Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Unaffiliateds favor Udall, poll shows

By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact), Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

Published October 26, 2008 at 10 p.m.

Text size  

Related Links

Related Stories

More Elections

More stories »

Nearly two-thirds of Colorado's crucial unaffiliated voters prefer Mark Udall over Bob Schaffer, giving the Democratic congressman a double-digit lead in the U.S. Senate race.

And more than half the voters said they believe Udall is more in touch with the concerns of average Colorado families, according to the latest Rocky Mountain News/CBS4 poll.

Labeling Udall a "Boulder liberal" didn't have the effect Republicans had hoped, said the pollsters, Lori Weigel and Rick Ridder.

"Liberal is not a dirty word anymore," Weigel said.

"It's the Year of the Liberal," Ridder added.

Udall leads Schaffer 51 percent to 38 percent — a 13-point difference. Only 5 percent of voters were undecided.

The poll findings are based on statewide telephone interviews with 500 registered voters last Tuesday through Thursday. The margin of error is 4.38 percent.

Schaffer's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, said their internal polling shows the candidates closer, but he declined to release figures.

Ridder and Weigel said Udall's folksy ads, with Colorado's outdoors usually serving as the backdrop, oozed a Western theme that resonated with voters.

"He looks like the type of person you want in Washington, who's all collected and can handle anything and is going to take the economic crisis and try to work together," Weigel said.

Udall's "calm, cool, collected and conciliatory" approach is much like Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's, she said.

In fact, Udall fared better among unaffiliated voters than Obama. Udall got 62 percent, compared with Obama's 58 percent.

Schaffer, a former congressman from Fort Collins, got only 20 percent of the unaffiliateds, a crucial bloc given that the state is almost evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliated voters.

Among the unaffiliated voters backing Udall is Jim Grant, a 42-year-old compliance analyst from Parker.

"I just have a bad feeling about Schaffer," he said. "And what I know about Udall is he's championed environmental causes, which is important to me."

Grant described himself as someone who tends to "be all over the place" when it comes to choosing candidates.

Environmental responsibility is important to him, but he said he also wants the government to stay out of the way and to let the free market work.

Schaffer wins the support of 79 percent of Republicans, compared with Udall's 85 percent backing from Democrats, the poll shows.

And Udall leads among all age groups, with his strongest showing in the 35-44 range, where he's ahead 55 percent to 39 percent.

Udall wins the gender battle, too. Forty-seven percent of male voters support him, while 43 percent back Schaffer.

Among women, the support is more dramatic: 55 percent to 32 percent.

Schaffer is leading on the eastern plains he once represented in Congress but only 47 percent to 45 percent. In the Colorado Springs and Pueblo region, he's ahead at 43 percent to 39 percent.

Udall is smothering Schaffer elsewhere.

In Arapahoe, Douglas and Jefferson counties, Udall is beating Schaffer 54 percent to 37 percent. That's nearly identical to the figures from the Western Slope and mountain counties, 54 percent to 38 percent.

Schaffer's worst performance and Udall's best was in Adams, Boulder and Broomfield counties. Udall received 56 percent of the support, while Schaffer had 25 percent.

Those numbers are close to what is happening in Denver, where Udall got 55 percent to Schaffer's 26 percent.

Comments

  • October 27, 2008

    2:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    windbourne writes:

    The real problem is that Schaffer is just another GD neo-con. I will take a liberal over a neo-con. Neo-cons have shown that they:
    1) are corrupt,
    2) run monster deficits by increasing the size of gov.,
    3) simply shift taxes to the middle class,
    4) While supporting amendment 2, they are busy destroying our other rights,
    5) have few if any, intelligent, let alone new, ideas,
    6) Ignore reality (the fundamentals of the economy are strong),
    7) want to ignore problems by saying that they do not exist even when they are overwhelming the country,
    8) incompetent,

    I am not certain if most Liberals are showing up with new ideas (though Obama has shown this to not be true), and I truly dislike that many's attitudes towards illegals appears to be that they want to ignore it, but at least they get the Balancing budget part. That is what is killing America's economy today.
    Though illegals will kill us long term.

  • October 27, 2008

    4:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SteveC writes:

    Unaffiliateds, is that even a word?

  • October 27, 2008

    7:13 a.m.

    FCZ writes:

    (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

  • October 27, 2008

    8:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Voters may prefer Udall but investors are voting with their dollars. Investors are terrified of Democratic control of government. As an investor, I am terrified also. If investors had confidence in the Democrats, we would not be seeing the panic selling. Here is my list of terrible policies for investors:

    - Card check: this non democratic policy will allow labor bosses to intimidate workers into signing union cards. This bill will lead to lots more unionized companies. The results will be less productivity, higher prices, and lower employment. Employers with a choice will move work to right to work states and other countries to avoid union thuggery.

    - High taxes on successful investors and entrepreneurs: Democrats have talked about a very large tax increase (capital gains, dividends, income, and payroll taxes) on the most successful investors and entrepreneurs. These talented individuals will choose to invest in municipal bonds and other tax preferred areas because they do not perceive adequate reward for more risky investments. Many successful investors and entrepreneurs will move investments to other more attractvie countries.

    -New payroll taxes on business: nationalized health care will add a crushing new payroll tax. Many employers will reduce hiring to cope with the higher cost of employment. Democrats are also floating the idea about removing 401K tax preferences and replacing 401ks with a modified form of social security.

    - New labor laws and regulations: Democrats favor comparable worth, racial quotas, and other labor laws restricting labor markets.

    - Litigation: Democrats want to relax rules about litigation and provide new tax breaks for trial lawyers so that litigation is more profitable.

    - CO2 regulation: Democrats favor a huge expansion of environment laws to cover almost every industrial activity. CO2 limits (direct tax or cap and trade) will cause a massive movement of jobs to countries without such restrictions.

    - Energy source mandates: Democrats favor mandates on preferred energy sources (renewables). These mandates will substitute non economically energy sources for economically viable energy sources. We will see much higher energy prices, energy shortages, and energy rationing. In addition, we will see continuing reductions in domestic production of oil, natural gas, oil refineries, and nuclear power.

    Mark Udall endorses all of the Democratic policies. Bob Schaffer supports investor friendly policies that will lead to economic growth, not a depression. A vote for Democrats is a vote for the end of prosperity. Do not be fooled by Democrats talk of a free lunch. Democrats are trying to sell the idea that large tax increases, large regulatory increases, large litigation increases, and energy mandates will lead to prosperity. Investors do not agree no matter what snake oil the Democrats try to sell.

  • October 27, 2008

    10:15 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    mmanino: "Bob Schaffer supports investor friendly policies that will lead to economic growth, not a depression. A vote for Democrats is a vote for the end of prosperity."

    I find that how an employer treats his own employees is a good reflection of his concern or lack of concern for his fellow American citizens.

    Recently, Bob Schaffer was interviewed on Colorado Public Radio, where he discussed his tenure as a state legislator.

    He bragged about paying his aides far less than other congressional aides were paid, while expecting them to work twice as hard.

    He made this boast in the context of trying to save Colorado taxpayers' money. He said nothing about taking a lower salary for himself.

    He's just another stingy rightwing privateer who cares little about seeing the working classes prosper. He is only concerned with helping the already wealthy continue to prosper.

    Let us also not forget his glowing reports of the bleak sweatshop conditions in the Marianas Islands. And his praise for the industrialists who reaped the profits from paying dirtcheap wages while keeping their laborers housed in cramped and hot trailers.

    You shall know them by their fruits, etc.

  • October 27, 2008

    10:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    mmannino writes: "Voters may prefer Udall but investors are voting with their dollars. Investors are terrified of Democratic control of government. As an investor, I am terrified also. If investors had confidence in the Democrats, we would not be seeing the panic selling."

    Ah, so that is why the stock market is tumbling? Not because of the inevitable bursting of the credit bubble and it's subsequent domino effect?

    If you are indeed an investor, you do not seem terribly informed about the financial markets. Perhaps you should be more concerned about your fundamental lack of understanding of the markets you've chosen to invest in.

  • October 27, 2008

    10:56 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    Schaffer does not come across very well. He seems like an angry guy who wouldn't work well with others. He almost seems pouty to me and I think he would be really obnoxious in person

  • October 27, 2008

    11:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    mytwosense,

    I am an investor with a far greater understanding of investing than you. Investors are certainly reacting to credit market problems. The panic is due to the coming Democratic control of government. There has been an enormous involvement to stabilize the credit market. Investors do not have confidence about likely Democratic control. If the Democrats do not back down from their anti investor policies, we will be in a depression. Many companies have indicated they will reduce hiring in response to proposed Democratic policies. It is easy to see the Democrat future. The future is Old Europe+. Old Europe has structural unemployment and low growth. New Europe with lower taxes and more economic freedom is trying to push Old Europe. The Democrats are proposing something much worse than Old Europe.

    Please refute that Democratic proposals (listed in my previous post) will be positive for investors. Democrats want to punish the investor class by favoring workers. The essential problem is that Democrats cannot compel investors to keep investing. If investors do not think they will make a good return based on the level of risk, they will not invest. Millions of investors will withdraw investments from the stock market and bond market. There is nothing that the Democrats can do to stop this stampede unless Democrats back off their Marxist policies.

  • October 27, 2008

    11:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    mmanino: "Democrats want to punish the investor class by favoring workers."

    And that's a sin in your book? The majority of Americans are workers!

    By the way, even under Obama, the investor who makes his living off trading stock in Exxon will still pay a far lower tax rate than the worker toiling on a dangerous offshore oil rig.

    That's hardly favored status for workers. But it's very much favored status for professional investors. Are you so greedy you want an even better deal?

    I would advise you to heed the parable of the little child who got his hand stuck in the cookie jar when he reached for all the cookies at once.

  • October 27, 2008

    11:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    mmanino: "If investors do not think they will make a good return based on the level of risk, they will not invest. Millions of investors will withdraw investments from the stock market and bond market."

    That didn't happen when Ronald Reagan raised the capital gains rate. And it's surely not going to happen if Obama raises it five or so points.

    And even if it was to happen, then there would be another intense round of buy-ins at the newly lower prices according to your theory, which would then subsequently push the value of stocks back up. I assume as someone who supposedly knows the markets you're familiar with the refrain "buy low, sell high."

    All that being said, I personally think we should tax according to how long someone holds an investment, rather than their returns. Tax very high for short-term, speculative investments that have turned the markets into little more than a legal casino. Assess zero taxes for the very longest investments that actually encourage sustained production of useful goods and services.

  • October 27, 2008

    1:09 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Obama's tax rates are a moving target. He has suggested a number of rates. Obviously, small increases to rates will not have as much impact as large increases. The investing climate is very different today than 10 or 20 years ago. Investors are more risk averse today. The same change in tax rates today may have a much larger impact on investor behavior. In addition, Obama and the Democrats have proposed confiscatory tax rates (income and payroll) on the wealthy. The wealthy will have much less money to invest because Obama will confiscate it. However, the wealthy (even most wealthy who vote for Democrats) will resist these confiscatory tax increases by hiring less, producing less, investing less, investing more conservatively, and trying to find tax avoidance schemes.

    Your argument about workers and investors is typical liberal misunderstanding. A fundament tenet of economics is that production precedes consumption. The same principal applies to employment. Investment precedes employment. If you discourage investment, property rights, and risk taking, you will get less employment. The Democrats are proposing to increase the cost of employment through union friendly laws, health insurance mandates, comparable worth legislation, racial preferences, and many other kinds of employment mandates. The impact of these cost increases are clear as old Europe provides strong evidence: higher structural unemployment, higher consumer prices, and much higher levels of government employment. If you have a job in a protected industry, you will do well. If you work in a competitive industry, you may lose your job. Worse, new workers and older workers will have a much harder time.