This is still a tough race to figure...

One one hand, you have Nate Silver still rating Ken Buck as a 73% favorite to win despite this poll. On the other hand, Charlie Cook talks today about what a crappy campaign Buck is running, which makes sense to me because it feels like Buck should be doing better than he is.

I always thought Buck had the advantage over Angle because he seems less crazy, but it's odd to think that right now polls are showing Angle and Buck pretty much in the same place.

I'd probably still put Buck as the favorite. But if he makes a gaffe (as he is occasionally prone to do)the advantage could turn to Bennett quickly.  

---

by: markhanna @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 16:05:23 PM UTC

I also think NV & CO have a somewhat similar dynamic...

But not in the way you suggested. If most public polling here has been crappy, it's not a stretch to wonder if many of the Colorado public polls have been missing something.

With the CO GOP being the hot mess it is (much like the NV GOP) and Buck such a flawed and controversial candidate (almost as bad as Angle), I wouldn't be surprised if much of the public polling is off.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 16:14:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Assuming small volatility, I think 73% is about right

Nate has the mean projected vote at 47/50. Assuming a Gaussian distribution (which can be flawed), that suggests a sigma of about 4.

First, a small move towards Bennet (less than 2) would bring Nate's numbers in the race to 50/50, which sounds about right to me.

Second, with the small sigma, that's where aggressiveness by Bennet (or a blooper by Buck) can change the dynamic.  

---

by: tietack @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 19:17:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like very much Nate Silver bid

But I think he will have not the same results this year.

His model is not taking in to account one important variable.

Some people, and many money is trying this year to manipulate his work. It is just the people what find misslead paying and doing polls for it.

Few years ago I was reading his methodology. Surely make it public is a weakness of his model.

---

by: abgin @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 20:11:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Surely making it public is a weakness?

Huh?

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

---

by: TheGradyDem @ Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 00:02:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This ultra-quantitative modelling crap is just that ...

I understand the need of people like Nate Silver to model and quantify everything, but they don't have a reliable set of data to build their models with, so it's frankly just crapola. Just the statement that a 2 point swing to Bennet would transform the "prediction" from 73% to 50% tells you all you need to know: A move WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR moves the needle 23%? Puh-leeze. Buck being "up 2" is a meaningless statement. Any poll where the two candidates are within 2x the MoE (usually 9 points) is exactly a tie. Not sort of. Not "yes but". Exactly. A. Tie. It's a bit of a hard mental pill to swallow, but statistically that's the case. Now, you can average polls together to reduce the MoE (although statistically it's a a really dicey practice), but you're never getting down to an MoE of 1%, so a difference of 2% is insignificant, period.

On top of that he's averaging polls taken at different times, with different methodologies, some perhaps not even straight up honest. The timing thing is the most problematic of these: Polls are snapshots in time, and there are exactly two polls out today. So today, Bennet is up 2, which means a tie. It's the only thing you can say. It just makes no methodological or statistical sense to average polls that were taken weeks apart.

Oh, but you say, Nate's predictions are "so accurate." Yes, they're accurate in the same way Rasmussen's polls will be when all is said and done. The unique thing about quantifying electoral results before fact is there is absolutely no way to fact check it except on E-day. And there will be loads of polls late in the campaign, all taken very close together in time, and all (we assume) honest, because there's no reason anymore not to be. So MoE on averages will be very low.

---

by: ColoDem @ Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 01:35:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be fair

Not all values within the MoE are as statistically likely. The MoE only represents the 95% confidence level that the true value is within the MoE. Therefore, any lead at all in a poll is never "50-50;" it is less than 95% likely that the lead is real but it is nonetheless more likely than not. Perhaps you know this, and I'm not a statistician, but I just want to make this clear.

Radical or something, WA-07

---

by: sdkWA @ Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 06:37:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Statistics are not "crap"

In a normal bell curve, 50% + 1/2 of one sigma is 84%.

So all 73% is saying, with half of the 3% difference, is that one sigma is close to 2%.

If you've looked at Nate's methodology, you'll understand that he's doing considerably more than just "averaging polls". If you really want to get into it, the kernel of his stuff comes from the work of Andrew Gellman of Columbia, who has some excellent models of '06 and '08 based on elections back to the '50s.

To suggest that statistics is crap on that basis -- is similar IMO to suggesting that global warming is crap based on some rogue e-mails.

---

by: tietack @ Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 11:52:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I feel like the dynamics of this race should've been showing Buck running away with it

Instead, we're seeing Bennett surprisingly competitive, and certainly a more likely hold than, say, Pennsylvania or even, regrettably, Wisconsin.  If Dems can retain 1 or 2 of these races in the polls, it all but seals the deal for the Senate, since the West Coast Firewall (TM?) is proving to be somewhat resilient in light of the brutal numbers in the Midwest.

---

by: isentrope @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 16:13:17 PM UTC

PPP wasn't an internal poll.

If we just saw Harstad (for Bennet) putting him ahead this week, I'd also be skeptical. But since PPP shows similar results, I can believe it. As I said above, my experience with the many craptastic Nevada polls is starting to make me wonder if many of the public polls are also getting Colorado wrong.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

---

by: atdleft @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 16:16:42 PM UTC

Unpredictable Race....

Michael Bennet has been running a pretty solid campaign so far but Buck has his base extremely fired up to vote for him and that is propelling him right now. Despite this poll almost all other polls give Buck a narrow lead. I still believe that this is going to be a very close race decided by a few percentage points and this is one that does not appear to have slipped away from team blue. Buck has some negatives and Bennet has been wisely exploiting them. To keep a reasonable majority this is one of the must wins of the cycle and I know that the airwaves in Colorado are getting pounded with ads. I really hope that Bennet can pull this out in the end but he is going to need to GOTV in the Denver/Boulder area and I'm skeptical of his abilities to pull this off.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

---

by: Cool_Arrow @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 16:22:27 PM UTC

This is fast becoming a Must-win for Team Blue

Washington is evening up again and WV is looking bad also. Feingold has got to make a successful move soon, or he will be out of luck and chances.

Dems need at least 52 seats to have genuine control of the chamber, and only having 49 seats is a distinct possibility.  If the could only invest in one race, I would make it this one.

DSCC should concentrate on beating the Tea Party  candidates: Angle, Buck, Paul, Ayotte, Toomey.  

BTW, there seemed to be a pause in polls on this race, until these two.  Is that true?    

---

by: vicupstate @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 17:23:14 PM UTC

Must Win but...

I agree that this is a must win and it is an easier win given that Colorado is a purple state as opposed to say Kentucky's bright red. I wouldn't necessarily say that Ayotte is a tea-party candidate, she was endorsed by Palin but I thought that Ovide was the tea party guy and he barely lost (too bad for us I think). I'm still not convinced about Rossi winning in WA as I'd like to get some non-Ras collaboration but it should be a close race. WV and WI do seem trending away though I agree so CO is a must hold.

Unlike others I wouldn't worry about Lieberman or Nelson switching. Lieberman you never know what goes through his mind but he'd have a hard home in the GOP where he is Mr. Global Warming and Iraq is no longer on the forefront. Ben Nelson would be destroyed in a GOP Primary ala Parker Griffith and he knows it. There are no shortage of GOPers in NE who would love to take him out in a primary. I am more worried about getting our seat count high as we have 2 brutal cycles in 2012 and 2014 where a lot of freshman/incumbents in swing/reddish states will have to defend their seats.


28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

---

by: Cool_Arrow @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 17:36:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Toomey

I don't see Toomey as a Tea Party candidate - he's a Club for Growth candidate.  Rubio is closer to a Tea Party candidate, but Joe Miller is one for sure.

43 - Male - GOP/Libertarian - FL 22

---

by: Zornorph @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 20:02:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Republicans in CO have to prop up

Dan Maes because if he falls below 10%, they would be demoted to a third party status and get crappy ballot positions and potentially be much more restricted in the amount of money they can raise in the future. Dick Wadhams must be very angry right now.  

---

by: gomer @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 20:16:13 PM UTC

As a VA resident

I hope that he is angry enough to come back here to join George Allen's 2012 Senate campaign!

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

---

by: Cool_Arrow @ Fri Oct 08, 2010 at 20:44:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maes at 13%?? If he finishes <10%, there a fantastic consequence

Written up here: CO-Gov: Tancredo endangering Colorado GOP's future

Summarizing, if Maes receives <10% of the vote in November, the GOP becomes a minor party for the 2012 and 2014 cycles.

The consequence 1) is the GOP won't get one of the top 2 ballot lines (Tancredo's American Constitution Party will be the other major party in CO), but will be relegated to the bottom, mixed in with the various minor third parties. That includes the POTUS election plus all state legislature races, and in 2014 the Senate and other statewide races.

2) Also there's also a fund-raising consequence in CO. An unchallenged minor party candidate isn't included on the primary ballot whereas the major party always is. That apparently precludes them from raising money for their primary elections, cutting the allowed fundraising in half.

---

by: homerun @ Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 01:04:56 AM UTC

I'm hoping the mess

on the R side for Gov gives Bennet an advantage.

---

by: itskevin @ Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 01:28:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even if Bennet loses, (and I sure hope he doesn't)

this is awesome!!!!!

Though I do think that Udall should win reelection easily in a better year for Democrats.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26

---

by: TheGradyDem @ Sat Oct 09, 2010 at 21:34:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'd love to see Maes in single digits

Hickenlooper is close enough to 50 that I'm not too worried and having the GOP be a minor party in CO would be hilarious.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/

---

by: sapelcovits @ Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 11:12:11 AM UTC