John Elway for US Senate

[Smash255]

It doesn't work.  It won't work.  Colorado's going to move right next year.

I´m not so sure about this. I think we´ll have a very tight race next year for the Presidency in CO (I expect polls will show consistant ties from Jan. 08 to Oct. 08), a Senate race slightly in favor of the Dem. candidate (Udall) and a decreasing but steady lead for the House Dems. I think the 40% of the Colorado GOP in 2006 was more or less the bottom and it can only get upward again. Yet I don´t expect the Dems to dip below 50%.

All in all, my prediction for CO 2008:

Clinton-D: 49%
Thompson-R: 48%
Other: 3%

Udall-D: 52%
Schaffer-R: 46%
Other: 2%

House Dems: 52%
House GOP: 44%
Others: 4%

That's an interesting perspective.  All I can say is that there is no chance in hell at a mile high that Hillary Clinton wins Colorado.  Udall may pull it out and the House Dems may do well again.  But I promise you that Colorado will not be a blue state unless Bill Richardson were up against Rudy Giuliani or Java the Hut (even then it would be close).

These are my early CO predictions...

Romney 51%
Clinton 45%

Romney 49%
Obama 48%

Thompson 53%
Clinton 45%

Thompson 51%
Obama 47%

Schaffer 52%
Udall 48%

I have nothing to say about the House races.  The districts have been so gerrymandered there's no way any of 'em are switching.  If you couldn't beat Musgrave last year there's no way you're gonna get her next year.  The other districts are pretty well settled.  I do, however, think the GOP will take back either the state house, senate, or both.  The Dems have a lot more up for grabs next year locally than the GOP.

And again you fail to explain a simple question.....

[Tender Branson]

All I can say is that there is no chance in hell at a mile high that Hillary Clinton wins Colorado. I promise you that Colorado will not be a blue state unless Bill Richardson were up against Rudy Giuliani or Java the Hut (even then it would be close).

I preserve that quote for Nov. 2008

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.

[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

[Rawlings]

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

My 2006 predictions were way off so I'm a little reticent to put anything in stone for Colorado.  The politics are like the weather and they literally can change on a dime.  But I know two thing and I know them well:

1.) Colorado does not vote for Democrats for POTUS.  There's nothing to suggest it will in 2008.

2.) Voters in Colorado are every bit as maverick--though conservative--as they have ever been.  There simply has been no ideological shift in this very non-ideological state.

I notice a lot of people are trying to pinpoint ideological movement of a great number of states.  But the truth is that with the notable exception of New Hampshire most states swing back and forth along a small continuum but rarely change dramatically and rarely change long-term.  Colorado was at it's most liberal point--which isn't saying much--in the 70s and swung back to the most conservative point in the late 90s.  Now it may be swinging back again.  But even in the 70s the state was one of the more conservative ones and it consistently voted Republican for POTUS.  That tells me that even if my fears are confirmed--that Colorado is moving to the left--that doesn't say much at all.  Colorado will always be a red state and it will always be one of the more conservative ones.  It's just that next year we may be a little mroe amenable to moderate Democrats just like in 2006.

[Smash255]

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

My 2006 predictions were way off so I'm a little reticent to put anything in stone for Colorado.  The politics are like the weather and they literally can change on a dime.  But I know two thing and I know them well:

1.) Colorado does not vote for Democrats for POTUS.  There's nothing to suggest it will in 2008.

2.) Voters in Colorado are every bit as maverick--though conservative--as they have ever been.  There simply has been no ideological shift in this very non-ideological state.

I notice a lot of people are trying to pinpoint ideological movement of a great number of states.  But the truth is that with the notable exception of New Hampshire most states swing back and forth along a small continuum but rarely change dramatically and rarely change long-term.  Colorado was at it's most liberal point--which isn't saying much--in the 70s and swung back to the most conservative point in the late 90s.  Now it may be swinging back again.  But even in the 70s the state was one of the more conservative ones and it consistently voted Republican for POTUS.  That tells me that even if my fears are confirmed--that Colorado is moving to the left--that doesn't say much at all.  Colorado will always be a red state and it will always be one of the more conservative ones.  It's just that next year we may be a little mroe amenable to moderate Democrats just like in 2006.

It went from being 10 points more Republican in 1996 than the national average with a moderate Dem for Pres to just 2 points more GOP than the national average in 04 with a liberal Democrat.  That shows, a very drastic move in the direction of the Democrats both as a party and an idealogical shift to the left.

[Rawlings]

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

My 2006 predictions were way off so I'm a little reticent to put anything in stone for Colorado.  The politics are like the weather and they literally can change on a dime.  But I know two thing and I know them well:

1.) Colorado does not vote for Democrats for POTUS.  There's nothing to suggest it will in 2008.

2.) Voters in Colorado are every bit as maverick--though conservative--as they have ever been.  There simply has been no ideological shift in this very non-ideological state.

I notice a lot of people are trying to pinpoint ideological movement of a great number of states.  But the truth is that with the notable exception of New Hampshire most states swing back and forth along a small continuum but rarely change dramatically and rarely change long-term.  Colorado was at it's most liberal point--which isn't saying much--in the 70s and swung back to the most conservative point in the late 90s.  Now it may be swinging back again.  But even in the 70s the state was one of the more conservative ones and it consistently voted Republican for POTUS.  That tells me that even if my fears are confirmed--that Colorado is moving to the left--that doesn't say much at all.  Colorado will always be a red state and it will always be one of the more conservative ones.  It's just that next year we may be a little mroe amenable to moderate Democrats just like in 2006.

It went from being 10 points more Republican in 1996 than the national average with a moderate Dem for Pres to just 2 points more GOP than the national average in 04 with a liberal Democrat.  That shows, a very drastic move in the direction of the Democrats both as a party and an idealogical shift to the left.

Smash, I get your point.  I understand, obviously, that the political preferences for Coloradans have been more liberal than, say, 10 years ago.  I submit that that doesn't signal a shift in the electorate so much as a shift in money, candidate quality, etc. in Colorado to the Dems.

But here's the big point: In 2004 one of the most liberal members of Congress took 48% of the vote in America.  Everything you say about Colorado could be said exactly about American generally.  You can pick any state and point out the shift to the Democrats--Ohio, New Hampshire, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, etc. etc etc.  You're taking Colorado out of its national political context to make a point. 

[Smash255]

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

My 2006 predictions were way off so I'm a little reticent to put anything in stone for Colorado.  The politics are like the weather and they literally can change on a dime.  But I know two thing and I know them well:

1.) Colorado does not vote for Democrats for POTUS.  There's nothing to suggest it will in 2008.

2.) Voters in Colorado are every bit as maverick--though conservative--as they have ever been.  There simply has been no ideological shift in this very non-ideological state.

I notice a lot of people are trying to pinpoint ideological movement of a great number of states.  But the truth is that with the notable exception of New Hampshire most states swing back and forth along a small continuum but rarely change dramatically and rarely change long-term.  Colorado was at it's most liberal point--which isn't saying much--in the 70s and swung back to the most conservative point in the late 90s.  Now it may be swinging back again.  But even in the 70s the state was one of the more conservative ones and it consistently voted Republican for POTUS.  That tells me that even if my fears are confirmed--that Colorado is moving to the left--that doesn't say much at all.  Colorado will always be a red state and it will always be one of the more conservative ones.  It's just that next year we may be a little mroe amenable to moderate Democrats just like in 2006.

It went from being 10 points more Republican in 1996 than the national average with a moderate Dem for Pres to just 2 points more GOP than the national average in 04 with a liberal Democrat.  That shows, a very drastic move in the direction of the Democrats both as a party and an idealogical shift to the left.

Smash, I get your point.  I understand, obviously, that the political preferences for Coloradans have been more liberal than, say, 10 years ago.  I submit that that doesn't signal a shift in the electorate so much as a shift in money, candidate quality, etc. in Colorado to the Dems.

But here's the big point: In 2004 one of the most liberal members of Congress took 48% of the vote in America.  Everything you say about Colorado could be said exactly about American generally.  You can pick any state and point out the shift to the Democrats--Ohio, New Hampshire, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, etc. etc etc.  You're taking Colorado out of its national political context to make a point. 

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.  Colorado went from being much more GOP than the national average in 96, to being very close with the national average in 04.  That is looking at Colorado and comparing it to the differences in the other states.  the state is showing no signs of slowing down or stopping its Democratic trend.  When the shift that big happens against the national average on the Presidential level, its much more than just because of local Democrats doing well.  Its an ideological shift.  Compared to the national average the state has basically moved more than almost every other state in the country.  That really says quite a bit about what kind of movement is going on in the state.  And a movement that much, especially in the favor of the liberal Kerry shows its an ideology based shift as well.

Looking at how Colorado has shifted against the national average n comparison to how other states have shifted against the national average is not taking Colorado out of its national political context, in fact its the very definition of looking at Colorado in its national political context.

[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.

[Smash255]

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. .

[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"?

[Smash255]

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"?

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

[Rococo4]

you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

[Rawlings]

you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

Wow!  An endorsement of Elway from an Ohio guy?  Heresy!

[Tender Branson]

you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

Wow!  An endorsement of Elway from an Ohio guy?  Heresy!

Nope, he meant we should better focus on the Topic "Elway for Senate", rather than discussing which way Colorado will go next year ...

[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?

[Rawlings]

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?

Sorry for butting in, Jim from Texas...

Colorado is probably the least ideological state in the union.

[Rococo4]

you guys have been arguing about this for too long.

Elway for Senate!

Wow!  An endorsement of Elway from an Ohio guy?  Heresy!

I dont like the Browns.

[Smash255]

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?

Sorry for butting in, Jim from Texas...

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??

[Smash255]

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.  In that all the areas were once heavily GOP (some more than  others) and have moved sharply towards the Democrats.  Some have moved a bit further than the Denver suburbs, but they also did start off a bit even more Republican than the others. 

[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.

[Rawlings]

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.

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.
[/quote]

Boy you sure are smart, Jim!

I have little to add to that, other than the fact that Jefferson County is becoming more urbanized, more Latino-ized, and more like what urban Denver used to be like.  On the other hand, the metro area continues to shift outward and as it does so, Douglas County and CD-6 is becoming the money spot for the GOP and Adams County is shifting right with newer subdivisions popping up.

Metro Denver has always been a little cranky politically.  It is still quite culturally conservative and it leans Republican.  But you piss those folks off they're gonna switch parties no matter what party it is they're switchin' to.

After redistricting in 2010 you'll probably see everything tighten up again.  Conservative areas will get awarded more seats--as that's where we see the most growth.  It's not a coincidence that the best years for the GOP were right after the 2000 census and redistricting.  It's conservative exurban districts that are growing.  And it's those folks that are leaving old suburbs leaving a hole which moderate Democrats quickly fill.

As Arapahoe and Elbert counties grow with newer suburban developments you'll see those counties tilt right as JeffCo Republican move away.

As I've been saying, you can't look at elections in a vacuum when you're missing the important context of demographic shifts that are demonstrative of a trend across the nation.  Colorado's a center-right state, there's plenty of stuff to evidence that, the question is whether or not the GOP becomes a serious center-right party.  With Dick Wadhams in charge, they will once again be serious and the state's center-right character will shine in elections.

[Smash255]

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.

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.

[Smash255]

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.

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.
[/quote]

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.