John Elway for US Senate

[Rawlings]

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

[HardRCafé]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Rawlings]

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.

[Smash255]

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.

[Tender Branson]

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.

[Aizen]

*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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[Smash255]

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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[Aizen]

"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.

[HardRCafé]

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.

[Smash255]

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. 

[jimrtex]

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.

[Adlai Stevenson]

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. 

[jimrtex]

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.

[Wakie]

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.

[Rawlings]

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?

[Smash255]

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.

[Smash255]

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. 

[jimrtex]

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?

[Rawlings]

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.

[Smash255]

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???

[Tender Branson]

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%

[Rawlings]

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.