Would Mark Udall have won if...

[Miles]

The CIA torture report was released in September/October instead of after the election? Given how he was within 2%, I'm not sure. It would have given him more reason to campaign on civil liberties, but knowing his campaign, they might not have done that much to capitalize on it. 

[Lief 🗽]

Eh, maybe it would have given him more visibility, which would have helped. But basically no one casts their votes based on civil liberties issues. The Udall campaign message tested his stances against the NSA and everything and it never did all that well.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If it were to make him not have an abortion-centered campaign, yes.

[Lief 🗽]

If it were to make him not have an abortion-centered campaign, yes.

Every time they turned down the war on women ads, their poll numbers dropped.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If it were to make him not have an abortion-centered campaign, yes.

Every time they turned down the war on women ads, their poll numbers dropped.

I know that the udall campaign said that, but the fact is that you have to campaign on more than one issue in today's environment. Had Udall campaigned not only on abortion, but also looked to other issues from time to time, he would have gotten the Denver post endorsement and co/national democrats wouldn't have went around heckling him  all the time. Instead, Udall campaigned on abortion essentially 100% of the time, which is why he lost.

[DrScholl]

Considering that he only lost by 2%, I'd say the women's health centered campaign work. His problem was that he didn't do anything to bolster his Hispanic numbers.

[Keystone Phil]

So how is it good when someone bases their campaign solely on X and "only loses by 2%" when they were supposed to win from the beginning? It's still a major blunder on his part.

[7,052,770]

If it were to make him not have an abortion-centered campaign, yes.

"Personhood" is not abortion. Why is this so hard for some of you?

If "Personhood" were merely an abortion ban, it wouldn't be such a fringe position that loses landslides in Mississippi.

[coloradocowboi]

Considering that he only lost by 2%, I'd say the women's health centered campaign work. His problem was that he didn't do anything to bolster his Hispanic numbers.

This is simplistic. The CDP made it very hard for anyone other than Denver liberals to vote for Udall and most of the D ticket. Even Hickenlooper did poorly in Pueblo and Adams, where working-class whites, Hispanos (who are different from Latinos in important ways), and farmers usually are Dem friendly. The Democrats blew it. Udall's internal polling showed him dropping with women, but his polls were flawed because they also showed him blowing Cory Gardner out of the water in Adamsco, where he barely won.

To answer the original question, no. Dems lost in CO because they only appealed to the bourgeois, Highlands, latte-drinking crowd and left a lot of working class people wondering what they had to gain.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's important to note that Beauprez and Gardner were roughly equal in terms of candidate quality. Why did Beauprez lose then? Because Hickenlooper campaigned on multiple issues.

[Maxwell]

It's important to note that Beauprez and Gardner were roughly equal in terms of candidate quality. Why did Beauprez lose then? Because Hickenlooper campaigned on multiple issues.

That's not at all true. Beauprez, though a solid debater, didn't moderate at all in the general election. Meanwhile, Gardner gave up personhood.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It's important to note that Beauprez and Gardner were roughly equal in terms of candidate quality. Why did Beauprez lose then? Because Hickenlooper campaigned on multiple issues.

Beauprez had a 47% moment of his own

It's also important to note that Beauprez's campaign was virtually broke too, especially down the stretch.

Was unaware of those. Point taken.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Delays in Keystone and Immigration reform wasn't a smart move by Obama, in states like AK, CO and NC, states in which we should of won.  The public deserved to know where the Democrats stood on these issues, and yes Torture could of turned these races in the Democratic favor along with putting them on record with the other two issues.

[IceSpear]

Only if something about Republicans banning condoms was released in the reports.

[Mister Mets]

It would have got him good press, and reminded voters in a slightly more libertarian state of the things that make him unique.

He probably should have run more on opposition to the security state, although Reid's strategy of doing nothing while the campaign was on wouldn't help with that.

[Kraxner]

It's important to note that Beauprez and Gardner were roughly equal in terms of candidate quality. Why did Beauprez lose then? Because Hickenlooper campaigned on multiple issues.

Hickenlooper got credit for an economic recovery in the state.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CONA


Had it not been for the GOP wave and gun control he would of gotten 10% instead of a 3% margin. He actually increased his votes compared to 2010, by almost 100k votes.

Also he apologized on gun control and even sang with the banjo(à-vis bill clinton playing the sax in 1992) to try to lure rural coloradans back or at least make them less angry at him and it worked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeT86_e89yU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT5lGkh96IE


Also i bet just having the last name Hickenlooper, helped despite the headwinds against him.

Delays in Keystone and Immigration reform wasn't a smart move by Obama, in states like AK, CO and NC, states in which we should of won.  The public deserved to know where the Democrats stood on these issues, and yes Torture could of turned these races in the Democratic favor along with putting them on record with the other two issues.

If Obama approved Keystone then the races in those three states would of been leaning more democrat, however amnesty i doubt it. If Obama announced amnesty before the election the democrats would of been even more trounced.

[Skill and Chance]

It's important to note that Beauprez and Gardner were roughly equal in terms of candidate quality. Why did Beauprez lose then? Because Hickenlooper campaigned on multiple issues.

Hickenlooper got credit for an economic recovery in the state.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CONA


Had it not been for the GOP wave and gun control he would of gotten 10% instead of a 3% margin. He actually increased his votes compared to 2010, by almost 100k votes.

Also he apologized on gun control and even sang with the banjo(à-vis bill clinton playing the sax in 1992) to try to lure rural coloradans back or at least make them less angry at him and it worked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeT86_e89yU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT5lGkh96IE


Also i bet just having the last name Hickenlooper, helped despite the headwinds against him.

Delays in Keystone and Immigration reform wasn't a smart move by Obama, in states like AK, CO and NC, states in which we should of won.  The public deserved to know where the Democrats stood on these issues, and yes Torture could of turned these races in the Democratic favor along with putting them on record with the other two issues.

If Obama approved Keystone then the races in those three states would of been leaning more democrat, however amnesty i doubt it. If Obama announced amnesty before the election the democrats would of been even more trounced.

I agree on AK and probably NC, but I think you are seriously misreading CO.  The swing voters in CO are economic libertarians who strongly support liberal social issues, including the environment.  And the Dem base in CO is as environmentalist as the San Francisco area, while Hispanic turnout was disproportionately low.  So I think if anything, doing the amnesty EO and rejecting Keystone prior to the election might have saved Udall and probably helped Warner and Shaheen win bigger.  Yes, the Romney state Democrats would have lost worse, but the close races were all in diverse/environmentalist states.

[Kraxner]

It's important to note that Beauprez and Gardner were roughly equal in terms of candidate quality. Why did Beauprez lose then? Because Hickenlooper campaigned on multiple issues.

Hickenlooper got credit for an economic recovery in the state.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CONA


Had it not been for the GOP wave and gun control he would of gotten 10% instead of a 3% margin. He actually increased his votes compared to 2010, by almost 100k votes.

Also he apologized on gun control and even sang with the banjo(à-vis bill clinton playing the sax in 1992) to try to lure rural coloradans back or at least make them less angry at him and it worked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeT86_e89yU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT5lGkh96IE


Also i bet just having the last name Hickenlooper, helped despite the headwinds against him.

Delays in Keystone and Immigration reform wasn't a smart move by Obama, in states like AK, CO and NC, states in which we should of won.  The public deserved to know where the Democrats stood on these issues, and yes Torture could of turned these races in the Democratic favor along with putting them on record with the other two issues.

If Obama approved Keystone then the races in those three states would of been leaning more democrat, however amnesty i doubt it. If Obama announced amnesty before the election the democrats would of been even more trounced.

I agree on AK and probably NC, but I think you are seriously misreading CO.  The swing voters in CO are economic libertarians who strongly support liberal social issues, including the environment.  And the Dem base in CO is as environmentalist as the San Francisco area, while Hispanic turnout was disproportionately low.  So I think if anything, doing the amnesty EO and rejecting Keystone prior to the election might have saved Udall and probably helped Warner and Shaheen win bigger.  Yes, the Romney state Democrats would have lost worse, but the close races were all in diverse/environmentalist states.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/CO/senate#exit-polls


16% of voters in colorado's senate race had illegal immigration as the top issues on their mind and they went 2 to 1 for Cory Gardner. If obama did amnesty before the election its likely that Cory Gardner would of won even bigger. Higher hispanic turnout would not been enough to save udall from a backlash coming from Obama's executive amnesty.

[coloradocowboi]

16% of voters in colorado's senate race had illegal immigration as the top issues on their mind and they went 2 to 1 for Cory Gardner. If obama did amnesty before the election its likely that Cory Gardner would of won even bigger. Higher hispanic turnout would not been enough to save udall from a backlash coming from Obama's executive amnesty.

Okay, #1 stop calling it amnesty. It's a reprieve. These people could still be deported three years down the road. #2 You're wrong again on Gardner winning bigger. He A. misrepresented his views and came out in favor of comp. immigration reform to appear more more moderate and B. benefitted from lower Latino turnout. Obama's EO would have turned out Latinos and would have pushed the numbers you are referencing down. This isn't a Dem. wish, this is true. Go ask Floyd Ciruli or pretty much any other CO political analyst. Dems fcked up with the Latino vote.

It's important to note that Beauprez and Gardner were roughly equal in terms of candidate quality. Why did Beauprez lose then? Because Hickenlooper campaigned on multiple issues.

It's also important to note that Beauprez's campaign was virtually broke too, especially down the stretch.

Was unaware of those. Point taken.

Beauprez is insane. He also politicized the death of the head of the DEpt. of Correction--a Democrat whose wife supported Hick--and took part in Ebola scaremongering. Over the years, he's tacked hard to the right. He could never have won. This also speaks to the problems with the GOP bench in CO. Nobody who is charismatic is moderate enough to win (except the new and completely fake Cory Gardener) and everybody who is charismatic enough to win is a Tea-Partier. They are toast in the long run.

I agree on AK and probably NC, but I think you are seriously misreading CO.  The swing voters in CO are economic libertarians who strongly support liberal social issues, including the environment.  And the Dem base in CO is as environmentalist as the San Francisco area, while Hispanic turnout was disproportionately low.  So I think if anything, doing the amnesty EO and rejecting Keystone prior to the election might have saved Udall and probably helped Warner and Shaheen win bigger.  Yes, the Romney state Democrats would have lost worse, but the close races were all in diverse/environmentalist states.

Polls taken before they were taken off the table showed two anti-fracking measures winning by double digits statewide. Colorado is very environmentalist. Republicans maybe not as much, but the independents here don't like pollution. Case and point: Wealth and conservative Broomfield voted in a fracking ban on an off-year election.

[Kraxner]

Okay, #1 stop calling it amnesty. It's a reprieve. These people could still be deported three years down the road. #2 You're wrong again on Gardner winning bigger. He A. misrepresented his views and came out in favor of comp. immigration reform to appear more more moderate and B. benefitted from lower Latino turnout. Obama's EO would have turned out Latinos and would have pushed the numbers you are referencing down. This isn't a Dem. wish, this is true. Go ask Floyd Ciruli or pretty much any other CO political analyst. Dems fcked up with the Latino vote.

[Lief 🗽]

Udall would have won if Obama did his executive order before the election. That's obvious.

[coloradocowboi]

Okay, #1 stop calling it amnesty. It's a reprieve. These people could still be deported three years down the road. #2 You're wrong again on Gardner winning bigger. He A. misrepresented his views and came out in favor of comp. immigration reform to appear more more moderate and B. benefitted from lower Latino turnout. Obama's EO would have turned out Latinos and would have pushed the numbers you are referencing down. This isn't a Dem. wish, this is true. Go ask Floyd Ciruli or pretty much any other CO political analyst. Dems fcked up with the Latino vote.

Umm look at the way that question is framed. You might as well have asked, "do you support the President declaring himself emperor and allowing criminals into the country?"

I can't post links until I get more posts. But, almost every survey ever done in CO since 2008 shows huge support for comprehensive immigration reform. If you don't believe it, tell me why Romney got pulverized with Latinos here.

[Vosem]

I'm not sure Democrats see that immigration reform is one of those issues where one side (the anti side) is significantly more passionate than the other (the pro side). Obama didn't issue the executive order until after the election to avoid increasing the anti-reform turnout; if he had issued it, Gardner would probably have won by 4-5 points or so.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is smarter than coloradocowboi.

[coloradocowboi]

I'm not sure Democrats see that immigration reform is one of those issues where one side (the anti side) is significantly more passionate than the other (the pro side). Obama didn't issue the executive order until after the election to avoid increasing the anti-reform turnout; if he had issued it, Gardner would probably have won by 4-5 points or so.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is smarter than coloradocowboi.

Wow, you're cool for making ad hominem attacks on a nerdy election forum.

But, no that's simply untrue. Latino turnout was down and "anti-reform" turnout, i.e. racists, did turn out with the rest of the Tea-Party whack jobs for Cory Gardner, which is why the percentage of people in exit polls who said they were anti-reform was higher in 2014 than statewide opinion polls.

If Palacio and the CDP are so smart, why did they blow a bunch of easily winnable races this year and lose counties--heavily Latino counties, I might add--that they normally win handily?

[Vosem]

I'm not sure Democrats see that immigration reform is one of those issues where one side (the anti side) is significantly more passionate than the other (the pro side). Obama didn't issue the executive order until after the election to avoid increasing the anti-reform turnout; if he had issued it, Gardner would probably have won by 4-5 points or so.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership is smarter than coloradocowboi.

Wow, you're cool for making ad hominem attacks on a nerdy election forum.

Well, being very confident and smug about your viewpoints won't win you too many friends among people who disagree. I should know

But, no that's simply untrue. Latino turnout was down and "anti-reform" turnout, i.e. racists, did turn out with the rest of the Tea-Party whack jobs for Cory Gardner, which is why the percentage of people in exit polls who said they were anti-reform was higher in 2014 than statewide opinion polls.

You're backing up what I said here, albeit in disapproving language -- the anti-immigration side turned out more, because they are more passionate, which goes to show that issuing an Executive Order on immigration is an electoral loser, which is why it was done as far as possible away from an election (2 years before the next one), as opposed to immediately before an election when it would've cost Democrats.

If Palacio and the CDP are so smart, why did they blow a bunch of easily winnable races this year and lose counties--heavily Latino counties, I might add--that they normally win handily?

Palacio and the CDP might not be, but Obama is (actually, I don't know if he's "so smart", but he's certainly smart enough to figure what the electoral effects of his Executive Order would be).