Day 6: Colorado

[Alcon]

A state that trended Democratic between 2000 and 2004, especially relative to the national average, and one of the most interesting states in the nation to me.

[Jake]

THE swing state in 2008. I'm not real knowledgable about Colorado at all, but I'd tend to think the Democrats are in for a good next few years in Colorado, possibly winning the Governorship, a second Senate seat, and a congressional seat as well as the state in '08. Definitely trending Democrat.

[Alcon]

Some focal points to start with...

Rural counties
This map has one of the lowest Bush county:Kerry county ratios of any Bush state, thanks in part to low-population rural counties, most with Hispanics.  not all of them have Hispanics, though, such as San Juan County (Silverton), with only about 600 people, which is only 7% Hispanic.

Suburbs
Wealthy suburbs such as the very fast growing Douglas County, Colorado, vote heavily Republican.  Could a libertarian-leaning candidate improve here while maintaining rural Hispanic support and the Denver/Boulder base?

Colorado Springs
With only around a third of the vote going to Kerry, Colorado Springs was one of the worst counties for the Democrats in 2004.  Middle-class with a big military presence, Colorado Springs is rapidly becoming a base of the evangelical right.  Can Democrats improve their standing in this historically rock-solid GOP area?

[nini2287]

Yeah Colorado's going to have a host of interesting races in the next two election cycles including:

3-4 competitive House districts (depending on whether Tancredo retires to run for President or not)
2006 Governor
2008 Senate
2008 President

The good for news for Democrats is except for Salazar's house seat all of the competitivde races have Republican incumbents so Democrats have a real chance to do well here.  It'll also be intersting to see if one party takes over the state house/senate/governorship in 2010, as we could get some interesting gerrymandering.

[Alcon]

Yeah Colorado's going to have a host of interesting races in the next two election cycles including:

3-4 competitive House districts (depending on whether Tancredo retires to run for President or not)
2006 Governor
2008 Senate
2008 President

The good for news for Democrats is except for Salazar's house seat all of the competitivde races have Republican incumbents so Democrats have a real chance to do well here.  It'll also be intersting to see if one party takes over the state house/senate/governorship in 2010, as we could get some interesting gerrymandering.

Didn't the Democrats gain the state legislature (I forget whether it was house, senate, or both) in 2004?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

They took both Houses.

[nini2287]

They took both Houses.

Yeah but that's certainly subject to change by 2010 as is the party in the Governor's mansion.

[Sam Spade]

Colorado is one of the oddest trending states around and one that really just does not fit any model (no matter how much people on this site want it to).

After being heavily GOP during the 1970s, during the mid-1980's Colorado trended heavily Democrat, moving towards the mean as compared to national Presidential results (in 1988 and 1992, Colorado voted right at the national margin of victory for Bush 41 and Clinton) and electing a number of Democrat Senators, including the imitable Gary Hart and Ben Campbell.  Maybe Massachusetts Democrats do well in Colorado.  

Then, during the mid-1990s, Colorado shifted right back to its former GOP model during the 1970s and before, electing conservatives Bill Owens as Governor and Wayne Allard as Senator.  Campbell also switched parties.

In 1996, Dole performed nearly 10% better here than nationally and in 2000, Bush performed nearly 8% better here than nationally.  These compared very strongly to Reagan 1980/1984 (8% and 15%, respectively) and Ford 1976 (13%) and Nixon 1968/1972) (8% and 9%, respectively)

Now, in 2004, the state suddenly shifted back to its mid-80s/early 90s pattern, electing a Democrat Senator, bringing in a Democrat House and Senate (maybe, I forget) and voting just right above the national margin of victory for Bush).

What will 2006 bring?  Which Colorado will show up?  Who knows?

Bob Beauprez (R), who is going to run for governor here, is a top-notch candidate and will probably start off the odds-on favorite.  We'll see who his challenger is, but at this moment I would give him the edge.

His CD is a definite toss-up swing CD, and Democrats will always target Musgrave in CD-4, though I rate the chances there less.  Open seats may change this, as they always.

If Allard chooses to run again in 2008, I'm sure he'll be targeted again.  Will he pull out another election due to strength of Colorado's evangelical population or finally fall?  An open seat would make this totally unpredictable.
As I examine this state, one of the things that makes Colorado hard to predict is that it has historically been one of those states with incredibly strong Republican turnout.

Republican party affliation outnumbers Democrats by 8-9% here and even though Independents lean Democrat, Republican turnout in the state has always been excellent and overcomes this tendency.

It clearly was not in 2004.  

So this is Colorado.  A number of liberal leaning centers of population (Denver, Boulder).  Latte liberals in the ski resort areas.  Mexican populists around Pueblo and in the Southern area of the state.  Strong military population in the Colorado Springs area.

But the key factor in the state is strangely enough - the large and often overlooked Evangelical population.  It helped Wayne Allard win a couple of elections no polls said he would win and elected pro-life Ken Salazar over a more libertarian Pete Coors last election.

For Democrats to succeed in Colorado, I would argue that they really need to stay moderate (esp. socially) in Colorado.  It's the key to success there.

[Alcon]

Sam, great analysis.

I agree with you that populism would probably help establish the party, but could economic moderateness potentially help in the wealthy suburbs that are the fastest growing part of the state, like Castle Rock?

I think the best idea is to be slightly left-of-center on both economic and social issues, and nominate candidates from the 'burbs.

[jimrtex]

Some focal points to start with...
Rural counties
This map has one of the lowest Bush county:Kerry county ratios of any Bush state, thanks in part to low-population rural counties, most with Hispanics.  not all of them have Hispanics, though, such as San Juan County (Silverton), with only about 600 people, which is only 7% Hispanic.

Most of the Kerry counties in western Colorado are resort areas:
Routt: Steamboat
Eagle: Vail
Summit: Breckinridge, etc.
Pitkin: Aspen
Gunnison: Crest Butte.  Also Western State College
San Miguel: Telluride
La Plata: Durango

Remarkable was that Bush carried Huerfano County, one of two counties that Eisenhower failed to carry, and Dukakis carried by +20%.
There were similar Republican gains in neighboring Las Animas and Pueblo County.

[minionofmidas]

Of course the people who won the Dems all those resort areas (some of the largest swings in the nation there...of course the top 5 are all in Dakota country, but some of the best ones below that) are not the latte liberals but the young people who serve them drinks and teach them how to ski.

I don't think Republican turnout was bad in Colorado in 2004 - I just think that, precisely because it always had been good, Dems had far larger reserves of untapped turnout here. The Dem swing, and the increased turnout swing, in resort areas is not of course limited to Colorado but observable across the West - Colorado just has a lot of them.
And no, only part of this is attributable to the "Nader factor".

Beauprez's seat is a tossup if he retires, and might be even if he stays. It actually voted for Gore in 2000, not sure whether it voted for Kerry or Bush but I'm sure it was ultra-close.
Musgrave's seat reverts to ultra-safe Rep as soon as she retires. That is not a seat that Dems should be competitive in.
Tancredo's seat looks safe Rep too.

[Sarnstrom]

One interesting fact: Salazar carried Colorado by a larger margin than Bush did. I'd say that is pretty impressive.

[minionofmidas]

btw, i think alcon should be censored for being unable to keep fis fingers of the caps. thread should be titled: day 6: colorado.

[Sam Spade]

I don't think Republican turnout was bad in Colorado in 2004 - I just think that, precisely because it always had been good, Dems had far larger reserves of untapped turnout here. The Dem swing, and the increased turnout swing, in resort areas is not of course limited to Colorado but observable across the West - Colorado just has a lot of them.

In other words, you would state that it was not Republican turnout that was bad, Democrat turnout was much better than it normally is.

That is not entirely unreasonable.  It would explain partially this continual jumping around from being an 8%-10% GOP state to an actual swing state relative to the nation.

But it doesn't explain Salazar's victory.  The only thing that can explain that is that he managed to get the eat into the influential Colorado evangelical votebase.

[minionofmidas]

But it doesn't explain Salazar's victory.  The only thing that can explain that is that he managed to get the eat into the influential Colorado evangelical votebase.

Notice that I didn't mention that.
Yep, obviously there were a hell of a lot more Salazar/Bush votes than Kerry/Coors votes. So where did they come from? Obviously a county-by-county analysis might help, but my first bet is those Rep inroads in the Hispanic areas in the South of the state. Very sure these didn't extend downballot. After all, Dems took the house seat these areas are in, too.
But I don't think these make up all the difference, even if we allow for a fair amount of Salazar votes among those S.Colo. Hispanics that voted Rep even before 2004. So yeah, he probably got some White born-again social conservative Republicans' votes as well. Though probably not from the core Religious Right, but rather the fringes.

[jokerman]

I would have to disagree with anyone that would say a moderate libetarian Democrat would have a great chance at winning Colorado. 
#1  There are some white evangelical areas in Colorado
#2  Latinos are on average, populist

[jimrtex]

I don't think Republican turnout was bad in Colorado in 2004 - I just think that, precisely because it always had been good, Dems had far larger reserves of untapped turnout here. The Dem swing, and the increased turnout swing, in resort areas is not of course limited to Colorado but observable across the West - Colorado just has a lot of them.

In other words, you would state that it was not Republican turnout that was bad, Democrat turnout was much better than it normally is.

That is not entirely unreasonable.  It would explain partially this continual jumping around from being an 8%-10% GOP state to an actual swing state relative to the nation.

But it doesn't explain Salazar's victory.  The only thing that can explain that is that he managed to get the eat into the influential Colorado evangelical votebase.

Colorado is somewhat contrarian, and often votes for personality over doctrine.   Senators have regularly been discarded when the voters grew bored with them.

Salazar was well liked, and didn't go off on tangents as AG.  Coors name is both a positive and a negative in Colorado.  The other Coors were very conservative, and they were pretty anti-Union in the 60s and 70s.  There may have been a perception that Coors would just as soon go back to running the company, especially after the Molson merger was announced last summer.

Neil Bush would be a negative for George Bush in Colorado, and Bush being from Texas would also be a negative. 

[RJ]

Someone pointed out to me that the reason Kerry did better than Gore in this state is because Nader had a signifigant presence in 2000 while a negligible one last year.

I still say the state is leaning towards the Democrats. It certainly fits the mold: a state with 1 big city that seems to speak for the whole state as Chicago does Illinois and Seattle/Washington. Of course, there are other states with similar makeup that are quite different. Cincinnati(althoiugh it's not the largest or only major city in OH) is a GOP town. It makes Ohio a GOP state(sorry, best example I can think of right now...) It(CO) is not quite there yet and is far from being claimed in national elections the way other states are, but it should be encouraging to the Democratic party that it's broken the mold of traditional mountain states and is closer than it was.

One encouraging thing for the Republican party is that it is still developing economically. Many states in this same position(Arizona, Nevada, Florida) tend to lean Republican.

[MaC]

Colorado will stay GOP on the national level-pending a lanslide of course.

[Alcon]

I would have to disagree with anyone that would say a moderate libetarian Democrat would have a great chance at winning Colorado. 
#1  There are some white evangelical areas in Colorado
#2  Latinos are on average, populist

This is true, and a valid point, but 26% of voters identified themselves as Evangelical and only 8% as Hispanic.

On the other hand, 43% identified as suburban and 58% as making $50,000 or more per year.

Colorado will stay GOP on the national level-pending a lanslide of course.

Well, evidently this is not an "of course" matter, considering that you're the only one so far to say that Colorado will not be competitive in 2008.  Care to explain?

[Gustaf]

I thought Salazar won narrowly? If that was the case there shouldn't be that big a discrepancy between Bush v Kerry and Salazar v Coors considering that Bush margin was pretty small as well.

[minionofmidas]

I thought Salazar won narrowly? If that was the case there shouldn't be that big a discrepancy between Bush v Kerry and Salazar v Coors considering that Bush margin was pretty small as well.

Bush won by about 4 points. Salazar won by about 5 points. These are both narrowish solid wins, but the overall difference is one in eleven voters.

[Gustaf]

Ah, I thought it was closer than that...nothing to add then.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

On the other hand, 43% identified as suburban

Colorado does have some blue collar suburbs as well (not that Kerry did especially well in them) ya know.

[Alcon]

On the other hand, 43% identified as suburban

Colorado does have some blue collar suburbs as well (not that Kerry did especially well in them) ya know.

Yeah, which is why the $50,000+ status marker is a lot more important.

I don't trust whatever CNN uses to identify whether the polling location is a suburb, city, whatever, either - they identified their Alaskan sample as 43% suburban, 57% rural!  That's either horrible sampling or very odd identification.