Support NeoGAF

[Cerium]

New poll out today gives Hillary a double digit lead.

A new poll gives Hillary Clinton a double-digit lead over Donald Trump, just as the GOP presidential nominee is traveling to Colorado for two events on Monday.

The Monmouth University poll shows Clinton leading Trump, 49 percent to 38 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 7 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 3 percent. Another 3 percent of likely voters are undecided.

The poll was conducted last Thursday through Sunday — well after last week’s presidential debate and subsequent spate of critical news coverage for Trump. Polls earlier in September had suggested the race in Colorado was closing: A Quinnipiac University poll in mid-September shows Clinton ahead by 2 points, and a CNN/ORC International poll right before the debate gave Trump a 1-point lead.

Clinton actually has a slight lead over Trump among white voters in the new poll, 45 percent to 42 percent. Among nonwhites, Clinton is far ahead of Trump, 71 percent to 17 percent. (The majority of nonwhite voters in Colorado are Latino.)

The Monmouth poll also shows only a small gender gap: Clinton leads by 7 points among men and by 13 points among women.

Trump is scheduled to make two stops in Colorado on Monday — the first in Pueblo, about 100 miles south of Denver, and the second in Loveland, which is roughly 50 miles north of Denver.

Colorado had largely fallen off the battleground-state map earlier this year, and the Clinton campaign still isn’t advertising on television there. A pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA Action, is up on the airwaves in Colorado, as is the Trump campaign.

 

[BronzeWolf]

Dat Weed-Effect

 

[Toxi]

Really glad to see this from my state, especially with the worrying lack of focus from the Clinton campaign. Hopefully the poll won't be a big outlier as more come in.

 

[jon bones]

Really glad to see this from my state, especially with the worrying lack of focus from the Clinton campaign. Hopefully the poll won't be a big outlier as more come in.

I am hoping the Clinton ground game apparatus is so well-tuned that it saw this coming a mile away.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Dat Weed-Effect

Weed saving the world once again?

 

[davepoobond]

colorado needs some good ol' voter suppression to fix that

 

[Lord Frieza]

I don't want to jinx it, but I think we're going to see a big turnout this election despite the unfavorably of the two candidates. Trump has lit so many fires in the effort to rejuvenate his base that I honestly believe he's going to end up smoking out just about anyone not in that base to vote against him. I don't know, I just have that feeling, and things like this tell me there's a real rumbling.

 

[Blader]

Really glad to see this from my state, especially with the worrying lack of focus from the Clinton campaign. Hopefully the poll won't be a big outlier as more come in.

Their internal polls in CO must have been pretty promising.

 

[HylianTom]

colorado needs some good ol' voter suppression to fix that

Good luck; Colorado has mail-in ballots.

---

I think Colorado and Virginia turning Likely Blue has been the most underappreciated story of this whole election. It makes the math for any GOP candidate so damn daunting.

 

[StopMakingSense]

Good luck; Colorado has mail-in ballots.

Also Dem governor and split legislatures.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Nice. Way to go Colorado! He might even lose my state, and I'm a Texan. Pretty big deal since we are a deep red state. lol

 

[Lord Frieza]

Good luck; Colorado has mail-in ballots.

Suppress the mailboxes.

 

[Somnid]

I can't eye-roll any harder. Colorado has more registered independents than either Republicans or Democrats. The real story is that the 2-party system is literally disenfranchising Colorado voters.

 

[Ecto311]

Weird driving around here all I see is trump stickers and boards. No one I know has changed but I know places like salida have a huge young person influx happening and I assume that effects it.

 

[User 463088]

I can't eye-roll any harder. Colorado has more registered independents than either Republicans or Democrats. The real story is that the 2-party system is literally disenfranchising Colorado voters.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

 

[VendettaRed07]

The power of pot

I think Hillary is pocketing supporting legalization for reelection to use as a winning wedge issue to give her an extra push that'll probably take whatever opponent she has by surprise the same way Obama did with Gay marriage in 2012

 

[Stumpokapow]

The real story is the high 4 year population growth.

2012: 2.66 million
2016: 3.07 million

Is that from an unusually big birth cohort coming online, or cross-state migration? I have heard of a lot of people seeking opportunities in Colorado.

 

[Toxi]

I can't eye-roll any harder. Colorado has more registered independents than either Republicans or Democrats. The real story is that the 2-party system is literally disenfranchising Colorado voters.

Registered independent doesn't actually mean you don't want to vote for the 2 viable parties, For most people it means you don't think you'll consistently vote for only one.

Also, the "2-party system" is a natural consequence of our government structure up to the US Constitution and it ain't changing in the foreseeable future, so you probably should move to another country if you think you're being disenfranchised.

(You're not being disenfranchised)

The real story is the high 4 year population growth.

2012: 2.66 million
2016: 3.07 million

Is that from an unusually big birth cohort coming online, or cross-state migration? I have heard of a lot of people seeking opportunities in Colorado.

Colorado has tons of cross-state migration. Denver's the fastest growing city in the US.

 

[mcfrank]

I can't eye-roll any harder. Colorado has more registered independents than either Republicans or Democrats. The real story is that the 2-party system is literally disenfranchising Colorado voters.

Huh? My wife is a registered independent and has voted for 2 Rs and 2 Ds in the elections she has been able to vote in. How exactly is she disenfranchised?

 

[Karsticles]

The real story is the high 4 year population growth.

2012: 2.66 million
2016: 3.07 million

Is that from an unusually big birth cohort coming online, or cross-state migration? I have heard of a lot of people seeking opportunities in Colorado.

Colorado has a good reputation abroad; I moved here 3 years ago. There's a ton of development here. There are also, anecdotally, high birthrates here, and you can't walk 20 feet without seeing a pregnant woman. Part of this is the fundamentalist crowd, and part of it is the 4 military bases we have here.

 

[RiccochetJ]

The real story is the high 4 year population growth.

2012: 2.66 million
2016: 3.07 million

Is that from an unusually big birth cohort coming online, or cross-state migration? I have heard of a lot of people seeking opportunities in Colorado.

Cross state migration.

"Colorado ranked seventh among all states for the total number of people added, sandwiched between North Carolina and Arizona.

With an aging population and young adults delaying marriage and child birth, natural gains — births minus deaths — aren’t driving the increase.

Net migration —more people moving to the state than leaving — accounts for about two-thirds of the population gain, Garner said."

http://www.denverpost.com/2015/12/22/colorados-population-jumped-by-101000-in-12-months/

 

[Grizzlyjin]

I know a lot of people that have moved there in the last couple years. You talk to younger people and they either want to move to Colorado, North Carolina, or Cali.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I can't eye-roll any harder. Colorado has more registered independents than either Republicans or Democrats. The real story is that the 2-party system is literally disenfranchising Colorado voters.

no, that's... that's not what disenfranchising means.

 

[Somnid]

Huh? My wife is a registered independent and has voted for 2 Rs and 2 Ds in the elections she has been able to vote in. How exactly is she disenfranchised?

Closed primary system. That's what Proposition 107 is all about.

 

[GregLombardi]

The real story is the high 4 year population growth.

2012: 2.66 million
2016: 3.07 million

Is that from an unusually big birth cohort coming online, or cross-state migration? I have heard of a lot of people seeking opportunities in Colorado.

It's the quality of life and the weed.

It is a place of extreme attraction especially to those who grew up in the northeast, or those looking for an upgrade in their geography. I lived there from 2013-2015, and saw the traffic become hellish and rents go up 10-20% a year.

 

[User 463088]

Closed primary system. That's what Proposition 107 is all about.

Closed primaries do not disenfranchise anyone. Now, caucuses, on the other hand....

 

[Dreams-Visions]

This is what happens when you bring tech industries to your state.

Unless Texas.

 

[inner-G]

The real story is the high 4 year population growth.

2012: 2.66 million
2016: 3.07 million

Is that from an unusually big birth cohort coming online, or cross-state migration? I have heard of a lot of people seeking opportunities in Colorado.

Cannabis freedom immigrants

 

[TheGrue]

I can't eye-roll any harder. Colorado has more registered independents than either Republicans or Democrats. The real story is that the 2-party system is literally disenfranchising Colorado voters.

When I moved to Colorado 9 years ago, I made the decision not to register with any party. It was my own personal sign of protest, understanding that it carries little weight politically.

 

[Somnid]

Close primaries do not disenfranchise anyone. Now, caucuses, on the other hand....

Yes they do because independents can't vote in them without a party affiliation, so literally the fact that other states are setup to promote Dem/Rep splits means that independents generally don't get a say until the general election. I realize you can say "well, technically there was a choice" but we all know the effectively that's not how it works. We got Democratic caucasus too.

 

[Cerium]

Yes they do because independents can't vote in them, so literally the fact that other states are setup to promote Dem/Rep splits means that independents generally don't get a say until the general election. I realize you can say "well, technically there was a choice" but we all know the effectively that's not how it works. We got Democratic caucasus too.

Wait, why should people from outside the party be entitled to choose a private party's nominee?

Parties are not government institutions.

 

[Alienfan]

Eh, the fact it isn't more is pretty disgusting

 

[User 463088]

Yes they do because independents can't vote in them, so literally the fact that other states are setup to promote Dem/Rep splits means that independents generally don't get a say until the general election. I realize you can say "well, technically there was a choice" but we all know the effectively that's not how it works. We got Democratic caucasus too.

No, they really don't. And, besides, Colorado is voting to move from a caucus to an open primary.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Eh, the fact it isn't more is pretty disgusting

You could say that about any state.

Colorado is overwhelmingly conservative as soon as you get outside the metro area.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Yes they do because independents can't vote in them without a party affiliation, so literally the fact that other states are setup to promote Dem/Rep splits means that independents generally don't get a say until the general election. I realize you can say "well, technically there was a choice" but we all know the effectively that's not how it works. We got Democratic caucasus too.

It kind of makes sense that a member not in a party isn't allowed to choose that party's nominee. Parties are private organizations.

There is no disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement deals with denying otherwise qualified people the ability to vote via intimidation, passing ID laws, restricting voting times, etc.

Caucuses are trash, though. Open to manipulation/peer pressure and creating potentially indefinite lengths of participation in order to eventually choose someone. Polling booths are more logical and aren't a relic.

 

[soul creator]

I think the "parties are private organizations" argument would be more convincing if in practice they didn't have such a large influence of the regular public election process.

With something like a ranked-choice voting system, and less influence of party politics on public elections, closed primaries would be fine. But if we're gonna have two heavyweight private parties that exert a ton of influence over public elections, then I think open primaries should be the norm.

I think right now, it's kind of the worst of both worlds. Obviously, it's not "disenfranchisement" in the literal sense of "not being able to vote in a general election", so I'm not necessarily saying it's equivalent to other voting rights issues, but in practice, it is another hurdle that makes it more difficult for people to participate in democracy. And ideally, we'd be removing as many barriers as possible, not adding more and using "well, technically..." arguments.

 

[Cerium]

But if we're gonna have two heavyweight private parties that exert a ton of influence over public elections, then I think open primaries should be the norm.

So under your ideal rules do I get a primary vote for each party? If not, how is that not also disenfranchisement?

I don't think it's a good idea to allow Republicans to choose the Democratic nominee, and I think the party would be well justified in preventing that, not to mention well within their legal rights.

 

[Version 3.0]

You could say that about any state.

Colorado is overwhelmingly conservative as soon as you get outside the metro area.

Not "overwhelmingly". Plenty of counties outside of the Denver Metro area went for Obama in 2012.

http://inewsnetwork.org/2012/11/07/election-2012-colorado-counties-presidential-medical-marijuana-results/

 

[Spoiled Milk]

I can't eye-roll any harder. Colorado has more registered independents than either Republicans or Democrats. The real story is that the 2-party system is literally disenfranchising Colorado voters.

In general, are you more democratic, or more republican?

 

[soul creator]

So under your ideal rules do I get a primary vote for each party? If not, how is that not also disenfranchisement?

I don't think it's a good idea to allow Republicans to choose the Democratic nominee, and I think the party would be well justified in preventing that, not to mention well within their legal rights.

My ideal rules are ranked-choice voting (to help shut down the whole "spoiler" argument and lets people vote for whoever they want without feeling trapped by a duopoly) and neutral treatment of parties when it comes to general elections, and increased public financing. Closed primaries can be much more palatable in that scenario.

But if we are gonna get stuck with Party A vs. Party B, then let people have one vote in the primary offices, and one vote in the general election. And/or just have same-day party registration. So if I vote in the Republican primary, that's fine, but that does mean I can't vote in the Democratic primary. And vice versa. And since it's same-day party registration, someone can take as much time as they want to study the parties and decide if they want to participate in one or the other.

Of course, those are just a couple of approaches, but it seems like almost all of them are preferable and lead to a more democratic process than what we have now.