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

[Rawlings]

Yeah....what?  Please, spare us from having to read such unremarkable crap.  This made absolutely no sense.

[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. 

[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.

[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.