a Labour leader in Tunbridge Wells will never be relevant. Yes, but as polarisation increases, differential turnout within certain voter constituencies begins to approach (if not surpass, in some races) the importance of appeal to traditional "swing voters" who choose between two parties rather than voting and not voting. A strong candidate manages to achieve a degree of both, but just reducing margins in GOP-friendly areas can hurt if it drives down turnout in what are normally 95-5 Democratic areas. A good example of this is Democratic triangulation in Georgia - with the decline of those prepared to support blue dogs, the likes of Stacy Abrams are now arguably more electorally impressive there than an inoffensive but uninspiring centrist, which would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,666
|
Post by European Lefty on Jul 3, 2020 12:14:36 GMT
Not really. In an election determined by statewide popular vote, getting an extra edge in areas that aren't normally friendly can be vitally important - if the Democrats win Democrat areas 80-20 but Republicans only win Republican areas 70-30 it could swing the whole election. The popularity of a Democrat in GOP areas could be vitally important. We never have elections where the national popular vote determines anything, so the popularity of a Labour leader in Tunbridge Wells will never be relevant. Yes, but as polarisation increases, differential turnout within certain voter constituencies begins to approach (if not surpass, in some races) the importance of appeal to traditional "swing voters" who choose between two parties rather than voting and not voting. A strong candidate manages to achieve a degree of both, but just reducing margins in GOP-friendly areas can hurt if it drives down turnout in what are normally 95-5 Democratic areas. A good example of this is Democratic triangulation in Georgia - with the decline of those prepared to support blue dogs, the likes of Stacy Abrams are now arguably more electorally impressive there than an inoffensive but uninspiring centrist, which would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago. True, but I wouldn't say that appealing to swing-voters has become "irrelevant" just yet. Especially in some of the states being talked up as "surprise" wins (GA, TX, AZ etc.) where any Democrat need both differential turnout AND an appeal to swing voters and moderate GOP voters to overcome the natural Republican lean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 12:23:09 GMT
For all the talk of the decline of swing voters there were surely a lot who voted Bush, Obama, Obama, Trump.
|
|
adlai52
Non-Aligned
Posts: 322
Member is Online
|
Post by adlai52 on Jul 3, 2020 12:44:56 GMT
Yes, but as polarisation increases, differential turnout within certain voter constituencies begins to approach (if not surpass, in some races) the importance of appeal to traditional "swing voters" who choose between two parties rather than voting and not voting. A strong candidate manages to achieve a degree of both, but just reducing margins in GOP-friendly areas can hurt if it drives down turnout in what are normally 95-5 Democratic areas. A good example of this is Democratic triangulation in Georgia - with the decline of those prepared to support blue dogs, the likes of Stacy Abrams are now arguably more electorally impressive there than an inoffensive but uninspiring centrist, which would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago. True, but I wouldn't say that appealing to swing-voters has become "irrelevant" just yet. Especially in some of the states being talked up as "surprise" wins (GA, TX, AZ etc.) where any Democrat need both differential turnout AND an appeal to swing voters and moderate GOP voters to overcome the natural Republican lean. Talking about "swing voters" might also be complicated because a significant proportion of those voters are part of groups realigning beside new parties, 'blue collar voters' in the Midwest and Upper South migrating to the GOP and 'suburban voters' in the Sunbelt moving to the Democrats. Appreciate that this is a bit of an oversimplification, but a big part of the campaign this year is about Democrats trying to stop or slow defections among traditional blue collar supporters and Republicans attempting to stop the bleeding in the suburbs.
|
|
|
Post by thinwhiteduke on Jul 3, 2020 23:17:51 GMT
Maine Senate GE: Susan Collins (R-inc) 45% (+8) Sara Gideon (D) 37%
Moore Information/@nrsc Internal Poll 6/20-24
Internal polling, so usual caveats apply.. but even in the current environment, I do believe Collins is slightly ahead. Toss up..
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 3, 2020 23:28:38 GMT
Maine Senate GE: Susan Collins (R-inc) 45% (+8) Sara Gideon (D) 37% Moore Information/@nrsc Internal Poll 6/20-24 Internal polling, so usual caveats apply.. but even in the current environment, I do believe Collins is slightly ahead. Toss up.. Even if you take it at face value, it's more like Collins+6% - there's a left-leaning indy at 3% and a right-leaning indy at 1% and Maine has Ranked Choice Voting. Edit: in any case, they didn't release cross tabs for this one, just that fairly scant topline of 600 likely voters. Not to be taken especially seriously, although it still says more about the state of the race than the fundraising.
|
|
|
Post by thinwhiteduke on Jul 3, 2020 23:42:22 GMT
Maine Senate GE: Susan Collins (R-inc) 45% (+8) Sara Gideon (D) 37% Moore Information/@nrsc Internal Poll 6/20-24 Internal polling, so usual caveats apply.. but even in the current environment, I do believe Collins is slightly ahead. Toss up.. Even if you take it at face value, it's more like Collins+6% - there's a left-leaning indy at 3% and a right-leaning indy at 1% and Maine has Ranked Choice Voting. Edit: in any case, they didn't release cross tabs for this one, just that fairly scant topline of 600 likely voters. Not to be taken especially seriously, although it still says more about the state of the race than the fundraising. There has been a severe lack of any independent polling in Maine.. PPP were the last half decent pollster to release any data, and that was back in March.. ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2020 14:54:52 GMT
Given the recent success of progressives in New York and the fact that de Blasio is term-limited, might Andrew Yang run for Mayor of New York City in 2021?
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 5, 2020 14:58:29 GMT
Given the recent success of progressives in New York and the fact that de Blasio is term-limited, might Andrew Yang run for Mayor of New York City in 2021? There’s been a lot of speculation about this but he’s pissed off the NY machine and it’s unclear who his allies in the city would be. He is progressive, but not generically so; I’m not sure it’d be easy for him to get the Justice Democrats’ support.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jul 5, 2020 15:02:35 GMT
Given the recent success of progressives in New York and the fact that de Blasio is term-limited, might Andrew Yang run for Mayor of New York City in 2021? Not impossible, and apparently there have been discussions with Bloomberg about running from outside the New York political machines.
|
|
|
Post by thinwhiteduke on Jul 6, 2020 13:06:55 GMT
MESenate: Gideon (D) 46% (+4) Collins (R-inc) 42%
PPP 7/2-3
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Jul 6, 2020 13:59:09 GMT
MESenate: Gideon (D) 46% (+4) Collins (R-inc) 42% PPP 7/2-3 I am changing my rating for this race from Concerned to Deeply Troubled.
|
|