John Elway for US Senate

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[Rawlings]

Even Democratic areas have shifted. For example (I'm using only Bush's numbers here because Nader skewed things in 2000):

Eagle County:

2000 - 1.2% less Republican
2004 - 4.63% less Republican
(also gave Dole basically his national numbers in 1996)

Boulder County:

2000 - 11.94% less Republican
2004 - 18.34% less Republican

Pitkin County:

2000 - 14.99% less Republican
2004 - 20.65% less Republican

These type of swings weren't seen basically anywhere else in the country.

You're picking the vertex of liberal hell in Colorado.  2004 was one of the most charged and polarizing elections in recent history so of course you're going to have Boulder, Vail, and Aspen move even more left.

Next, those counties make up, what, 10% of Colorado's total population--at most?  That's like me picking some out-of-the-way podunk town on the Eastern Plains and hyping it up as the latest, greatest trendsetter in the West.

It's just absurd to take one election in a vacuum and pretend it is at all significant long-term.

Wait a while before you start painting Colorado blue.  I know you liberals are jumping the gun with excitement at taking back the White House with Ohio and Colorado.  But just hold on a minute.  You forgot to tell the people of Colorado--the voters--that we're going liberal.  Try that first.

[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...

[jimrtex]

(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?

[Rawlings]

Even Democratic areas have shifted. For example (I'm using only Bush's numbers here because Nader skewed things in 2000):

Eagle County:

2000 - 1.2% less Republican
2004 - 4.63% less Republican
(also gave Dole basically his national numbers in 1996)

Boulder County:

2000 - 11.94% less Republican
2004 - 18.34% less Republican

Pitkin County:

2000 - 14.99% less Republican
2004 - 20.65% less Republican

These type of swings weren't seen basically anywhere else in the country.

You're picking the vertex of liberal hell in Colorado.  2004 was one of the most charged and polarizing elections in recent history so of course you're going to have Boulder, Vail, and Aspen move even more left.

Next, those counties make up, what, 10% of Colorado's total population--at most?  That's like me picking some out-of-the-way podunk town on the Eastern Plains and hyping it up as the latest, greatest trendsetter in the West.

It's just absurd to take one election in a vacuum and pretend it is at all significant long-term.

Wait a while before you start painting Colorado blue.  I know you liberals are jumping the gun with excitement at taking back the White House with Ohio and Colorado.  But just hold on a minute.  You forgot to tell the people of Colorado--the voters--that we're going liberal.  Try that first.

Liberal like the northeast?  no.  Moderate to left of center?  Yes, and the trend for that is a big one and the voters do know.  A huge shift against the national average on the Pres level between 96 & 04, with some of the largest shifts happening in the suburban Denver counties of Jefferson and an even larger trend in Araphoe...

Actually, Arapahoe County has started moving back to the right.  Understand that Arapahoe County is home to Aurora--a large suburb with a very large minority population.  It has always been Democrat-leaning.  But as new exurban subdivisions pop up the landscape is shifting right.

It's the opposite in Jefferson County where Republican, wealthy Jeffco voters are moving into those Arapahoe and Douglas County exurbs leaving behind a void filled by poor whites, minorities, and older voters.  That's why you've seen such a dramatic shift in CD-7 and a tilt to the right in CD-6.

In othe words, it isn't that the metro area has shifted politically one way or another--it's that the GOP electorate is moving out of the inner 'burbs to exurban communities in Arapahoe, Adams, Elbert, and Douglas counties.  That's leaving places like Jeffco, Denver Co, and Boulder county even MORE Democratic.

Because this shift is mostly a post-census, post-gerrymandering event, the district boundaries have not accounted for this shift leaving Republican districts with disproportionately higher populations than the Democratic districts in Jeffco with disproportionately lower populations--and heavily Democratic.

The problem with your statistical finnegery is that you aren't looking at the metro area--and state--as an organic whole that takes a long, long time to affect any real ideological change.  The metro area isn't so much as becoming more liberal as it's staying center-right and moving all around, poking out in some sides and collapsing in other areas--leaving the famous donut of newer, more conservative suburbs ringing a defunct, Latino-ized inner city and inner suburban ring.

Your statistical analysis would work if you were looking at the metro area today as it was in 1995.  But since 1995 the metro area is VERY different in size, demographics, etc.

My point is that after the next census and after a couple more elections the state will surely shift back to the Republicans as it did after the 2000 census.

[jimrtex]

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.

[Rawlings]

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

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

You're confusing demographic shift with ideological shift.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GREAT analogy!  Couldn't have said it better myself.

[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. 

[jimrtex]

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?

[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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[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

[jimrtex]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The post-Perot correction was greater in Colorado and happened sooner. 

Remember, Colorado was Perot's 14th best state in 1992 and his 8th worst state in 1996.

While the country as a whole went 3% more Democratic between 1992 and 1996, Colorado went 5.6% more Republican.  Helpful in this shift was a Republican candidate from a neighboring state, and a return of Perot voters to the Republican party in greater numbers than elsewhere.

When the US as a whole shifted 8% more Republican in 2000, while Colorado only shifted 7%, you see it as proof of a leftward ideological shift in Colorado.  The more logical conclusion is that the US was catching up to Colorado in not voting for Perot.

Then we get to 2000, where Colorado was Nader's 8th best state.  If you look at the states that were relatively close, and where Nader did well in 2004 (VT, ME, CO, MN, and OR), the Democrats did better in absolute terms in 2004 than in 2000.  This does not necessarily represent an ideological shift, but rather the Nader voters getting squeezed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Perot effect was very different in Colorado.  That should tell you something about the state.  You apparently don't recognize that the size of the 9/11 effect varied by state, and had an impact on the national vote totals, that you are using as your baseline for measuring ideological shift.

Bob Dole was from a neighboring state.  Not only was he from Kansas, but he was from western Kansas.  Neil Bush was from Colorado when he was involved with Silverado.  Both George HW Bush and George W Bush were from Texas.  While Perot was from Texas, he wasn't perceived as being a Texan.  John Kerry was born in Colorado, while Al Gore was born in Washington, DC.  And Clinton was from Arkansas.

Being from Texas, or the South even, is not going to help a candidate in Colorado.  Look at Jimmy Carter.

[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

[jimrtex]

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.

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?

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]
Kerry had a smaller majority in MA than Gore did.  Is this because Kerry was perceived by Bay Staters as a northeastern liberal?  Throughout the northeast, except for northern New England, Kerry did worse than Gore.  Was this because Kerry was perceived as being a northeastern liberal?   Yankee self-loathing?

[jimrtex]

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.

It is false that the minority population has been growing at a faster rate, either in relative or absolute term, in Jefferson County than Arapahoe County.  And it is not only the minority population that is the source of demographic change.  It is the fact that the areas closer to Denver have become filled up.

Denver as a percentage of statewide turnout, dropped from 12.8% to 11.1% of the state betweeen 1996 and 2004.  Jefferson dropped from 13.9% to 12.7%, while Arapahoe was slightly up from 10.7% to 10.9%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This might be accurate when the the voting population is static.

And another factor to consider is the EV referendum in Colorado in 2004.  There may have been a perception that Colorado was in play.

Look at states like IN, WV, and MO, where there was a shift towards the GOP.  Missouri is the closest thing to a national bellwether, and Kerry abandoned the state, and only carried 4 counties.  A similar thing happened in WV.  Kerry told the West Virginians that they were hopeless, unimportant, and did not count for anything.  Indiana was written off from the start.  Meanwhile Ohio was considered competitive, and it shifted towards the Democrats.

[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.

[Rawlings]

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.

[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.

[Tender Branson]

Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not).

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)

[Rawlings]

Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not).

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)

Even though you're a Democrat, Tender, you're obviously pretty smart.  I think you're dead-on with your polling predictions.  Schaffer, who recently announced, has internals that show him literally neck and neck with Udall.  I think the first poll you'll get will show Udall up by a point or two and it will stay that way until Election Day where Schaffer will take it with the GOP's hard core GOTV.

As far as the presidential race, there's no doubt that the Republican will win (unless the Democrat is uber-popular Bill Richardson--which it won't be, so why bother talkign about it?).  Colorado is a red state.  Period.  Only one Democrat has won this state in the last fifty years!  Heck, even Nixon beat JFK!  (I know Clinton won in '92--but he got helped by Perot.  Colorado was Perot's 8th best state and only won with 35% of the vote.  Without Perot, Colorado stays red).

Kerry in 2004 thought he could put Colorado in play.  He wasted his money and got whooped.  Colorado come POTUS time is a ruby red state.  With other elections it's a crapshoot.  Colorado is a conservative state--though you can never rely on it to vote that way (sort of like Arkansas, I guess).  But there's just no way Hillary Clinton plays well in Colorado.  This is middle America, home to Focus on the Family and James Dobson, and the country's stiffest tax laws.  Trust me, Hillary won't play well here.

[Smash255]

Can´t wait for a Colorado poll which ends your quarrel, (or not).

PS: I think the first CO presidential polls will show a slight advantage for the Republican candidate (0-5%) and a Toss-Up in the Senate. (+/- 3%)

Even though you're a Democrat, Tender, you're obviously pretty smart.  I think you're dead-on with your polling predictions.  Schaffer, who recently announced, has internals that show him literally neck and neck with Udall.  I think the first poll you'll get will show Udall up by a point or two and it will stay that way until Election Day where Schaffer will take it with the GOP's hard core GOTV.

As far as the presidential race, there's no doubt that the Republican will win (unless the Democrat is uber-popular Bill Richardson--which it won't be, so why bother talkign about it?).  Colorado is a red state.  Period.  Only one Democrat has won this state in the last fifty years!  Heck, even Nixon beat JFK!  (I know Clinton won in '92--but he got helped by Perot.  Colorado was Perot's 8th best state and only won with 35% of the vote.  Without Perot, Colorado stays red).

Kerry in 2004 thought he could put Colorado in play.  He wasted his money and got whooped.  Colorado come POTUS time is a ruby red state.  With other elections it's a crapshoot.  Colorado is a conservative state--though you can never rely on it to vote that way (sort of like Arkansas, I guess).  But there's just no way Hillary Clinton plays well in Colorado.  This is middle America, home to Focus on the Family and James Dobson, and the country's stiffest tax laws.  Trust me, Hillary won't play well here.

A state where Bush won by less than 5 and by a mere 2 points more than the national average is not the definition of a ruby red state...

Also Schaffer's INTERNALS show him neck and neck.  Keep in mind you said INTERNALS.  Internall polling that a candidate actually releases always shows them in much better shape than what they really are.  If he isn't even ahead in his own internal polls that he announces, he is really screwed.   

[HardRCafé]

Schaffer, who recently announced,

It's official finally?