John Elway for US Senate

[jimrtex]

You are a staunch conservative from Colorado.  I know these things are hard to admit when you look at your own state, but the state is moving away from the GOP, becoming more & more Democratic and becoming more and more liberal as well.  You just don't see the type of movements we have seen in Colorado between 96 & 04 out of the blue.  That just doesn't happen, unless some real changes are taking place.

The margin in 1996 was 1.43%, in 2000 it was 3.11% (including Nader), and 2004 it was 4.67%.

Denver used to have 1/4 of the population, when Colorado had 4 congressmen.  Now it has less than 1/7 of the population.  Fewer votes were cast for president in Denver in 2000 than in 1952.  So the population has expanded out into the inner suburbs, including Arapahoe and Jefferson.

Arapahoe and Jefferson are running out of space to grow.  Going west you run into the foothills, so in Jefferson County, the growth is limited to the NW and SW (of Denver).  To the SW you will notice that Jefferson County goes to a point, and the foothills are further east.  Arapahoe County is 12 miles wide, and the area to the south is developed.  It can grow to the east, but you are getting further from the mountains.

The growth to the south is into Douglas County, which increased its turnout by 140% from 1996 to 2004, while increasing the GOP percentage.

A large section of north Denver is industrial, so that you don't have as much spillover from Denver, and it has been a traditionally Democratic county forever.  But it is 6 miles wider than Arapahoe, so that you are still getting growth to the north that is in the county.  Plus it has the closest residential areas to the airport.  It is increasingly competitive.  And just recently, the growth has spilled over into southern Weld County, where turnout was up 66% between 1996 and 2004 - and the vote increase from 2000 to 2004 was 68% Republican.

[jimrtex]

Did you even read anything I posted about the national margin?

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

Why is it the real way?

In Colorado, between 2000 and 2004, the Democratic vote increased by 20.8%, but the GOP vote increased by 24.6%.

Your theory is that now that the new Republican voters have got into the habit of voting they're going to act like people in New York, and switch to the Democratic candidate.

The alternative theory is that Republicans did a better job than the Democrats of identifying non-voters who supported them and got them to vote in 2004 vs. 2000.

Colorado went from 14th highest percentage for Perot in 1992, to 42nd highest for Perot in 1996.  From 4.4% above the national average to 1.4% below.  If Perot in 2000, your national trend theory would have voters in Colorado taking ballots out of the ballot box.

[jimrtex]

Did you even read anything I posted about the national margin?

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

Why is it the real way?

In Colorado, between 2000 and 2004, the Democratic vote increased by 20.8%, but the GOP vote increased by 24.6%.

Your theory is that now that the new Republican voters have got into the habit of voting they're going to act like people in New York, and switch to the Democratic candidate.

The alternative theory is that Republicans did a better job than the Democrats of identifying non-voters who supported them and got them to vote in 2004 vs. 2000.

Colorado went from 14th highest percentage for Perot in 1992, to 42nd highest for Perot in 1996.  From 4.4% above the national average to 1.4% below.  If Perot in 2000, your national trend theory would have voters in Colorado taking ballots out of the ballot box.

Because it tells how a state is trending when you look at the national picture.  For example 1988 was a Republican year on the Presidential level, 96 was a Democratic year.  Now would you say all the states which the Democrats did better in between 88 & 96 were trending Democratic??  No, you have to look at how it compares to the national average, and Colorado has gone from being quite a bit more Republican than the national average to almost close to even with the national average.

If your method works for Colorado, then you should be able to take presidential elections 8 years apart, and project the result at the next presidential election.

Have you done this?

[jimrtex]

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

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

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

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

[jimrtex]

I'm not taking Colorado out of its national political context to make a point.  What I am suggesting is you have to look at how a state compares to the national average and look at that when you show how a state is trending. 

What I am suggesting is not only do you have to look at how a state compares to the national average, but you also have to look whether the trend continued.

Let's take a look at the 8 year periods where there was a major shift toward one party relative to the national support, and let's then look at the shift the following presidential election.

1920-1928 Colorado became 7.5% more Republican than USA.
1928-1936 Colorado became 6.0% less Republican than USA.
1932-1940 Colorado became 4.3% more Republican than USA.
1936-1944 Colorado became 6.8% more Republican than USA.
1940-1948 Colorado became 4.6% less Republican than USA.
1988-1996 Colorado became 5.6% more Republican than USA.
1996-2004 Colorado became 6.6% less Republican than USA.

According to your argument these changes represent an ideological shift, that would continue into the future.  Am I misunderstanding your argument?

Let's then look what happened in the next election.

1932-1936 Colorado 4.7% less Republican than USA.
1936-1940 Colorado 5.6% more Republican than USA.
1940-1944 Colorado 1.2% more Republican than USA.
1944-1948 Colorado 5.8% less Republican than USA.
1948-1952 Colorado 3.6% more Republican than USA.
1996-2000 Colorado 3.2% less Republican than USA.
2004-2008 Colorado unknown.

So if we take the 6 eight year periods since 1920, where Colorado Republican voted shifted relative to the USA by more than 4%, in only one instance was that trend continued in the following election.  In the other 5 elections, there was a major reversal.

Your prediction method batted 0.166.  Not only was it far below the Mendoza line, it hit into double plays.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There have 6 similar magnitude relative shifts since 1920.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And in 5 of those 6 previous occurences there was a major reversal of the trend.

[jimrtex]

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

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

You earlier wrote:

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

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

[jimrtex]

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

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

[jimrtex]

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

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

Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.

I agree.  It is Smash255's argument that:

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

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

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

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

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

[jimrtex]

Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.

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

John Kerry was born in Colorado.  George Bush is from Texas.  Neil Bush was in Colorado when Silverado went under.  There was a complete collapse in the Nader support in Colorado between 2000 and 2004.  Colorado was Nader's 8th best state in 2000, his vote in 2004 was negligible.    There was a massive collapse of the support in Perot support between 1992 and 1996.  Colorado was Perot's 14th best state in 1992, his 8th worst in 1996.

[jimrtex]

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

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

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

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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.