CO-06: Coffman in the lead

[krazen1211]

Link

Coffman 44
Romanoff 43


This is of course a Democratic poll. With rumors that big money is abandoning Romanoff because CO-06 voters don't want a white liberal around, well, he came up with this poll.

[IceSpear]

Thanks for this wonderful poll Krazen. I was getting worried for a bit that Coffman actually had a clear lead.

[Lief 🗽]

Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.

[krazen1211]

Thanks for this wonderful poll Krazen. I was getting worried for a bit that Coffman actually had a clear lead.

It isn't my poll. It's Romanoff's poll.

[DrScholl]

The white liberal comment is unnecessary. Knock off your racism, it's not funny.

[KCDem]

Romanoff is on track to give Coffman a good spanking.

[SamInTheSouth]

Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.

The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

[IceSpear]

Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.

The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

Not true. Even under the current district lines, Democrats would've won the House in 2006 and 2008.

Republicans still would've won the House in 2010 even if the nation was gerrymandered by Dems.

[Sbane]

Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.

The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

It's quite possible the gerrymander will fall apart once Obama gets out of office. The gerrymander is based on the political coalitions formed during his first campaign and the presidency. Gerrymanders do tend to fall apart as coalitions change and as there is movement of people within a metro area/state. That is what happened in 2006 and 2008 as the Democrats overcame Republican gerrymanders to win big.

[Recalcuate]

Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.

The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

It's quite possible the gerrymander will fall apart once Obama gets out of office. The gerrymander is based on the political coalitions formed during his first campaign and the presidency. Gerrymanders do tend to fall apart as coalitions change and as there is movement of people within a metro area/state. That is what happened in 2006 and 2008 as the Democrats overcame Republican gerrymanders to win big.

2006 was just a transformative year as Democrats took a lot of traditional Republican-leaning districts as voters tired of George W. Bush. They were able to sustain the momentum in 2008.  That, of course, changed after the Democrats sloppily passed Obamacare and there was predictable pushback in '10.

2012 brought a more favorable Republican Congressional map due to reapportionment and more gerrymandering (although the Republicans lost about 10 seats due to Obama's coattails). The Republicans will likely regain a few of those seats on the fringes in '14.

While it's possible for the Dems to retake the House before '22, their real impediment is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which forces majority-minority districts. That allows the rest of a competitive state to be sliced with Republican-leaning districts while you have some crazy D+30 districts solely designed to elect either an African-American or Latino candidate.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.

The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

It's quite possible the gerrymander will fall apart once Obama gets out of office. The gerrymander is based on the political coalitions formed during his first campaign and the presidency. Gerrymanders do tend to fall apart as coalitions change and as there is movement of people within a metro area/state. That is what happened in 2006 and 2008 as the Democrats overcame Republican gerrymanders to win big.

2006 was just a transformative year as Democrats took a lot of traditional Republican-leaning districts as voters tired of George W. Bush. They were able to sustain the momentum in 2008.  That, of course, changed after the Democrats sloppily passed Obamacare and there was predictable pushback in '10.

2012 brought a more Republican Congressional map due to reapportionment and more gerrymandering. The Republicans will likely add a few seats on the fringes in '14.

While it's possible for the Dems to retake the House before '22, their real impediment is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which forces majority-minority districts. That allows the rest of a competitive state to be sliced with Republican-leaning districts while you have some crazy D+30 districts solely designed to elect either an African-American or Latino candidate.

I'm pretty sure we'd see a net loss of Democratic seats without the VRA, Republicans would just have greater flexibility in when and how they decide to pack minority voters.  I believe DK elections once did a pretty through state-by-state analysis of this and came to the same conclusion.

[Recalcuate]

Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.

The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

It's quite possible the gerrymander will fall apart once Obama gets out of office. The gerrymander is based on the political coalitions formed during his first campaign and the presidency. Gerrymanders do tend to fall apart as coalitions change and as there is movement of people within a metro area/state. That is what happened in 2006 and 2008 as the Democrats overcame Republican gerrymanders to win big.

2006 was just a transformative year as Democrats took a lot of traditional Republican-leaning districts as voters tired of George W. Bush. They were able to sustain the momentum in 2008.  That, of course, changed after the Democrats sloppily passed Obamacare and there was predictable pushback in '10.

2012 brought a more Republican Congressional map due to reapportionment and more gerrymandering. The Republicans will likely add a few seats on the fringes in '14.

While it's possible for the Dems to retake the House before '22, their real impediment is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which forces majority-minority districts. That allows the rest of a competitive state to be sliced with Republican-leaning districts while you have some crazy D+30 districts solely designed to elect either an African-American or Latino candidate.

I'm pretty sure we'd see a net loss of Democratic seats without the VRA, Republicans would just have greater flexibility in when and how they decide to pack minority voters.  I believe DK elections once did a pretty through state-by-state analysis of this and came to the same conclusion.

That's interesting. Obviously geography comes into play, but the simple math would tell you that you'd have more flexibility as a Democrat if you could disperse Democrat voters into more R-leaning districts.

I guess the analysis comes down to who controls the state legislature and the governor's mansion. But I do think if the state house and governor are all Democrats, there's some creative line drawing that could go on to add a few seats.

[Torie]

The VRA costs the Dems about 5 seats or so, is my guess, net. In the West, and Texas, vis a vis Hispanic voters, the VRA costs the Pubs, maybe 2 or 3 seats in CA, and at least 1 and maybe 2 in Texas.

[Sbane]

Oh well. Romanoff will be back to spank Coffman in 2016 when Clinton helps the Democrats take the House back.

The Democrats aren't taking the House back any earlier than 2022.  Gerrymandering will see to that.

It's quite possible the gerrymander will fall apart once Obama gets out of office. The gerrymander is based on the political coalitions formed during his first campaign and the presidency. Gerrymanders do tend to fall apart as coalitions change and as there is movement of people within a metro area/state. That is what happened in 2006 and 2008 as the Democrats overcame Republican gerrymanders to win big.

2006 was just a transformative year as Democrats took a lot of traditional Republican-leaning districts as voters tired of George W. Bush. They were able to sustain the momentum in 2008.  That, of course, changed after the Democrats sloppily passed Obamacare and there was predictable pushback in '10.

2012 brought a more favorable Republican Congressional map due to reapportionment and more gerrymandering (although the Republicans lost about 10 seats due to Obama's coattails). The Republicans will likely regain a few of those seats on the fringes in '14.

While it's possible for the Dems to retake the House before '22, their real impediment is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which forces majority-minority districts. That allows the rest of a competitive state to be sliced with Republican-leaning districts while you have some crazy D+30 districts solely designed to elect either an African-American or Latino candidate.

Most of the gerrymanders in 2000 were also in the Republicans favor. That is why there were so many Republican friendly districts back then as well. What the 2010 redistricting allowed the Republicans to do was to redraw the map to account for the changing coalitions as well as movement of people in order to solidify their gains. The map held up well in 2012 and will in 2014 as well with Obama still as president. I do believe there is a chance it could fall apart in 2016 or beyond if Hillary is able to win with a different coalition consisting of more older, white women. The democrats might be less reliant on urban minority votes in a Hillary coalition.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sbane is basically correct; the 2002 map (particularly after the 2004 redoodles in Texas and Georgia) was also presumed to be rock solid.

[Vega]

I wonder why John Salazar isn't giving Congress another go; it's not like being State Agricultural Commissioner is that exciting.

[free my dawg]

I wonder why John Salazar isn't giving Congress another go; it's not like being State Agricultural Commissioner is that exciting.

Because he's over in CO-3.

[Maxwell]

I wonder why John Salazar isn't giving Congress another go; it's not like being State Agricultural Commissioner is that exciting.

Salazar would be an even worse candidate than Romanoff.

[Vosem]

Considering Colorado Democratic polling is showing Udall up three, this probably goes to show Coffman is up in the high single digits right now.