John Elway for US Senate

[Smash255]

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.....

[Smash255]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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. 

[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???

[Smash255]

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

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

All in all, my prediction for CO 2008:

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

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

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

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

These are my early CO predictions...

Romney 51%
Clinton 45%

Romney 49%
Obama 48%

Thompson 53%
Clinton 45%

Thompson 51%
Obama 47%

Schaffer 52%
Udall 48%

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

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

[Smash255]

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.

[Smash255]

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

I've just looked at the difference between the GOP % in Colorado vs. the US from 1920 to 2004, and taken a 3 election cycle (8 years), and projected that forward for another 4 years as a prediction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Smash255]

Not all trends continue I will acknowledge that much, however in the past their have been things to indicate that a reversal maybe in order.  In this case their isn't anything to indicate that this trend is reversing itself.  Also in the past states have switched back & forth for numerous reasons.  The current climate of how states shift is much more ideology based than in the past.

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

[Smash255]

Not all trends continue I will acknowledge that much, however in the past their have been things to indicate that a reversal maybe in order.  In this case their isn't anything to indicate that this trend is reversing itself.  Also in the past states have switched back & forth for numerous reasons.  The current climate of how states shift is much more ideology based than in the past.

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

You earlier wrote:

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

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

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

[Smash255]

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

So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?

Sorry for butting in, Jim from Texas...

Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.

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

[Smash255]

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

So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?

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

[Smash255]

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

So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically than driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?

Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.

I agree.  It is Smash255's argument that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Smash255]

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

So why, IYO, has Colorado become more ideologically driven in the past.  And what evidence can you find of this in the election results?

Not just Colorado, but the nation as a whole over the past 10 years or so votes much more on an ideological level than they did in the past. 

Suburban Denver, especially Araphoe and Jefferson counties have shown rather large similarities to places such as suburban NY, suburban Philly, NOVA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Smash255]

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...

[Smash255]

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

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

Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

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

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

[Smash255]

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

Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

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

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

So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

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

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

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

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

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

[Smash255]

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

Nationally, there was a 11% shift towards the GOP between 1996 and 2004 (Clinton won by 8.5%, Bush by 2.5%)   Was this a reflection of an increased voting on an ideological basis across the country?

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

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

So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Smash255]

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

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

You're confusing demographic shift with ideological shift.

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

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

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

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

Colorado shifted from just 1.30% more GOP in 1992, to 9.89% more GOP in 1996.  But this doesn't account for the Perot effect.  Colorado went from 14th strongest Perot state, to 8th weakest Perot state.  You don't see that sort of change elsewhere.  Maine was Perot's best state in both elections.  If we look at the two states either side of Colorado in 1992, Nebraska went from 13th to 14th, and Rhode Island went from 15th to 9th.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Smash255]

So you're saying that shifts due to personality and other factors are constant throughout the country (for example willingness to voter for a Southerner), while ideology shifts are regional or local?  Are you saying that the improvement (in relative terms) for Bush in New York between 2000 and 2004 was a rightward lurch, and not related to 9/11?

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

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

I said as a general rule, but their are exception.  Bush's better performance in NY was directly related to a 9/11 bump,. this is shown in part, by how well he did in the NYC suburbs compared to 2000

But the performance in the NYC suburbs is reflected in the overall national vote totals, which you are using to measure the ideological shift in Colorado.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Smash255]

But the performance in the NYC suburbs is reflected in the overall national vote totals, which you are using to measure the ideological shift in Colorado.

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

You are missing my point.  The NYC suburbs are not independent of the nation as whole.  If the NYC suburbs votes more GOP, then the national as a whole votes more GOP.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Smash255]

Bush 53
Kerry 47

The only numbers that matter.

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

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