SHOCK POLL: Ciruli Associates Poll Has Obama Approval Rating At 25% In Broomfield, 36% In JeffCo

The Presidential election in Colorado is likely to be won or lost in the swing metro area counties. That makes the most recent Ciruli Associates poll especially troubling for the Obama campaign as it found Obama with near Jimmy Carter approval ratings in key swing counties.

The poll was conducted April 6-10 with 500 Colorado voters in seven metro area counties (Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, & Jefferson). Rick Santorum dropped out of the race on April 10. 

The poll found Obama with an approval rating underwater in the seven Denver metro counties, at 45% approve to 47% disapprove, but the real trouble was found in counties that the Obama campaign has been targeting

In Broomfield County, the poll found a shockingly low 25% approval of Obama's job performance. The caveat is that the sample size was probably pretty small for Broomfield, but the same poll also found a 67% approval rating of Governor Hickenlooper in Broomfield. 

The two counties that many observers expect could determine the election are Jefferson and Arapahoe. In Jefferson, Obama's approval rating is 36%, compared to Hick's 65%. In Arapahoe, it's 42% to Hick's 60%. No wonder Hick has refused to formally endorse Obama.

That JeffCo number has got to lift the spirits of Joe Coors Jr's campaign, as the heart of CD7 is in JeffCo, while stirring up some heartburn at Obama HQ in Chicago. 

This poll is also bad news for all the down-ticket Democrat legislative candidates running in these key counties. With Obama so widely despised in JeffCo and Broomfield, Democrats like Diane Primavera, Max Tyler, Andy Kerr, and Brittany Pettersen have reason to worry. And no, Brittany, your community organizing background won’t help you overcome a down-ticket drag this big.  

Ciruli Associates found Obama getting 44% of the metro area vote in a head-to-head match up with Romney, down from the 61% he received in the metro area against John McCain. Romney was only at 30% in the metro area, with 17% choosing "other" and 5% saying "don't know." As the poll only had 67% GOPers supporting Romney, his total is guaranteed to rise once the party coalesces around him as the nominee.

At this point in the race, most observers agree that the President's approval rating is a better predictor than head-to-head matchups as swing voters still know very little about Romney. While the political junkies who read this blog know plenty about him, the voters who decide elections have yet to fully tune in. 

As Obama gets virtually the same support in a match up with Romney as his approval rating, the approval rating seems to be a good indicator of his true support. 

It should also be noted that with an approval rating of only 45% in the metro area, Obama's approval rating is guaranteed to be lower statewide, where the balance of Republicans and Democrats is more even. Possibly even lower than the 39% the last Ciruli Associates poll found last December.

What's clear from this poll is Obama is in big trouble where it counts and Romney has some work to do shoring up Republican support and conveying his message to swing voters. 


Finding Voter Fraud: 8 Suspect Counties In Colorado

By Peak News Contributor Dave Diepenbrock

We know how easy it is to commit voter fraud in Colorado. Here are some questions for thought:  

Where is voter fraud more likely to occur?  

Uncovering voter fraud starts with finding names on voter lists who are no longer around. To narrow the search, look at counties with high ratios of inactive voters to active voters.

Eight counties stand out:
San Miguel

The ratio (that is, the number of inactive voters divided by the number of active voters, county-by-county) creates a percentage that is more than one standard deviation above the average ratio. They are led by Summit where the inactive voter ratio is 96.7%. The statewide ratio is 60.6%.  

These counties' voter lists have so many inactives because these counties, since 2008, have transferred many more voters OFF their active voter lists than elsewhere in Colorado.  

Why the loss of so many active voters since 2008? When you vote, you stay an active voter. If you don't, you generally become inactive. Youth and mobility decrease voting; income and educational attainment increase voting. Census data show no common socioeconomic conditions among these eight counties. Household income ranges from $45k to $65k; the under-25 age group ranges from under 5% to over 17% of total population; college degree holders range from 20% to nearly 50%; the likelihood they will move ranges from 21% to 47%. Cluster analysis, combining all these factors, fails to group these counties together. None of these factors can statistically explain the large decline in active voters in these counties.  

Add another point. If 2010's turnout (measured against adult population in these eight counties) had matched turnout in the rest of the state, this group of counties would still have experienced an anomalous loss of active voters. The genesis of this abnormal “inactive to active” ratio happened in 2008 (not in 2010's customary lower turnout).  

So, these counties either lost active voters because, disproportionately, these voters don't care about elections OR because they were non-existent persons or already vanished voters back in 2008.  

What changes in election law and practice could reduce voter fraud?  

Every county on the list above has more active Democrats than Republicans and voted for both Obama and Bennet. Being Democratic-leaning is what unites these eight counties.  

Colorado politics changed because of an influx of Soros-type money and Acorn-type activities between 2000 and 2008. Adjusting for changes in adult populations, these counties saw turnout growth of 28.1%. The rest of the state's turnout grew a more modest 17.7%. Looking only at this growth, we could give Democrats an attaboy for their turnout hustle. But when we add in the very large subsequent drop in active registrations in these eight counties, we can reasonably ask, “Was it better turnout … or fraudulent voting?” (Our system, sadly, doesn't detect probable fraud until many months later.)  

Fixing Our Problem  

  1. By law treat government-issued photo IDs and other identification methods differently. Show a drivers license or passport, and you're golden. Offer another ID, and your ballot is provisional (and will be counted once verified). Explain to these provisional voters how provisional ballots are handled.
  2. Clean our voter lists; give election officers adequate funding. (Indiana compares voters to Indiana drivers and, for the final four Social Security number digits, to that database as well.) Treat each voter whose address of registration doesn't match the Postal Service's national change of address database as provisional, unless the voter shows a government-issued photo ID.
  3. Use signature verification software for all ballots in Colorado. Require a uniform statewide verification standard that creates a mandatory level of questionable ballots – and publicize the standard, the actual performance by county and legislative district and the demographics of non-verified signatures.  

No righteous voter has a burden here. Most Colorado voters won't even see these changes – except when writing drivers license numbers on mail-in ballot envelopes. Every voter can still vote.  

Note on statistics: All these darned facts come from an analysis of voter file numbers and previous election reports (Secretary of State) or US Census/Colorado State Demographer numbers. I created databases to look for similar sized shifts away from active voters in other years; nothing matched the massive shift post-2008. Prior years' information, whether election turnouts going back to 1996 or active and inactive voter numbers going back before the 2004 election do not diminish this dominating event.

© 2011-2013 Colorado Peak Politics