CO-Project New America/Keating Research (D): Obama up 4

[hopper]

CO had a crappy scandal against Ken Buck running for senate on his remarks with women which got rid of his lead before the final days of election. He was neck and neck with Michael Bennet.

Scott McInnis plagerized an article from a 20 year old Hasan Family Foundation which made him drop out of the race for the GOP.  He was ahead in the polls running as governor in 2010 before dropping out.  Also Tom Tancredo was running as a 3rd party candidate against Hickenlooper and Dan Maes with a couple months too late.  He didn't get enough recognition and votes.

I thought McGinnis lost in the Republican Primary to Maes 51-49% and didn't drop out of the race. i I remember Maes being a mess of a candidate after he won the primary. The National GOP(RGA) wouldn't throw any money his way.

[hopper]

Interesting fact about the 2008 Presidential Election in CO that differed from the 2004 Presidential Election there: McCain won more of the Hispanic Vote(38%)in CO than Bush did in 2004(30%.) The GOP lost CO on the white vote in 2008.

[5280]

This solidifies my point of two counties in CO that decide the states sway.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_20775291/neighborhood-taps-into-nations-pulse

[pbrower2a]

Though, the GOP curently has like a 1% advantage in voter Registration and the "active" label  can probably be attributed to the Caucuses, right?

What were the 2010 exit polls like for Colorado? Would there be any reason why Democrats would do worse in Colorado than they did in 2010?

The problem with the whole "Colorado Democrats win in 2010" narrative is that it's false.  Republicans took every single statewide office with the exception of the Senate and gubernatorial races, where the Senate Democratic candidate got maybe 48% and the supposedly "popular" Denver Democratic mayor running for governor got 51%.  Not remarkable.  But it's even less remarkable when you consider the fact that there was essentially no credible Republican candidate, other than a really unpopular one who ran on the Constitution Party ticket.  And the "popular" Denver mayor only got 51%.

2010 was a great year for Republicans nationwide due to depressed turnout of voters. Such happens in off-year elections when the electorate becomes richer, whiter, and more Protestant.  Add to that that the Hard Right lavished the political process with Orwellian propaganda emanating from every radio, billboard, and TV set on behalf of Tea Party pols, and Americans voted for a bunch of politicians who stand for the interests that usually prove the core support of fascist movements. Colorado Democrats were lucky. The Republican candidates for US Senate and the Governorship were from the lunatic fringe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Much as elsewhere in America in 2010. Now the right-wingers face the acid test: have they done a good job by the standards of an electorate likely to be much more like that of 2008 than like that of 2010? To be sure, the Orwellian propaganda (basically, "For your well-being, make sure to vote for those who will degrade your life") will still be out -- but for the political dregs of the dreadful beverage that the Tea Party Cult and such types as Rove and Norquist have foisted upon us.

America on the whole is extremely unhappy with Congress even to the extent that the last poll for the approval rating of "Your Congressional Representative" was at 41%. On the average, political incumbents in Senatorial and Gubernatorial offices whose approval rating is  44% have a 50-50 chance of re-election, and the chance of re-election drops rapidly to near zero for those  whose ratings are below that. To be sure, those Representatives who are good cultural matches for their districts -- the ones who win 60% or more of the vote in their districts consistently -- may have stronger approvals and win. But the rest? A hint: the casino industry makes its money off people betting against the Law of Large Numbers.

Ratings for Republicans are lower than are those for Democrats. Such bodes ill for the current majority.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If your Colorado Rockies had had Miguel Cabrera or Justin Verlander you might be celebrating a World's Championship.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Colorado has been drifting D due to demographic change. The fast-growing Hispanic sector of the electorate distrusts the Republican Hard Right, and such is so with the Hispanic middle class that has no use for superstitions that the GOP promotes in education and for the 'take an axe to the schools' attitude. If poor white people are infamously anti-intellectual, poor Hispanics aren't. Some people know that the quality of schooling makes the difference between poverty and plenty for their kids. Really, that is the difference between Colorado and Arkansas.     

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2010 is the high-water mark for the Tea Party Cult. Americans are onto it. I expect lots of freshman Republican Reps to go down to defeat in November. 

This election is far from sealed. The point is that President Obama doesn't have to defend his political back in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan as Gore and Kerry did. Such means that the President can operate with much the same strategy (Beat the Cheat) as in 2008 and win much the same way in 2012 as in 2008. Colorado is drifting D, and Mitt Romney will have a difficult time winning it. Likewise Virginia. Ohio will be a tough win for Romney because the Obama campaign will be hitting Romney on the bailout. Florida has a Republican Governor who is so unpopular that he must cheat to win.

The electoral college system now favors President Obama because he is winning by decisive (if smaller) margins than in the states in which he is losing badly. 

[5280]

Hispanics can't help themselves for voting Obama a 2nd time when their unemployment jumps to 11%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-03/hispanic-voters-unemployment/55367198/1

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Hispanics can't help themselves for voting Obama a 2nd time when their unemployment jumps to 11%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-03/hispanic-voters-unemployment/55367198/1

It's better than what the Republicans would do to them.

[5280]

Hispanics can't help themselves for voting Obama a 2nd time when their unemployment jumps to 11%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-03/hispanic-voters-unemployment/55367198/1

It's better than what the Republicans would do to them.

I'm calling that BS.

[Sbane]

Hispanics can't help themselves for voting Obama a 2nd time when their unemployment jumps to 11%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-03/hispanic-voters-unemployment/55367198/1

It's better than what the Republicans would do to them.

I'm calling that BS.

As opposed to Republicans who want to racially profile them and pull them over and check their citizenship? Look at Gallup's numbers. Obama's approval rating among Hispanics is around 52-53% but he is getting about 65% of their votes. If the same thing happened with the overall electorate, Obama would have 58-59% of the vote with his 46% approval ratings. Hispanics are starting to vote in large numbers for the Democrats due to what the Republicans have done towards them or said about them. In 2004 about 40-44% of Hispanics voted for the Republicans. Which is probably the same as whites if you control for income. But the Republicans decided to go for the xenophobe vote. That's what they chose and shouldn't complain when Hispanics and other immigrants don't vote for them.

[5280]

Hispanics can't help themselves for voting Obama a 2nd time when their unemployment jumps to 11%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-03/hispanic-voters-unemployment/55367198/1

It's better than what the Republicans would do to them.

I'm calling that BS.

As opposed to Republicans who want to racially profile them and pull them over and check their citizenship? Look at Gallup's numbers. Obama's approval rating among Hispanics is around 52-53% but he is getting about 65% of their votes. If the same thing happened with the overall electorate, Obama would have 58-59% of the vote with his 46% approval ratings. Hispanics are starting to vote in large numbers for the Democrats due to what the Republicans have done towards them or said about them. In 2004 about 40-44% of Hispanics voted for the Republicans. Which is probably the same as whites if you control for income. But the Republicans decided to go for the xenophobe vote. That's what they chose and shouldn't complain when Hispanics and other immigrants don't vote for them.

Obama has no record to run on to sway the Hispanic vote anymore.  He's trying to get them to vote for more smoke and mirrors by doing the same thing in his 2nd term and expect different results. Clearly, I don't buy that.  Would you rather profile someone regardless of color or have more illegal turnouts that vote Democrats?

[Alcon]

Are we talking about illegal immigrants voting?  How often do you think that happens, percentage-wise?  Just curious.

[5280]

5k non-citizens according to 2010 election for CO, and about 12k who were registered.  It may not be alot, but it's happening here.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/153079-gop-says-5000-non-citizens-voting-in-colorado-a-wake-up-call-for-states

Also, most likely areas concerned for voter fraud.
http://www.coloradopeakpolitics.com/diary/1064/finding-voter-fraud-8-suspect-counties-in-colorado

[Alcon]

What was the methodology for this study?  I can't find the white paper any place online.  This is something that is extensively prone to false positives, and I doubt Colorado Elections makes SSNs publically available...so, yeah, why are we confident about lacking false positives?

As for the second article, you really think that there's no reason those counties would be transient?  I understand their incomes average out fairly normally.  But, dude...Adams, Denver, Gilpin, Gunnison, Lake, Pitkin, San Miguel, Summit...you're not seeing two obvious categories that might be associated with voter transience but not necessarily income?  I'm not from Colorado, and it seems pretty intuitive to me...more intuitive than "ACORN!"

[Brittain33]

RockyIce, since you're giving us the point of view of the Hispanic electorate of America that's contrary to polls, could you tell us your background and familiarity with the views of Hispanics?

This is all reminiscent of "African Americans oppose SSM so they'll vote Republican."

[tpfkaw]

Are we talking about illegal immigrants voting?  How often do you think that happens, percentage-wise?  Just curious.

Los Angeles Times poll of registered voters has 41% of California Latinos admitting to being born in a different country.  These results are quite stable from poll to poll.  It's within the realm of possibility that they're just confused but then you'd have news stories every election about millions of illegal immigrants being turned away at the California polls.  Saying they must've come through legal channels just insults our intelligence.

Edit:  Also, a common Democratic "voter suppression" complaint is that Republicans supposedly make Spanish-language robocalls saying that illegal immigrants are subject to deportation if they vote.  This is, of course, an implicit admission that illegal immigrants do vote.  If such a thing actually is occuring, it also indicates that Republicans consider it a genuine concern and it isn't just something they made up.

[Sbane]

I think this discussion of Hispanic voting trends very quickly turning into a discussion on illegal immigrants voting perfectly illustrates why Hispanic LEGAL citizens will be voting 2:1 for Obama and the Democrats even though only half approve of the job they have done. If illegals were voting in any significant numbers, California's electorate would be 35-40% Latino as opposed to the 20% it is.

[Sbane]

Are we talking about illegal immigrants voting?  How often do you think that happens, percentage-wise?  Just curious.

Los Angeles Times poll of registered voters has 41% of California Latinos admitting to being born in a different country.  These results are quite stable from poll to poll.  It's within the realm of possibility that they're just confused but then you'd have news stories every election about millions of illegal immigrants being turned away at the California polls.  Saying they must've come through legal channels just insults our intelligence.

Naturalized citizens can vote wormy. What the hell are you talking about?

[Torie]

I think this discussion of Hispanic voting trends very quickly turning into a discussion on illegal immigrants voting perfectly illustrates why Hispanic LEGAL citizens will be voting 2:1 for Obama and the Democrats even though only half approve of the job they have done. If illegals were voting in any significant numbers, California's electorate would be 35-40% Latino as opposed to the 20% it is.

I was going to say, if hordes of illegals/non citizens are voting, then the percentage of Hispanic citizens that vote must be down around maybe 15% or so. Maybe Hispanics think that only pussies vote - it is just not macho.

[timothyinMD]

Hispanics can't help themselves for voting Obama a 2nd time when their unemployment jumps to 11%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-03/hispanic-voters-unemployment/55367198/1

It's better than what the Republicans would do to them.

I'm calling that BS.

As opposed to Republicans who want to racially profile them and pull them over and check their citizenship? Look at Gallup's numbers. Obama's approval rating among Hispanics is around 52-53% but he is getting about 65% of their votes. If the same thing happened with the overall electorate, Obama would have 58-59% of the vote with his 46% approval ratings. Hispanics are starting to vote in large numbers for the Democrats due to what the Republicans have done towards them or said about them. In 2004 about 40-44% of Hispanics voted for the Republicans. Which is probably the same as whites if you control for income. But the Republicans decided to go for the xenophobe vote. That's what they chose and shouldn't complain when Hispanics and other immigrants don't vote for them.

Combating illegal immigration and it's harmful negative side effects is not xenophobia

[tpfkaw]

Are we talking about illegal immigrants voting?  How often do you think that happens, percentage-wise?  Just curious.

Los Angeles Times poll of registered voters has 41% of California Latinos admitting to being born in a different country.  These results are quite stable from poll to poll.  It's within the realm of possibility that they're just confused but then you'd have news stories every election about millions of illegal immigrants being turned away at the California polls.  Saying they must've come through legal channels just insults our intelligence.

Naturalized citizens can vote wormy. What the hell are you talking about?

The number of Mexicans in the entire country (not just California) who became naturalized citizens in the period 2002-2010 is 889,929 according to the Department of Homeland Security.  According to exit polls, Latinos were 22% of the California electorate in 2010, or about 2.2 million voters.  41% of them is over 900,000 votes.  It is not possible that illegal immigrants are not voting in large numbers in California.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are we talking about illegal immigrants voting?  How often do you think that happens, percentage-wise?  Just curious.

Los Angeles Times poll of registered voters has 41% of California Latinos admitting to being born in a different country.  These results are quite stable from poll to poll.  It's within the realm of possibility that they're just confused but then you'd have news stories every election about millions of illegal immigrants being turned away at the California polls.  Saying they must've come through legal channels just insults our intelligence.

Edit:  Also, a common Democratic "voter suppression" complaint is that Republicans supposedly make Spanish-language robocalls saying that illegal immigrants are subject to deportation if they vote.  This is, of course, an implicit admission that illegal immigrants do vote.  If such a thing actually is occuring, it also indicates that Republicans consider it a genuine concern and it isn't just something they made up.

Thing is, in some mid 20th century sweeps to gather up illegal Mexican immigrants and deport them back to Mexico, we ended up deporting people who actually were U.S. citizens.  So it's not at all unreasonable that if such robocalls were considered believable that some people legally here would be worried they would get sent to Mexico nonetheless because it has happened before.

[Sbane]

Hispanics can't help themselves for voting Obama a 2nd time when their unemployment jumps to 11%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-06-03/hispanic-voters-unemployment/55367198/1

It's better than what the Republicans would do to them.

I'm calling that BS.

As opposed to Republicans who want to racially profile them and pull them over and check their citizenship? Look at Gallup's numbers. Obama's approval rating among Hispanics is around 52-53% but he is getting about 65% of their votes. If the same thing happened with the overall electorate, Obama would have 58-59% of the vote with his 46% approval ratings. Hispanics are starting to vote in large numbers for the Democrats due to what the Republicans have done towards them or said about them. In 2004 about 40-44% of Hispanics voted for the Republicans. Which is probably the same as whites if you control for income. But the Republicans decided to go for the xenophobe vote. That's what they chose and shouldn't complain when Hispanics and other immigrants don't vote for them.

Combating illegal immigration and it's harmful negative side effects is not xenophobia

By pulling over anyone who looks Hispanic? Why not protect the border instead of racially profiling people? Just doesn't motivate the racist base that well, does it now?

[Sbane]

Are we talking about illegal immigrants voting?  How often do you think that happens, percentage-wise?  Just curious.

Los Angeles Times poll of registered voters has 41% of California Latinos admitting to being born in a different country.  These results are quite stable from poll to poll.  It's within the realm of possibility that they're just confused but then you'd have news stories every election about millions of illegal immigrants being turned away at the California polls.  Saying they must've come through legal channels just insults our intelligence.

Naturalized citizens can vote wormy. What the hell are you talking about?

The number of Mexicans in the entire country (not just California) who became naturalized citizens in the period 2002-2010 is 889,929 according to the Department of Homeland Security.  According to exit polls, Latinos were 22% of the California electorate in 2010, or about 2.2 million voters.  41% of them is over 900,000 votes.  It is not possible that illegal immigrants are not voting in large numbers in California.

Why restrict it to those who were naturalized from 2002-2010? Why not look at everyone naturalized since 1970 or 1980? The vast majority of them would still be voting. Indeed they would be voting in much higher numbers than those who are recently naturalized.

[tpfkaw]

Why restrict it to those who were naturalized from 2002-2010? Why not look at everyone naturalized since 1970 or 1980? The vast majority of them would still be voting. Indeed they would be voting in much higher numbers than those who are recently naturalized.

Because I don't have that data available and the number of Mexicans naturalized in the state of California prior to 2002 is pretty negligable.  In any case the we can probably assume that the total number of Mexicans who came to *the entire US* during the largest 9 years for Mexican immigration in history is probably greater than Mexican immigration to California since 1980 or even 1970, especially when you consider many of that number are non-voters.

[Sbane]

Why restrict it to those who were naturalized from 2002-2010? Why not look at everyone naturalized since 1970 or 1980? The vast majority of them would still be voting. Indeed they would be voting in much higher numbers than those who are recently naturalized.

Because I don't have that data available and the number of Mexicans naturalized in the state of California prior to 2002 is pretty negligable. 

What is this based on? There has been Mexican immigration occurring into California since..well, forever. Immigration trends actually changed recently with more Mexicans heading to other states as opposed to just California. I see this first hand with Hispanics in Tennessee being much more "fresh of the boat" than a random Hispanic you meet in Southern California.

Also if we are talking about Hispanics as a whole, we shouldn't just restrict it to Mexicans. Even from 2002-2010, how many Hispanics as a whole were naturalized?

[tpfkaw]

But, since facts and figures are key, if we assume the proportion of naturalized Mexicans naturalized in California in 2011 (39% of the total) holds true for previous years, and estimate that Mexican naturalizations since 1970 were at the same average rate as between 2002 and 2010, minus the outlier year of 2008 (almost certainly an overestimate), then there were about 1.37 million Mexicans naturalized in California from 1970 to 2010.  Assuming 20% died, moved out of California, are not registered voters, or are too young to vote (almost certainly an underestimate), and 60% of the rest turned out (almost certainly an overestimate), that gets us to 660,000 votes - 250,000 still unaccounted for.