Colorado 2008

[Tender Branson]

I´ve created a graphic of Colorado´s Congressional voting pattern over the last 26 years and think some important aspects for 2008 can be seen here:



As you can see, there are some important similarities in the DEM rise between 1984 and 1992, when Clinton won Colorado, and between 2000 and 2006-08.

In 1990, the DEMs managed to get above 50% for the first time in a longer period and in 2006 this trend became more obvious with the DEM margin at 13% and the lowest support for the GOP in the last quarter century.

There are also similarities between Dukakis in '88 and Kerry in '04. Bush Sr.s margin of victory was about 8%, Bush Jr.s margin was about 5%.

Together with the fact that the trend towards the DEMs is higher in 2006 than it was in 1990, 2 years before Clinton won the state, I tend to say that Colorado will be a real battleground in 2008 with maybe even a slight advantage for the DEM candidate.

Any thoughts ?

[Adlai Stevenson]

I´ve created a graphic of Colorado´s Congressional voting pattern over the last 26 years and think some important aspects for 2008 can be seen here:



As you can see, there are some important similarities in the DEM rise between 1984 and 1992, when Clinton won Colorado, and between 2000 and 2006-08.

In 1990, the DEMs managed to get above 50% for the first time in a longer period and in 2006 this trend became more obvious with the DEM margin at 13% and the lowest support for the GOP in the last quarter century.

There are also similarities between Dukakis in '88 and Kerry in '04. Bush Sr.s margin of victory was about 8%, Bush Jr.s margin was about 5%.

Together with the fact that the trend towards the DEMs is higher in 2006 than it was in 1990, 2 years before Clinton won the state, I tend to say that Colorado will be a real battleground in 2008 with maybe even a slight advantage for the DEM candidate.

Any thoughts ?

Colorado will be a lean-Democrat state in 2008 I think; since 2004, when Kerry got the highest percentage since Johnson in 1964, the Democrats have been locking-up the state.  2008 should be the climax of that with Colorado voting Democratic in the Presidential election and electing Udall to the Senate. 

[Kevin]

Colorado will not be voting Democratic at the Presidental level in 2008 if it's a close race, However it is moving that way. Also I really think Udall is going to get elected to the Senate

[Rawlings]

I´ve created a graphic of Colorado´s Congressional voting pattern over the last 26 years and think some important aspects for 2008 can be seen here:



As you can see, there are some important similarities in the DEM rise between 1984 and 1992, when Clinton won Colorado, and between 2000 and 2006-08.

In 1990, the DEMs managed to get above 50% for the first time in a longer period and in 2006 this trend became more obvious with the DEM margin at 13% and the lowest support for the GOP in the last quarter century.

There are also similarities between Dukakis in '88 and Kerry in '04. Bush Sr.s margin of victory was about 8%, Bush Jr.s margin was about 5%.

Together with the fact that the trend towards the DEMs is higher in 2006 than it was in 1990, 2 years before Clinton won the state, I tend to say that Colorado will be a real battleground in 2008 with maybe even a slight advantage for the DEM candidate.

Any thoughts ?

Colorado has always voted for Democrats at the local and Congressional level.  That's nothing new.  Every few years the Democrats find somebody pro-gun or pro-life that fits the state's profile.  They get elected and the whole state starts believing the party has gone right.  Then voters realize they're the same old liberals with a makeover and they vote Republicans back in again.

The one thing Colorado doesn't do is vote Democrat for POTUS.  Clinton won in '92 because Colorado happened to be one of Perot's relative successes.  Without Perot Clinton would have been routed.

Also, the trend in Colorado--toward the Dems--is only mirrored by that of the country as a whole.  I don't put much credence in the idea that Colorado is moving left because, well, it is not moving left at all!  If there was some marked ideological shift I would be concerned.  But Colorado's votes on all kinds of ballot initiatives is just as conservative as it was in '92--right before they stormed back into power.  Don't associate voting Democrat for a couple of elections as a real, convincing move to the left.

For 2008 it is likely that Colorado will stay red.  The Senate race will be a thriller, but barring another monstrous 'blue wave' a la 2006, I think Schaffer will keep the seat for the GOP.  For the future Colorado is a state to watch.  It's not becoming California--but it could be the next New Mexico.

[Tender Branson]

For 2008 it is likely that Colorado will stay red.  The Senate race will be a thriller, but barring another monstrous 'blue wave' a la 2006, I think Schaffer will keep the seat for the GOP.  For the future Colorado is a state to watch.  It's not becoming California--but it could be the next New Mexico.

The Congressional Democratic advantage is not going away quickly it seems, if you look at the most recent Rasmussen poll:

"Democrats Lead by 10 in Congressional Ballot Poll"

Survey of 800 Likely Voters - April 9-10, 2007

Generic Congressional Ballot

Democrat 45%
Republican 35%
Third Party  6%
Not Sure  15%

This is about the margin Democrats had in Nov. 2006 in their "monstrous wave."

I predict CO will have 2 DEM Senators in '08 as long as a 5-10% Congressional advantage prevails.

[Verily]

For 2008 it is likely that Colorado will stay red.  The Senate race will be a thriller, but barring another monstrous 'blue wave' a la 2006, I think Schaffer will keep the seat for the GOP.  For the future Colorado is a state to watch.  It's not becoming California--but it could be the next New Mexico.

The Congressional Democratic advantage is not going away quickly it seems, if you look at the most recent Rasmussen poll:

"Democrats Lead by 10 in Congressional Ballot Poll"

Survey of 800 Likely Voters - April 9-10, 2007

Generic Congressional Ballot

Democrat 45%
Republican 35%
Third Party  6%
Not Sure  15%

This is about the margin Democrats had in Nov. 2006 in their "monstrous wave."

I predict CO will have 2 DEM Senators in '08 as long as a 5-10% Congressional advantage prevails.

It's actually significantly larger than the Democrats' 2006 advantage, which was 52-46, but the polls tend to overestimate the difference between the parties somewhat (since they don't account for incumbents). A Democratic lead of 10 in a poll actually means more like a lead of 6 or 7; a Republican lead of 10 means the opposite.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Note that in the past few elections the GOP % will be under it's "natural" strength due to underperforming Republican candidates in safe Republican districts; Musgrave for one, but Tancredo also (though to a lesser extent). But it's certainly true that the Democrats have done well in Colorado over the past few years.

Anyway, I found these wee snippets from some Washington Post profiles from 2000 to be interesting:

"...While most of Colorado swings to the right, the 1st remains an enclave of liberalism..."

"...The conservative trend sweeping the West has started to infiltrate the 2nd, where Boulder's liberal granola culture permeates much of the community. Once solidly Democratic, the 2nd is now the most contentious battleground in the state..."

"...The 6th has been solidly Republican since its creation in 1982. Like the rest of the state, it's heading even further to the right..."

Things change, that's all.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What, the 2nd district is hardly a battleground. I doubt the GOP will even really target this year despite being an open seat.

[Tender Branson]

What, the 2nd district is hardly a battleground. I doubt the GOP will even really target this year despite being an open seat.

Sibboleth probably meant that until 2000 (it was about 50-50 in 1998) the Boulder area became more and more GOP-Territory, but it drifted back strongly to the Dems and is now again one of the Dem strongholds. (70%)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What, the 2nd district is hardly a battleground. I doubt the GOP will even really target this year despite being an open seat.

Congratulations on missing my point!

(FYI, when it was last open (1998) Udall won by just 2.4%. Things have obviously changed in Colorado since then... that's part of my point. The other part is to point out that things could (no, will. This is Colorado so the word has to be will) change again at some point in the (probably not all that distant) future).

[Rawlings]

What, the 2nd district is hardly a battleground. I doubt the GOP will even really target this year despite being an open seat.

Congratulations on missing my point!

(FYI, when it was last open (1998) Udall won by just 2.4%. Things have obviously changed in Colorado since then... that's part of my point. The other part is to point out that things could (no, will. This is Colorado so the word has to be will) change again at some point in the (probably not all that distant) future).

Politics are cranky in Colorado.  They change all the time.  But that doesn't mean that Colorado grows more or less conservative.  What's so interesting about Colorado is that while being a fundamentally conservative place--except for Boulder and Denver (which make up less than 15% of the state's total population)--Colorado is always in play for both parties.

Colorado is no less conservative now than it was in 2000--it's just that the Democrats have crafted a great plan that beats Republicans.  The Democrats have three major millionaires that almost entirely fund Democratic campaigns, and the Dems have built a great infrastructure that can finally compete with the Republicans.  And it can't help when you run centrist Democrats, either.

So I caution you to note that Colorado may be turning to the Democrats--but it is not turning to the left.  That means that the GOP is far from done in this state.  2008 could be a big suprise for either party.

[Smash255]

What, the 2nd district is hardly a battleground. I doubt the GOP will even really target this year despite being an open seat.

Congratulations on missing my point!

(FYI, when it was last open (1998) Udall won by just 2.4%. Things have obviously changed in Colorado since then... that's part of my point. The other part is to point out that things could (no, will. This is Colorado so the word has to be will) change again at some point in the (probably not all that distant) future).

Politics are cranky in Colorado.  They change all the time.  But that doesn't mean that Colorado grows more or less conservative.  What's so interesting about Colorado is that while being a fundamentally conservative place--except for Boulder and Denver (which make up less than 15% of the state's total population)--Colorado is always in play for both parties.

Colorado is no less conservative now than it was in 2000--it's just that the Democrats have crafted a great plan that beats Republicans.  The Democrats have three major millionaires that almost entirely fund Democratic campaigns, and the Dems have built a great infrastructure that can finally compete with the Republicans.  And it can't help when you run centrist Democrats, either.

So I caution you to note that Colorado may be turning to the Democrats--but it is not turning to the left.  That means that the GOP is far from done in this state.  2008 could be a big suprise for either party.

The state is tuning left their is no denying that fact.  I know you may want to think the state isn't turning left, but reality is that the state is.  Casing point look at how the state compares to the national average on the Presidential level and how it has moved since 96.  in 96 the state was almost 10 points more Republican than the national average, by 2004 with a Democratic Presidential candidate who was quite a bit more liberal than Clinton and a northeast liberal at that, the state was only 2 points more GOP than the national average.  Thats a monster swing on the Presidential level.  This just isn't about the Democratic pickups on the statewide level, that is a real huge swing on the Presidential level and on top of that happening while going from a moderate Democrat to a liberal Democrat on the Presidential level, which even further proves the point about the leftward swing of the state.

[Aizen]

But Colorado is a conservative stronghold! There's no way it can be going left!

[jimrtex]

Together with the fact that the trend towards the DEMs is higher in 2006 than it was in 1990, 2 years before Clinton won the state, I tend to say that Colorado will be a real battleground in 2008 with maybe even a slight advantage for the DEM candidate.

Any thoughts ?

Colorado voters aren't particularly partisan.  In 2002, Owens was elected with 65% of the vote, while at the same time Ken Salazar was elected AG with 60% of the vote.

In 2006, while Ritter was getting 60%, the down ballot statewide races were right at 50%.

In 2006, the Republicans didn't run a congressional candidate in District 1.  While there was no chance of a win, a candidate would have boosted the statewide percentage about 4%.  You had the bitter primary in CD 6, which reduced the GOP percentage from 70% to 60%.  You had CD7 which was an open seat.

[jimrtex]

The state is tuning left their is no denying that fact.  I know you may want to think the state isn't turning left, but reality is that the state is.  Casing point look at how the state compares to the national average on the Presidential level and how it has moved since 96.  in 96 the state was almost 10 points more Republican than the national average, by 2004 with a Democratic Presidential candidate who was quite a bit more liberal than Clinton and a northeast liberal at that, the state was only 2 points more GOP than the national average.  Thats a monster swing on the Presidential level.  This just isn't about the Democratic pickups on the statewide level, that is a real huge swing on the Presidential level and on top of that happening while going from a moderate Democrat to a liberal Democrat on the Presidential level, which even further proves the point about the leftward swing of the state.

Kerry was born in Colorado.  Being from Texas or even the south is not an advantage for a presidential candidate in Colorado.  Being Neil Bush's brother doesn't help either.

[Tender Branson]

Together with the fact that the trend towards the DEMs is higher in 2006 than it was in 1990, 2 years before Clinton won the state, I tend to say that Colorado will be a real battleground in 2008 with maybe even a slight advantage for the DEM candidate.

Any thoughts ?

Colorado voters aren't particularly partisan.  In 2002, Owens was elected with 65% of the vote, while at the same time Ken Salazar was elected AG with 60% of the vote.

In 2006, while Ritter was getting 60%, the down ballot statewide races were right at 50%.

In 2006, the Republicans didn't run a congressional candidate in District 1.  While there was no chance of a win, a candidate would have boosted the statewide percentage about 4%.  You had the bitter primary in CD 6, which reduced the GOP percentage from 70% to 60%.  You had CD7 which was an open seat.

That was also the case in 2000, when the Dems had no candidate in the 4th and 5th. This happens all the time. But matter of fact is, that there´s a trend in the recent 25 years, that the Dems in the state went from 40% to now more than 50%. When it comes to ballot initiatives, even states like Oregon or Wisconsin, which went DEM in the last 2 pres. elections, voted down the "Gay Marriage Law" by a higher margin than Coloradoans did.

[Rawlings]

Together with the fact that the trend towards the DEMs is higher in 2006 than it was in 1990, 2 years before Clinton won the state, I tend to say that Colorado will be a real battleground in 2008 with maybe even a slight advantage for the DEM candidate.

Any thoughts ?

Colorado voters aren't particularly partisan.  In 2002, Owens was elected with 65% of the vote, while at the same time Ken Salazar was elected AG with 60% of the vote.

In 2006, while Ritter was getting 60%, the down ballot statewide races were right at 50%.

In 2006, the Republicans didn't run a congressional candidate in District 1.  While there was no chance of a win, a candidate would have boosted the statewide percentage about 4%.  You had the bitter primary in CD 6, which reduced the GOP percentage from 70% to 60%.  You had CD7 which was an open seat.

That was also the case in 2000, when the Dems had no candidate in the 4th and 5th. This happens all the time. But matter of fact is, that there´s a trend in the recent 25 years, that the Dems in the state went from 40% to now more than 50%. When it comes to ballot initiatives, even states like Oregon or Wisconsin, which went DEM in the last 2 pres. elections, voted down the "Gay Marriage Law" by a higher margin than Coloradoans did.

\

I won't argue on the POTUS%--it's correct but I don't think it's significant.  But on the ballot initiatives I would say Colorado has actually grown MORE--not less--socially conservative.  The marriage amendment won by 56%.  You're right that that is not an overwhelming amount.  But recall that in Arizona it actually lost.  The gay rights lobby put all their effort, all their money, and all their manpower into Colorado last year.  They knew they would get a great Democratic turnout, low GOP turnout, and it would be a very 'blue' year.  There was also a gay civil unions referendum on the ballot so they felt like if they couldn't beat the amendment they could still get civil unions.

Focus on the Family and Colorado conservtatives were outspent 5:1 in a Democratic year--yet we still got the marriage amendment passed and we voted down civil unions by a much larger margin than expected.  The state's biggest political donors are three gay multi-millionaires who have single-handedly pushed the Democrats into power here.  Imagine how overwhelming the gay rights defeat would have been if the marriage amendment would not have been so hotly contested.

We also turned down marijuana legalization by a very high margin in 2006.  Colorado is turning to the Dems--not the Left.  And since the Dems here are turning to the left--and the DNC in Denver won't help things--I imagine voters will return to the GOP quite soon.

[Alcon]

Rawlings, the Arizona ballot initiative also banned civil unions; as far as I'm aware, the Colorado one didn't.  Unless you are alleging that Colorado is more socially conservative than South Dakota, that's what was up.

[Smash255]

Rawlings

As Alcon mentioned the Arizona ballot measure also banned Civil unions.  While Colorado voted against Civil Unions, they did NOT vote against having a state Amendment banning it either.  It would have failed if they did.

You state that the state was moving toward the Dems a bit, but not towards the left and the Dem movement would stop because the Dems are moving left.  Well that just doesn't add up to what has happened in your state especially in regards to the Presidential results.  John Kerry is clearly more liberal than Bill Clinton was, yet the state was about 10 points more gOP in 96 than the national average and barley 2 more points GOP in 04 than the national average with the liberal John Kerry.  For one you simply can't ignore that shify.  You said its insignificant, but that is a very large shift.  Not to mention to move that much in the Democratic direction and when going from a moderate Democrat to a liberal Democrat is even more proof that it was moving to the left. 

If the state would stop its Democratic shift as you claim it will because the party has moved to the left, the shift in the first place would have never happened because it wouldn't have shifted that far in the Dem direction with the liberal John Kerry as the Dem nominee.

Colorado is in the midst of not only a strong Democratic shift, but a strong leftward shift and it just can't be denied.

[Kevin]

It could be argued that Colorado isn't trending Democratic and that is just repeating a trend as they have lected very liberal people before for example Gary Hart.

[Verily]

It could be argued that Colorado isn't trending Democratic and that is just repeating a trend as they have lected very liberal people before for example Gary Hart.

I don't know why that wouldn't be considered trending Democratic, however. Ohio was once a Democratic stronghold, then it went GOP, now it's trending Democratic again. Simple enough. The same could go for Colorado (except it doesn't; Colorado hasn't been near the center of the spectrum in decades, and 1964 was more of a fluke than anything else given the results of the surrounding years).

[Kevin]

It could be argued that Colorado isn't trending Democratic and that is just repeating a trend as they have lected very liberal people before for example Gary Hart.

I don't know why that wouldn't be considered trending Democratic, however. Ohio was once a Democratic stronghold, then it went GOP, now it's trending Democratic again. Simple enough. The same could go for Colorado (except it doesn't; Colorado hasn't been near the center of the spectrum in decades, and 1964 was more of a fluke than anything else given the results of the surrounding years).

It could be argued that Colorado is trending Democratic for the time being which I think it is. The same goes for Ohio too.

[Adlai Stevenson]

It could be argued that Colorado isn't trending Democratic and that is just repeating a trend as they have lected very liberal people before for example Gary Hart.

I don't know why that wouldn't be considered trending Democratic, however. Ohio was once a Democratic stronghold, then it went GOP, now it's trending Democratic again. Simple enough. The same could go for Colorado (except it doesn't; Colorado hasn't been near the center of the spectrum in decades, and 1964 was more of a fluke than anything else given the results of the surrounding years).

It could be argued that Colorado is trending Democratic for the time being which I think it is. The same goes for Ohio too.

Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio are a number of states all trending Democratic; there may be others that I have not mentioned.  Georgia and Louisiana are two states trending Republican - I am not sure of any others.

[Kevin]

It could be argued that Colorado isn't trending Democratic and that is just repeating a trend as they have lected very liberal people before for example Gary Hart.

I don't know why that wouldn't be considered trending Democratic, however. Ohio was once a Democratic stronghold, then it went GOP, now it's trending Democratic again. Simple enough. The same could go for Colorado (except it doesn't; Colorado hasn't been near the center of the spectrum in decades, and 1964 was more of a fluke than anything else given the results of the surrounding years).

It could be argued that Colorado is trending Democratic for the time being which I think it is. The same goes for Ohio too.

Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio are a number of states all trending Democratic; there may be others that I have not mentioned.  Georgia and Louisiana are two states trending Republican - I am not sure of any others.

Florida is a Republican state just look at it, For example in 2000 Bush won it by what 500 Votes? Then in 2004 he won it by a comfortable margin, Also look at their Governor's race this year, The Republican held the Governor's mansion by a good margin despite it being a very Democratic year, Also Bill Nelson would have been in big trouble this year had it been a more Republican year and the Republican canidate being more sane. MI could also be trending Republican but if it is it's trending slowly.     

[Smash255]

It could be argued that Colorado isn't trending Democratic and that is just repeating a trend as they have lected very liberal people before for example Gary Hart.

I don't know why that wouldn't be considered trending Democratic, however. Ohio was once a Democratic stronghold, then it went GOP, now it's trending Democratic again. Simple enough. The same could go for Colorado (except it doesn't; Colorado hasn't been near the center of the spectrum in decades, and 1964 was more of a fluke than anything else given the results of the surrounding years).

It could be argued that Colorado is trending Democratic for the time being which I think it is. The same goes for Ohio too.

Colorado, New Hampshire and Ohio are a number of states all trending Democratic; there may be others that I have not mentioned.  Georgia and Louisiana are two states trending Republican - I am not sure of any others.

Florida is a Republican state just look at it, For example in 2000 Bush won it by what 500 Votes? Then in 2004 he won it by a comfortable margin, Also look at their Governor's race this year, The Republican held the Governor's mansion by a good margin despite it being a very Democratic year, Also Bill Nelson would have been in big trouble this year had it been a more Republican year and the Republican canidate being more sane. MI could also be trending Republican but if it is it's trending slowly.     

Hard to say.  I think Florida has moved slightly GOP, but not to the extent you think.  Its basically the same level it was against the national average in 96.  It was basically 2.5 points more GOP than the national average, after being .5% more Republican than the national average in  2000.  Some movement not a ton, and it moved to about where it was in 96 (about 3 points more GOP than the national average.

Also Charlie Crist being a moderate did help the Gov race there.  If he was more conservative, it would have been closer.