John Elway for US Senate

[Rawlings]

He would win


He should run

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.

[Rawlings]

He would win


He should run

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.

[Rawlings]

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?

[Rawlings]

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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[Rawlings]

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

[Rawlings]

Elway (R) 54%
Udall (D) 44%

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

[Rawlings]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[Rawlings]

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. 

[Rawlings]

you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

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

[Rawlings]

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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[Rawlings]

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.