Why did Clinton do so well in Colorado?

[Plankton5165]

Colorado had always been either a reliably Republican state or a swing state. It was the tipping point state in both 2008 (sort of) and 2012.

In 2016, Clinton won the state by 5 points, and Trump was the first Republican to win election without taking Colorado since 1908.

I've thought it might be because the Clinton campaign logo looked similar to the Colorado flag just except with an H and a C respectively, and because of the latino vote. (but analysts said it could make a difference, and insisted on a latino vote with Nevada, which was won by Clinton by a smaller margin.)

[TML]

Compared to 2012, most Democratic growth occurred in the following areas:

-Denver and its surrounding counties
-Ski resort counties in the west

Although Republicans gained elsewhere in the state, including the former Democratic stronghold of Southern-Central Colorado, that wasn't anywhere near enough to offset Democratic gains in the aforementioned regions.

In recent years, the Hispanic population in Colorado has been increasing significantly. This, combined with the nationwide trend of suburbs toward Democrats, combined to give this state to Clinton.

[Del Tachi]

Swings to Clinton in the Denver suburbs

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Colorado had always been either a reliably Republican state or a swing state. It was the tipping point state in both 2008 (sort of) and 2012.

In 2016, Clinton won the state by 5 points, and Trump was the first Republican to win election without taking Colorado since 1908.

I've thought it might be because the Clinton campaign logo looked similar to the Colorado flag just except with an H and a C respectively, and because of the latino vote. (but analysts said it could make a difference, and insisted on a latino vote with Nevada, which was won by Clinton by a smaller margin.)

This is some kind of a joke, right?

[ElectionsGuy]

Colorado has among the highest percentages of college graduates, and a majority of the state lives in one metropolitan area.

[TDAS04]

The same places that trended left for Obama tended to (with exceptions) trend left for Hillary, especially educated, affluent, culturally progressive urban/suburban areas.  These places are trending Democratic, period.  I remember people predicting that the white lady would lose Colorado and Virginia, win Missouri and West Virginia, because she was a certain fit for these areas, whatever.  It turned out that the Obama-era trends didn't go away.

[Politician]

The same places that trended left for Obama tended to (with exceptions) trend left for Hillary, especially educated, affluent, culturally progressive urban/suburban areas.  These places are trending Democratic, period.  I remember people predicting that the white lady would lose Colorado and Virginia, win Missouri and West Virginia, because she was a certain fit for these areas, whatever.  It turned out that the Obama-era trends didn't go away.

Outside of Appalachia and the Deep South, most rural areas swung (and many trended) TOWARDS Obama in 2008.

More evidence:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=ND&type=map_trend&off=0&elect=0

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=MT&type=map_trend&off=0&elect=0

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=SD&type=map_trend&off=0&elect=0

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=IN&type=map_trend&off=0&elect=0

Look at all those rural counties that trended hard left.

[TDAS04]

The same places that trended left for Obama tended to (with exceptions) trend left for Hillary, especially educated, affluent, culturally progressive urban/suburban areas.  These places are trending Democratic, period.  I remember people predicting that the white lady would lose Colorado and Virginia, win Missouri and West Virginia, because she was a certain fit for these areas, whatever.  It turned out that the Obama-era trends didn't go away.

 Outside of Appalachia and the Deep South, most rural areas swung (and many trended) TOWARDS Obama in 2008.

More evidence:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=ND&type=map_trend&off=0&elect=0

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=MT&type=map_trend&off=0&elect=0

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=SD&type=map_trend&off=0&elect=0

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2008&st=IN&type=map_trend&off=0&elect=0

Look at all those rural counties that trended hard left.

No, I am not dumb.  No need for you to be such a dick.  I didn't say most rural areas swung against Obama.  There were regional variations, but 2016 maximized the general trends of the prior two elections.   Most places swung toward Obama in 2008, but even then it was notable that many culturally conservative, if traditionally Democratic, areas were trending right.  This became more apparent in 2012 and much more so in 2016.

[ElectionsGuy]

The same places that trended left for Obama tended to (with exceptions) trend left for Hillary, especially educated, affluent, culturally progressive urban/suburban areas.  These places are trending Democratic, period.  I remember people predicting that the white lady would lose Colorado and Virginia, win Missouri and West Virginia, because she was a certain fit for these areas, whatever.  It turned out that the Obama-era trends didn't go away.

Are you dumb?

Can you properly engage with someone without resorting to insults?

[538Electoral]

Trump lost a series of swing counties that historically Republicans need to win the state.

These are Jefferson, Arapahoe and Larimer. Arapahoe appears mostly out of reach for Trump in 2020 but Trump absolutely has to win Jefferson and Larimer to win the state. He would need to cut the margins in Arapahoe down and get more of the vote in Denver.

This area lost him the state and it probably cost McCain and Romney the state as well.

[Smash255]

Colorado had always been either a reliably Republican state or a swing state. It was the tipping point state in both 2008 (sort of) and 2012.

In 2016, Clinton won the state by 5 points, and Trump was the first Republican to win election without taking Colorado since 1908.

I've thought it might be because the Clinton campaign logo looked similar to the Colorado flag just except with an H and a C respectively, and because of the latino vote. (but analysts said it could make a difference, and insisted on a latino vote with Nevada, which was won by Clinton by a smaller margin.)

Combination of a growing Latino vote along with educated suburbanites swinging against Trump.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Isn't Colorado also seeing a lot of people moving there from California?

[TJ in Oregon]

Well here are the results and swing maps for 2016:




It seems like the answer is Trump doing badly in upscale suburbia. Incidentally the Hispanic areas mostly seemed to trend a bit toward Trump (see Pueblo and Adams Counties), so that doesn't appear to be the explanation for his poor performance in Colorado.

[RI]

Well here are the results and swing maps for 2016:




It seems like the answer is Trump doing badly in upscale suburbia. Incidentally the Hispanic areas mostly seemed to trend a bit toward Trump (see Pueblo and Adams Counties), so that doesn't appear to be the explanation for his poor performance in Colorado.

The urban/suburban Hispanic areas of Denver also swung toward Trump. The pro-Clinton swing in the Denver suburbs was a completely white phenomenon.

[Los Angeles Swag Boss]

TLDR: Because, CO has turned blue.

[morgankingsley]

Growing suburban population

[Calthrina950]

Trump lost a series of swing counties that historically Republicans need to win the state.

These are Jefferson, Arapahoe and Larimer. Arapahoe appears mostly out of reach for Trump in 2020 but Trump absolutely has to win Jefferson and Larimer to win the state. He would need to cut the margins in Arapahoe down and get more of the vote in Denver.

This area lost him the state and it probably cost McCain and Romney the state as well.

Not just probably; it did. The last time that Colorado voted Republican at the presidential level was when these three counties did so, and that was in 2004, when George W. Bush won these three counties (as well as Broomfield) and won the state as a whole. Now, it is possible for Republicans to win without Jefferson and Arapahoe. In 2014, Gardner lost those two counties to Mark Udall by razor-thin margins, while carrying Larimer by a razor-thin margin. He was able to defeat Udall because of running up the score in El Paso, Douglas, Mesa, and Weld (the Republican base counties), and by demolishing Udall in the Plains and Mountain counties.

Trump has no chance of winning Colorado next year, but if he did, his path to victory would resemble Gardner's, though he would probably get slightly lower percentages in El Paso and Douglas (which are trending Democratic, if only marginally), and would sweep the block of historically Democratic counties in Southern Colorado-Pueblo, Huerfano, Las Animas, and Conejos, which continued their Republican trend last year. Polis lost the latter two counties, and only one statewide Democrat (Jena Griswold) carried all four. Conversely, however, Stapleton lost Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Larimer by double digits, and of course, lost Broomfield by double digits as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump suffered a similar fate.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

CO was supposed to be #SAFEGARYJOHNSON

[morgankingsley]

CO was supposed to be #SAFEGARYJOHNSON

Yeah those f-cking polls lied to us