John Elway for US Senate

[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.

[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.

[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.