CO & LA: Shifting Populations Will Impact '08 Senate Races

[Aizen]

An extra 100,000 blacks in Houston will create headaches for the Texas legislature when their next redistricting comes around.

Not really.  Texas politicians are extremely talented in their redistricting efforts.  Besides, most of the Katrina residents in Houston either don't vote or are either killing each other off as we speak (thanks to the talented efforts of present mayor Bill White)

Colorado is a state no one seems to understand on this forum or otherwise, and this article likewise performs badly in that analysis.  

The Democratic party in Louisiana is presently in more trouble than any other statewide Democratic party in the country (other than a few other states like Texas, where they already are in bad shape and thus can only improve).  Although an increase in the black population may have occurred in Baton Rouge, there is no guarantee that these people are actually going to come out and vote, and it is likely they vote in substantially less numbers than they did in New Orleans b/c the Dems down there had a pretty good voter turnout program in those areas that were affected so much post-Katrina (e.g. 9th ward, etc).

Just a few minor points, that's all.  

Agreed!  This article isn't an analysis at all.  It's some dude's emoting about what he heard down at the DCCC press office the other day.  Sometimes you can read waaaay too much into a closed set of events in a two year period.  

What doesn't make sense about the article? Do you not like to face the facts? Considering you think Mitt Romney could take Colorado with 60%, I'm inclined to believe that you do, in fact, have no grasp on reality. Let's go through the article, shall we?



In Colorado, the growing Hispanic community and significant migration from California seems to have reached a tipping point in recent years.


True.


 Now, Democrats hold majorities in both state houses and the Congressional delegation, and in the past two cycles have gained a Senate seat and the governor's mansion.


True


While the state narrowly went for President Bush in 2004,


True


Democrats are so enthusiastic about the possibility of picking up Colorado - and, indeed, the entire Mountain West region - that they will hold their convention in Denver next summer.


Also true.


Couple Democrats' recent gains and commitment to the region with the retirement of incumbent Republican Senator Wayne Allard and one can imagine that the state would give National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Ensign a bit of heartburn.

The election sixteen months distant, both parties have seemingly chosen their all-but nominees already. The long-expected entry of Congressman Mark Udall, who backed out of the 2004 race to unite behind the successful candidacy of Ken Salazar, has frozen the Democratic field, as no other serious candidate is expected to throw his or her hat in the ring. On the Republican side, after flirtations with former Congressman Scott McInnis failed to lead to his candidacy, party leaders turned next to former Congressman Bob Schaffer, a conservative who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican Senate nomination in 2004.


Still true


The early settling of the field is a factor many political watchers consider when they say Udall holds the early, and significant, edge.



Udall has the money advantage and name recognition advantage right now. So it's a fact that Udall has the early edge. This can change of course.


University of Colorado Professor Ken Bickers says Udall's advantage comes from the Republican party, which, thanks to several bitter primaries and gridlock in the state legislature, has squandered its natural advantage with voter registration.

The Republicans are losing their lead on voter registration. Not that voter registration really means anything. It's the unaffiliated who ultimately decide.


Now, independent voters are seeking new options, and as a fledgling majority in the legislature, Democrats "haven't really messed up," according to veteran Colorado political watcher Floyd Ciruli. The state's Democratic party "is in ascendance at the moment," he said, and if Republicans nominate someone like Schaffer, with a conservative reputation, he will struggle to get to the middle.

Add to that Schaffer's failure to beat moderate beer magnate Pete Coors in the 2004 race, and the impression remains that "he's not the strongest candidate in the world," according to Bickers.


I sorta disagree here, it's not that I don't think Schaffer could move to the center, rather, I think he won't. I think he'll stay uber-conservative throughout the campaign. Keep in mind that Udall keeps positioning himself more towards the center.


Centrist Democrats have succeeded in Colorado of late. The elections of Governor Bill Ritter and Senator Ken Salazar reenergized the party. But Mark Udall isn't exactly in the mold of either Ritter or Salazar. Ciruli calls him "a much more across-the-board liberal," but hastens to point out that the liberal label may not stick. "What [Udall] is the most left on is not tons of social issues," but rather environmental issues. So will Republicans attack him for being a radical environmentalist? "That's not such a bad thing out here," said Ciruli. Solidly Democratic urban areas, a more environmentally-conscious rural population and the growing Hispanic population could all conspire to send Udall to the Senate.


I don't see what's wrong with the article about Colorado at all. Care to elaborate? Attacking the Louisiana portion of the article to justify your argument is stupid FYI. I don't see where it says Udall is a lock to win. It just says he has an early advantage.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Crap. You HAD to use facts, didn't you?

[Rawlings]

An extra 100,000 blacks in Houston will create headaches for the Texas legislature when their next redistricting comes around.

Not really.  Texas politicians are extremely talented in their redistricting efforts.  Besides, most of the Katrina residents in Houston either don't vote or are either killing each other off as we speak (thanks to the talented efforts of present mayor Bill White)

Colorado is a state no one seems to understand on this forum or otherwise, and this article likewise performs badly in that analysis.  

The Democratic party in Louisiana is presently in more trouble than any other statewide Democratic party in the country (other than a few other states like Texas, where they already are in bad shape and thus can only improve).  Although an increase in the black population may have occurred in Baton Rouge, there is no guarantee that these people are actually going to come out and vote, and it is likely they vote in substantially less numbers than they did in New Orleans b/c the Dems down there had a pretty good voter turnout program in those areas that were affected so much post-Katrina (e.g. 9th ward, etc).

Just a few minor points, that's all.  

Agreed!  This article isn't an analysis at all.  It's some dude's emoting about what he heard down at the DCCC press office the other day.  Sometimes you can read waaaay too much into a closed set of events in a two year period.  

What doesn't make sense about the article? Do you not like to face the facts? Considering you think Mitt Romney could take Colorado with 60%, I'm inclined to believe that you do, in fact, have no grasp on reality. Let's go through the article, shall we?



In Colorado, the growing Hispanic community and significant migration from California seems to have reached a tipping point in recent years.


True.


 Now, Democrats hold majorities in both state houses and the Congressional delegation, and in the past two cycles have gained a Senate seat and the governor's mansion.


True


While the state narrowly went for President Bush in 2004,


True


Democrats are so enthusiastic about the possibility of picking up Colorado - and, indeed, the entire Mountain West region - that they will hold their convention in Denver next summer.


Also true.


Couple Democrats' recent gains and commitment to the region with the retirement of incumbent Republican Senator Wayne Allard and one can imagine that the state would give National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Ensign a bit of heartburn.

The election sixteen months distant, both parties have seemingly chosen their all-but nominees already. The long-expected entry of Congressman Mark Udall, who backed out of the 2004 race to unite behind the successful candidacy of Ken Salazar, has frozen the Democratic field, as no other serious candidate is expected to throw his or her hat in the ring. On the Republican side, after flirtations with former Congressman Scott McInnis failed to lead to his candidacy, party leaders turned next to former Congressman Bob Schaffer, a conservative who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican Senate nomination in 2004.


Still true


The early settling of the field is a factor many political watchers consider when they say Udall holds the early, and significant, edge.



Udall has the money advantage and name recognition advantage right now. So it's a fact that Udall has the early edge. This can change of course.


University of Colorado Professor Ken Bickers says Udall's advantage comes from the Republican party, which, thanks to several bitter primaries and gridlock in the state legislature, has squandered its natural advantage with voter registration.

The Republicans are losing their lead on voter registration. Not that voter registration really means anything. It's the unaffiliated who ultimately decide.


Now, independent voters are seeking new options, and as a fledgling majority in the legislature, Democrats "haven't really messed up," according to veteran Colorado political watcher Floyd Ciruli. The state's Democratic party "is in ascendance at the moment," he said, and if Republicans nominate someone like Schaffer, with a conservative reputation, he will struggle to get to the middle.

Add to that Schaffer's failure to beat moderate beer magnate Pete Coors in the 2004 race, and the impression remains that "he's not the strongest candidate in the world," according to Bickers.


I sorta disagree here, it's not that I don't think Schaffer could move to the center, rather, I think he won't. I think he'll stay uber-conservative throughout the campaign. Keep in mind that Udall keeps positioning himself more towards the center.


Centrist Democrats have succeeded in Colorado of late. The elections of Governor Bill Ritter and Senator Ken Salazar reenergized the party. But Mark Udall isn't exactly in the mold of either Ritter or Salazar. Ciruli calls him "a much more across-the-board liberal," but hastens to point out that the liberal label may not stick. "What [Udall] is the most left on is not tons of social issues," but rather environmental issues. So will Republicans attack him for being a radical environmentalist? "That's not such a bad thing out here," said Ciruli. Solidly Democratic urban areas, a more environmentally-conscious rural population and the growing Hispanic population could all conspire to send Udall to the Senate.


I don't see what's wrong with the article about Colorado at all. Care to elaborate? Attacking the Louisiana portion of the article to justify your argument is stupid FYI. I don't see where it says Udall is a lock to win. It just says he has an early advantage.

You can lay out a string of facts--all being true--yet still have no argument.  The article uses all the above facts to spuriously claim that Colorado is therefore moving left.  I don't buy it.

[Aizen]

An extra 100,000 blacks in Houston will create headaches for the Texas legislature when their next redistricting comes around.

Not really.  Texas politicians are extremely talented in their redistricting efforts.  Besides, most of the Katrina residents in Houston either don't vote or are either killing each other off as we speak (thanks to the talented efforts of present mayor Bill White)

Colorado is a state no one seems to understand on this forum or otherwise, and this article likewise performs badly in that analysis.  

The Democratic party in Louisiana is presently in more trouble than any other statewide Democratic party in the country (other than a few other states like Texas, where they already are in bad shape and thus can only improve).  Although an increase in the black population may have occurred in Baton Rouge, there is no guarantee that these people are actually going to come out and vote, and it is likely they vote in substantially less numbers than they did in New Orleans b/c the Dems down there had a pretty good voter turnout program in those areas that were affected so much post-Katrina (e.g. 9th ward, etc).

Just a few minor points, that's all.  

Agreed!  This article isn't an analysis at all.  It's some dude's emoting about what he heard down at the DCCC press office the other day.  Sometimes you can read waaaay too much into a closed set of events in a two year period.  

What doesn't make sense about the article? Do you not like to face the facts? Considering you think Mitt Romney could take Colorado with 60%, I'm inclined to believe that you do, in fact, have no grasp on reality. Let's go through the article, shall we?



In Colorado, the growing Hispanic community and significant migration from California seems to have reached a tipping point in recent years.


True.


 Now, Democrats hold majorities in both state houses and the Congressional delegation, and in the past two cycles have gained a Senate seat and the governor's mansion.


True


While the state narrowly went for President Bush in 2004,


True


Democrats are so enthusiastic about the possibility of picking up Colorado - and, indeed, the entire Mountain West region - that they will hold their convention in Denver next summer.


Also true.


Couple Democrats' recent gains and commitment to the region with the retirement of incumbent Republican Senator Wayne Allard and one can imagine that the state would give National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman John Ensign a bit of heartburn.

The election sixteen months distant, both parties have seemingly chosen their all-but nominees already. The long-expected entry of Congressman Mark Udall, who backed out of the 2004 race to unite behind the successful candidacy of Ken Salazar, has frozen the Democratic field, as no other serious candidate is expected to throw his or her hat in the ring. On the Republican side, after flirtations with former Congressman Scott McInnis failed to lead to his candidacy, party leaders turned next to former Congressman Bob Schaffer, a conservative who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican Senate nomination in 2004.


Still true


The early settling of the field is a factor many political watchers consider when they say Udall holds the early, and significant, edge.



Udall has the money advantage and name recognition advantage right now. So it's a fact that Udall has the early edge. This can change of course.


University of Colorado Professor Ken Bickers says Udall's advantage comes from the Republican party, which, thanks to several bitter primaries and gridlock in the state legislature, has squandered its natural advantage with voter registration.

The Republicans are losing their lead on voter registration. Not that voter registration really means anything. It's the unaffiliated who ultimately decide.


Now, independent voters are seeking new options, and as a fledgling majority in the legislature, Democrats "haven't really messed up," according to veteran Colorado political watcher Floyd Ciruli. The state's Democratic party "is in ascendance at the moment," he said, and if Republicans nominate someone like Schaffer, with a conservative reputation, he will struggle to get to the middle.

Add to that Schaffer's failure to beat moderate beer magnate Pete Coors in the 2004 race, and the impression remains that "he's not the strongest candidate in the world," according to Bickers.


I sorta disagree here, it's not that I don't think Schaffer could move to the center, rather, I think he won't. I think he'll stay uber-conservative throughout the campaign. Keep in mind that Udall keeps positioning himself more towards the center.


Centrist Democrats have succeeded in Colorado of late. The elections of Governor Bill Ritter and Senator Ken Salazar reenergized the party. But Mark Udall isn't exactly in the mold of either Ritter or Salazar. Ciruli calls him "a much more across-the-board liberal," but hastens to point out that the liberal label may not stick. "What [Udall] is the most left on is not tons of social issues," but rather environmental issues. So will Republicans attack him for being a radical environmentalist? "That's not such a bad thing out here," said Ciruli. Solidly Democratic urban areas, a more environmentally-conscious rural population and the growing Hispanic population could all conspire to send Udall to the Senate.


I don't see what's wrong with the article about Colorado at all. Care to elaborate? Attacking the Louisiana portion of the article to justify your argument is stupid FYI. I don't see where it says Udall is a lock to win. It just says he has an early advantage.

You can lay out a string of facts--all being true--yet still have no argument.  The article uses all the above facts to spuriously claim that Colorado is therefore moving left.  I don't buy it.

Then you must be drinking the Kool-Aid. It's a fact that Colorado has been mvoing left. It's one thing if you still want to belive that Schaffer wins the senate seat or Colorado stays GOP for POTUS. It's another to stupidly deny that Colorado is not moving left.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

You just HAVE to crank him up, Aizen.

[Rawlings]

Aizen, I think YOU have been drinking the Kool Aid.  You do well in one--maybe two--elections and suddenly you're living in Oregon or Vermont or something.  Whatever dude.  Drink up, for all I care.  The more you drink the more convinced you are that a Boulder liberal can win in a state that only two Democratic POTUS candidates have carried in 40 years.  Two! 

You obviously missed the fundraising numbers from Schaffer, in which he raised 700K in just half a quarter.

 We voted for a pro-life, ex-missionary, pro-business Catholic Democrat for governer?  *jazz hands*

Whatever dude.  Just bring it.  It takes more than a Goldwater Democrat like Ritter to turn Colorado blue.  And Mark Udall is not your guy.

[Tender Branson]

Do you not like to face the facts? Considering you think Mitt Romney could take Colorado with 60%, I'm inclined to believe that you do, in fact, have no grasp on reality.

For Rawlings:

Talking about Romney: Take a look at the 2nd quarter (or whole 2007) fundraising in Colorado. Who´s ahead in the state ? Barack Obama. He took in 1 Mio. in the first half and trashed Romney 2:1 (he took in 500.000). So, Aizen´s not really wrong when he says you are delusional in thinking Romney will carry Colorado 60-40.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

...and Allard isn't the most conservative member of the senate.

He's the 20th most conservative....and Salazar is the 35th most liberal.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2007/Senate/senator-ratings.html

The 12 most conservative are-

Though this is 2005.

James Inhofe
Oklahoma  Tom Coburn 
South Carolina  Jim DeMint
Texas  John Cornyn 
Utah  Orrin Hatch 
Virginia  George Allen
Arizona  Jon Kyl
Georgia  Saxby Chambliss
Kentucky  Jim Bunning
Mississippi  Thad Cochran
Missouri  Kit Bond   
Jeff Sessions

[jimrtex]

1. As time goes on, more and more of the Katrina refugees in Houston will settle in there and, eventually, change their voting registration. Nobody expects all or even most of them to return to New Orleans at this point, especially with what a haphazard job is being done of rebuilding there. And don't try to be cute - when Spade says Katrina refugees are too busy killing each other to vote he's not talking about rich white people.

Why would someone from New Orleans want to live in Houston?  And if they did, why would they not tend to live in areas that are largely inhabited by native Blacks?  And if they lived in those areas why would they not

I took Sam Spade's remarks to refer to the many form residents of New Orleans who were either perpetrators or victims of murder in Houston (IIRC, this was around 70 in 2006).

2. I did mean Harris country - that was a typo, and indeed it is true that in '06 no Republican won by more then 35,000 except for Poe - and he represents the northern suburbs of Houston, not the part that most Katrina evacuees are living in. Culberson, McCaul and Paul were all at or below 60% in '06 without the Katrina refugee vote. Even if a significant fraction of Katrina refugees in Houston begin to vote in the future, that will be a factor in some of the other Republican seats around Harris; Perhaps not enough to swing the seats, but certainly enough to force Republicans to divert resources.

I think you may be getting a little cute here.  Let's review:

Culberson won by 34,800.  Is it mere coincidence that your threshold was 35,000?

Poe won by 45,000; including 40,000 in Harris County.

McCaul won by 26,000; but 29,000 in Harris County, which represented a 45% margin.  The part of the county he represents is much less black than the area represented by Poe.  CD 3 (Poe): 9.2% Black; CD 10 (McCaul): 5.2% Black.

Sekula-Gibbs: Where she was on the ballot as a Republican, she received 53,000 more votes than here nearest opponent.  No Democrat he contested the race.  In total, 100,497 more persons voted for Republicans in that race than voted for Democrats.

3. You cannot deny the disarray that the Colorado Republican party is currently in, compared to the relative ascendancy of the Colorado Democratic Party. I won't waste my time defending the obvious.

If Democrats have held the governorship for 24 the last 32 yeas, why do refer to that as a change?  Just because the Democrat State convention held a "No More Lamm" demonstration when he left office?

There has been basically one Democrat senate seat and one Republican senat seat since 1979, with the exception when Ben Campbell switched parties.

Since 1975, Democrats have held 45 of 101 House seats (45%), which is about what they held before 2006, where they picked up a seat where the Republican incumbent ran for Governor.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

I would think that in the 60s, Colorado was a lot like Wyoming.

 You could say that there was always going to be that trend...but it was stymied by the growth of Colorado Springs and the region's capture by the Air Force and the Dominionist church during the 80s and 90s....but it appears that shift has matured and a new realignment surrounding the Northern Metro area has begun-

Look at it this way-

Year           R-D v. NA
1976-
           
 WY-  22
 CO-  14

1980-

WY- 25
CO- 14

1984-

WY- 30
CO-10

1988-

WY-14
CO- -1

**THE Start of Focus on The Family and affiliated groups in the Springs**
1992-
WY-11
CO- 2

1996-
WY- 22
CO- 10

2000-
WY- 45
CO- 6

2004-
WY- 45
CO-2

[jimrtex]

I would think that in the 60s, Colorado was a lot like Wyoming.
2000-
WY- 45
CO- 6

2004-
WY- 45
CO-2

Maybe Cheney being from Wyoming has something to do with this.

[Vasall des Midas]

I would think that in the 60s, Colorado was a lot like Wyoming.
2000-
WY- 45
CO- 6

2004-
WY- 45
CO-2

Maybe Cheney being from Wyoming has something to do with this.

Cheney is from Nebraska.

[Jaggerjack]

I would think that in the 60s, Colorado was a lot like Wyoming.
2000-
WY- 45
CO- 6

2004-
WY- 45
CO-2

Maybe Cheney being from Wyoming has something to do with this.

Cheney is from Nebraska.

No oo; where'd you hear that?

[Adlai Stevenson]

I would think that in the 60s, Colorado was a lot like Wyoming.
2000-
WY- 45
CO- 6

2004-
WY- 45
CO-2

Maybe Cheney being from Wyoming has something to do with this.

Cheney is from Nebraska.

No oo; where'd you hear that?

Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska but his family moved to Wyoming when he was young.  Wyoming is his 'home state' in that he was elected to the statewide House seat in 1978.  However, I think he was in fact living in Texas when he was chosen to be Bush's Vice Presidential nominee. 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Yeah, but still...thats not the point