What IS up with Colorado???

[mddem2004]

In looking at the state polls, one can't help but wonder what IS the status of Colorado.

Although an underpolled state, one can't help but wonder based on the following:
                                 Bush        Kerry
Zogby 9/3                   45           46
Rasmussen 8/19           47           47
SUSA 8/16                   47           47
Mason/Dixon 6/18        48           43
Rasmussen 4/14          49           44

We probably won't get a better feeling until the state becomes a little more regularly polled, and I am not saying the state will be a threat to Bush.....yet.....but a closer look at Colorado may be in order for several reasons.

First and foremost, like several other states (NV, NC, AZ for example) Colorado has experienced hyper-growth in the past few years....there are 11% more people there than just 4 years ago. Rapidly changing demographics always pose problems to conventional wisdom in predicting future electoral outcomes.

Second, there are three races in the state that are HIGHLY competative; CD-3, CD-7 and the Senate. The Senate race, will receive national attention not only because it is close and may determine the outcome of who controlls the Senate, but Salazar being potentially the first Hispanic Senator will drive up that groups interest in getting to the polls.....to vote Democratic.

Third, trouble in Republican ranks??? There are at least some signs in the state that more moderate or 'swing' Republicans are somewhat grumpy. In Colorado, even Republicans have to be environmentally moderate. The leasing of land for gas drilling pushed through by the Bush Admistration (near newly completed communities) is a huge issue where moderate Republicans are joining in the 'not in my back yard' backlash. The expiration of the Assault Rifle Ban, in the state that is home to Columbine, may have the potential to drive some of these moderate suburbinite Republicans the other way, or to stay home, as well.

SOME NUMBERS
Al Gore got 42.39% of the vote in a state he did not campaign in. Nader garnered 5.25% of the states 2000 vote. Although Bush won the state getting 50.75% of the vote in 2000, Nader is unlikely to come near his level of support again (many voted Nader because Gore ignored the state). There was only a margin of 54,084 votes or 3.11% between the Bush and the Gore/Nader combined votes in 2000. That was 4 years ago and the population, again, has grown by 11% since then, 1/3 of it Hispanic.

Kerry appears at this point to at least be giving some attention to the state this time. That, and given the level of support expected for Salazar from the Hispanic vote, one can easily see this state coming within 4% without considering the level of commitment Kerry may or may not give to the state.

Party registration however is not that different than it was in 2000.
                        2000                 2004 (As of June)
Dem                  30.1%               30.4%
Rep                   36.1%               37%
Ind                   33.8%               32.5%

Although the SUSA Poll I'm going to cite (the only one I could find with these break downs) is a bit dated (8/16) it does point to some potential weaknesses for Bush in this state if these trends hold post RNC.

                       2000 exit polls                  SUSA (8/16)
                        Bush   Gore                   Bush      Kerry
Men                  60        40                      51          44
Women              48         52                     43           50
White                60         40                     52           43
Hispanic            33         67                     24           66
Dem                  24         76                     8            88
Rep                  82         14                     90             9  
Ind                    53         47                     38          49
18-64                53         47                     47          47
65+                  50         50                     48          47

There are two things that struck me the most about this comparison.
1) Both Bush and Kerry have solidified their support from their own parties in the state much better than in 2000.
and
2) The drop in support for Bush in the Hispanic vote. Bush receivd 33% in 2000, yet is polling only 23% support now. Gore recieved 67% support in 2000 and Kerry already has 66% support now. The likelyhood of the remaining 10% undecided Hispanic vote going for Bush, in my view, with Salazar on the ballot is near zero. I easily see Kerry getting above 70% of this vote in this election, in this state.

Although the Hispanic vote accounted for only 7% of Colorado's vote in 2000, they only had a 32% turnout rate then. Again, with both sides courting this vote and Salazar on the ballot, I look to see a significant increase in their turnout this year.

Still, its the Independents that will probably have the final say in this state, and further polling will be necessary to see if Kerrys 11% lead with them in August (with 13% still undecided Independents) has been eroded to near parity or a slight lead for Bush as it appears it has nationally. If Kerry does still have a lead in Colorado Independents, however slight that may be, this state may very well be in play.

We'll see......

[emergingDmajority1]

it is quite unusual, should've been safe Bush a long time ago. Maybe it's like the New Hampshire of the west.

[agcatter]

Agreed this state is puzzling.  However, my understanding was that the Kerry Campaign had pulled ad resources out of the state.  I could be wrong.

[Giant Saguaro]

The CO polls seem strange at best. I don't see how Bush can be down or can lose there, especially with polls showing him 3-5% ahead & some more. CO hasn't changed THAT much, surely.

I'd say we need some trusted polls out of there, but I suspect internal polling to show something different than Zogy and Rasmussen and so forth.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Colorado is (no offense to anyone from CO intended here) a pretty messed up state...

[Blue Rectangle]

I'll throw in a few thoughts in no particular order (just brainstorming here):
--Colorado is hard to poll and seems to poll light on Republicans.  The 2002 senate race is an example.
--Salazar is popular.  I, for one, really don't have anything against the man.  Don't confuse Salazar's support with possible support for Kerry.
--This state has a wide-open ballot and has always been friendly to third parties, whether they be liberal, populist or libertarian.  Count on Cobb + Nader to get a few percent.  Will Badnarik hurt Bush as much?
--CO went to Clinton in 92 because of strong support here for Perot.  Dole carried CO easily, as did Bush.  8.5% (2000 margin) is a bunch to make up.
--This state's culture matches Gore much better than Kerry.
--This state did NOT go anti-gun over Columbine.
--Population growth consists largely of moves from CA and TX.  Your average CA newcomer is a professional fleeing overpopulation and an anti-business climate.  Many are moderate Republicans.  Your average TX newcomer is a socially conservative Republican.  There's not much hope for Kerry among new residents.

[The Vorlon]

Just my 2 cents worth but....

Point 1:

Other than the Mason Dixon, which was taken pretty much at Kerry's pre-convention peak, all the polls shown are either:

Zogby Internet madness

or

Bot Polls.

The Mason-Dixon (Bush +5) BTW validated PERFECTLY, I went over that poll VERY carefully and that thing was a work of art polling wise.  

Mason Dixon should take that poll and frame it.

So the only poll I trust, at a time Kerry was up Nationally, had Bush with a 5% lead.

Point 2:

I presume both Bush and Kerry have polled Colorado very extensively, and I am quite sure the campaign pollsters are lot better than Zogby's internet adventure or either of the Bot polls.

Neither Bush nor Kerry is spending any timne or money in Colorado.

All of the above leads me to concluse the sate is semi-safe for Bush.

Unless I am wrong

[minionofmidas]

I pretty much agree with all your points, but:

--This state did NOT go anti-gun over Columbine.

that one may be holding hope for Kerry. A lot of the strongest swings last time round (pro-Rep in rural, pro-Dem in inner suburban areas) was due to single-issue voting on guns. Expect, at least as a possibility, a partial backlash as the issue is nowhere as central now as it was four years ago.

[mddem2004]

Very good and thoughtful responces all.....(for once  )

A few further points of my own....

- Vorlorn, although I do agree with your assessment of the firms that have polled, as well as the likelyhood that the campaigns internal polling are probably showing something we my not see, I must quible with you on one point. When the Mason Dixon poll was conducted Bush was doing fairly well nationally, +3% maybe, in the wake of Reagan's death.

- agcat, from what I saw yesterday, the DNC will have a very modest buy of $230,000 and Kerry has slated air time for early October, but of course that is subject to change.

- Blue Rec, I didn't mean to imply the state as a whole went anti gun after Columbine. Yet it did spur some very active anti gun activity targeted in suburban areas. I only meant to say that if there is a state that the expiration of the AR Ban may have an effect, it may be Colorado because it gives those post Columbine groups a reason for revitalization.
  On the population growth, you may well be correct about the TX & CA transplants. Yet 1/3 of ALL population growth was Hispanic and likely will show a much more active turnout than the paltry 2000 numbers due to Salazar. We'll see if that assists Kerry enough.

All in all, if there is a sleeper state this election this may be it, yet it is an uphill challenge for the Dems. I say Bush by 4%.

Unless I'm Wrong....(Sorry Vorlorn for stealing that line  )

[jimrtex]

Neil Bush/Silverado factor.

Silverado was a Colorado S&L that went belly up during S&L crisis while GHW Bush was Vice President.  Neil Bush was a director.

[The Vorlon]

When the Mason Dixon poll was conducted Bush was doing fairly well nationally, +3% maybe, in the wake of Reagan's death.

Actually Bush up 0-2 in that time period (I went back and looked) but your point is taken

[emergingDmajority1]

I just realized Kerry was actually born in Colorado, so maybe that helps him a bit??? tinfoil hat theory, but it's worth a shot. Don't know how many residents there actually know this....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I just realized Kerry was actually born in Colorado, so maybe that helps him a bit??? tinfoil hat theory, but it's worth a shot. Don't know how many residents there actually know this....

That doesn't seem to help Bush in Connecticut. The best he can hope for there is to not lose every single county again.

[jimrtex]

I just realized Kerry was actually born in Colorado, so maybe that helps him a bit??? tinfoil hat theory, but it's worth a shot. Don't know how many residents there actually know this....

He made a campaign experience just before the Democrat convention.  It might help that it was at a military hospital (which is in the process of being converted into a medical research complex).  On the other hand for those who considered it important to be Native, his being born their wouldn't count.  And for those who aren't Native, it wouldn't matter either.

[Blue Rectangle]

I just realized Kerry was actually born in Colorado, so maybe that helps him a bit??? tinfoil hat theory, but it's worth a shot. Don't know how many residents there actually know this....

He made a campaign experience just before the Democrat convention.  It might help that it was at a military hospital (which is in the process of being converted into a medical research complex).  On the other hand for those who considered it important to be Native, his being born their wouldn't count.  And for those who aren't Native, it wouldn't matter either.

What he said

I just don't see big differences between 2000 and 2004 in this state.  I can think of very few factors that would help Kerry, but the factors in Bush's favor aren't compelling either.  I can't imagine an 8.5% shift in four years.  I'll stick with my general feeling, that Bush will beat his national numbers here by 5 points.

[CollectiveInterest]

Clinton re-positioned the Dem Party to go after suburband voters. It appears to be a successful strategy in Colorado.

The strategy has not yet born fruit in the US House.