Talk Elections

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Congressional Elections => Topic started by: CPT MikeyMike on December 30, 2006, 07:00:34 PM



Title: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: CPT MikeyMike on December 30, 2006, 07:00:34 PM
This was actually in the paper today but this article is similar to it...

Hush, Hush & On The QT: John Elway for US Senate?

Now that former Bronco quarterback, John Elway has gone his separate way with the AutoNation Car Dealerships, does that mean he is ready to run for office? And if he does, why not make it the US Senate in 2008?
Elway has been a Republican stalwart for many years, supporting Republican candidates such as Rick O'Donnell, Scott McInnis, Pete Coors, Tom Tancredo, Bob Beauprez and George W. Bush in the tune of thousands of dollars. Plus, Elway has collaborated with Republican get-out-the-vote efforts with robo-calls messages, fundraisers and public appearances. That means there are a lot of political IOU's out there to sustain an Elway run for senate.

In the past, Elway has polled "very positively" with Colorado voters and still has tremendous name recognition throughout the state. With Elway on top of a statewide ticket in 2008, it certainly would put the Republicans back into play in Colorado politics.

---------------
I hope this happens. I'm not Broncos fan but I would prefer him over Allard.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: KEmperor on December 30, 2006, 07:02:58 PM
Ugh, I can't stand Elway.  I don't care what his politics are, he just rubs me the wrong way.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: RBH on December 30, 2006, 07:17:40 PM
The three worst things a person can be are:

1) A Nazi war criminal
2) A child molester
3) John Elway

As a Chiefs fan, let me add, screw you Elway!


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: CPT MikeyMike on December 30, 2006, 07:20:52 PM
Ugh, I can't stand Elway.  I don't care what his politics are, he just rubs me the wrong way.
You and RBH must be rooting for the same teams!

The three worst things a person can be are:

1) A Nazi war criminal
2) A child molester
3) John Elway

As a Chiefs fan, let me add, screw you Elway!
I would say the same thing if Derek Jeter ran for public office!


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Chancellor Tanterterg on December 31, 2006, 12:30:14 PM
The three worst things a person can be are:

1) A Nazi war criminal
2) A child molester
3) John Elway

As a Chiefs fan, let me add, screw you Elway!

What about Bin Laden

;D


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: nini2287 on December 31, 2006, 12:50:10 PM
Didn't the draw Beauperez's district to be favorable if Elway ran for Congress?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: TheresNoMoney on December 31, 2006, 12:52:42 PM
This guy's mug is all over the TV in Denver. He's constantly hawking his car dealerships nonstop in TV commercials.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: minionofmidas on December 31, 2006, 01:36:15 PM
The three worst things a person can be are:

1) A Nazi war criminal
2) A child molester
3) John Elway

As a Chiefs fan, let me add, screw you Elway!

What about Bin Laden

;D
Bin Laden is John Elway, silly.

;D


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 31, 2006, 04:16:16 PM
Didn't the draw Beauperez's district to be favorable if Elway ran for Congress?

It was drawn by a court, so I highly doubt it.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on January 02, 2007, 03:59:45 AM
He'd probably turn into another Steve Largent (R-OK) or Lynn Swann (R-PA)


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: adam on January 02, 2007, 04:59:05 PM
Cute...

I was never an Elway fan. As far as I am concerned, he will always be that horse-faced Jackass who played for a team that I hated.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Adlai Stevenson on January 02, 2007, 05:24:55 PM
Suddenly everyone's a politician.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: RBH on January 02, 2007, 06:12:24 PM
Did you know that John Elway sacrificed house pets to the devil in order to help his performance in big games?

Granted, I haven't checked the sources on that. :D


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 02, 2007, 09:11:37 PM
Did you know that John Elway sacrificed house pets to the devil in order to help his performance in big games?

Granted, I haven't checked the sources on that. :D

Then you have quite a future in political advertising. ;)


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: WalterMitty on January 03, 2007, 11:00:39 AM
does anyone here remember when richard petty ran for sec of state in nc?  lol.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: JSojourner on January 04, 2007, 12:31:28 AM
Did you know that John Elway sacrificed house pets to the devil in order to help his performance in big games?

Granted, I haven't checked the sources on that. :D

I'm sure you can find a source somewhere.  World Net Daily, Newsmax and Fox are good places to start.  But they'll probably like Elway...


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: The Man From G.O.P. on April 12, 2007, 07:57:04 PM
He would win


He should run


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 12, 2007, 08:03:29 PM

He's already ruled it out.  They're looking at him for governor or senate in 2010.  That might be an even bigger election here in Colorado.  2004 was split results.  2006 was a major win for Dems.  2008 may, like 2004, be mixed.  2010 could be a real signpost year for Colorado.  The GOP will really be bringing the heat and it may be with the help of Elway. 

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: CPT MikeyMike on April 12, 2007, 08:09:36 PM
Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

If Udall wins in '08, it will be a VERY close margin. I think he is favored but don't expect him to get no more than 51-52% of the vote.

BTW Rawlings: What part of CO are you from? I lived in the Springs until Feb of this year.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Verily on April 12, 2007, 08:32:38 PM

He's already ruled it out.  They're looking at him for governor or senate in 2010.  That might be an even bigger election here in Colorado.  2004 was split results.  2006 was a major win for Dems.  2008 may, like 2004, be mixed.  2010 could be a real signpost year for Colorado.  The GOP will really be bringing the heat and it may be with the help of Elway. 

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

Wait... 2004 produced mixed results? I seem to recall the Democrats winning control of both chambers of the state legislature, gaining a House seat and the Senate seat, and netting a larger percentage of the vote in the Presidential race than any election since 1964.

Talk about rose-tinted glasses.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Aizen on April 12, 2007, 08:33:29 PM
Yeah, John Elway already ruled out running. If he actually did run, he'd slaughter anyone who dared to run against him.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 12, 2007, 08:35:09 PM

He's already ruled it out.  They're looking at him for governor or senate in 2010.  That might be an even bigger election here in Colorado.  2004 was split results.  2006 was a major win for Dems.  2008 may, like 2004, be mixed.  2010 could be a real signpost year for Colorado.  The GOP will really be bringing the heat and it may be with the help of Elway. 

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

Wait... 2004 produced mixed results? I seem to recall the Democrats winning control of both chambers of the state legislature, gaining a House seat and the Senate seat, and netting a larger percentage of the vote in the Presidential race than any election since 1964.

Talk about rose-tinted lenses.

Bush won the state.  That was the gold standard.  The state GOP simply got blindsided by the Dems' work in the various legislative districts.  Most people thought Coors was in trouble but nobody knew how bad it really was at the local level.  So they used their resources and energy on keeping Colorado red for Bush.  That worked but it started the roll down the hill that's gotten us to where we are today.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Verily on April 12, 2007, 08:38:20 PM

He's already ruled it out.  They're looking at him for governor or senate in 2010.  That might be an even bigger election here in Colorado.  2004 was split results.  2006 was a major win for Dems.  2008 may, like 2004, be mixed.  2010 could be a real signpost year for Colorado.  The GOP will really be bringing the heat and it may be with the help of Elway. 

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

Wait... 2004 produced mixed results? I seem to recall the Democrats winning control of both chambers of the state legislature, gaining a House seat and the Senate seat, and netting a larger percentage of the vote in the Presidential race than any election since 1964.

Talk about rose-tinted lenses.

Bush won the state.  That was the gold standard.  The state GOP simply got blindsided by the Dems' work in the various legislative districts.  Most people thought Coors was in trouble but nobody knew how bad it really was at the local level.  So they used their resources and energy on keeping Colorado red for Bush.  That worked but it started the roll down the hill that's gotten us to where we are today.

You seem to have missed that, despite "[them using] their resources and energy on keeping Colorado red for Bush," Kerry put on a stronger performance in Colorado than any Democrat since Johnson. Then think that they must have invested those same resources in 2006 in the House and state-level races and got basically the same results as 2004, losing the Governor's mansion, more seats in the state legislature and another House seat.

You, my friend, have a delusional view of your state's politics.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rob on April 12, 2007, 08:47:03 PM
The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

This is revisionist silliness. Coors was universally acknowledged as the stronger candidate of the two; even in 2004, it was recognized that Schaffer's shrill brand of conservatism doesn't play well beyond Colorado Springs and the eastern plains.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 12, 2007, 08:52:49 PM
Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

If Udall wins in '08, it will be a VERY close margin. I think he is favored but don't expect him to get no more than 51-52% of the vote.

BTW Rawlings: What part of CO are you from? I lived in the Springs until Feb of this year.

I agree 100% with you.  I voted Schaffer in the primary.  That spiff was obviously the beginning of the fall of the mighty GOP in Colorado.  We're just fine when all our ducks are in a row and we're united.  But the last few years there has been downright fratricide.

I thank God that Schaffer wont' get primaried next year.  Dick Wadhams pushed McInnis out of the race leaving it open for Schaffer.  That's huge.  If either Udall or Schaffer win I'm with you--it won't be by any more than what Salazar beat Coors by.  Fortunately Udall isn't Salazar and Schaffer isn't Coors.

I'm in littleton/lakewood in the sw 'burbs of Denver.  Beautiful city. 

Though I've travelled extensively I've never gotten down to Oklahoma yet.  What are the big differences you see between the two states?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Mr.Phips on April 12, 2007, 09:21:38 PM

He's already ruled it out.  They're looking at him for governor or senate in 2010.  That might be an even bigger election here in Colorado.  2004 was split results.  2006 was a major win for Dems.  2008 may, like 2004, be mixed.  2010 could be a real signpost year for Colorado.  The GOP will really be bringing the heat and it may be with the help of Elway. 

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

Wait... 2004 produced mixed results? I seem to recall the Democrats winning control of both chambers of the state legislature, gaining a House seat and the Senate seat, and netting a larger percentage of the vote in the Presidential race than any election since 1964.

Talk about rose-tinted glasses.

The results were mixed if you count the Republicans holding on CO-07, which is a blue district.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Adlai Stevenson on April 13, 2007, 03:00:41 AM
Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

If Udall wins in '08, it will be a VERY close margin. I think he is favored but don't expect him to get no more than 51-52% of the vote.

BTW Rawlings: What part of CO are you from? I lived in the Springs until Feb of this year.

I agree 100% with you.  I voted Schaffer in the primary.  That spiff was obviously the beginning of the fall of the mighty GOP in Colorado.  We're just fine when all our ducks are in a row and we're united.  But the last few years there has been downright fratricide.

I thank God that Schaffer wont' get primaried next year.  Dick Wadhams pushed McInnis out of the race leaving it open for Schaffer.  That's huge.  If either Udall or Schaffer win I'm with you--it won't be by any more than what Salazar beat Coors by.  Fortunately Udall isn't Salazar and Schaffer isn't Coors.

I'm in littleton/lakewood in the sw 'burbs of Denver.  Beautiful city. 

Though I've travelled extensively I've never gotten down to Oklahoma yet.  What are the big differences you see between the two states?

Is there not still a chance that Attorney General John Suthers could run?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: HardRCafé on April 13, 2007, 07:51:51 AM
The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

I agree with the first part, if not the second part.  It will be nice to get to see how Schaffer does in a general election.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 13, 2007, 08:46:07 AM
Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

The biggest mistake CO Republicans did was to electe Pete Coors instead of Schaffer in the '04 primary. I bet you Schaffer would have beaten Salazar.

If Udall wins in '08, it will be a VERY close margin. I think he is favored but don't expect him to get no more than 51-52% of the vote.

BTW Rawlings: What part of CO are you from? I lived in the Springs until Feb of this year.

I agree 100% with you.  I voted Schaffer in the primary.  That spiff was obviously the beginning of the fall of the mighty GOP in Colorado.  We're just fine when all our ducks are in a row and we're united.  But the last few years there has been downright fratricide.

I thank God that Schaffer wont' get primaried next year.  Dick Wadhams pushed McInnis out of the race leaving it open for Schaffer.  That's huge.  If either Udall or Schaffer win I'm with you--it won't be by any more than what Salazar beat Coors by.  Fortunately Udall isn't Salazar and Schaffer isn't Coors.

I'm in littleton/lakewood in the sw 'burbs of Denver.  Beautiful city. 

Though I've travelled extensively I've never gotten down to Oklahoma yet.  What are the big differences you see between the two states?

Is there not still a chance that Attorney General John Suthers could run?

Suther announced a month ago that he was 'talking to folks in Washington' about running.  Nobody really knows whether or not he was serious.

Everybody in the state--except for GOP leaders--thought Scott McInnis would be the go-to guy.  Problem was that the NRSC was already courting Schaffer and the grassroots was giving a big thumbs down to McInnis.  So Dick Wadhams essentially forced him out laying out what everyone expects to be the senatorial redcarpet for Schaffer.

While everyone I talk to tells me Schaffer is just lining up financial and other support--and I'm pretty sure he's the guy--I do wonder what's taking so long.  It could be that Suthers is seriously thinking of primarying Schaffer.

That would be breathtakingly stupid, of course.  Suthers is a great AG and he would be replaced by a Dem were he to step in for the senate race.  We need as many Republicans in state gov. as possible.  That's why ultimately neither he nor SecState Mike Coffman will give it a go.  I'm not sure that Suthers is all that strong a candidate either.  He is perceived as a little more middle of the road than Schaffer, but his likeability, name recognition, and oratorical skills are far inferior.

Other than John Elway--and maybe not even then--most agree that Schaffer is the best bet.  Bill Owens would be very tough, also.  But Schaffer is a pretty popular guy--though liberals hate the man.  The GOP has been very good this year, so far.  You can tell Dick Wadhams is in da house.  But Schaffer needs to get started now so he can work the state and grassroots before Udall is annointed by the media too early to catch up.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Keystone Phil on April 13, 2007, 10:16:09 AM
Schaffer wouldn't have won in 2004 and won't win in 2008.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: HardRCafé on April 13, 2007, 11:07:57 AM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Keystone Phil on April 13, 2007, 11:12:56 AM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 13, 2007, 11:37:37 AM
Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time.

To be fair, early on in 2005 many Democrats thought the same way about Ohio and Virginia.

Of course, 2008 isn't going to be for the Republicans what 2006 was for the Democrats, so you're probably right.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: HardRCafé on April 13, 2007, 12:03:47 PM
We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

We need +1 to tie, +2 to win.  You do not even allow for that to happen.  That is not playing smart.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 13, 2007, 04:03:47 PM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 13, 2007, 04:20:07 PM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Verily on April 13, 2007, 04:20:19 PM

He's already ruled it out.  They're looking at him for governor or senate in 2010.  That might be an even bigger election here in Colorado.  2004 was split results.  2006 was a major win for Dems.  2008 may, like 2004, be mixed.  2010 could be a real signpost year for Colorado.  The GOP will really be bringing the heat and it may be with the help of Elway. 

Until then we've got Bob Schaffer lined up to give a run at Allard's seat.  Though it seems I'm alone on this site, I'm very optimistic.

Wait... 2004 produced mixed results? I seem to recall the Democrats winning control of both chambers of the state legislature, gaining a House seat and the Senate seat, and netting a larger percentage of the vote in the Presidential race than any election since 1964.

Talk about rose-tinted glasses.

The results were mixed if you count the Republicans holding on CO-07, which is a blue district.

Again, "losing only most of our contested seats" is not "a mixed bag". That's "not quite a catatrosphe". A "mixed bag" would have been the Republicans losing only the Senate seat while they gained a few seats in the State Congress.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 13, 2007, 04:42:52 PM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

Well, you're right.  On this site we color it blue.

But according to my CNN map Colorado is red.  We voted for Bush in '06 that makes us a red state.  Electing a couple of pro-gun, pro-life Democrats to statewide office doesn't make Colorado blue suddenly.  That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

If you knew much about Colorado's political history you'd know that Democrats are no stranger to state office here.  Yet, all along, we remain cranky, stubborn, and conservative.  Democrats can win here if they hug the middle ground tight enough.  Udall cannot do that.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 13, 2007, 04:46:15 PM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

Well, you're right.  On this site we color it blue.

But according to my CNN map Colorado is red.  We voted for Bush in '06 that makes us a red state.  Electing a couple of pro-gun, pro-life Democrats to statewide office doesn't make Colorado blue suddenly.  That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

If you knew much about Colorado's political history you'd know that Democrats are no stranger to state office here.  Yet, all along, we remain cranky, stubborn, and conservative.  Democrats can win here if they hug the middle ground tight enough.  Udall cannot do that.

Again keep in mind to tell the way a state is trending look how its moving relative to the national margin.  in 96 the state was almost 10 points more GOP than the national average, in 04 it was just above 2 points more GOP than the national average.  Thats a drastic change.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: HardRCafé on April 13, 2007, 07:24:02 PM
I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway

We do.

When you're at 49 in the Senate, you can't be too choosy.  Besides, it's not as if he's Chuck Hagel.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Tender Branson on April 14, 2007, 02:35:15 AM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

Well, you're right.  On this site we color it blue.

But according to my CNN map Colorado is red.  We voted for Bush in '06 that makes us a red state.  Electing a couple of pro-gun, pro-life Democrats to statewide office doesn't make Colorado blue suddenly.  That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

If you knew much about Colorado's political history you'd know that Democrats are no stranger to state office here.  Yet, all along, we remain cranky, stubborn, and conservative.  Democrats can win here if they hug the middle ground tight enough.  Udall cannot do that.

Again keep in mind to tell the way a state is trending look how its moving relative to the national margin.  in 96 the state was almost 10 points more GOP than the national average, in 04 it was just above 2 points more GOP than the national average.  Thats a drastic change.

I also think that Udall is favored next year, unless there´s a good Republican candidate. But for now the Dems have the better machine there and I expect a tuff Presidential race there.

Senate:

Udall: 51%
Rep: 46%

President:

Obama: 50%
Giuliani: 48%

I´m eagerly awaiting the first CO Senate and Pres. polls to give us some clues.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Adlai Stevenson on April 14, 2007, 05:36:23 AM
My prediction:

COLORADO SENATE -
Udall (D) 52%
Schaffer (R) 45%


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 14, 2007, 09:51:11 AM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Colorado isn't red anymore.....

Well, you're right.  On this site we color it blue.

But according to my CNN map Colorado is red.  We voted for Bush in '06 that makes us a red state.  Electing a couple of pro-gun, pro-life Democrats to statewide office doesn't make Colorado blue suddenly.  That sounds like a bit of wishful thinking.

If you knew much about Colorado's political history you'd know that Democrats are no stranger to state office here.  Yet, all along, we remain cranky, stubborn, and conservative.  Democrats can win here if they hug the middle ground tight enough.  Udall cannot do that.

Again keep in mind to tell the way a state is trending look how its moving relative to the national margin.  in 96 the state was almost 10 points more GOP than the national average, in 04 it was just above 2 points more GOP than the national average.  Thats a drastic change.

I also think that Udall is favored next year, unless there´s a good Republican candidate. But for now the Dems have the better machine there and I expect a tuff Presidential race there.

Senate:

Udall: 51%
Rep: 46%

President:

Obama: 50%
Giuliani: 48%

I´m eagerly awaiting the first CO Senate and Pres. polls to give us some clues.

Despite recent Democratic gains, Colorado is still a Republican-leaning state.  It leans conservative--though not reliably--and it leans Republican--though not reliably.  Unless the national environment for Republicans is another monstrosity I don't think you can so easily dismiss Bob Schaffer.  Realize that Udall is a Bouldler liberal.  His values are a ways off from most Coloradans and I think he'll have a tough time making a sell to conservative suburban voters that have supported Democrats recently.

For what it's worth...

Schaffer 51
Udall 48

If the national environment is terrible again and our GOP POTUS candidate is trailing...

Udall 51
Schaffer 48


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: DownWithTheLeft on April 14, 2007, 09:54:51 AM
Elway (R) 54%
Udall (D) 44%


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 14, 2007, 10:01:59 AM

Probably.  Except I think he's running for governor in a few years.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Keystone Phil on April 14, 2007, 12:00:52 PM
We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

We need +1 to tie, +2 to win.  You do not even allow for that to happen.  That is not playing smart.

Sometimes we have to realize that we're in a game to minimize damages.



Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Keystone Phil on April 14, 2007, 12:03:17 PM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Uh, yeah, I wish it was that simple to make everything red vs. blue. We have to actually look at the candidates. Incumbents Smith and Sununu are much stronger than Schaffer.




Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 14, 2007, 01:17:37 PM
Well, let's see:  we should give up on Colorado, Iowa, and Montana, and we don't have a credible candidate for Louisiana.  What exactly is the NRSC supposed to do, keep losses to nine and take credit for no Democrat supermajority yet?

Roll over, Republicans.  Don't try or anything.

We can have a credible candidate in Louisiana. Montana, Iowa and Colorado are three big wastes of time. We need to play defense in New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. That's not giving up; it's playing smart.

So you're feeling confident and willing to give resources to Republicans in three very red states--NH, OR, and MN--and you declare three red states--Iowa, CO, and Montana--wastes of time.  That's totally backwards.  I agree that MN and IA are long-shots.  By why are you so quick to put the dagger in Schaffer and Colorado?  It's a red state for God's sake!  I'd say Gordon Smith is a waste of time--who needs him anyway--and New Hampshire is going the way of Massachusetts and fast.  Why not consolidate power where at least it's feasible?  Colorado is a top priority.  As it should be.  You keep red states red before you go trying to purplize blue states.

Uh, yeah, I wish it was that simple to make everything red vs. blue. We have to actually look at the candidates. Incumbents Smith and Sununu are much stronger than Schaffer.




Smith and Sununu are incumbents and so they're naturally 'stronger.'  But of course you have to look at the states they're running in.  Oregon is very liberal and New Hampshire is becoming rapidly blue.  That means that demographics just don't favor those guys.  I think they'll both win--by the way--but the GOP has to make sure Colorado and the west stays red.  Colorado is much more favorable to Republicans than NH or OR--so why would you leave Schaffer in the dust?  When you factor in demographics, trends, and the incumbency advantages of Smith and Sununu, Schaffer has every bit of good chance at winning as the others.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Keystone Phil on April 14, 2007, 01:19:43 PM

Smith and Sununu are incumbents and so they're naturally 'stronger.'  But of course you have to look at the states they're running in.  Oregon is very liberal and New Hampshire is becoming rapidly blue.  That means that demographics just don't favor those guys.  I think they'll both win--by the way--but the GOP has to make sure Colorado and the west stays red.  Colorado is much more favorable to Republicans than NH or OR--so why would you leave Schaffer in the dust?  When you factor in demographics, trends, and the incumbency advantages of Smith and Sununu, Schaffer has every bit of good chance at winning as the others.

A few things...

1) Schaffer is weak.
2) Udall is strong.
3) Colorado is turning to the Dems.

Sorry if that seems overly simplistic but it's the truth. I don't like it but that's how it is.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 14, 2007, 01:24:20 PM

Smith and Sununu are incumbents and so they're naturally 'stronger.'  But of course you have to look at the states they're running in.  Oregon is very liberal and New Hampshire is becoming rapidly blue.  That means that demographics just don't favor those guys.  I think they'll both win--by the way--but the GOP has to make sure Colorado and the west stays red.  Colorado is much more favorable to Republicans than NH or OR--so why would you leave Schaffer in the dust?  When you factor in demographics, trends, and the incumbency advantages of Smith and Sununu, Schaffer has every bit of good chance at winning as the others.

A few things...

1) Schaffer is weak.
2) Udall is strong.
3) Colorado is turning to the Dems.

Sorry if that seems overly simplistic but it's the truth. I don't like it but that's how it is.

You can argue that Schaffer is weak (which just isn't true).  But you cannot argue that Udall is strong.  He's not.  He's farther from the Colorado mainstream than Schaffer is.  I'd buy the idea that Schaffer is farther right than the average Coloradan.  But Udall is even farther to the left.  Colorado is center-right which puts it closer to Schaffer and farther from Udall.  He's a Boulder liberal--a sterotype that is a huge negative here.  Udall really is quite liberal and the Democrats who have won here lately are much more conservative than he is.  Dick Wadhams is a pro at lowlighting liberal voting records--he'll have a buffet in 2008.



Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 14, 2007, 01:34:16 PM

Smith and Sununu are incumbents and so they're naturally 'stronger.'  But of course you have to look at the states they're running in.  Oregon is very liberal and New Hampshire is becoming rapidly blue.  That means that demographics just don't favor those guys.  I think they'll both win--by the way--but the GOP has to make sure Colorado and the west stays red.  Colorado is much more favorable to Republicans than NH or OR--so why would you leave Schaffer in the dust?  When you factor in demographics, trends, and the incumbency advantages of Smith and Sununu, Schaffer has every bit of good chance at winning as the others.

A few things...

1) Schaffer is weak.
2) Udall is strong.
3) Colorado is turning to the Dems.

Sorry if that seems overly simplistic but it's the truth. I don't like it but that's how it is.

You can argue that Schaffer is weak (which just isn't true).  But you cannot argue that Udall is strong.  He's not.  He's farther from the Colorado mainstream than Schaffer is.  I'd buy the idea that Schaffer is farther right than the average Coloradan.  But Udall is even farther to the left.  Colorado is center-right which puts it closer to Schaffer and farther from Udall.  He's a Boulder liberal--a sterotype that is a huge negative here.  Udall really is quite liberal and the Democrats who have won here lately are much more conservative than he is.  Dick Wadhams is a pro at lowlighting liberal voting records--he'll have a buffet in 2008.



So, can you make just 1 post without the word Colorado in it?

Yes :)


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: HardRCafé on April 14, 2007, 02:13:08 PM
Sometimes we have to realize that we're in a game to minimize damages.

Right, that's how Democrats didn't pick up Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Just because Santorum lost doesn't mean we all give up and go home.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Keystone Phil on April 14, 2007, 02:16:10 PM


Right, that's how Democrats didn't pick up Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Except 2006 was a much different year. As of now, looking into picking up states like Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, etc. is very foolish.

And even if it wasn't the type of year that it was, going after Missouri, Rhode Island and Ohio made a lot more sense than us going after Baucus, Harkin, Lautenberg, etc.

Quote
Just because Santorum lost doesn't mean we all give up and go home.

Mature  ::)  When you want to discuss these races in a serious manner, get in touch with me. Otherwise, keep the stupid jokes to yourself.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 14, 2007, 03:54:05 PM
Sometimes we have to realize that we're in a game to minimize damages.

Right, that's how Democrats didn't pick up Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Virginia.

Just because Santorum lost doesn't mean we all give up and go home.

I don't know why we're talking about 'losses.'  What makes everyone so sure that the GOP is damned in '08?  Frankly, I see a scenario where no seat is turned over.  It is entirely conceivable that the GOP doesn't lose a seat and the Dems don't lose a seat.  The RNSC will have plenty of money to spread around.  There's no way Al Franken beats anybody in Minnesota.  Gordon Smith has remarkably high approvals despite representing Leningrad.  John Sununu is probably the most vulnerable Republican but he's an incumbent in what is still a moderate state--though it's heading north (as in, Canada). 

Finally, Schaffer is running for re-election in a red-state with a high GOP registration advantage.  And he's running for a seat now held by the most conservative Senator in America.  And he's running against the state's most liberal Democrat.  You're either a fool or a Democrat to be pessimistic here. 

There isn't a damn seat we should be giving up on.  There is no Santorum situation.  He was too conservative for his blue state.  That's why he lost.  We lost Ohio because the GOP in Ohio is a bunch of corrupt goons and DeWine was weak--and the state is as purple as you get.  George Allen was a victim of the blue wave and his state's increasing competitiveness.  In Rhode Island a Democrat beat a Democrat.  And Jim Talent is a lot like George Allen--a victim of the blue wave.  The only state spared was Tennessee and that's only because it's Tennessee.

Things can change--and fast (a la Mark Foley)--but I don't see a seat from either party that is as endangered as Dewine's or Santorum's.  That leaves a lot of room for optimism.



Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 15, 2007, 12:07:33 AM
I should probably just let the two conservatives duke it out and I can't believe I'm standing up for phil here, but Rawlings your Senate seat is gone.  Its over.  Colorado is NOT a conservative state anymore.  It was, but that time has past.  Its over.  Udall is a MUCH stronger candidate than Schaffer is.  Their is a reason why bush's #'s in Colorado SUCK, their is a reason why Allard's #'s SUCK.  Part of it Iraq?  yes, Is part of it because they simply don't like conservatives anymore??  Yes.  Colorado is moving left about as fast as New Hampshire is.  Not as far to the left because its coming from further right, but both states are HEAVILY trending Democratic and not just moderate Dems (I have said this before, look at how the state has trended compared with the national average between 96 under the more moderate Clinton and 04 to the more liberal Kerry)   Udall has already won.  If you want to waste your $$ and resources in the state go ahead, but its lost, and it won't even be that close.  Your looking at a defeat the size Santorum took, and well if you dump all the $$ there the defeat Dewine took, at best.  Its over its lost kaput. 

The vast majority of Republicans here have even admitted that the Senate seat is done, its not just Phil or the one or two others in this argument.  Its virtually everyone.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Tender Branson on April 15, 2007, 12:36:49 AM
I should probably just let the two conservatives duke it out and I can't believe I'm standing up for phil here, but Rawlings your Senate seat is gone.  Its over.  Colorado is NOT a conservative state anymore.  It was, but that time has past.  Its over.  Udall is a MUCH stronger candidate than Schaffer is.  Their is a reason why bush's #'s in Colorado SUCK, their is a reason why Allard's #'s SUCK.  Part of it Iraq?  yes, Is part of it because they simply don't like conservatives anymore??  Yes.  Colorado is moving left about as fast as New Hampshire is.  Not as far to the left because its coming from further right, but both states are HEAVILY trending Democratic and not just moderate Dems (I have said this before, look at how the state has trended compared with the national average between 96 under the more moderate Clinton and 04 to the more liberal Kerry)   Udall has already won.  If you want to waste your $$ and resources in the state go ahead, but its lost, and it won't even be that close.  Your looking at a defeat the size Santorum took, and well if you dump all the $$ there the defeat Dewine took, at best.  Its over its lost kaput. 

The vast majority of Republicans here have even admitted that the Senate seat is done, its not just Phil or the one or two others in this argument.  Its virtually everyone.

Hey, calm down man, a lot can happen during the campaign ;)

How was that saying: Pride goes before a fall ?

PS: Currently I also think the Allard Senate seat is gone for the GOP, but first i wanna see a poll, before I get too enthusiastic.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Aizen on April 15, 2007, 01:39:04 AM
*Sigh* Schaffer is viewed as a likely candidate but he hasn't said one way or the other if he was for sure running. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and assume he's the Republican nominee.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 15, 2007, 09:22:32 AM
I should probably just let the two conservatives duke it out and I can't believe I'm standing up for phil here, but Rawlings your Senate seat is gone.  Its over.  Colorado is NOT a conservative state anymore.  It was, but that time has past.  Its over.  Udall is a MUCH stronger candidate than Schaffer is.  Their is a reason why bush's #'s in Colorado SUCK, their is a reason why Allard's #'s SUCK.  Part of it Iraq?  yes, Is part of it because they simply don't like conservatives anymore??  Yes.  Colorado is moving left about as fast as New Hampshire is.  Not as far to the left because its coming from further right, but both states are HEAVILY trending Democratic and not just moderate Dems (I have said this before, look at how the state has trended compared with the national average between 96 under the more moderate Clinton and 04 to the more liberal Kerry)   Udall has already won.  If you want to waste your $$ and resources in the state go ahead, but its lost, and it won't even be that close.  Your looking at a defeat the size Santorum took, and well if you dump all the $$ there the defeat Dewine took, at best.  Its over its lost kaput. 

The vast majority of Republicans here have even admitted that the Senate seat is done, its not just Phil or the one or two others in this argument.  Its virtually everyone.

I've heard this argument sooo many times from hopeful Democrats in Colorado.  They thought they had this state locked when Clinton won in '92.  Even last year they thought Colorado had gone blue and that they could pass a gay rights initiative.  Every time liberals gleefullly predict they have turned Colorado the voters here put their foot down.

I know that NH has turned blue.  It makes sense.  All the northeastern liberals moving in.  But that sort of demographic shift hasn't happened in Colorado.  It's not the Californians.  They moved here en masse in the mid-90s and it was the conservative OC evangelicals that made this state even more conservative.  Then they left to find better jobs and put the state back where it was in the early 90s--conservative but competitive.

The national climate may be too tough for the GOP for Colorado's Republican bent to reassert itself.  But any claims to a long-term move to the left is myopic.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 15, 2007, 05:41:38 PM
I should probably just let the two conservatives duke it out and I can't believe I'm standing up for phil here, but Rawlings your Senate seat is gone.  Its over.  Colorado is NOT a conservative state anymore.  It was, but that time has past.  Its over.  Udall is a MUCH stronger candidate than Schaffer is.  Their is a reason why bush's #'s in Colorado SUCK, their is a reason why Allard's #'s SUCK.  Part of it Iraq?  yes, Is part of it because they simply don't like conservatives anymore??  Yes.  Colorado is moving left about as fast as New Hampshire is.  Not as far to the left because its coming from further right, but both states are HEAVILY trending Democratic and not just moderate Dems (I have said this before, look at how the state has trended compared with the national average between 96 under the more moderate Clinton and 04 to the more liberal Kerry)   Udall has already won.  If you want to waste your $$ and resources in the state go ahead, but its lost, and it won't even be that close.  Your looking at a defeat the size Santorum took, and well if you dump all the $$ there the defeat Dewine took, at best.  Its over its lost kaput. 

The vast majority of Republicans here have even admitted that the Senate seat is done, its not just Phil or the one or two others in this argument.  Its virtually everyone.

I've heard this argument sooo many times from hopeful Democrats in Colorado.  They thought they had this state locked when Clinton won in '92.  Even last year they thought Colorado had gone blue and that they could pass a gay rights initiative.  Every time liberals gleefullly predict they have turned Colorado the voters here put their foot down.

I know that NH has turned blue.  It makes sense.  All the northeastern liberals moving in.  But that sort of demographic shift hasn't happened in Colorado.  It's not the Californians.  They moved here en masse in the mid-90s and it was the conservative OC evangelicals that made this state even more conservative.  Then they left to find better jobs and put the state back where it was in the early 90s--conservative but competitive.

The national climate may be too tough for the GOP for Colorado's Republican bent to reassert itself.  But any claims to a long-term move to the left is myopic.

States just don't move from being 10 points more GOP than the national average to 2 points more than the national average in a matter of 8 years for no reason.  Their is a major shift going on.  The ski resort areas have flown to the left.  The Denver suburbs especially Jefferson and Arapahoe counties have FLOWN to the left.  The shifts in those two counties between 96 & 04 were very similar to the shifts seen in the NYC & Philly suburbs between 88 & 96, actually quite similar to the shifts seen in Fairfax County Virginia between 96 & 04 as well.  I'm not saying the two of them have become liberal counties, but they were both staunch Republican and staunch conservative counties.  Now, no way.  Not to mention Denver & Boulder counties also continue to move further and further left.

You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 15, 2007, 06:16:01 PM
I should probably just let the two conservatives duke it out and I can't believe I'm standing up for phil here, but Rawlings your Senate seat is gone.  Its over.  Colorado is NOT a conservative state anymore.  It was, but that time has past.  Its over.  Udall is a MUCH stronger candidate than Schaffer is.  Their is a reason why bush's #'s in Colorado SUCK, their is a reason why Allard's #'s SUCK.  Part of it Iraq?  yes, Is part of it because they simply don't like conservatives anymore??  Yes.  Colorado is moving left about as fast as New Hampshire is.  Not as far to the left because its coming from further right, but both states are HEAVILY trending Democratic and not just moderate Dems (I have said this before, look at how the state has trended compared with the national average between 96 under the more moderate Clinton and 04 to the more liberal Kerry)   Udall has already won.  If you want to waste your $$ and resources in the state go ahead, but its lost, and it won't even be that close.  Your looking at a defeat the size Santorum took, and well if you dump all the $$ there the defeat Dewine took, at best.  Its over its lost kaput. 

The vast majority of Republicans here have even admitted that the Senate seat is done, its not just Phil or the one or two others in this argument.  Its virtually everyone.

I've heard this argument sooo many times from hopeful Democrats in Colorado.  They thought they had this state locked when Clinton won in '92.  Even last year they thought Colorado had gone blue and that they could pass a gay rights initiative.  Every time liberals gleefullly predict they have turned Colorado the voters here put their foot down.

I know that NH has turned blue.  It makes sense.  All the northeastern liberals moving in.  But that sort of demographic shift hasn't happened in Colorado.  It's not the Californians.  They moved here en masse in the mid-90s and it was the conservative OC evangelicals that made this state even more conservative.  Then they left to find better jobs and put the state back where it was in the early 90s--conservative but competitive.

The national climate may be too tough for the GOP for Colorado's Republican bent to reassert itself.  But any claims to a long-term move to the left is myopic.

States just don't move from being 10 points more GOP than the national average to 2 points more than the national average in a matter of 8 years for no reason.  Their is a major shift going on.  The ski resort areas have flown to the left.  The Denver suburbs especially Jefferson and Arapahoe counties have FLOWN to the left.  The shifts in those two counties between 96 & 04 were very similar to the shifts seen in the NYC & Philly suburbs between 88 & 96, actually quite similar to the shifts seen in Fairfax County Virginia between 96 & 04 as well.  I'm not saying the two of them have become liberal counties, but they were both staunch Republican and staunch conservative counties.  Now, no way.  Not to mention Denver & Boulder counties also continue to move further and further left.

You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.

You keep on bringing up the margin of victory for Republican POTUS candidates in Colorado--which has been decreasing since '96.  But check this out...

Colorado Presidential Election Results

1992

Clinton 40%
Bush 35%
Perot 23%

1996

Dole 46%
Clinton 45%
Perot 7%

2000

Bush 51%
Gore 41%
Nader 5%

2004

Bush 53%
Kerry 47%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I'm missing the 'big shift.'  In 2004 the Republican did better than any other Republican for the past decade.  If anything these totals show Colorado becoming even more conservative.  Kerry did do better than he was expected here.  He did better than was expected nationally.  A stuffy, unlikeable New England liberal should not have gotten 40% in this country.  The fact that he did shows how the 'Bush model' of government and campaigning has some serious flaws.  Against any other Republican Kerry couldn't have reached 40% in Colorado.

In the 90s Republicans fought and lost one and won one.  In the 00s Bush has had a much easier time.  What it looks like to me is that the major growth in the 90s pushed Colorado way to the right.  As they folks leave to find better jobs it's pushing Colorado back onto it's pre-200 medium, where people are generally conservative but willing to vote Democratic.

That's a long-term trend to watch, but for 2008 what I've heard is that the Dems' radical behavior in the legislature is coming back to kill them on polling.  Ritter is doing very poorly, he's mishandling the convention, and the word is that the Democrats are already in real trouble in Colorado.  The Senate and POTUS races will be tough--but downticket the GOP will make major gains.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Aizen on April 15, 2007, 07:16:01 PM
"the word" is that the Democrats are already in real trouble in Colorado? Where exactly are you getting "the word?" From what I've been able to garner, it's the opposite. The GOP is in serious trouble in Colorado because the GOP doesn't know how to win in Colorado anymore. With this momentum in Colorado it's only natural that I have faith that come 2008, Udall will win the Senate seat, Colorado will vote Dem for POTUS and that crazy wench Musgrave will lose her seat making the Democratic total in Colorado to 5 out of 7 districts.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: HardRCafé on April 15, 2007, 07:17:43 PM
It's obvious Colorado has swung from Right to Left.  There's no way a staunch Conservative like Gary Hart could get elected there any more.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 15, 2007, 10:14:11 PM
I should probably just let the two conservatives duke it out and I can't believe I'm standing up for phil here, but Rawlings your Senate seat is gone.  Its over.  Colorado is NOT a conservative state anymore.  It was, but that time has past.  Its over.  Udall is a MUCH stronger candidate than Schaffer is.  Their is a reason why bush's #'s in Colorado SUCK, their is a reason why Allard's #'s SUCK.  Part of it Iraq?  yes, Is part of it because they simply don't like conservatives anymore??  Yes.  Colorado is moving left about as fast as New Hampshire is.  Not as far to the left because its coming from further right, but both states are HEAVILY trending Democratic and not just moderate Dems (I have said this before, look at how the state has trended compared with the national average between 96 under the more moderate Clinton and 04 to the more liberal Kerry)   Udall has already won.  If you want to waste your $$ and resources in the state go ahead, but its lost, and it won't even be that close.  Your looking at a defeat the size Santorum took, and well if you dump all the $$ there the defeat Dewine took, at best.  Its over its lost kaput. 

The vast majority of Republicans here have even admitted that the Senate seat is done, its not just Phil or the one or two others in this argument.  Its virtually everyone.

I've heard this argument sooo many times from hopeful Democrats in Colorado.  They thought they had this state locked when Clinton won in '92.  Even last year they thought Colorado had gone blue and that they could pass a gay rights initiative.  Every time liberals gleefullly predict they have turned Colorado the voters here put their foot down.

I know that NH has turned blue.  It makes sense.  All the northeastern liberals moving in.  But that sort of demographic shift hasn't happened in Colorado.  It's not the Californians.  They moved here en masse in the mid-90s and it was the conservative OC evangelicals that made this state even more conservative.  Then they left to find better jobs and put the state back where it was in the early 90s--conservative but competitive.

The national climate may be too tough for the GOP for Colorado's Republican bent to reassert itself.  But any claims to a long-term move to the left is myopic.

States just don't move from being 10 points more GOP than the national average to 2 points more than the national average in a matter of 8 years for no reason.  Their is a major shift going on.  The ski resort areas have flown to the left.  The Denver suburbs especially Jefferson and Arapahoe counties have FLOWN to the left.  The shifts in those two counties between 96 & 04 were very similar to the shifts seen in the NYC & Philly suburbs between 88 & 96, actually quite similar to the shifts seen in Fairfax County Virginia between 96 & 04 as well.  I'm not saying the two of them have become liberal counties, but they were both staunch Republican and staunch conservative counties.  Now, no way.  Not to mention Denver & Boulder counties also continue to move further and further left.

You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.

You keep on bringing up the margin of victory for Republican POTUS candidates in Colorado--which has been decreasing since '96.  But check this out...

Colorado Presidential Election Results

1992

Clinton 40%
Bush 35%
Perot 23%

1996

Dole 46%
Clinton 45%
Perot 7%

2000

Bush 51%
Gore 41%
Nader 5%

2004

Bush 53%
Kerry 47%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I'm missing the 'big shift.'  In 2004 the Republican did better than any other Republican for the past decade.  If anything these totals show Colorado becoming even more conservative.  Kerry did do better than he was expected here.  He did better than was expected nationally.  A stuffy, unlikeable New England liberal should not have gotten 40% in this country.  The fact that he did shows how the 'Bush model' of government and campaigning has some serious flaws.  Against any other Republican Kerry couldn't have reached 40% in Colorado.

In the 90s Republicans fought and lost one and won one.  In the 00s Bush has had a much easier time.  What it looks like to me is that the major growth in the 90s pushed Colorado way to the right.  As they folks leave to find better jobs it's pushing Colorado back onto it's pre-200 medium, where people are generally conservative but willing to vote Democratic.

That's a long-term trend to watch, but for 2008 what I've heard is that the Dems' radical behavior in the legislature is coming back to kill them on polling.  Ritter is doing very poorly, he's mishandling the convention, and the word is that the Democrats are already in real trouble in Colorado.  The Senate and POTUS races will be tough--but downticket the GOP will make major gains.

Did you even read anything I posted about the national margin????

The real way to compare how a state is trending is not to look at the raw numbers from one election to the next and so on, its to look at those numbers and how they are compared to the national average.  And how the national average is trending.


For example

1996  Dole won the state by 1.37%, Clinton won nationally by 8.51%.  State vs national margin = GOP + 9.88%

2000 Bush won the state by 8.36%.  Gore won PV by .51%.  State vs national margin = GOP + 8.87%

if you were to use the Nader factor (which polls showed either a 5-2 breakout for Gore or a 5-2-3 breakout for Gore

first using a 5-2-3 method (50% Nader's votes going to Gore, 20% to Bush, 30% staying home)

2000 Bush would have won by 6.89%, national margin would have been Gore 1.35%.  State vs national margin would have = GOP + 8.24%

using 5-2 margin (nader's votes breaking to Gore at 5-2 margin) 

Bush would have won the state by 6.11%, national margin would have been 1.69%.  State vs national margin would have = GOP + 7.80%

2004 Bush won the state by 4.67%, Bush won nationally by 2.46%  State vs national margin = GOP + 2.21%

Anyway you really can't tell how a state is trending based off the Presidential results from election to election without taking into account how those results compared to the national average.  When compared to the national average Colorado has seen a very strong swing between 1996 and 2004 in the Democrats direction, going for much more Republican than the national average to very close to the national average and showing no signs of that trend slowing down. 


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 16, 2007, 05:08:02 AM
You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.
The margin in 1996 was 1.43%, in 2000 it was 3.11% (including Nader), and 2004 it was 4.67%.

Denver used to have 1/4 of the population, when Colorado had 4 congressmen.  Now it has less than 1/7 of the population.  Fewer votes were cast for president in Denver in 2000 than in 1952.  So the population has expanded out into the inner suburbs, including Arapahoe and Jefferson.

Arapahoe and Jefferson are running out of space to grow.  Going west you run into the foothills, so in Jefferson County, the growth is limited to the NW and SW (of Denver).  To the SW you will notice that Jefferson County goes to a point, and the foothills are further east.  Arapahoe County is 12 miles wide, and the area to the south is developed.  It can grow to the east, but you are getting further from the mountains.

The growth to the south is into Douglas County, which increased its turnout by 140% from 1996 to 2004, while increasing the GOP percentage.

A large section of north Denver is industrial, so that you don't have as much spillover from Denver, and it has been a traditionally Democratic county forever.  But it is 6 miles wider than Arapahoe, so that you are still getting growth to the north that is in the county.  Plus it has the closest residential areas to the airport.  It is increasingly competitive.  And just recently, the growth has spilled over into southern Weld County, where turnout was up 66% between 1996 and 2004 - and the vote increase from 2000 to 2004 was 68% Republican.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Adlai Stevenson on April 16, 2007, 09:22:21 AM
Rawlings, you have been over-generous to Bush in his 2000 and 2004 statewide performances in Colorado.

2000
Bush (R) 50.75%
Gore (D) 42.39%

Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore nationally, 48.38% to 47.87%, a margin of 0.51%, but in Colorado he beat him in the popular vote by 8.36%. 


2004
Bush  (R) 51.69%
Kerry (D) 47.02%

In 2004, Bush won the national popular vote, 50.73% to 48.27%, a margin of 2.46%, yet in Colorado while his percentage increased from 50.75% to 51.69%, a margin of 0.94%, Kerry havled his margin from 2000, 8.36%.  In 2004, Bush won Colorado by 4.67% while the Democratic percentage rose from 42.39% to 47.02% - almost 5%, Bush's percentage increased by less than 1%.  Colorado is trending Democrat in Presidential elections. 


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 16, 2007, 12:27:00 PM
Did you even read anything I posted about the national margin????

The real way to compare how a state is trending is not to look at the raw numbers from one election to the next and so on, its to look at those numbers and how they are compared to the national average.  And how the national average is trending.
Why is it the real way?

In Colorado, between 2000 and 2004, the Democratic vote increased by 20.8%, but the GOP vote increased by 24.6%.

Your theory is that now that the new Republican voters have got into the habit of voting they're going to act like people in New York, and switch to the Democratic candidate.

The alternative theory is that Republicans did a better job than the Democrats of identifying non-voters who supported them and got them to vote in 2004 vs. 2000.

Colorado went from 14th highest percentage for Perot in 1992, to 42nd highest for Perot in 1996.  From 4.4% above the national average to 1.4% below.  If Perot in 2000, your national trend theory would have voters in Colorado taking ballots out of the ballot box.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Wakie on April 16, 2007, 12:43:24 PM
What exactly qualifies John Elway for the US Senate?  Near as I can tell he's just as qualified as Terry Bradshaw.

Strike that.  Bradshaw is more qualified.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 16, 2007, 03:16:07 PM
You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.
The margin in 1996 was 1.43%, in 2000 it was 3.11% (including Nader), and 2004 it was 4.67%.

Denver used to have 1/4 of the population, when Colorado had 4 congressmen.  Now it has less than 1/7 of the population.  Fewer votes were cast for president in Denver in 2000 than in 1952.  So the population has expanded out into the inner suburbs, including Arapahoe and Jefferson.

Arapahoe and Jefferson are running out of space to grow.  Going west you run into the foothills, so in Jefferson County, the growth is limited to the NW and SW (of Denver).  To the SW you will notice that Jefferson County goes to a point, and the foothills are further east.  Arapahoe County is 12 miles wide, and the area to the south is developed.  It can grow to the east, but you are getting further from the mountains.

The growth to the south is into Douglas County, which increased its turnout by 140% from 1996 to 2004, while increasing the GOP percentage.

A large section of north Denver is industrial, so that you don't have as much spillover from Denver, and it has been a traditionally Democratic county forever.  But it is 6 miles wider than Arapahoe, so that you are still getting growth to the north that is in the county.  Plus it has the closest residential areas to the airport.  It is increasingly competitive.  And just recently, the growth has spilled over into southern Weld County, where turnout was up 66% between 1996 and 2004 - and the vote increase from 2000 to 2004 was 68% Republican.


States don't mysteriously turn left or right.  It is either a gradual process or a result of massive immigration from liberal areas.  There's no way that Colorado has gone right to left in three years!  And there has been no major population influx either.  That tells me that the shift to the Democrats is not ideological--it's better Democratic funding, better strategery, and the national mood.

The 7th Congressional District (Beauprez's old district now represented by a liberal) has gone from middle class suburban to lower-middle and full of minorities and poorer whites.  The 7th has become an urban district as the GOP population centers spread outward from the urban core. 

I'm a Colorado native.  The turn to the Democrats is a little alarming--but there's no indication that it's a result of the state becoming more liberal.  In fact, some signs point to the fact that we're becoming a little more socially conservative and more liberal economically.  And right now the social conservatives are very much in charge of things in this state--the question is why are they supporting Democrats?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 16, 2007, 10:51:28 PM
Did you even read anything I posted about the national margin????

The real way to compare how a state is trending is not to look at the raw numbers from one election to the next and so on, its to look at those numbers and how they are compared to the national average.  And how the national average is trending.
Why is it the real way?

In Colorado, between 2000 and 2004, the Democratic vote increased by 20.8%, but the GOP vote increased by 24.6%.

Your theory is that now that the new Republican voters have got into the habit of voting they're going to act like people in New York, and switch to the Democratic candidate.

The alternative theory is that Republicans did a better job than the Democrats of identifying non-voters who supported them and got them to vote in 2004 vs. 2000.

Colorado went from 14th highest percentage for Perot in 1992, to 42nd highest for Perot in 1996.  From 4.4% above the national average to 1.4% below.  If Perot in 2000, your national trend theory would have voters in Colorado taking ballots out of the ballot box.

Because it tells how a state is trending when you look at the national picture.  For example 1988 was a Republican year on the Presidential level, 96 was a Democratic year.  Now would you say all the states which the Democrats did better in between 88 & 96 were trending Democratic??  No, you have to look at how it compares to the national average, and Colorado has gone from being quite a bit more Republican than the national average to almost close to even with the national average.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 16, 2007, 11:02:53 PM
You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.
The margin in 1996 was 1.43%, in 2000 it was 3.11% (including Nader), and 2004 it was 4.67%.

Denver used to have 1/4 of the population, when Colorado had 4 congressmen.  Now it has less than 1/7 of the population.  Fewer votes were cast for president in Denver in 2000 than in 1952.  So the population has expanded out into the inner suburbs, including Arapahoe and Jefferson.

Arapahoe and Jefferson are running out of space to grow.  Going west you run into the foothills, so in Jefferson County, the growth is limited to the NW and SW (of Denver).  To the SW you will notice that Jefferson County goes to a point, and the foothills are further east.  Arapahoe County is 12 miles wide, and the area to the south is developed.  It can grow to the east, but you are getting further from the mountains.

The growth to the south is into Douglas County, which increased its turnout by 140% from 1996 to 2004, while increasing the GOP percentage.

A large section of north Denver is industrial, so that you don't have as much spillover from Denver, and it has been a traditionally Democratic county forever.  But it is 6 miles wider than Arapahoe, so that you are still getting growth to the north that is in the county.  Plus it has the closest residential areas to the airport.  It is increasingly competitive.  And just recently, the growth has spilled over into southern Weld County, where turnout was up 66% between 1996 and 2004 - and the vote increase from 2000 to 2004 was 68% Republican.


States don't mysteriously turn left or right.  It is either a gradual process or a result of massive immigration from liberal areas.  There's no way that Colorado has gone right to left in three years!  And there has been no major population influx either.  That tells me that the shift to the Democrats is not ideological--it's better Democratic funding, better strategery, and the national mood.

The 7th Congressional District (Beauprez's old district now represented by a liberal) has gone from middle class suburban to lower-middle and full of minorities and poorer whites.  The 7th has become an urban district as the GOP population centers spread outward from the urban core. 

I'm a Colorado native.  The turn to the Democrats is a little alarming--but there's no indication that it's a result of the state becoming more liberal.  In fact, some signs point to the fact that we're becoming a little more socially conservative and more liberal economically.  And right now the social conservatives are very much in charge of things in this state--the question is why are they supporting Democrats?

Its not just within 3 years, its been going on since 1996.   Again every explanation you come up with doesn't explain the hard turn to the Democrats from 96 to 04 on the Presidential level with a moderate in 96 & liberal in 04. 


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 18, 2007, 03:11:20 AM
Did you even read anything I posted about the national margin????

The real way to compare how a state is trending is not to look at the raw numbers from one election to the next and so on, its to look at those numbers and how they are compared to the national average.  And how the national average is trending.
Why is it the real way?

In Colorado, between 2000 and 2004, the Democratic vote increased by 20.8%, but the GOP vote increased by 24.6%.

Your theory is that now that the new Republican voters have got into the habit of voting they're going to act like people in New York, and switch to the Democratic candidate.

The alternative theory is that Republicans did a better job than the Democrats of identifying non-voters who supported them and got them to vote in 2004 vs. 2000.

Colorado went from 14th highest percentage for Perot in 1992, to 42nd highest for Perot in 1996.  From 4.4% above the national average to 1.4% below.  If Perot in 2000, your national trend theory would have voters in Colorado taking ballots out of the ballot box.

Because it tells how a state is trending when you look at the national picture.  For example 1988 was a Republican year on the Presidential level, 96 was a Democratic year.  Now would you say all the states which the Democrats did better in between 88 & 96 were trending Democratic??  No, you have to look at how it compares to the national average, and Colorado has gone from being quite a bit more Republican than the national average to almost close to even with the national average.
If your method works for Colorado, then you should be able to take presidential elections 8 years apart, and project the result at the next presidential election.

Have you done this?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 18, 2007, 06:26:49 PM
You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.
The margin in 1996 was 1.43%, in 2000 it was 3.11% (including Nader), and 2004 it was 4.67%.

Denver used to have 1/4 of the population, when Colorado had 4 congressmen.  Now it has less than 1/7 of the population.  Fewer votes were cast for president in Denver in 2000 than in 1952.  So the population has expanded out into the inner suburbs, including Arapahoe and Jefferson.

Arapahoe and Jefferson are running out of space to grow.  Going west you run into the foothills, so in Jefferson County, the growth is limited to the NW and SW (of Denver).  To the SW you will notice that Jefferson County goes to a point, and the foothills are further east.  Arapahoe County is 12 miles wide, and the area to the south is developed.  It can grow to the east, but you are getting further from the mountains.

The growth to the south is into Douglas County, which increased its turnout by 140% from 1996 to 2004, while increasing the GOP percentage.

A large section of north Denver is industrial, so that you don't have as much spillover from Denver, and it has been a traditionally Democratic county forever.  But it is 6 miles wider than Arapahoe, so that you are still getting growth to the north that is in the county.  Plus it has the closest residential areas to the airport.  It is increasingly competitive.  And just recently, the growth has spilled over into southern Weld County, where turnout was up 66% between 1996 and 2004 - and the vote increase from 2000 to 2004 was 68% Republican.


States don't mysteriously turn left or right.  It is either a gradual process or a result of massive immigration from liberal areas.  There's no way that Colorado has gone right to left in three years!  And there has been no major population influx either.  That tells me that the shift to the Democrats is not ideological--it's better Democratic funding, better strategery, and the national mood.

The 7th Congressional District (Beauprez's old district now represented by a liberal) has gone from middle class suburban to lower-middle and full of minorities and poorer whites.  The 7th has become an urban district as the GOP population centers spread outward from the urban core. 

I'm a Colorado native.  The turn to the Democrats is a little alarming--but there's no indication that it's a result of the state becoming more liberal.  In fact, some signs point to the fact that we're becoming a little more socially conservative and more liberal economically.  And right now the social conservatives are very much in charge of things in this state--the question is why are they supporting Democrats?

Its not just within 3 years, its been going on since 1996.   Again every explanation you come up with doesn't explain the hard turn to the Democrats from 96 to 04 on the Presidential level with a moderate in 96 & liberal in 04. 

I have an easy explanation for the Democrats' takeover of Colorado.  Instead of running the old, tired liberals in a conservative state they started running centrist Democrats that often looked more conservative than the Republican (ie. Salazar v. Coors).  People here and across the country are sick of politics, sick of bickering, sick of the fighting.  And since the GOP owned this state for so many years we got blamed for the nastiness.  They booted us out and are swiftly realizing how the Democrats are just as nasty--except with more liberal values.

It doesn't work.  It won't work.  Colorado's going to move right next year.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 19, 2007, 12:40:00 AM
You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.
The margin in 1996 was 1.43%, in 2000 it was 3.11% (including Nader), and 2004 it was 4.67%.

Denver used to have 1/4 of the population, when Colorado had 4 congressmen.  Now it has less than 1/7 of the population.  Fewer votes were cast for president in Denver in 2000 than in 1952.  So the population has expanded out into the inner suburbs, including Arapahoe and Jefferson.

Arapahoe and Jefferson are running out of space to grow.  Going west you run into the foothills, so in Jefferson County, the growth is limited to the NW and SW (of Denver).  To the SW you will notice that Jefferson County goes to a point, and the foothills are further east.  Arapahoe County is 12 miles wide, and the area to the south is developed.  It can grow to the east, but you are getting further from the mountains.

The growth to the south is into Douglas County, which increased its turnout by 140% from 1996 to 2004, while increasing the GOP percentage.

A large section of north Denver is industrial, so that you don't have as much spillover from Denver, and it has been a traditionally Democratic county forever.  But it is 6 miles wider than Arapahoe, so that you are still getting growth to the north that is in the county.  Plus it has the closest residential areas to the airport.  It is increasingly competitive.  And just recently, the growth has spilled over into southern Weld County, where turnout was up 66% between 1996 and 2004 - and the vote increase from 2000 to 2004 was 68% Republican.


States don't mysteriously turn left or right.  It is either a gradual process or a result of massive immigration from liberal areas.  There's no way that Colorado has gone right to left in three years!  And there has been no major population influx either.  That tells me that the shift to the Democrats is not ideological--it's better Democratic funding, better strategery, and the national mood.

The 7th Congressional District (Beauprez's old district now represented by a liberal) has gone from middle class suburban to lower-middle and full of minorities and poorer whites.  The 7th has become an urban district as the GOP population centers spread outward from the urban core. 

I'm a Colorado native.  The turn to the Democrats is a little alarming--but there's no indication that it's a result of the state becoming more liberal.  In fact, some signs point to the fact that we're becoming a little more socially conservative and more liberal economically.  And right now the social conservatives are very much in charge of things in this state--the question is why are they supporting Democrats?

Its not just within 3 years, its been going on since 1996.   Again every explanation you come up with doesn't explain the hard turn to the Democrats from 96 to 04 on the Presidential level with a moderate in 96 & liberal in 04. 

I have an easy explanation for the Democrats' takeover of Colorado.  Instead of running the old, tired liberals in a conservative state they started running centrist Democrats that often looked more conservative than the Republican (ie. Salazar v. Coors).  People here and across the country are sick of politics, sick of bickering, sick of the fighting.  And since the GOP owned this state for so many years we got blamed for the nastiness.  They booted us out and are swiftly realizing how the Democrats are just as nasty--except with more liberal values.

It doesn't work.  It won't work.  Colorado's going to move right next year.

Again you ignored the very large shift in the Democratic direction between 96 & 04 on the Presidential level in the state (compared with the national average) especially when going from a moderate in Clinton as the Dem in 96 to a liberal in Kerry in 04.

So again I will ask how do you explain  an 8 point shift in the Dems direction (against the national average) between 96 & 04?  Especially considering that Kerry is quite a bit more liberal than Clinton???


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Tender Branson on April 19, 2007, 01:04:38 AM
It doesn't work.  It won't work.  Colorado's going to move right next year.

I´m not so sure about this. I think we´ll have a very tight race next year for the Presidency in CO (I expect polls will show consistant ties from Jan. 08 to Oct. 08), a Senate race slightly in favor of the Dem. candidate (Udall) and a decreasing but steady lead for the House Dems. I think the 40% of the Colorado GOP in 2006 was more or less the bottom and it can only get upward again. Yet I don´t expect the Dems to dip below 50%.

All in all, my prediction for CO 2008:

Clinton-D: 49%
Thompson-R: 48%
Other: 3%

Udall-D: 52%
Schaffer-R: 46%
Other: 2%

House Dems: 52%
House GOP: 44%
Others: 4%


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 19, 2007, 06:50:50 PM
It doesn't work.  It won't work.  Colorado's going to move right next year.

I´m not so sure about this. I think we´ll have a very tight race next year for the Presidency in CO (I expect polls will show consistant ties from Jan. 08 to Oct. 08), a Senate race slightly in favor of the Dem. candidate (Udall) and a decreasing but steady lead for the House Dems. I think the 40% of the Colorado GOP in 2006 was more or less the bottom and it can only get upward again. Yet I don´t expect the Dems to dip below 50%.

All in all, my prediction for CO 2008:

Clinton-D: 49%
Thompson-R: 48%
Other: 3%

Udall-D: 52%
Schaffer-R: 46%
Other: 2%

House Dems: 52%
House GOP: 44%
Others: 4%

That's an interesting perspective.  All I can say is that there is no chance in hell at a mile high that Hillary Clinton wins Colorado.  Udall may pull it out and the House Dems may do well again.  But I promise you that Colorado will not be a blue state unless Bill Richardson were up against Rudy Giuliani or Java the Hut (even then it would be close).

These are my early CO predictions...

Romney 51%
Clinton 45%

Romney 49%
Obama 48%

Thompson 53%
Clinton 45%

Thompson 51%
Obama 47%

Schaffer 52%
Udall 48%

I have nothing to say about the House races.  The districts have been so gerrymandered there's no way any of 'em are switching.  If you couldn't beat Musgrave last year there's no way you're gonna get her next year.  The other districts are pretty well settled.  I do, however, think the GOP will take back either the state house, senate, or both.  The Dems have a lot more up for grabs next year locally than the GOP.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 19, 2007, 09:45:59 PM
It doesn't work.  It won't work.  Colorado's going to move right next year.

I´m not so sure about this. I think we´ll have a very tight race next year for the Presidency in CO (I expect polls will show consistant ties from Jan. 08 to Oct. 08), a Senate race slightly in favor of the Dem. candidate (Udall) and a decreasing but steady lead for the House Dems. I think the 40% of the Colorado GOP in 2006 was more or less the bottom and it can only get upward again. Yet I don´t expect the Dems to dip below 50%.

All in all, my prediction for CO 2008:

Clinton-D: 49%
Thompson-R: 48%
Other: 3%

Udall-D: 52%
Schaffer-R: 46%
Other: 2%

House Dems: 52%
House GOP: 44%
Others: 4%

That's an interesting perspective.  All I can say is that there is no chance in hell at a mile high that Hillary Clinton wins Colorado.  Udall may pull it out and the House Dems may do well again.  But I promise you that Colorado will not be a blue state unless Bill Richardson were up against Rudy Giuliani or Java the Hut (even then it would be close).

These are my early CO predictions...

Romney 51%
Clinton 45%

Romney 49%
Obama 48%

Thompson 53%
Clinton 45%

Thompson 51%
Obama 47%

Schaffer 52%
Udall 48%

I have nothing to say about the House races.  The districts have been so gerrymandered there's no way any of 'em are switching.  If you couldn't beat Musgrave last year there's no way you're gonna get her next year.  The other districts are pretty well settled.  I do, however, think the GOP will take back either the state house, senate, or both.  The Dems have a lot more up for grabs next year locally than the GOP.

And again you fail to explain a simple question.....


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Tender Branson on April 20, 2007, 01:52:37 AM
All I can say is that there is no chance in hell at a mile high that Hillary Clinton wins Colorado. I promise you that Colorado will not be a blue state unless Bill Richardson were up against Rudy Giuliani or Java the Hut (even then it would be close).

I preserve that quote for Nov. 2008 ;)

I´m not saying that she or Obama or Edwards or whoever will Colorado by a landslide, it´s going to be a very tight race, but I have a feeling that the state will be called for the Dem. candidate next year - whatever that means.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 20, 2007, 04:35:11 AM
I´m not saying that she or Obama or Edwards or whoever will Colorado by a landslide, it´s going to be a very tight race, but I have a feeling that the state will be called for the Dem. candidate next year - whatever that means.
I've just looked at the difference between the GOP % in Colorado vs. the US from 1920 to 2004, and taken a 3 election cycle (8 years), and projected that forward for another 4 years as a prediction.

As a predictive device, it is as accurate as a stopped clock.

1920 -1.0R
1924 +3.0R
1928 +6.5R
1932 +1.8R Predict +10.3R
1936 +0.5R Predict +1.2R
1940 +6.1R Predict -2.5R
1944 +7.3R Predict +8.2R
1948 +1.5R Predict +10.7R
1952 +5.1R Predict -0.8R
1956 +2.1R Predict +4.0R
1960 +5.1R Predict +2.4R
1964 -0.3R Predict +5.1R
1968 +7.0R Predict -1.5R
1972 +1.9R Predict +7.9R
1976 +7.0R Predict +3.0R
1980 +4.3R Predict +7.0R
1984 +4.6R Predict +5.5R
1988 -0.3R Predict +3.4R
1992 -1.6R Predict -2.3R
1996 +5.1R Predict -3.1R
2000 +1.9R Predict +7.8R
2004 -1.5R Predict +3.6R
2008 ????? Predict -4.8R



Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 21, 2007, 10:54:09 AM
I´m not saying that she or Obama or Edwards or whoever will Colorado by a landslide, it´s going to be a very tight race, but I have a feeling that the state will be called for the Dem. candidate next year - whatever that means.
I've just looked at the difference between the GOP % in Colorado vs. the US from 1920 to 2004, and taken a 3 election cycle (8 years), and projected that forward for another 4 years as a prediction.

As a predictive device, it is as accurate as a stopped clock.

1920 -1.0R
1924 +3.0R
1928 +6.5R
1932 +1.8R Predict +10.3R
1936 +0.5R Predict +1.2R
1940 +6.1R Predict -2.5R
1944 +7.3R Predict +8.2R
1948 +1.5R Predict +10.7R
1952 +5.1R Predict -0.8R
1956 +2.1R Predict +4.0R
1960 +5.1R Predict +2.4R
1964 -0.3R Predict +5.1R
1968 +7.0R Predict -1.5R
1972 +1.9R Predict +7.9R
1976 +7.0R Predict +3.0R
1980 +4.3R Predict +7.0R
1984 +4.6R Predict +5.5R
1988 -0.3R Predict +3.4R
1992 -1.6R Predict -2.3R
1996 +5.1R Predict -3.1R
2000 +1.9R Predict +7.8R
2004 -1.5R Predict +3.6R
2008 ????? Predict -4.8R



My 2006 predictions were way off so I'm a little reticent to put anything in stone for Colorado.  The politics are like the weather and they literally can change on a dime.  But I know two thing and I know them well:

1.) Colorado does not vote for Democrats for POTUS.  There's nothing to suggest it will in 2008.

2.) Voters in Colorado are every bit as maverick--though conservative--as they have ever been.  There simply has been no ideological shift in this very non-ideological state.

I notice a lot of people are trying to pinpoint ideological movement of a great number of states.  But the truth is that with the notable exception of New Hampshire most states swing back and forth along a small continuum but rarely change dramatically and rarely change long-term.  Colorado was at it's most liberal point--which isn't saying much--in the 70s and swung back to the most conservative point in the late 90s.  Now it may be swinging back again.  But even in the 70s the state was one of the more conservative ones and it consistently voted Republican for POTUS.  That tells me that even if my fears are confirmed--that Colorado is moving to the left--that doesn't say much at all.  Colorado will always be a red state and it will always be one of the more conservative ones.  It's just that next year we may be a little mroe amenable to moderate Democrats just like in 2006.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 22, 2007, 05:15:08 PM
I´m not saying that she or Obama or Edwards or whoever will Colorado by a landslide, it´s going to be a very tight race, but I have a feeling that the state will be called for the Dem. candidate next year - whatever that means.
I've just looked at the difference between the GOP % in Colorado vs. the US from 1920 to 2004, and taken a 3 election cycle (8 years), and projected that forward for another 4 years as a prediction.

As a predictive device, it is as accurate as a stopped clock.

1920 -1.0R
1924 +3.0R
1928 +6.5R
1932 +1.8R Predict +10.3R
1936 +0.5R Predict +1.2R
1940 +6.1R Predict -2.5R
1944 +7.3R Predict +8.2R
1948 +1.5R Predict +10.7R
1952 +5.1R Predict -0.8R
1956 +2.1R Predict +4.0R
1960 +5.1R Predict +2.4R
1964 -0.3R Predict +5.1R
1968 +7.0R Predict -1.5R
1972 +1.9R Predict +7.9R
1976 +7.0R Predict +3.0R
1980 +4.3R Predict +7.0R
1984 +4.6R Predict +5.5R
1988 -0.3R Predict +3.4R
1992 -1.6R Predict -2.3R
1996 +5.1R Predict -3.1R
2000 +1.9R Predict +7.8R
2004 -1.5R Predict +3.6R
2008 ????? Predict -4.8R



My 2006 predictions were way off so I'm a little reticent to put anything in stone for Colorado.  The politics are like the weather and they literally can change on a dime.  But I know two thing and I know them well:

1.) Colorado does not vote for Democrats for POTUS.  There's nothing to suggest it will in 2008.

2.) Voters in Colorado are every bit as maverick--though conservative--as they have ever been.  There simply has been no ideological shift in this very non-ideological state.

I notice a lot of people are trying to pinpoint ideological movement of a great number of states.  But the truth is that with the notable exception of New Hampshire most states swing back and forth along a small continuum but rarely change dramatically and rarely change long-term.  Colorado was at it's most liberal point--which isn't saying much--in the 70s and swung back to the most conservative point in the late 90s.  Now it may be swinging back again.  But even in the 70s the state was one of the more conservative ones and it consistently voted Republican for POTUS.  That tells me that even if my fears are confirmed--that Colorado is moving to the left--that doesn't say much at all.  Colorado will always be a red state and it will always be one of the more conservative ones.  It's just that next year we may be a little mroe amenable to moderate Democrats just like in 2006.

It went from being 10 points more Republican in 1996 than the national average with a moderate Dem for Pres to just 2 points more GOP than the national average in 04 with a liberal Democrat.  That shows, a very drastic move in the direction of the Democrats both as a party and an idealogical shift to the left.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 22, 2007, 05:48:30 PM
I´m not saying that she or Obama or Edwards or whoever will Colorado by a landslide, it´s going to be a very tight race, but I have a feeling that the state will be called for the Dem. candidate next year - whatever that means.
I've just looked at the difference between the GOP % in Colorado vs. the US from 1920 to 2004, and taken a 3 election cycle (8 years), and projected that forward for another 4 years as a prediction.

As a predictive device, it is as accurate as a stopped clock.

1920 -1.0R
1924 +3.0R
1928 +6.5R
1932 +1.8R Predict +10.3R
1936 +0.5R Predict +1.2R
1940 +6.1R Predict -2.5R
1944 +7.3R Predict +8.2R
1948 +1.5R Predict +10.7R
1952 +5.1R Predict -0.8R
1956 +2.1R Predict +4.0R
1960 +5.1R Predict +2.4R
1964 -0.3R Predict +5.1R
1968 +7.0R Predict -1.5R
1972 +1.9R Predict +7.9R
1976 +7.0R Predict +3.0R
1980 +4.3R Predict +7.0R
1984 +4.6R Predict +5.5R
1988 -0.3R Predict +3.4R
1992 -1.6R Predict -2.3R
1996 +5.1R Predict -3.1R
2000 +1.9R Predict +7.8R
2004 -1.5R Predict +3.6R
2008 ????? Predict -4.8R



My 2006 predictions were way off so I'm a little reticent to put anything in stone for Colorado.  The politics are like the weather and they literally can change on a dime.  But I know two thing and I know them well:

1.) Colorado does not vote for Democrats for POTUS.  There's nothing to suggest it will in 2008.

2.) Voters in Colorado are every bit as maverick--though conservative--as they have ever been.  There simply has been no ideological shift in this very non-ideological state.

I notice a lot of people are trying to pinpoint ideological movement of a great number of states.  But the truth is that with the notable exception of New Hampshire most states swing back and forth along a small continuum but rarely change dramatically and rarely change long-term.  Colorado was at it's most liberal point--which isn't saying much--in the 70s and swung back to the most conservative point in the late 90s.  Now it may be swinging back again.  But even in the 70s the state was one of the more conservative ones and it consistently voted Republican for POTUS.  That tells me that even if my fears are confirmed--that Colorado is moving to the left--that doesn't say much at all.  Colorado will always be a red state and it will always be one of the more conservative ones.  It's just that next year we may be a little mroe amenable to moderate Democrats just like in 2006.

It went from being 10 points more Republican in 1996 than the national average with a moderate Dem for Pres to just 2 points more GOP than the national average in 04 with a liberal Democrat.  That shows, a very drastic move in the direction of the Democrats both as a party and an idealogical shift to the left.

Smash, I get your point.  I understand, obviously, that the political preferences for Coloradans have been more liberal than, say, 10 years ago.  I submit that that doesn't signal a shift in the electorate so much as a shift in money, candidate quality, etc. in Colorado to the Dems.

But here's the big point: In 2004 one of the most liberal members of Congress took 48% of the vote in America.  Everything you say about Colorado could be said exactly about American generally.  You can pick any state and point out the shift to the Democrats--Ohio, New Hampshire, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, etc. etc etc.  You're taking Colorado out of its national political context to make a point. 



Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 22, 2007, 07:02:09 PM
I´m not saying that she or Obama or Edwards or whoever will Colorado by a landslide, it´s going to be a very tight race, but I have a feeling that the state will be called for the Dem. candidate next year - whatever that means.
I've just looked at the difference between the GOP % in Colorado vs. the US from 1920 to 2004, and taken a 3 election cycle (8 years), and projected that forward for another 4 years as a prediction.

As a predictive device, it is as accurate as a stopped clock.

1920 -1.0R
1924 +3.0R
1928 +6.5R
1932 +1.8R Predict +10.3R
1936 +0.5R Predict +1.2R
1940 +6.1R Predict -2.5R
1944 +7.3R Predict +8.2R
1948 +1.5R Predict +10.7R
1952 +5.1R Predict -0.8R
1956 +2.1R Predict +4.0R
1960 +5.1R Predict +2.4R
1964 -0.3R Predict +5.1R
1968 +7.0R Predict -1.5R
1972 +1.9R Predict +7.9R
1976 +7.0R Predict +3.0R
1980 +4.3R Predict +7.0R
1984 +4.6R Predict +5.5R
1988 -0.3R Predict +3.4R
1992 -1.6R Predict -2.3R
1996 +5.1R Predict -3.1R
2000 +1.9R Predict +7.8R
2004 -1.5R Predict +3.6R
2008 ????? Predict -4.8R



My 2006 predictions were way off so I'm a little reticent to put anything in stone for Colorado.  The politics are like the weather and they literally can change on a dime.  But I know two thing and I know them well:

1.) Colorado does not vote for Democrats for POTUS.  There's nothing to suggest it will in 2008.

2.) Voters in Colorado are every bit as maverick--though conservative--as they have ever been.  There simply has been no ideological shift in this very non-ideological state.

I notice a lot of people are trying to pinpoint ideological movement of a great number of states.  But the truth is that with the notable exception of New Hampshire most states swing back and forth along a small continuum but rarely change dramatically and rarely change long-term.  Colorado was at it's most liberal point--which isn't saying much--in the 70s and swung back to the most conservative point in the late 90s.  Now it may be swinging back again.  But even in the 70s the state was one of the more conservative ones and it consistently voted Republican for POTUS.  That tells me that even if my fears are confirmed--that Colorado is moving to the left--that doesn't say much at all.  Colorado will always be a red state and it will always be one of the more conservative ones.  It's just that next year we may be a little mroe amenable to moderate Democrats just like in 2006.

It went from being 10 points more Republican in 1996 than the national average with a moderate Dem for Pres to just 2 points more GOP than the national average in 04 with a liberal Democrat.  That shows, a very drastic move in the direction of the Democrats both as a party and an idealogical shift to the left.

Smash, I get your point.  I understand, obviously, that the political preferences for Coloradans have been more liberal than, say, 10 years ago.  I submit that that doesn't signal a shift in the electorate so much as a shift in money, candidate quality, etc. in Colorado to the Dems.

But here's the big point: In 2004 one of the most liberal members of Congress took 48% of the vote in America.  Everything you say about Colorado could be said exactly about American generally.  You can pick any state and point out the shift to the Democrats--Ohio, New Hampshire, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, etc. etc etc.  You're taking Colorado out of its national political context to make a point. 


I'm not taking Colorado out of its national political context to make a point.  What I am suggesting is you have to look at how a state compares to the national average and look at that when you show how a state is trending.  Colorado went from being much more GOP than the national average in 96, to being very close with the national average in 04.  That is looking at Colorado and comparing it to the differences in the other states.  the state is showing no signs of slowing down or stopping its Democratic trend.  When the shift that big happens against the national average on the Presidential level, its much more than just because of local Democrats doing well.  Its an ideological shift.  Compared to the national average the state has basically moved more than almost every other state in the country.  That really says quite a bit about what kind of movement is going on in the state.  And a movement that much, especially in the favor of the liberal Kerry shows its an ideology based shift as well.

Looking at how Colorado has shifted against the national average n comparison to how other states have shifted against the national average is not taking Colorado out of its national political context, in fact its the very definition of looking at Colorado in its national political context.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 23, 2007, 12:05:25 AM
I'm not taking Colorado out of its national political context to make a point.  What I am suggesting is you have to look at how a state compares to the national average and look at that when you show how a state is trending. 
What I am suggesting is not only do you have to look at how a state compares to the national average, but you also have to look whether the trend continued.

Let's take a look at the 8 year periods where there was a major shift toward one party relative to the national support, and let's then look at the shift the following presidential election.

1920-1928 Colorado became 7.5% more Republican than USA.
1928-1936 Colorado became 6.0% less Republican than USA.
1932-1940 Colorado became 4.3% more Republican than USA.
1936-1944 Colorado became 6.8% more Republican than USA.
1940-1948 Colorado became 4.6% less Republican than USA.
1988-1996 Colorado became 5.6% more Republican than USA.
1996-2004 Colorado became 6.6% less Republican than USA.

According to your argument these changes represent an ideological shift, that would continue into the future.  Am I misunderstanding your argument?

Let's then look what happened in the next election.

1932-1936 Colorado 4.7% less Republican than USA.
1936-1940 Colorado 5.6% more Republican than USA.
1940-1944 Colorado 1.2% more Republican than USA.
1944-1948 Colorado 5.8% less Republican than USA.
1948-1952 Colorado 3.6% more Republican than USA.
1996-2000 Colorado 3.2% less Republican than USA.
2004-2008 Colorado unknown.

So if we take the 6 eight year periods since 1920, where Colorado Republican voted shifted relative to the USA by more than 4%, in only one instance was that trend continued in the following election.  In the other 5 elections, there was a major reversal.

Your prediction method batted 0.166.  Not only was it far below the Mendoza line, it hit into double plays.

Quote
Colorado went from being much more GOP than the national average in 96, to being very close with the national average in 04.  That is looking at Colorado and comparing it to the differences in the other states. 
There have 6 similar magnitude relative shifts since 1920.

Quote
the state is showing no signs of slowing down or stopping its Democratic trend.
And in 5 of those 6 previous occurences there was a major reversal of the trend.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 23, 2007, 12:38:30 AM
Not all trends continue I will acknowledge that much, however in the past their have been things to indicate that a reversal maybe in order.  In this case their isn't anything to indicate that this trend is reversing itself.  Also in the past states have switched back & forth for numerous reasons.  The current climate of how states shift is much more ideology based than in the past.

 In other words in the past shifts have occurred with little changes in ideology.  However its much different today and with today's political climate shifts occur mostly due to ideology. .


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 24, 2007, 06:29:35 PM
Not all trends continue I will acknowledge that much, however in the past their have been things to indicate that a reversal maybe in order.  In this case their isn't anything to indicate that this trend is reversing itself.  Also in the past states have switched back & forth for numerous reasons.  The current climate of how states shift is much more ideology based than in the past.

In other words in the past shifts have occurred with little changes in ideology.  However its much different today and with today's political climate shifts occur mostly due to ideology. .
You earlier wrote:

"The real way to compare how a state is trending is not to look at the raw numbers from one election to the next and so on, its to look at those numbers and how they are compared to the national average.  And how the national average is trending."

So you are saying that the "real way" was not the "real way" until just recently, but that you do not have any data to support the "real way"?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 24, 2007, 09:28:32 PM
Not all trends continue I will acknowledge that much, however in the past their have been things to indicate that a reversal maybe in order.  In this case their isn't anything to indicate that this trend is reversing itself.  Also in the past states have switched back & forth for numerous reasons.  The current climate of how states shift is much more ideology based than in the past.

In other words in the past shifts have occurred with little changes in ideology.  However its much different today and with today's political climate shifts occur mostly due to ideology. .
You earlier wrote:

"The real way to compare how a state is trending is not to look at the raw numbers from one election to the next and so on, its to look at those numbers and how they are compared to the national average.  And how the national average is trending."

So you are saying that the "real way" was not the "real way" until just recently, but that you do not have any data to support the "real way"?



It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rococo4 on April 24, 2007, 11:12:26 PM
you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 25, 2007, 09:33:57 PM
you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

Wow!  An endorsement of Elway from an Ohio guy?  Heresy!


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Tender Branson on April 26, 2007, 12:28:19 AM
you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

Wow!  An endorsement of Elway from an Ohio guy?  Heresy!

Nope, he meant we should better focus on the Topic "Elway for Senate", rather than discussing which way Colorado will go next year ...


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 27, 2007, 03:55:40 AM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven than in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 27, 2007, 09:24:45 AM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?

Sorry for butting in, Jim from Texas...

Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rococo4 on April 27, 2007, 01:22:10 PM
you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

Wow!  An endorsement of Elway from an Ohio guy?  Heresy!

I dont like the Browns.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 27, 2007, 02:51:04 PM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?

Sorry for butting in, Jim from Texas...

Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.

then again please explain the massive shift compared to the national average toward the liberal John Kerry??


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 27, 2007, 02:54:42 PM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?

Not just Colorado, but the nation as a whole over the past 10 years or so votes much more on an ideological level than they did in the past.  Suburban Denver, especially Araphoe and Jefferson counties have shown rather large similarities to places such as suburban NY, suburban Philly, NOVA.  In that all the areas were once heavily GOP (some more than  others) and have moved sharply towards the Democrats.  Some have moved a bit further than the Denver suburbs, but they also did start off a bit even more Republican than the others. 


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 29, 2007, 04:09:19 AM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically than driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?
Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.
I agree.  It is Smash255's argument that:

(1) The "real way" to measure ideological shift is by comparing the state-wide vote vs. the national vote.

(2) That there was such a shift from 1996 to 2004, and that it will continue in 2008.

(3) Since 1920, Colorado has had 6 8-year periods where it has had a relative shift over 4%.  5 of 6 times, it has had a major reversal in the next election.

(4) Since (3) contradicts (1), we should disregard the "real way" to measure ideological shift, except when it measures ideological shift.

(5) He has not provided a method of distinguishing the two.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 29, 2007, 04:24:33 AM
Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.
then again please explain the massive shift compared to the national average toward the liberal John Kerry??
John Kerry was born in Colorado.  George Bush is from Texas.  Neil Bush was in Colorado when Silverado went under.  There was a complete collapse in the Nader support in Colorado between 2000 and 2004.  Colorado was Nader's 8th best state in 2000, his vote in 2004 was negligible.    There was a massive collapse of the support in Perot support between 1992 and 1996.  Colorado was Perot's 14th best state in 1992, his 8th worst in 1996.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on April 29, 2007, 04:48:26 AM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?
Not just Colorado, but the nation as a whole over the past 10 years or so votes much more on an ideological level than they did in the past. 
Suburban Denver, especially Araphoe and Jefferson counties have shown rather large similarities to places such as suburban NY, suburban Philly, NOVA.[/quote]
Arapahoe County is only 12 miles wide, but more significantly south of Denver is about 1/2 of that.  It is mostly settled.  The black population in Denver has traditionally been in east Denver, and that has continued into Aurora.   Jefferson County is settled up to the foothills.  To the NW, you get into Boulder County (Lafayette, Louisville, and Broomfield).  To the SW, the Platte River cuts off most of the developable land.  Denver used to have 1/4 of the Colorado population, now less than 1/7 (more votes cast in 1952 than in 2000).  You're simply seeing a spread of Denver outward.

Meanwhile, Adams County, which is traditionally Democrat is trending Republican.  (4.12% more GOP in 2004, vs 1.14% for Colorado).  It is 18 miles wide so still has expansion room for northward growth.  This is starting to spill over into Weld County (4.75% more Republican in 2004, on a turnout increase of 37% in just 4 years).  Growth to the south into Douglas County continues (turnout up 41% in just 4 years.

You're confusing demographic shift with ideological shift.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 29, 2007, 03:11:34 PM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?
Not just Colorado, but the nation as a whole over the past 10 years or so votes much more on an ideological level than they did in the past. 
Suburban Denver, especially Araphoe and Jefferson counties have shown rather large similarities to places such as suburban NY, suburban Philly, NOVA.
Arapahoe County is only 12 miles wide, but more significantly south of Denver is about 1/2 of that.  It is mostly settled.  The black population in Denver has traditionally been in east Denver, and that has continued into Aurora.   Jefferson County is settled up to the foothills.  To the NW, you get into Boulder County (Lafayette, Louisville, and Broomfield).  To the SW, the Platte River cuts off most of the developable land.  Denver used to have 1/4 of the Colorado population, now less than 1/7 (more votes cast in 1952 than in 2000).  You're simply seeing a spread of Denver outward.

Meanwhile, Adams County, which is traditionally Democrat is trending Republican.  (4.12% more GOP in 2004, vs 1.14% for Colorado).  It is 18 miles wide so still has expansion room for northward growth.  This is starting to spill over into Weld County (4.75% more Republican in 2004, on a turnout increase of 37% in just 4 years).  Growth to the south into Douglas County continues (turnout up 41% in just 4 years.

You're confusing demographic shift with ideological shift.
[/quote]

Boy you sure are smart, Jim!

I have little to add to that, other than the fact that Jefferson County is becoming more urbanized, more Latino-ized, and more like what urban Denver used to be like.  On the other hand, the metro area continues to shift outward and as it does so, Douglas County and CD-6 is becoming the money spot for the GOP and Adams County is shifting right with newer subdivisions popping up.

Metro Denver has always been a little cranky politically.  It is still quite culturally conservative and it leans Republican.  But you piss those folks off they're gonna switch parties no matter what party it is they're switchin' to.

After redistricting in 2010 you'll probably see everything tighten up again.  Conservative areas will get awarded more seats--as that's where we see the most growth.  It's not a coincidence that the best years for the GOP were right after the 2000 census and redistricting.  It's conservative exurban districts that are growing.  And it's those folks that are leaving old suburbs leaving a hole which moderate Democrats quickly fill.

As Arapahoe and Elbert counties grow with newer suburban developments you'll see those counties tilt right as JeffCo Republican move away.

As I've been saying, you can't look at elections in a vacuum when you're missing the important context of demographic shifts that are demonstrative of a trend across the nation.  Colorado's a center-right state, there's plenty of stuff to evidence that, the question is whether or not the GOP becomes a serious center-right party.  With Dick Wadhams in charge, they will once again be serious and the state's center-right character will shine in elections.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 29, 2007, 05:32:39 PM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically than driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?
Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.
I agree.  It is Smash255's argument that:

(1) The "real way" to measure ideological shift is by comparing the state-wide vote vs. the national vote.

(2) That there was such a shift from 1996 to 2004, and that it will continue in 2008.

(3) Since 1920, Colorado has had 6 8-year periods where it has had a relative shift over 4%.  5 of 6 times, it has had a major reversal in the next election.

(4) Since (3) contradicts (1), we should disregard the "real way" to measure ideological shift, except when it measures ideological shift.

(5) He has not provided a method of distinguishing the two.

I have stated on several times that the country as a whole  votes on a more ideological  basis now than in the past.  The shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years or so (across the entire country) are much more based in ideology than in the past, which means less of a chance for a state to trend one way than fly back the other.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 29, 2007, 05:48:26 PM
It is the real way to tell how a state is trending.  However, in the past their were more chances of a state to shift back & forth than their is now due to  the voting being more ideologically driven than in the past
So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?
Not just Colorado, but the nation as a whole over the past 10 years or so votes much more on an ideological level than they did in the past. 
Suburban Denver, especially Araphoe and Jefferson counties have shown rather large similarities to places such as suburban NY, suburban Philly, NOVA.
Arapahoe County is only 12 miles wide, but more significantly south of Denver is about 1/2 of that.  It is mostly settled.  The black population in Denver has traditionally been in east Denver, and that has continued into Aurora.   Jefferson County is settled up to the foothills.  To the NW, you get into Boulder County (Lafayette, Louisville, and Broomfield).  To the SW, the Platte River cuts off most of the developable land.  Denver used to have 1/4 of the Colorado population, now less than 1/7 (more votes cast in 1952 than in 2000).  You're simply seeing a spread of Denver outward.

Meanwhile, Adams County, which is traditionally Democrat is trending Republican.  (4.12% more GOP in 2004, vs 1.14% for Colorado).  It is 18 miles wide so still has expansion room for northward growth.  This is starting to spill over into Weld County (4.75% more Republican in 2004, on a turnout increase of 37% in just 4 years).  Growth to the south into Douglas County continues (turnout up 41% in just 4 years.

You're confusing demographic shift with ideological shift.
[/quote]

Compared to the national average Adams County is actually one point more Democratic than in 1996 (4.81 vs 3.85), and slightly more Republican compared to the national average than in 2000 (5.58).  the movement there is so small that their really is no trend.

Jefferson County on the other hand has moved from 14.24% more GOP than the national average in 96 to just 2.73% more GOP in 04.  That is a very large shift.

Araphoe as well has moved drastically towards the Dems.  In fact it has moved even further Democratic than Jefferson has.  From 17.39% more GOP than the national average in 96 to just 1.50% more GOP than the national average in 04.

You state Jefferson county has moved so much due to demographic reasons.  Few things for starters demographics alone don't equal that much of a shift, it is also ideologically based.  Demographics have changed, but not to the extent the shift has been (same thing where I am on Long Island).  Dems have benefited from some demographic changes, but the demographic shifts don't match the shift.  On top of that Araphoe County which has seen fewer demographic changes than Jefferson County has actually seen a larger shift toward the Democrats.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on April 29, 2007, 06:40:53 PM
Even Democratic areas have shifted. For example (I'm using only Bush's numbers here because Nader skewed things in 2000):

Eagle County:

2000 - 1.2% less Republican
2004 - 4.63% less Republican
(also gave Dole basically his national numbers in 1996)

Boulder County:

2000 - 11.94% less Republican
2004 - 18.34% less Republican

Pitkin County:

2000 - 14.99% less Republican
2004 - 20.65% less Republican

These type of swings weren't seen basically anywhere else in the country.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on April 30, 2007, 07:01:23 PM
Even Democratic areas have shifted. For example (I'm using only Bush's numbers here because Nader skewed things in 2000):

Eagle County:

2000 - 1.2% less Republican
2004 - 4.63% less Republican
(also gave Dole basically his national numbers in 1996)

Boulder County:

2000 - 11.94% less Republican
2004 - 18.34% less Republican

Pitkin County:

2000 - 14.99% less Republican
2004 - 20.65% less Republican

These type of swings weren't seen basically anywhere else in the country.

You're picking the vertex of liberal hell in Colorado.  2004 was one of the most charged and polarizing elections in recent history so of course you're going to have Boulder, Vail, and Aspen move even more left.

Next, those counties make up, what, 10% of Colorado's total population--at most?  That's like me picking some out-of-the-way podunk town on the Eastern Plains and hyping it up as the latest, greatest trendsetter in the West.

It's just absurd to take one election in a vacuum and pretend it is at all significant long-term.

Wait a while before you start painting Colorado blue.  I know you liberals are jumping the gun with excitement at taking back the White House with Ohio and Colorado.  But just hold on a minute.  You forgot to tell the people of Colorado--the voters--that we're going liberal.  Try that first.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on April 30, 2007, 11:36:20 PM
Even Democratic areas have shifted. For example (I'm using only Bush's numbers here because Nader skewed things in 2000):

Eagle County:

2000 - 1.2% less Republican
2004 - 4.63% less Republican
(also gave Dole basically his national numbers in 1996)

Boulder County:

2000 - 11.94% less Republican
2004 - 18.34% less Republican

Pitkin County:

2000 - 14.99% less Republican
2004 - 20.65% less Republican

These type of swings weren't seen basically anywhere else in the country.

You're picking the vertex of liberal hell in Colorado.  2004 was one of the most charged and polarizing elections in recent history so of course you're going to have Boulder, Vail, and Aspen move even more left.

Next, those counties make up, what, 10% of Colorado's total population--at most?  That's like me picking some out-of-the-way podunk town on the Eastern Plains and hyping it up as the latest, greatest trendsetter in the West.

It's just absurd to take one election in a vacuum and pretend it is at all significant long-term.

Wait a while before you start painting Colorado blue.  I know you liberals are jumping the gun with excitement at taking back the White House with Ohio and Colorado.  But just hold on a minute.  You forgot to tell the people of Colorado--the voters--that we're going liberal.  Try that first.

Liberal like the northeast?  no.  Moderate to left of center?  Yes, and the trend for that is a big one and the voters do know.  A huge shift against the national average on the Pres level between 96 & 04, with some of the largest shifts happening in the suburban Denver counties of Jefferson and an even larger trend in Araphoe...


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on May 01, 2007, 11:22:29 AM
(5) He has not provided a method of distinguishing the two.
I have stated on several times that the country as a whole  votes on a more ideological  basis now than in the past.  The shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years or so (across the entire country) are much more based in ideology than in the past, which means less of a chance for a state to trend one way than fly back the other.
Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

If there were non-ideological effects - were these constant across the country - such that any state-to-state variation from this 11% shift are due solely to ideological effects?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on May 01, 2007, 12:49:11 PM
Even Democratic areas have shifted. For example (I'm using only Bush's numbers here because Nader skewed things in 2000):

Eagle County:

2000 - 1.2% less Republican
2004 - 4.63% less Republican
(also gave Dole basically his national numbers in 1996)

Boulder County:

2000 - 11.94% less Republican
2004 - 18.34% less Republican

Pitkin County:

2000 - 14.99% less Republican
2004 - 20.65% less Republican

These type of swings weren't seen basically anywhere else in the country.

You're picking the vertex of liberal hell in Colorado.  2004 was one of the most charged and polarizing elections in recent history so of course you're going to have Boulder, Vail, and Aspen move even more left.

Next, those counties make up, what, 10% of Colorado's total population--at most?  That's like me picking some out-of-the-way podunk town on the Eastern Plains and hyping it up as the latest, greatest trendsetter in the West.

It's just absurd to take one election in a vacuum and pretend it is at all significant long-term.

Wait a while before you start painting Colorado blue.  I know you liberals are jumping the gun with excitement at taking back the White House with Ohio and Colorado.  But just hold on a minute.  You forgot to tell the people of Colorado--the voters--that we're going liberal.  Try that first.

Liberal like the northeast?  no.  Moderate to left of center?  Yes, and the trend for that is a big one and the voters do know.  A huge shift against the national average on the Pres level between 96 & 04, with some of the largest shifts happening in the suburban Denver counties of Jefferson and an even larger trend in Araphoe...

Actually, Arapahoe County has started moving back to the right.  Understand that Arapahoe County is home to Aurora--a large suburb with a very large minority population.  It has always been Democrat-leaning.  But as new exurban subdivisions pop up the landscape is shifting right.

It's the opposite in Jefferson County where Republican, wealthy Jeffco voters are moving into those Arapahoe and Douglas County exurbs leaving behind a void filled by poor whites, minorities, and older voters.  That's why you've seen such a dramatic shift in CD-7 and a tilt to the right in CD-6.

In othe words, it isn't that the metro area has shifted politically one way or another--it's that the GOP electorate is moving out of the inner 'burbs to exurban communities in Arapahoe, Adams, Elbert, and Douglas counties.  That's leaving places like Jeffco, Denver Co, and Boulder county even MORE Democratic.

Because this shift is mostly a post-census, post-gerrymandering event, the district boundaries have not accounted for this shift leaving Republican districts with disproportionately higher populations than the Democratic districts in Jeffco with disproportionately lower populations--and heavily Democratic.

The problem with your statistical finnegery is that you aren't looking at the metro area--and state--as an organic whole that takes a long, long time to affect any real ideological change.  The metro area isn't so much as becoming more liberal as it's staying center-right and moving all around, poking out in some sides and collapsing in other areas--leaving the famous donut of newer, more conservative suburbs ringing a defunct, Latino-ized inner city and inner suburban ring.

Your statistical analysis would work if you were looking at the metro area today as it was in 1995.  But since 1995 the metro area is VERY different in size, demographics, etc.

My point is that after the next census and after a couple more elections the state will surely shift back to the Republicans as it did after the 2000 census.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on May 01, 2007, 02:36:11 PM
Arapahoe County is only 12 miles wide, but more significantly south of Denver is about 1/2 of that.  It is mostly settled.  The black population in Denver has traditionally been in east Denver, and that has continued into Aurora.   Jefferson County is settled up to the foothills.  To the NW, you get into Boulder County (Lafayette, Louisville, and Broomfield).  To the SW, the Platte River cuts off most of the developable land.  Denver used to have 1/4 of the Colorado population, now less than 1/7 (more votes cast in 1952 than in 2000).  You're simply seeing a spread of Denver outward.

Meanwhile, Adams County, which is traditionally Democrat is trending Republican.  (4.12% more GOP in 2004, vs 1.14% for Colorado).  It is 18 miles wide so still has expansion room for northward growth.  This is starting to spill over into Weld County (4.75% more Republican in 2004, on a turnout increase of 37% in just 4 years).  Growth to the south into Douglas County continues (turnout up 41% in just 4 years.

You're confusing demographic shift with ideological shift.
Compared to the national average Adams County is actually one point more Democratic than in 1996 (4.81 vs 3.85), and slightly more Republican compared to the national average than in 2000 (5.58).  the movement there is so small that their really is no trend.

Jefferson County on the other hand has moved from 14.24% more GOP than the national average in 96 to just 2.73% more GOP in 04.  That is a very large shift.

Araphoe as well has moved drastically towards the Dems.  In fact it has moved even further Democratic than Jefferson has.  From 17.39% more GOP than the national average in 96 to just 1.50% more GOP than the national average in 04.

You state Jefferson county has moved so much due to demographic reasons.  Few things for starters demographics alone don't equal that much of a shift, it is also ideologically based.  Demographics have changed, but not to the extent the shift has been (same thing where I am on Long Island).  Dems have benefited from some demographic changes, but the demographic shifts don't match the shift.  On top of that Araphoe County which has seen fewer demographic changes than Jefferson County has actually seen a larger shift toward the Democrats.
Colorado shifted from just 1.30% more GOP in 1992, to 9.89% more GOP in 1996.  But this doesn't account for the Perot effect.  Colorado went from 14th strongest Perot state, to 8th weakest Perot state.  You don't see that sort of change elsewhere.  Maine was Perot's best state in both elections.  If we look at the two states either side of Colorado in 1992, Nebraska went from 13th to 14th, and Rhode Island went from 15th to 9th.

From the perspective of Colorado, the easy re-election of Clinton in 1996 was an aberration at the national level.  Now that the country is behaving more like Colorado, you see it as Colorado shifting towards the US, when it is actually the country becoming more like Colorado.

Here is an analogy.  A car swerved two lanes to the right.  You heard the squealing tires and looked up to see two cars two lanes apart, but did not actually observe the swerve.  As you watch the cars, the car on the left moves two lanes to the right, while the car on the right moves one lane to the right.  They are now only one lane apart.  From your perspective, the car on the right is "drifting to the left".

From someone who had been observing the whole time, both cars have moved right, it was just that the one car had moved right sooner.

In Adams County, GOP voting was up 80% between 1996 and 2004.  Dem voting up only 43%.  This is what you mean by "more Democratic"?  GOP voting didn't double in 8 years, so obviously the county is trending left.

In Jefferson County, GOP voting is up 39%, while Dem voting is up 41%.  That doesn't look like much of a Democratic shift at all.

What data do you have that supports your assertion that Arapahoe County has had fewer demographic changes than Jefferson County?  According to the 2006 ACS, Arapahoe County is 33% non-Anglo, Jefferson County is 18% non-Anglo.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on May 01, 2007, 09:47:26 PM
Arapahoe County is only 12 miles wide, but more significantly south of Denver is about 1/2 of that.  It is mostly settled.  The black population in Denver has traditionally been in east Denver, and that has continued into Aurora.   Jefferson County is settled up to the foothills.  To the NW, you get into Boulder County (Lafayette, Louisville, and Broomfield).  To the SW, the Platte River cuts off most of the developable land.  Denver used to have 1/4 of the Colorado population, now less than 1/7 (more votes cast in 1952 than in 2000).  You're simply seeing a spread of Denver outward.

Meanwhile, Adams County, which is traditionally Democrat is trending Republican.  (4.12% more GOP in 2004, vs 1.14% for Colorado).  It is 18 miles wide so still has expansion room for northward growth.  This is starting to spill over into Weld County (4.75% more Republican in 2004, on a turnout increase of 37% in just 4 years).  Growth to the south into Douglas County continues (turnout up 41% in just 4 years.

You're confusing demographic shift with ideological shift.
Compared to the national average Adams County is actually one point more Democratic than in 1996 (4.81 vs 3.85), and slightly more Republican compared to the national average than in 2000 (5.58).  the movement there is so small that their really is no trend.

Jefferson County on the other hand has moved from 14.24% more GOP than the national average in 96 to just 2.73% more GOP in 04.  That is a very large shift.

Araphoe as well has moved drastically towards the Dems.  In fact it has moved even further Democratic than Jefferson has.  From 17.39% more GOP than the national average in 96 to just 1.50% more GOP than the national average in 04.

You state Jefferson county has moved so much due to demographic reasons.  Few things for starters demographics alone don't equal that much of a shift, it is also ideologically based.  Demographics have changed, but not to the extent the shift has been (same thing where I am on Long Island).  Dems have benefited from some demographic changes, but the demographic shifts don't match the shift.  On top of that Araphoe County which has seen fewer demographic changes than Jefferson County has actually seen a larger shift toward the Democrats.


From the perspective of Colorado, the easy re-election of Clinton in 1996 was an aberration at the national level.  Now that the country is behaving more like Colorado, you see it as Colorado shifting towards the US, when it is actually the country becoming more like Colorado.

Here is an analogy.  A car swerved two lanes to the right.  You heard the squealing tires and looked up to see two cars two lanes apart, but did not actually observe the swerve.  As you watch the cars, the car on the left moves two lanes to the right, while the car on the right moves one lane to the right.  They are now only one lane apart.  From your perspective, the car on the right is "drifting to the left".

From someone who had been observing the whole time, both cars have moved right, it was just that the one car had moved right sooner.



GREAT analogy!  Couldn't have said it better myself.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on May 01, 2007, 10:20:52 PM
(5) He has not provided a method of distinguishing the two.
I have stated on several times that the country as a whole  votes on a more ideological  basis now than in the past.  The shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years or so (across the entire country) are much more based in ideology than in the past, which means less of a chance for a state to trend one way than fly back the other.
Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

If there were non-ideological effects - were these constant across the country - such that any state-to-state variation from this 11% shift are due solely to ideological effects?

That is why its better to look how a state trends compared to the national averag as just on its own.  Their are numerous variances, the biggest of which is the strength of the candidates on a national level, .  The changes that happen on a national level is a reflection of that.  When you look at a state and compare it to its movement on the national level these factors are already taken into account.  If a state is moving in a way that is so at odds with the national movement (such as Colorado) it is something that is more ideology based than anything else, especially in todays times. 


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on May 03, 2007, 06:41:36 PM
I have stated on several times that the country as a whole  votes on a more ideological  basis now than in the past.  The shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years or so (across the entire country) are much more based in ideology than in the past, which means less of a chance for a state to trend one way than fly back the other.
Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

If there were non-ideological effects - were these constant across the country - such that any state-to-state variation from this 11% shift are due solely to ideological effects?
That is why its better to look how a state trends compared to the national averag as just on its own.  Their are numerous variances, the biggest of which is the strength of the candidates on a national level, .  The changes that happen on a national level is a reflection of that.  When you look at a state and compare it to its movement on the national level these factors are already taken into account.  If a state is moving in a way that is so at odds with the national movement (such as Colorado) it is something that is more ideology based than anything else, especially in todays times. 
So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

How do you explain what happened between 1992 and 1996 in Colorado?

And how does your method account for a state that is already more Republican than the country as a whole.  If the United States voted 10% more Democrat, you wouldn't expect the District of Columbia to become 10% more Democratic, would you?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on May 03, 2007, 11:19:03 PM
I have stated on several times that the country as a whole  votes on a more ideological  basis now than in the past.  The shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years or so (across the entire country) are much more based in ideology than in the past, which means less of a chance for a state to trend one way than fly back the other.
Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

If there were non-ideological effects - were these constant across the country - such that any state-to-state variation from this 11% shift are due solely to ideological effects?
That is why its better to look how a state trends compared to the national averag as just on its own.  Their are numerous variances, the biggest of which is the strength of the candidates on a national level, .  The changes that happen on a national level is a reflection of that.  When you look at a state and compare it to its movement on the national level these factors are already taken into account.  If a state is moving in a way that is so at odds with the national movement (such as Colorado) it is something that is more ideology based than anything else, especially in todays times. 
So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

How do you explain what happened between 1992 and 1996 in Colorado?

And how does your method account for a state that is already more Republican than the country as a whole.  If the United States voted 10% more Democrat, you wouldn't expect the District of Columbia to become 10% more Democratic, would you?


I said as a general rule, but their are exception.  Bush's better performance in NY was directly related to a 9/11 bump,. this is shown in part, by how well he did in the NYC suburbs compared to 2000, but his approval ratings dropping like rocks here, and the overall disaster of the GOP.

Between 92 & 96 it in part could have had been somewhat impacted by Perot.  Various exit polls showed about a 60/40 split (or slightly less) in Bush's favor out of the 92 Perot voters.  Meanwhile that split in 96 was pretty much 50/50.  Perot's voters in 96 were more Democratic than his 92 voters, combine that with the drop off in the Perot vote, it may explain why their was such a difference between 92 & 96.   Why such a drop off between 92 & 96 its hard to say.  Possible that Perot's 1992 voters were more pissed at Clinton in Colorado than the 92 voters for Perot countrywide.  Another possibility is that Perot's voters in 92 were more Republican than the approx 60/40 split of his voters nationwide.  Possibly Bush Sr was more disliked among Republicans in Colorado in 92 than he was nationwide among Republicans.

As far as D.C, again their can be exceptions, and limits.  However, as a general rule when state move in a way that is very different from how the national movement is, that tells you something about that state, and changes going on in a state.  Their are certain exceptions such as a native son, a candidate who happens to be stronger in a certain area, something like the 9/11 effect, etc.  However, none of these exceptions fit Colorado, especially the change and who it was made to.  By that I mean with this trend happening going from a moderate from Arkansas to a liberal from Massachusetts. 
If this Democratic trend occurred going from a liberal Dem candidate from the northeast to a moderate Dem candidate while I would probably still disagree with the argument that it doesn't really mean a leftward shift, but the argument would have more merit.  However, thats not the case, we are seeing a shift this drastic while the Dem candidates have shifted from a moderate to a liberal.  That does tell you that their is movement toward the left.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on May 04, 2007, 09:23:26 AM
I have stated on several times that the country as a whole  votes on a more ideological  basis now than in the past.  The shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years or so (across the entire country) are much more based in ideology than in the past, which means less of a chance for a state to trend one way than fly back the other.
Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

If there were non-ideological effects - were these constant across the country - such that any state-to-state variation from this 11% shift are due solely to ideological effects?
That is why its better to look how a state trends compared to the national averag as just on its own.  Their are numerous variances, the biggest of which is the strength of the candidates on a national level, .  The changes that happen on a national level is a reflection of that.  When you look at a state and compare it to its movement on the national level these factors are already taken into account.  If a state is moving in a way that is so at odds with the national movement (such as Colorado) it is something that is more ideology based than anything else, especially in todays times. 
So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

How do you explain what happened between 1992 and 1996 in Colorado?

And how does your method account for a state that is already more Republican than the country as a whole.  If the United States voted 10% more Democrat, you wouldn't expect the District of Columbia to become 10% more Democratic, would you?


I said as a general rule, but their are exception.  Bush's better performance in NY was directly related to a 9/11 bump,. this is shown in part, by how well he did in the NYC suburbs compared to 2000, but his approval ratings dropping like rocks here, and the overall disaster of the GOP.

Between 92 & 96 it in part could have had been somewhat impacted by Perot.  Various exit polls showed about a 60/40 split (or slightly less) in Bush's favor out of the 92 Perot voters.  Meanwhile that split in 96 was pretty much 50/50.  Perot's voters in 96 were more Democratic than his 92 voters, combine that with the drop off in the Perot vote, it may explain why their was such a difference between 92 & 96.   Why such a drop off between 92 & 96 its hard to say.  Possible that Perot's 1992 voters were more pissed at Clinton in Colorado than the 92 voters for Perot countrywide.  Another possibility is that Perot's voters in 92 were more Republican than the approx 60/40 split of his voters nationwide.  Possibly Bush Sr was more disliked among Republicans in Colorado in 92 than he was nationwide among Republicans.

As far as D.C, again their can be exceptions, and limits.  However, as a general rule when state move in a way that is very different from how the national movement is, that tells you something about that state, and changes going on in a state.  Their are certain exceptions such as a native son, a candidate who happens to be stronger in a certain area, something like the 9/11 effect, etc.  However, none of these exceptions fit Colorado, especially the change and who it was made to.  By that I mean with this trend happening going from a moderate from Arkansas to a liberal from Massachusetts. 
If this Democratic trend occurred going from a liberal Dem candidate from the northeast to a moderate Dem candidate while I would probably still disagree with the argument that it doesn't really mean a leftward shift, but the argument would have more merit.  However, thats not the case, we are seeing a shift this drastic while the Dem candidates have shifted from a moderate to a liberal.  That does tell you that their is movement toward the left.

I think you're trying to hard to find a cogent explanation for Colorado turning left that you're getting all twisted up in logic and numbers.  Colorado has ALWAYS been a competitive state.  Liberals have won statewide, conservatives have won statewide, and moderates have won statewide.  Believing that Colorado has suddenly turned left is both myopic and ignorant of many years of whacky Colorado political history.  The indisputably leans right.  While Democrats may be gaining--which is entirely questionable--the GOP still has a sizable registration advantage, Bush still did win here twice, and we still consistently vote conservative on social issues.  My advice to you is to sit back a while and watch what happens over the next four years.

For whatever reason you have honed in on Colorado as ground zero for a liberal takeover.  You've come close.  But, friend, you're a long way from a takeover.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on May 04, 2007, 05:49:14 PM
I have stated on several times that the country as a whole  votes on a more ideological  basis now than in the past.  The shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years or so (across the entire country) are much more based in ideology than in the past, which means less of a chance for a state to trend one way than fly back the other.
Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

If there were non-ideological effects - were these constant across the country - such that any state-to-state variation from this 11% shift are due solely to ideological effects?
That is why its better to look how a state trends compared to the national averag as just on its own.  Their are numerous variances, the biggest of which is the strength of the candidates on a national level, .  The changes that happen on a national level is a reflection of that.  When you look at a state and compare it to its movement on the national level these factors are already taken into account.  If a state is moving in a way that is so at odds with the national movement (such as Colorado) it is something that is more ideology based than anything else, especially in todays times. 
So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

How do you explain what happened between 1992 and 1996 in Colorado?

And how does your method account for a state that is already more Republican than the country as a whole.  If the United States voted 10% more Democrat, you wouldn't expect the District of Columbia to become 10% more Democratic, would you?


I said as a general rule, but their are exception.  Bush's better performance in NY was directly related to a 9/11 bump,. this is shown in part, by how well he did in the NYC suburbs compared to 2000, but his approval ratings dropping like rocks here, and the overall disaster of the GOP.

Between 92 & 96 it in part could have had been somewhat impacted by Perot.  Various exit polls showed about a 60/40 split (or slightly less) in Bush's favor out of the 92 Perot voters.  Meanwhile that split in 96 was pretty much 50/50.  Perot's voters in 96 were more Democratic than his 92 voters, combine that with the drop off in the Perot vote, it may explain why their was such a difference between 92 & 96.   Why such a drop off between 92 & 96 its hard to say.  Possible that Perot's 1992 voters were more pissed at Clinton in Colorado than the 92 voters for Perot countrywide.  Another possibility is that Perot's voters in 92 were more Republican than the approx 60/40 split of his voters nationwide.  Possibly Bush Sr was more disliked among Republicans in Colorado in 92 than he was nationwide among Republicans.

As far as D.C, again their can be exceptions, and limits.  However, as a general rule when state move in a way that is very different from how the national movement is, that tells you something about that state, and changes going on in a state.  Their are certain exceptions such as a native son, a candidate who happens to be stronger in a certain area, something like the 9/11 effect, etc.  However, none of these exceptions fit Colorado, especially the change and who it was made to.  By that I mean with this trend happening going from a moderate from Arkansas to a liberal from Massachusetts. 
If this Democratic trend occurred going from a liberal Dem candidate from the northeast to a moderate Dem candidate while I would probably still disagree with the argument that it doesn't really mean a leftward shift, but the argument would have more merit.  However, thats not the case, we are seeing a shift this drastic while the Dem candidates have shifted from a moderate to a liberal.  That does tell you that their is movement toward the left.



I think you're trying to hard to find a cogent explanation for Colorado turning left that you're getting all twisted up in logic and numbers.  Colorado has ALWAYS been a competitive state.  Liberals have won statewide, conservatives have won statewide, and moderates have won statewide.  Believing that Colorado has suddenly turned left is both myopic and ignorant of many years of whacky Colorado political history.  The indisputably leans right.  While Democrats may be gaining--which is entirely questionable--the GOP still has a sizable registration advantage, Bush still did win here twice, and we still consistently vote conservative on social issues.  My advice to you is to sit back a while and watch what happens over the next four years.

For whatever reason you have honed in on Colorado as ground zero for a liberal takeover.  You've come close.  But, friend, you're a long way from a takeover.

Bush's margin in 04 was smaller than his margin in 00, and his national margin increased. their was a sharp move compared to the national average.

The social issues you speak of, out of allthe states which have had gay marriage on the ballot, only one state voted more against the ban than Colorado, that was Arizona, which had much stronger language and went much further than the Colorado ban.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on May 04, 2007, 05:58:09 PM
Arapahoe County is only 12 miles wide, but more significantly south of Denver is about 1/2 of that.  It is mostly settled.  The black population in Denver has traditionally been in east Denver, and that has continued into Aurora.   Jefferson County is settled up to the foothills.  To the NW, you get into Boulder County (Lafayette, Louisville, and Broomfield).  To the SW, the Platte River cuts off most of the developable land.  Denver used to have 1/4 of the Colorado population, now less than 1/7 (more votes cast in 1952 than in 2000).  You're simply seeing a spread of Denver outward.

Meanwhile, Adams County, which is traditionally Democrat is trending Republican.  (4.12% more GOP in 2004, vs 1.14% for Colorado).  It is 18 miles wide so still has expansion room for northward growth.  This is starting to spill over into Weld County (4.75% more Republican in 2004, on a turnout increase of 37% in just 4 years).  Growth to the south into Douglas County continues (turnout up 41% in just 4 years.

You're confusing demographic shift with ideological shift.
Compared to the national average Adams County is actually one point more Democratic than in 1996 (4.81 vs 3.85), and slightly more Republican compared to the national average than in 2000 (5.58).  the movement there is so small that their really is no trend.

Jefferson County on the other hand has moved from 14.24% more GOP than the national average in 96 to just 2.73% more GOP in 04.  That is a very large shift.

Araphoe as well has moved drastically towards the Dems.  In fact it has moved even further Democratic than Jefferson has.  From 17.39% more GOP than the national average in 96 to just 1.50% more GOP than the national average in 04.

You state Jefferson county has moved so much due to demographic reasons.  Few things for starters demographics alone don't equal that much of a shift, it is also ideologically based.  Demographics have changed, but not to the extent the shift has been (same thing where I am on Long Island).  Dems have benefited from some demographic changes, but the demographic shifts don't match the shift.  On top of that Araphoe County which has seen fewer demographic changes than Jefferson County has actually seen a larger shift toward the Democrats.
Colorado shifted from just 1.30% more GOP in 1992, to 9.89% more GOP in 1996.  But this doesn't account for the Perot effect.  Colorado went from 14th strongest Perot state, to 8th weakest Perot state.  You don't see that sort of change elsewhere.  Maine was Perot's best state in both elections.  If we look at the two states either side of Colorado in 1992, Nebraska went from 13th to 14th, and Rhode Island went from 15th to 9th.

From the perspective of Colorado, the easy re-election of Clinton in 1996 was an aberration at the national level.  Now that the country is behaving more like Colorado, you see it as Colorado shifting towards the US, when it is actually the country becoming more like Colorado.

Here is an analogy.  A car swerved two lanes to the right.  You heard the squealing tires and looked up to see two cars two lanes apart, but did not actually observe the swerve.  As you watch the cars, the car on the left moves two lanes to the right, while the car on the right moves one lane to the right.  They are now only one lane apart.  From your perspective, the car on the right is "drifting to the left".

From someone who had been observing the whole time, both cars have moved right, it was just that the one car had moved right sooner.

In Adams County, GOP voting was up 80% between 1996 and 2004.  Dem voting up only 43%.  This is what you mean by "more Democratic"?  GOP voting didn't double in 8 years, so obviously the county is trending left.

In Jefferson County, GOP voting is up 39%, while Dem voting is up 41%.  That doesn't look like much of a Democratic shift at all.

What data do you have that supports your assertion that Arapahoe County has had fewer demographic changes than Jefferson County?  According to the 2006 ACS, Arapahoe County is 33% non-Anglo, Jefferson County is 18% non-Anglo.

I was actually basing it off what Rawlings said, but my point was the minority population over the last few years has been growing more in Jefferson than Arapahoe.  The minority population in either case is not growing at the pace the changes have been made.  When you state GOP voting is up a certain % and Dem voting is up a certain % you don't make the comparisons to the national average, which when discussing the changes of about 11% on the national level is a must to take into consideration

In 96 Adams County was 3.85% more Dem than the national average
In 2004 Adams County was 4.81% more Dem than the national average

In 96 Jefferson County was 14.24% more GOP than the national average
In 04 Jefferson County was 2.73% more GOP than the National average

In 96 Araphoe County was 17.39% more GOP than the National average
In 04 Araphoe County was 1.50% more GOP than the National average


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on May 06, 2007, 05:43:25 AM
So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

How do you explain what happened between 1992 and 1996 in Colorado?

And how does your method account for a state that is already more Republican than the country as a whole.  If the United States voted 10% more Democrat, you wouldn't expect the District of Columbia to become 10% more Democratic, would you?
I said as a general rule, but their are exception.  Bush's better performance in NY was directly related to a 9/11 bump,. this is shown in part, by how well he did in the NYC suburbs compared to 2000
But the performance in the NYC suburbs is reflected in the overall national vote totals, which you are using to measure the ideological shift in Colorado.

Quote
Between 92 & 96 it in part could have had been somewhat impacted by Perot.  Various exit polls showed about a 60/40 split (or slightly less) in Bush's favor out of the 92 Perot voters.  Meanwhile that split in 96 was pretty much 50/50.  Perot's voters in 96 were more Democratic than his 92 voters, combine that with the drop off in the Perot vote, it may explain why their was such a difference between 92 & 96.   Why such a drop off between 92 & 96 its hard to say.  Possible that Perot's 1992 voters were more pissed at Clinton in Colorado than the 92 voters for Perot countrywide.  Another possibility is that Perot's voters in 92 were more Republican than the approx 60/40 split of his voters nationwide.  Possibly Bush Sr was more disliked among Republicans in Colorado in 92 than he was nationwide among Republicans.
The post-Perot correction was greater in Colorado and happened sooner. 

Remember, Colorado was Perot's 14th best state in 1992 and his 8th worst state in 1996.

While the country as a whole went 3% more Democratic between 1992 and 1996, Colorado went 5.6% more Republican.  Helpful in this shift was a Republican candidate from a neighboring state, and a return of Perot voters to the Republican party in greater numbers than elsewhere.

When the US as a whole shifted 8% more Republican in 2000, while Colorado only shifted 7%, you see it as proof of a leftward ideological shift in Colorado.  The more logical conclusion is that the US was catching up to Colorado in not voting for Perot.

Then we get to 2000, where Colorado was Nader's 8th best state.  If you look at the states that were relatively close, and where Nader did well in 2004 (VT, ME, CO, MN, and OR), the Democrats did better in absolute terms in 2004 than in 2000.  This does not necessarily represent an ideological shift, but rather the Nader voters getting squeezed.

Quote
As far as D.C, again their can be exceptions, and limits.  However, as a general rule when state move in a way that is very different from how the national movement is, that tells you something about that state, and changes going on in a state.  Their are certain exceptions such as a native son, a candidate who happens to be stronger in a certain area, something like the 9/11 effect, etc.  However, none of these exceptions fit Colorado, especially the change and who it was made to.  By that I mean with this trend happening going from a moderate from Arkansas to a liberal from Massachusetts. 
The Perot effect was very different in Colorado.  That should tell you something about the state.  You apparently don't recognize that the size of the 9/11 effect varied by state, and had an impact on the national vote totals, that you are using as your baseline for measuring ideological shift.

Bob Dole was from a neighboring state.  Not only was he from Kansas, but he was from western Kansas.  Neil Bush was from Colorado when he was involved with Silverado.  Both George HW Bush and George W Bush were from Texas.  While Perot was from Texas, he wasn't perceived as being a Texan.  John Kerry was born in Colorado, while Al Gore was born in Washington, DC.  And Clinton was from Arkansas.

Being from Texas, or the South even, is not going to help a candidate in Colorado.  Look at Jimmy Carter.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on May 06, 2007, 05:41:12 PM
So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

How do you explain what happened between 1992 and 1996 in Colorado?

And how does your method account for a state that is already more Republican than the country as a whole.  If the United States voted 10% more Democrat, you wouldn't expect the District of Columbia to become 10% more Democratic, would you?
I said as a general rule, but their are exception.  Bush's better performance in NY was directly related to a 9/11 bump,. this is shown in part, by how well he did in the NYC suburbs compared to 2000
But the performance in the NYC suburbs is reflected in the overall national vote totals, which you are using to measure the ideological shift in Colorado.

Their is reasoning to back up the trend compared to the national average in  the NYC suburbs which is 9/11 bump.  In Colorado their is nothing like that, no other reason rather than ideology to explain the shift.

Quote
Between 92 & 96 it in part could have had been somewhat impacted by Perot.  Various exit polls showed about a 60/40 split (or slightly less) in Bush's favor out of the 92 Perot voters.  Meanwhile that split in 96 was pretty much 50/50.  Perot's voters in 96 were more Democratic than his 92 voters, combine that with the drop off in the Perot vote, it may explain why their was such a difference between 92 & 96.   Why such a drop off between 92 & 96 its hard to say.  Possible that Perot's 1992 voters were more pissed at Clinton in Colorado than the 92 voters for Perot countrywide.  Another possibility is that Perot's voters in 92 were more Republican than the approx 60/40 split of his voters nationwide.  Possibly Bush Sr was more disliked among Republicans in Colorado in 92 than he was nationwide among Republicans.
Quote
The post-Perot correction was greater in Colorado and happened sooner. 

Remember, Colorado was Perot's 14th best state in 1992 and his 8th worst state in 1996.

While the country as a whole went 3% more Democratic between 1992 and 1996, Colorado went 5.6% more Republican.  Helpful in this shift was a Republican candidate from a neighboring state, and a return of Perot voters to the Republican party in greater numbers than elsewhere.

When the US as a whole shifted 8% more Republican in 2000, while Colorado only shifted 7%, you see it as proof of a leftward ideological shift in Colorado.  The more logical conclusion is that the US was catching up to Colorado in not voting for Perot.

Then we get to 2000, where Colorado was Nader's 8th best state.  If you look at the states that were relatively close, and where Nader did well in 2004 (VT, ME, CO, MN, and OR), the Democrats did better in absolute terms in 2004 than in 2000.  This does not necessarily represent an ideological shift, but rather the Nader voters getting squeezed.

I have also shown the shift when you take into consideration the Nader numbers in 00, and give most of it to Gore.  Their is still a large shift in the Democrats direction.  The only thing Nader does is make he shift between 96 & 00 seem smaller and the shift between 00 & 04 seem alrger, but it was still a large shift each time, and a large shift between 96 & 04 (even with giving most of Nader's votes to Gore, the shift between 00 & 04 is larger than the 96 to 00 shift, so the trend is growing)

Quote
As far as D.C, again their can be exceptions, and limits.  However, as a general rule when state move in a way that is very different from how the national movement is, that tells you something about that state, and changes going on in a state.  Their are certain exceptions such as a native son, a candidate who happens to be stronger in a certain area, something like the 9/11 effect, etc.  However, none of these exceptions fit Colorado, especially the change and who it was made to.  By that I mean with this trend happening going from a moderate from Arkansas to a liberal from Massachusetts. 
Quote
The Perot effect was very different in Colorado.  That should tell you something about the state.  You apparently don't recognize that the size of the 9/11 effect varied by state, and had an impact on the national vote totals, that you are using as your baseline for measuring ideological shift.

Bob Dole was from a neighboring state.  Not only was he from Kansas, but he was from western Kansas.  Neil Bush was from Colorado when he was involved with Silverado.  Both George HW Bush and George W Bush were from Texas.  While Perot was from Texas, he wasn't perceived as being a Texan.  John Kerry was born in Colorado, while Al Gore was born in Washington, DC.  And Clinton was from Arkansas.

Being from Texas, or the South even, is not going to help a candidate in Colorado.  Look at Jimmy Carter.

He was still seen as a northeastern liberal, and Clinton was still seen as a moderate.  Changes just don't happen like that in going from a moderate candidate to a liberal candidate by the margin it did (in comparison to the national amrgin) without it being ideologically based


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on May 07, 2007, 09:19:56 AM
But the performance in the NYC suburbs is reflected in the overall national vote totals, which you are using to measure the ideological shift in Colorado.
Their is reasoning to back up the trend compared to the national average in  the NYC suburbs which is 9/11 bump.  In Colorado their is nothing like that, no other reason rather than ideology to explain the shift.
You are missing my point.  The NYC suburbs are not independent of the nation as whole.  If the NYC suburbs votes more GOP, then the national as a whole votes more GOP.

Quote
Quote
The post-Perot correction was greater in Colorado and happened sooner. 

Remember, Colorado was Perot's 14th best state in 1992 and his 8th worst state in 1996.

While the country as a whole went 3% more Democratic between 1992 and 1996, Colorado went 5.6% more Republican.  Helpful in this shift was a Republican candidate from a neighboring state, and a return of Perot voters to the Republican party in greater numbers than elsewhere.

When the US as a whole shifted 8% more Republican in 2000, while Colorado only shifted 7%, you see it as proof of a leftward ideological shift in Colorado.  The more logical conclusion is that the US was catching up to Colorado in not voting for Perot.

Then we get to 2000, where Colorado was Nader's 8th best state.  If you look at the states that were relatively close, and where Nader did well in 2004 (VT, ME, CO, MN, and OR), the Democrats did better in absolute terms in 2004 than in 2000.  This does not necessarily represent an ideological shift, but rather the Nader voters getting squeezed.

I have also shown the shift when you take into consideration the Nader numbers in 00, and give most of it to Gore.  Their is still a large shift in the Democrats direction.  The only thing Nader does is make he shift between 96 & 00 seem smaller and the shift between 00 & 04 seem alrger, but it was still a large shift each time, and a large shift between 96 & 04 (even with giving most of Nader's votes to Gore, the shift between 00 & 04 is larger than the 96 to 00 shift, so the trend is growing)
But you are still ignoring the Perot effect.   What is your explanation for why Colorado shifted 9% toward the GOP, relative to the US as whole between 1992 and 1996?

Quote
Quote
The Perot effect was very different in Colorado.  That should tell you something about the state.  You apparently don't recognize that the size of the 9/11 effect varied by state, and had an impact on the national vote totals, that you are using as your baseline for measuring ideological shift.

Bob Dole was from a neighboring state.  Not only was he from Kansas, but he was from western Kansas.  Neil Bush was from Colorado when he was involved with Silverado.  Both George HW Bush and George W Bush were from Texas.  While Perot was from Texas, he wasn't perceived as being a Texan.  John Kerry was born in Colorado, while Al Gore was born in Washington, DC.  And Clinton was from Arkansas.

Being from Texas, or the South even, is not going to help a candidate in Colorado.  Look at Jimmy Carter.
He was still seen as a northeastern liberal, and Clinton was still seen as a moderate.  Changes just don't happen like that in going from a moderate candidate to a liberal candidate by the margin it did (in comparison to the national amrgin) without it being ideologically based
Kerry had a smaller majority in MA than Gore did.  Is this because Kerry was perceived by Bay Staters as a northeastern liberal?  Throughout the northeast, except for northern New England, Kerry did worse than Gore.  Was this because Kerry was perceived as being a northeastern liberal?   Yankee self-loathing?


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: jimrtex on May 07, 2007, 09:54:11 AM
I was actually basing it off what Rawlings said, but my point was the minority population over the last few years has been growing more in Jefferson than Arapahoe.  The minority population in either case is not growing at the pace the changes have been made.
It is false that the minority population has been growing at a faster rate, either in relative or absolute term, in Jefferson County than Arapahoe County.  And it is not only the minority population that is the source of demographic change.  It is the fact that the areas closer to Denver have become filled up.

Denver as a percentage of statewide turnout, dropped from 12.8% to 11.1% of the state betweeen 1996 and 2004.  Jefferson dropped from 13.9% to 12.7%, while Arapahoe was slightly up from 10.7% to 10.9%.

Quote
When you state GOP voting is up a certain % and Dem voting is up a certain % you don't make the comparisons to the national average, which when discussing the changes of about 11% on the national level is a must to take into consideration
This might be accurate when the the voting population is static.

And another factor to consider is the EV referendum in Colorado in 2004.  There may have been a perception that Colorado was in play.

Look at states like IN, WV, and MO, where there was a shift towards the GOP.  Missouri is the closest thing to a national bellwether, and Kerry abandoned the state, and only carried 4 counties.  A similar thing happened in WV.  Kerry told the West Virginians that they were hopeless, unimportant, and did not count for anything.  Indiana was written off from the start.  Meanwhile Ohio was considered competitive, and it shifted towards the Democrats.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on May 07, 2007, 10:20:51 PM
But the performance in the NYC suburbs is reflected in the overall national vote totals, which you are using to measure the ideological shift in Colorado.
Their is reasoning to back up the trend compared to the national average in  the NYC suburbs which is 9/11 bump.  In Colorado their is nothing like that, no other reason rather than ideology to explain the shift.
You are missing my point.  The NYC suburbs are not independent of the nation as whole.  If the NYC suburbs votes more GOP, then the national as a whole votes more GOP.

Even if you would take the 9/11 shift that impact suburban NYC out of the picture, their is still a shift toward the GOP nationally and a heavy Dem shift in Colorado



Quote
Quote
The post-Perot correction was greater in Colorado and happened sooner. 

Remember, Colorado was Perot's 14th best state in 1992 and his 8th worst state in 1996.

While the country as a whole went 3% more Democratic between 1992 and 1996, Colorado went 5.6% more Republican.  Helpful in this shift was a Republican candidate from a neighboring state, and a return of Perot voters to the Republican party in greater numbers than elsewhere.

When the US as a whole shifted 8% more Republican in 2000, while Colorado only shifted 7%, you see it as proof of a leftward ideological shift in Colorado.  The more logical conclusion is that the US was catching up to Colorado in not voting for Perot.

Then we get to 2000, where Colorado was Nader's 8th best state.  If you look at the states that were relatively close, and where Nader did well in 2004 (VT, ME, CO, MN, and OR), the Democrats did better in absolute terms in 2004 than in 2000.  This does not necessarily represent an ideological shift, but rather the Nader voters getting squeezed.

I have also shown the shift when you take into consideration the Nader numbers in 00, and give most of it to Gore.  Their is still a large shift in the Democrats direction.  The only thing Nader does is make he shift between 96 & 00 seem smaller and the shift between 00 & 04 seem alrger, but it was still a large shift each time, and a large shift between 96 & 04 (even with giving most of Nader's votes to Gore, the shift between 00 & 04 is larger than the 96 to 00 shift, so the trend is growing)
But you are still ignoring the Perot effect.   What is your explanation for why Colorado shifted 9% toward the GOP, relative to the US as whole between 1992 and 1996?[/quote]

In 92 Perot hurt Bush more than Clinton, especially.  Wasn't enough to win the election, but was enough to have a few point impact, especially on the states he did very well in.  In 96 however, the Perot vote was more of a 50/50 split between Dole & Clinton.  Not the only reason, but part of the reason why the state shifted GOP between 92 & 96 was no longer having the same third party impact that took voters away from the GOP.  This was shown more in CO than other states in part because of the drop off of Perot voters was larger than other states and in CO, Perot may have appealed to more generally GOP votes at an even higher rate than he did nationally. 

Quote
Quote
The Perot effect was very different in Colorado.  That should tell you something about the state.  You apparently don't recognize that the size of the 9/11 effect varied by state, and had an impact on the national vote totals, that you are using as your baseline for measuring ideological shift.

Bob Dole was from a neighboring state.  Not only was he from Kansas, but he was from western Kansas.  Neil Bush was from Colorado when he was involved with Silverado.  Both George HW Bush and George W Bush were from Texas.  While Perot was from Texas, he wasn't perceived as being a Texan.  John Kerry was born in Colorado, while Al Gore was born in Washington, DC.  And Clinton was from Arkansas.

Being from Texas, or the South even, is not going to help a candidate in Colorado.  Look at Jimmy Carter.
He was still seen as a northeastern liberal, and Clinton was still seen as a moderate.  Changes just don't happen like that in going from a moderate candidate to a liberal candidate by the margin it did (in comparison to the national amrgin) without it being ideologically based
Quote
Kerry had a smaller majority in MA than Gore did.  Is this because Kerry was perceived by Bay Staters as a northeastern liberal?  Throughout the northeast, except for northern New England, Kerry did worse than Gore.  Was this because Kerry was perceived as being a northeastern liberal?   Yankee self-loathing?

When compared to the national average he did do better than 00 actually.  Anyway my whole point on the whole northeastern liberal issue was to counter Rawlings's point that Udall was too liberal for the state, and its a conservative state.  If that was indeed true it would not have trended to the liberal Kerry as much as it did, nor would it have been as close to the national average as it was with a liberal like Kerry.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on May 09, 2007, 03:42:47 PM
Bush 53
Kerry 47

The only numbers that matter.

Hell, it could be going Vermont on us.  But this is still Bush country and until a liberal wins it's always gonna be Bush country.



Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on May 09, 2007, 10:06:33 PM
Bush 53
Kerry 47

The only numbers that matter.

Hell, it could be going Vermont on us.  But this is still Bush country and until a liberal wins it's always gonna be Bush country.



actually 52-47, and with the exact numbers 4.67% victory for Bush, thats not exactly all that much considering he won the national vote by 2.46%, and it shows how much the state it moves considering Dole won it in 96 a year Clinton won large nationally.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Tender Branson on May 13, 2007, 01:07:40 AM
Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not). :P

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Rawlings on May 15, 2007, 06:04:53 AM
Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not). :P

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)

Even though you're a Democrat, Tender, you're obviously pretty smart.  I think you're dead-on with your polling predictions.  Schaffer, who recently announced, has internals that show him literally neck and neck with Udall.  I think the first poll you'll get will show Udall up by a point or two and it will stay that way until Election Day where Schaffer will take it with the GOP's hard core GOTV.

As far as the presidential race, there's no doubt that the Republican will win (unless the Democrat is uber-popular Bill Richardson--which it won't be, so why bother talkign about it?).  Colorado is a red state.  Period.  Only one Democrat has won this state in the last fifty years!  Heck, even Nixon beat JFK!  (I know Clinton won in '92--but he got helped by Perot.  Colorado was Perot's 8th best state and only won with 35% of the vote.  Without Perot, Colorado stays red).

Kerry in 2004 thought he could put Colorado in play.  He wasted his money and got whooped.  Colorado come POTUS time is a ruby red state.  With other elections it's a crapshoot.  Colorado is a conservative state--though you can never rely on it to vote that way (sort of like Arkansas, I guess).  But there's just no way Hillary Clinton plays well in Colorado.  This is middle America, home to Focus on the Family and James Dobson, and the country's stiffest tax laws.  Trust me, Hillary won't play well here.


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: Smash255 on May 15, 2007, 05:06:58 PM
Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not). :P

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)

Even though you're a Democrat, Tender, you're obviously pretty smart.  I think you're dead-on with your polling predictions.  Schaffer, who recently announced, has internals that show him literally neck and neck with Udall.  I think the first poll you'll get will show Udall up by a point or two and it will stay that way until Election Day where Schaffer will take it with the GOP's hard core GOTV.

As far as the presidential race, there's no doubt that the Republican will win (unless the Democrat is uber-popular Bill Richardson--which it won't be, so why bother talkign about it?).  Colorado is a red state.  Period.  Only one Democrat has won this state in the last fifty years!  Heck, even Nixon beat JFK!  (I know Clinton won in '92--but he got helped by Perot.  Colorado was Perot's 8th best state and only won with 35% of the vote.  Without Perot, Colorado stays red).

Kerry in 2004 thought he could put Colorado in play.  He wasted his money and got whooped.  Colorado come POTUS time is a ruby red state.  With other elections it's a crapshoot.  Colorado is a conservative state--though you can never rely on it to vote that way (sort of like Arkansas, I guess).  But there's just no way Hillary Clinton plays well in Colorado.  This is middle America, home to Focus on the Family and James Dobson, and the country's stiffest tax laws.  Trust me, Hillary won't play well here.

A state where Bush won by less than 5 and by a mere 2 points more than the national average is not the definition of a ruby red state...

Also Schaffer's INTERNALS show him neck and neck.  Keep in mind you said INTERNALS.  Internall polling that a candidate actually releases always shows them in much better shape than what they really are.  If he isn't even ahead in his own internal polls that he announces, he is really screwed.   


Title: Re: John Elway for US Senate
Post by: HardRCafé on May 16, 2007, 06:45:31 AM
Schaffer, who recently announced,

It's official finally?