Udall Being Propped Up Completely By The Under 30s

This morning, Quinnipiac releases the second half of their writeup on their recent polling of Colorado. Topline numbers for the Senate race: Udall 45, Gardner 44.

The numbers are even worse than that suggests for Udall.

• His lead is entirely due to those under the age of 30. He captures that cohort by 31 points!
• That age cohort, though, really knows absolutely nothing about Gardner. 72% of then haven't heard enough about him to form an opinion. Only 12% view him unfavorably.
• Udall trails among every other age cohort, with his biggest deficit coming among seniors (who happen to be the most reliable in terms of turning out). Gardner takes them by 8 points.
• Udall's approval rating among age cohorts: 39% for those between 30-49 as well as those 65+. On the 50-64%, it's 42%. The under 29s? 50%.
• On question after question, that age cohort has very high "DK/NA" or "Haven't heard enough" responses; this is a sign of a lack of engagement which to me further suggests potentially weak turnout. Naturally, that is "if the election happened today."
• In the Presidential horserace questions, Clinton loses to Paul by 5 points, with the under 30s splitting evenly at 43%. I read this in conjunction with what I mention above to mean that the under 30s are not opposed to a Republican. They just don't want what I will call "the same old Republicans." Jeb Bush is the only GOP name tested in this survey with more than 25% unfavorable responses from the under 30s.

Those are some really ugly numbers there, and it may be time to start moving Colorado up on the list in terms of seats most likely to flip. Barring some significant improvement by Udall with those 30 and over (if these crosstabs truly capture the Colorado landscape), he is going to lose.

Other quick notes... The number one issue cited by respondents was Healthcare. Udall trails by 21 points among those citing that issue as their main one. Second is the economy. Udall trails by 13 points among those... Christie (tied) and Huckabee (down 1) are competitive versus Clinton, whereas old guard Jeb Bush loses by 5.

Structural Aspects of Mail-in (and Early) Voting for GOTV Efforts

@HotlineJosh @kkondik @SeanTrende what is the structural firewall, especially in a mail-in state? Public-sector unions?

— John Podhoretz (@jpodhoretz) April 23, 2014

The above is in reference to Oregon.

I have a theory. Let's leave aside the who (be it SIEU, or whoever) is involved in any structural advantage. The fruits of GOTV efforts result, in part, from the man-hours expended. There are a limited number of bodies available to throw at the task, so to increase the man-hours you extend the voting time window. The party that gets the most benefit from GOTV efforts therefore benefits more from extended windows.

Tied in with this, I believe GOTV efforts generally are more favorable to Democrats, due to the fact that urban areas, with their higher population densities, tend to favor them. Higher population densities mean less ground to cover for ground-level GOTV efforts, which makes them more efficient in those areas.

The Cynical Exaggerating to the Point of Blatently Lying Preceded Obama

Ace wrote:

Like the typical sort of blog-trolling, Obama is basically writing grabby, preposterous, eye-catching, false headlines. And as with the various outfits which practice trolling all day long, he doesn't expect to catch flack for his mangling of the facts for viral hits, because no one expects a Salon headline to be honest in the first place, and, increasingly, few expect honesty from a President, either.

As always, go and read the whole thing. However, while the linked article (and supporting articles by John Dickerson and Major Garrett suggest that this is basically a new tactic the President has brought to the national table, I believe that it is just the natural evolution from one embraced by former President Clinton:

They thought the election was over, the Republicans did. By the time it was over, our candidate had won the popular vote, and the only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida. He did a great job.

Stop the voting?

How about stopping the selective recounting with shifting criteria? No, saying "stop the voting" was a cynical and deliberate misrepresentation, designed to delight his side and infuriate the other side.

You know what would be fun?

If Charles Koch decided to make enough of a run for President that his views actually are made known.

David would work equally well in this regard.

Colorado vs New Hampshire

@ConArtCritic Fair points, both. But I think NH is fundamentally a more evenly balanced state than CO or MI, both of which are pretty blue

— Reid Wilson (@PostReid) April 9, 2014

Is Colorado fundamentally more blue than NH?

Entity	Colorado	NH
Governor	D	D
Lt. Governor	D	N/A
Secretary of State	R	D
Treasurer	R	D
Attorney General	R	D
Executive Council	N/A	D
US Senate (1)	D	D
US Senate (2)	D	R
US House	R+1	D+2
State House	D+9	D+42
State Sen	D+1**	R+2

** Democratic control saved by Evie Hudak resigning rather than facing recall, allowing Democrats to appoint a replacement.

NH went for Kerry in 2004 while CO went for Bush. Granted, Kerry was from nearby MA.

All in all, the GOP has had a rough time in both states since the start of the 2000s, but to my eyes NH has been behaving more like a blue state of late than Colorado has.

MI, on the other hand, has been as blue or bluer than either for quite a while.