Sorry, But You Don't Really Matter in a Statewide Election

And we all know the place where elections are really won today...

...is right here on Pols. We are the 300!

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:10:40 PM CST

Liberal Boulder and conservative Denver

Aside from that bit of stupidity, what is this idea that any two positive numbers must be equal? There are lots of liberals in Boulder, there are lots of conservatives in Greeley, but they aren't the same numbers.

---

by: sxp151 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:13:56 PM CST

Beat me to it

Maybe they meant "liberal Boulder and conservative Colorado Springs," but the point is still nonsensical for the reason you state. (Not to mention that Denver could mean just the city and county, which is pretty liberal, or the whole Metro area which probably evens out as moderate.)

The western slope would only matter if the whole Front Range was pretty evenly split, and it might well be - the recent successful Dems to win statewide races were moderate, not hard left. But Hick is also moderate, and very popular. If he has as strong a fundraising quarter as he earlier predicted, he's moving his office across the Civic Center in a year.

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:21:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The number of conservatives is a positive number?

---

by: Jambalaya @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:25:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It makes me feel negative when it's positive

but yes, indeed, math doesn't give a damn about our feelings.

---

by: sxp151 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:39:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The West Slope can make a difference

when statewide elections come down to being close in the suburbs, in that over-crowded and hectic land which we--out here on the pretty side of the Divide--collectively call 'Denver.'  

The Western Slope is certainly no linchpin, and there are probably more strategies that allow one to win without it then there are that would need to rely upon it. But it pains me to see you so quickly write us off, back there in some urban office park cubicle, or where ever it is you city folk work.

I saw the article myself and thought Dave had it wrong, vastly overstating the case for the Western Slope.  He's a good reporter though, and covers important issues, you should cut local media some slack, some do a commendable job.    

"Yes Twitty, I'm an idiot." Ben Stein's $$

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:18:12 PM CST

It's not an emotional argument

There just aren't enough voters on the Western Slope to make a difference in a statewide election. There is no way to run the numbers so that the Western Slope becomes key to a statewide election. The population just isn't there.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:25:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed.

I would add that I think both Pols and David Frey forgot Weld and Larimer Counties and that's a mistake that most Democrats running for statewide office have learned the hard way--you pretty much have to win one if not both of them to have a real shot at winning in a general election. And God knows, there are more than a few southern counties that make a big difference, too (I just happen to be more familiar with the northern and northeastern counties.)

So, Frey may have overstated the Western Slope but I'd suggest he's more right than Pols are on this one. Or is the MA race already a distant memory for us all?

A statewide race requires a candidate to run hard everywhere, even if the safest numbers are down in the Denver metro area. His conclusions are incorrect but his overall logic is dead on.

Bottom line is that this kind of parsing ends up setting fellow Democrats against one another--"You count" "No, you don't really count," "You count more than another county," "Your county isn't as important."

It's a bad message and bad idea to title a diary on a state blog "Sorry, But You Don't Really Matter in a Statewide Election," particularly when a large turnout of Democrats will make a huge difference on down ticket races on the Western Slope.  

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:36:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well put MotR

n/t

---

by: WesternSlopeThought @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:10:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Complete BS MOTR

Where they really have to win is Jeffco and Arapahoe.  When Dems are close in Jeffco and Arapahoe, they win statewide.  When they win Jeffco and Arapahoe, they win big statewide.  At look at any "base" race where the Deomcrats won (CU Regent or Board of Education) will tell you this.  And the big races where they have won big, Salazar, Ritter, Udall, tells you that when they win these counties, they win big.

In addition, the story above just shows that the writer hasn't visited the "burbs' recently.  The notion that Denver balances out the "conservative" burbs hasn't been true for close to 20 years.  The reality is that with the exception of Douglas County, the "conservative burbs" are overwhelming represented by Democrats in the state legislature (8-4 in Jeffco, and 7-4 in Arapahoe and Adams 7-2).  As a matter of fact, these numbers are the total of the Democrats advantage in the legislature.  The fact is that the burbs and Denver and Boulder pretty much overwhelm the rest of the state, period.  So don't forget, McInnis is pretty much unknown in the Denver area and Hickenlooper by all accounts is wildly popular in Denver, the burbs and Boulder.  He's also pretty well known (certainly better than McInnis) in Larimer, Weld, El Paso.  And while McInnis represented Pueblo, that was a long time ago and it's a Democratic stronghold anyway.

---

by: Craig @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:15:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Craig, reread my comment.

And do it a little slower this time. :)

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:22:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I did.

I don't know what I missed.  You're talking about perception, I'm talking abut reality.

---

by: Craig @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 15:26:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reread.

Respectfully, you continue to miss the larger point in the comment, Craig.

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 15:28:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I thought McInnis cemented his sweep of El Paso

....by siding with the military in the Pinon Canon expansion thingy.

---

by: Jambalaya @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:27:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Or to put it another way

Each vote has the same impact regardless of where cast.

Amazon tax? Bad Idea!

---

by: DavidThi808 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:09:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We said Front Range - Ft. Collins to Pueblo

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:10:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You sure did.

Apologies on that point.

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:13:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

meanwhile Walsenburg and Trinidad

...are weeping after being chopped off of Colorado's front range!

---

by: Jambalaya @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:30:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Do they weep in Trinidad

at being chopped off?

---

by: Gray in Mountains @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 20:24:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm with you, Twitty.

Colorado doesn't have an electoral college, so a vote in Delta County counts as much as a vote in Denver.  Yes, there are a lot more of them in the Front Range.  But when you take a race as close as Owens-Schoettler 12 years ago, a better D showing on the West Slope or in the even more sparsely settled eastern plains where I hail from could have made the difference.  
  Western, and Eastern, Colorado are still vital parts of this state.  I'll fight as hard for Mesa College or Northeastern Junior College as I will for Community College of Denver, because they are all vital to our children's -- and our state's -- future.    
  Sure, Dave overstated the West Slope's importance.   But to say it "doesn't matter" is just dumb and unnecessarily inflammatory.   The only vote that doesn' matter is the one that isn't cast.

---

by: Voyageur @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:54:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Electoral College in CO

would be a nice touch.  A little preference for geography/resources? Anyone?

"the Constitution has also become outdated in many respects and needs to be revised--and possibly rewritten from scratch!" --JO

---

by: Aggie @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:31:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Or we could go all the way to the federal model

and just let the Colorado Supreme Court pick the governor. ;-)

---

by: Voyageur @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:51:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ahem

you should have that bump on your head checked out. You must have hit it really hard...

if the Western slope wants to be competitive it should build some infrastructure and lure sustainable jobs there.
Growth is its only option.

until then, it remains a nice place to visit...

"Just dumbing it down for you zit-poppers." ~GOPwarrior

---

by: Froward69 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:54:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe we like it the way it is

Except that we would like to keep our water.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

---

by: Ralphie @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:03:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yes the whole state

would like to keep our water.

Like Hawaii, every drop in this state falls from the sky.

"Just dumbing it down for you zit-poppers." ~GOPwarrior

---

by: Froward69 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:11:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Problem is

Grand Junction's water is not Aurora's water.  "Our's" it is not.  And suspect we here want to keep our better quality of life.

"Three or four years from now, we're not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff."  -Scott McInnis

---

by: WesternSlopeThought @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:29:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not to argue a "water war" but

Take it up with Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California...  
BY using "Our" I meant all of Colorado.

Then again from conversations with relations and meeting some others in GJ. I suspect secession to Utah is a fond dream. Just not enough votes to pull it off. (so to speak)

as it is the number of votes there, that this thread is addressing.

"Just dumbing it down for you zit-poppers." ~GOPwarrior

---

by: Froward69 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 16:33:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Glad I don't run with your "relations"

They misinform you.  Wonder how much of east slope water flows to those states you mentioned.  And didn't Kansas win big bucks from Colorado for mismanagement of water there? You responded to Ralphie's post.  I won't put words in his post but his statement that "Maybe we like it the way it is", might mean that we do not want to become another Aurora.

"Three or four years from now, we're not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff."  -Scott McInnis

---

by: WesternSlopeThought @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 17:08:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bingo

n/t

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

---

by: Ralphie @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 17:09:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

nor would I encourage that

Saudi Aurora is a horrible place.
I must say I like certain aspects of the western slope too. as long as I do not get into any political conversations with locals.
Marble, Ouray, Telluride, Rifle, Glenwood, Steamboat and even Aspen on a good day.

Water is essential to everyone. not just the Western slope.

The point of this thread was how uppity and important communities on the western slope seem to feel they are. without the population/votes to be as influential as they feel they should be.

I realize how easy it is to feel overly important when the closest metro area is 150 miles away. Thinking a towns population of 5,000 is somehow more important (with votes and Water in this case) than a real life City with 500,000 people in it.  
it is the same as Sarah Palin claiming a small town is somehow "more American" than a city.

in a word it is Arrogance.

All of us are the same Americans with one vote.
if you feel the need to be more influential in water decisions or electing statewide officials... then attract population growth. if you like it the way it is fine. just don't be a cryn about not having influence.

"Just dumbing it down for you zit-poppers." ~GOPwarrior

---

by: Froward69 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 17:44:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You don't have to insult us with Palin

There is such an animal as Colorado water law, and the Western Slope has a nice bench of good water lawyers who practice that dark art very well.

If the Front Range gets its hands on too much of the water, you'll miss skiing, camping and fishing over here.

Don't call us arrogant. We could never match the Denver metroplex in that category.

---

by: gertie97 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:20:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep.

Like I said above, pitting Democrats against Democrats isn't the brightest strategy in the world, particularly when the bias and stereotypes being propagated by folks such as Froward start to rear their ugly heads.

There's a reason some of us choose to live at 8,000 and not in Denver metro and when I read comments like his and JO, I thank God I live where I do, if only not to have to live near them.

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 19:01:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I see you know nothing about water law

If ten Denver thugs try to hijack your car, boy, it would just be "arrogant" of you to want to keep it because there is simply so many more of them than you.

And votes come from everywhere.  How did that Ref. A work out for you?

"Three or four years from now, we're not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff."  -Scott McInnis

---

by: WesternSlopeThought @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:22:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Right you are, WST

Ref A didn't carry a single county, not even in the metroplex.

---

by: gertie97 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:31:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right. So very right. Fuck the Western Slope.

And the $2.6 billion dollars they generate annually just in skiing and snowboarding. Glad to hear you don't want or need a dime of their tax dollars.

Jesus. Talk about arrogance.

--From a "real dick."
by: JO

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 19:04:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't really give a shit who you get into conversations with

As long as you don't want to live here.

And "uppity" is a term that is often used by people who try to keep a minority down.

Often, those people have no reason to think they are as superior as they think they are.


When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

---

by: Ralphie @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 20:17:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But that was 12 years ago

The population shift in Colorado is much different.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:10:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So, you're saying close elections are no longer possible in Colorado?

What an interesting planet you live on!
How about the cliffhanger between Mark Hillman and Cary Kennedy?  Are you saying that was a blowout?
  A vote is a vote is a vote is a vote is a vote is a vote etc.

---

by: Voyageur @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:46:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Problem with this Analysis

Is that you're looking for swing voters.  Most voters on the West slope and eastern plains aren't swing voters.  Their voting preferences are set and nothing will change that.  The swing voters are in the front range especially in Adams, Arapahoe, Jefferson.  So, that makes the Western slope not as important as spending time in the swing vote rich inner-suburbs of Denver.

---

by: Craig @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 15:21:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bingo

Of course you campaign everywhere in the state, BUT you campaign more where voters haven't made up their minds and can be persuaded to vote for you.

---

by: ajb @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 16:58:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We "experts" on ColoradoPols can be very satisfied with our number-crunching conclusions.

But, if you are a candidate for office, you campaign as if you want and NEED every vote in every part of your district, or the state if a statewide office.  Front Rangers, does it really make any sense to move toward a state - and a state legislature - in which all the power rests with elected officials from the Front Range?  

Not to me.  I want people to understand water issues on the Western Slope, in the San Luis Valley, and in the de-watered Lower Ark Basin.  I want elected officials to understand how the ravages of the bark beetle can have negative consequences for one of our state's top industries - tourism.  I want them to understand the importance of a state highway in northwestern Colorado.  I want my Governor to understand that the economic health of rural Colorado is just as important as the overgrown Front Range.  Etc.

---

by: The realist @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:22:06 PM CST

Agreed, but that's not the point here

Every candidate for statewide office will, and should, campaign across the entire state. But that doesn't mean that areas outside of the Front Range are electorally important. Those are different arguments.

If a statewide candidate doesn't win the bigger counties, it doesn't matter what happens in the smaller counties. That's just how Colorado's population is currently settled.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:30:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't see them as different arguments.

If a candidate for statewide office directs his/her campaign to focus only on winning the bigger counties, the natural consequence is that the candidate doesn't campaign - or at least not much - in the rest of the state.  And as a result they learn little or nothing about the issues important to the rest of the state.  

What I've said for years - during years I was a candidate, and at other times - is that statewide candidates AND candidates for the state legislature need to understand issues outside of the Front Range, because highways, forests, water, energy development, etc are issues of statewide interest and statewide importance (even if you don't believe non-Front Range people are important).  I used the example of tourism previously - of direct interest statewide if for no other reason than the public and private revenue it brings.  

An elected official who makes decisions regarding concerns and needs all over the state simply cannot run their campaign as if only Front Range voters are important.

---

by: The realist @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:42:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hick has west slope roots...

... having first come to Colorado as an engineer during the oil boom.

Now, that's not to say he still has his finger on the pulse of rural Colorado, but it's a fallacy to assume that front range people don't know or care about rural issues, or that a governor from Denver will govern as though he only is responsible for Denver.

This isn't about different regional concerns, it's about whether the winner of this year's gubernatorial election must win the West Slope to win the whole shebang. I'd agree with Pols that the answer is "no." It does NOT follow from this that campaigning there or understanding the West Slope's unique concerns are no longer necessary.

"Fine, let's take a vote. Who wants fish for dinner?...Yeah, democracy ain't so fun when it fucks you, huh?" - shitmydadsays

---

by: Aristotle @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:56:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hesitate to add this, but it soon will become a critical issue.

If the same myopic Front Ranger view carries over to the reapportionment and redistricting processes in the near future, rural Colorado will lose even more of its voice.  Who was it - Harold McCormick, Bob Shoemaker, Lewis Entz - who kept track of which legislators owned water rights, as a way of demonstrating the loss of rural representation in the legislature?  Wonder how many legislators own water rights now.

---

by: The realist @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:52:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They will lose seats.

That's just a fact of life.  The big growth areas of the State are Larimer, Weld, Boulder, Douglas and the mountain ski communities.  They will gain.  Even Jeffco (which will lose .8 of a State House seat and the partial Senate Seat now in the county) will lose seats.

---

by: Craig @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 15:31:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Winning the Western Slope is not the issue

in a statewide election.

The trick is to not lose it by too big of a margin.

Ignoring the Western Slope is not going to help with that strategy.

Hick needs to get his ass over here and introduce himself to the people.  He needs to want to be governor of ALL of the state and make that known to the people. Otherwise, he WILL lose it too badly.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

---

by: Ralphie @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:26:40 PM CST

Exactly, coming close on the Western Slope

for a Democrat helps the spread.   Neglecting to do that matters in a close race.

"Yes Twitty, I'm an idiot." Ben Stein's $$

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:50:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ralphie is right. The margin is the trick.

McInnis will win the Western Slope because of the Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, but it won't be a sweep by any means. The demographics have changed since he last ran for Congress. For example, LaPlata is no longer a nail-biting swing county. It's been doing Democrat the last several elections. Same with Gunnison, and Garfield County is about split. Pitkin and San Miguel are reliably Democrat but not big in voter numbers.

Hickenlooper needs to win the potentially
winnable Western Slope counties and cut his margin in the others. He has been a lot more active and better traveled as Denver's mayor than his predecessors were, appearing frequently at Club 20 and a variety of economic development and chamber groups on the Western Slope. He's been on the Western Slope a lot and I'm sure he'll campaign quite a bit over here, too.

Still, the only way the Western Slope decides a statewide election is if the Front Range count is razor-thin.

---

by: gertie97 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:59:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Summit and Eagle

As well are now reliabiliy Democratic.

---

by: Craig @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 15:22:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree.

Even though all of Summit's BoCC and at least 2 of Eagle's are D, both counties have a giant number of Unaffiliateds. Eagle still leans R, Summit sill swing but I think both will go for Hick.

---

by: Gray in Mountains @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 20:41:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's Why I Love this Site!

Michael Bennet had me at "Obama"

---

by: caroman @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:33:25 PM CST

As much as Scooty has pissed off

the ranchers and voters of the southeast, he would have to win big on the WS just to make up for his failures there.  

From Pinon Canyon Expansion Opposition Coalition

"Southeast Colorado Republican Grady Grissom observed "As it stands today I don't think McInnis could get 5% of the Republican votes in Southeast Colorado, he can't even find people to work on his campaign down here.  He will have to reverse his position on Pinon Canyon to get elected."

And the way he trashed Josh Penry and forced him out of the race makes him no darling of Penry's teabagger base in GJ either.  I suspect there will be a lot of people who just sit this one out rather than vote for McInnis.

In a close election, the WS vote would indeed matter.  But McInnis has pissed off so many people, I doubt that the margins here will matter much.

That said, John ignores the WS at his own peril.  If for nothing else, he needs to campaign here just to keep the momentum which Obama started with his two visits here.

"Three or four years from now, we're not going to have a conversation about jobs and all of that kind of stuff."  -Scott McInnis

---

by: WesternSlopeThought @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 12:50:06 PM CST

In a close election, West Slopers can make a difference.

A candidate doesn't necessarily have to win the Western Slope to get elected, but he/she needs to run strong. Sometimes, us "out-staters" (God, I hate that term) can push a candidate over the top. A vote from anywhere in Colorado is still a vote.

By the way, Pols, don't dis the names of community newspapers on your site. The people who work at the Snowmass Sun probably work as hard at their jobs as you do at yours.  

---

by: OneEyedOwl @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:29:34 PM CST

Factor in crossover and swing votes

Arguably the population of the front range is a major factor in statewide elections, but you have to factor in crossover Republican's and Independents (U's) that normally swing Republican.  I ran some numbers for a client several years ago and if I get permission will post results.

---

by: Ellie @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 13:37:18 PM CST

Don'tBother

I already ran them too.  The vast majority of the swing votes in the states are in Jeffco, ARapahoe and Adams.  Those on the west slope are a mere pittance.

---

by: Craig @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 15:24:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Show what you can

I'm guessing in a R /D statewide race
the R candidate could go 85/15 or 90/10 on the west side and eastern plains, and the D candidate could go 60/40 in the front range and win.

More relevant- I'd guess the D could go 70/30 in Denver metro and win now. That  wasn't true for Gail Schoettler.

---

by: MADCO @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 16:24:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You could be right...

I have not worked with the statewide 2008 vote or registration numbers.  I do recall someone lamenting the under votes in a number of 08 races.

---

by: Ellie @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 19:30:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What exactly is an

undervote or undervote?

---

by: MADCO @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 20:11:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You don't know?

It's a special vote that Democrats keep under their official vote that ensures they get into heaven.

OK, an "undervote" is recorded when you turn in your ballot but don't select a candidate in a particular race. So, for example, in 2010 you mark your ballot for governor and senator, but you do not vote for a candidate in the state house race. This latter would be an "undervote." In contrast, if you indicated more than one candidate in the house race, this would be an "overvote."

An overvote and an undervote are worth the same number of credits for getting into heaven.

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 21:51:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Best. Explanation. Yet.

Thanks, Ardy.

---

by: gertie97 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 22:46:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And what do we think it tells us?

2010
I vote for state rep, Senator, but not Gov. and the takeway is:

---

by: MADCO @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 23:56:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good question

that should probably be addressed by someone who spends time looking at this. You should probably re-ask this question in a current thread.

Under votes might represent races that people are less informed about (some people don't vote if they know nothing about the candidates or issue).

Under votes can indicate a protest (i.e., I voted "none of the above.")

Under votes can indicate a problem with the ballot (i.e., Florida 2000, in which ballots had both under votes (as determined by machine readers) and overvotes in adjoining races. Thus, this may indicate that voters thought they were voting for something and marked their ballot in the location they thought indicated their preference, but they actually marked in the wrong location. Thus they have an overvote in one race and an undervote in another. Thus, the final tally of the election might NOT indicate actual voter preference.)

Following on this, under votes tend to be relatively predictable for down ticket races. Top of the ticket races generally have much lower rates of undervotes than down ticket races. If top ticket races have unusual undervote rates, this may indicate a problem (see Florida 2000).

Thus if different jurisdictions are using different types of ballots, and if undervote rates vary dramatically, this may also indicate something about the ballot form rather than voter intent. (see Florida 2000 yet again!)

My understanding is also that undervote rates can tell you something about who is voting. People that vote every election tend to be well informed and complete the entire ballot. People who only vote in presidential races tend to be lower information voters and leave more down ticket races unvoted. If a particular top ticket race motivates a new block of voters to get participate, there may be lots of undervoting down ticket.

Again, I suggest you re-ask this question on a relevant current thread so that folks like Ralphie and Dan Willis, etc can accurately answer this.

Sum Ergo Cogito.

---

by: ardy39 @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 12:07:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not much to add to what you said

Except that sometimes I analyze undervotes in uncontested races as protest votes.

I typically look at the Regent races as the yardstick for undervotes in contested elections.  The candidates are rarely well known. Those races also tell me something about the partisanship of the unaffiliateds.  (Did the R candidate draw a higher percentage than the simple ratio of R/(R+D)?  Then the unaffiliateds voted like Rs.  But that's not undervotes and I'm off topic.)

Back to undervotes.  If a given contested race has more undervotes than a Regent race, there might be some sort of dissatisfaction with both candidates.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

---

by: Ralphie @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 12:42:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I like to undervote

so starving kids in China can have more votes.

---

by: sxp151 @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 11:22:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A vote is a vote, but

The question is where to expend your resources for the greatest return.  That means resources like money (advertising, campaign staff), time (on the trail, in the community meetings), and credibility.  There can't be any debate that the best places to spend your time and money is in the population centers, on the eastern slope, and not in the hinterlands.  Likewise, if you have to make a policy choice, say between an environmentally friendly position which appeals to the city and suburb dwellers  versus a pro-energy development position to keep  mesa county happy, the choice (for a dem) is obvious.  

---

by: Early Worm @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 14:11:22 PM CST

Money goes a long way in rural Colorado

Compared with metro media rates, the Western Slope and the plains are cheap, very cheap. And even one visit to a little town gets lots of bang for the buck, because the small daily, if there is one, or the weekly, will cover the heck out of any statewide candidate's visit. Hickenlooper or McInnis drawing 40 people to a cafe won't get coverage in Denver and environs, but it'll be front page news in smaller towns.

---

by: gertie97 @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:15:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Western Slope voters a "gimmick?"

Good campaign headlines on the Western Slope reverberate throughout the state -- so it's wise to woo voters West of the Divide. Plus, it helps promote the local candidates when a big-league candidate breezes through town. So it's not so much about head-counting mountain voters as much as it is the opportunity of statewide publicity and building party loyalty.

---

by: WestSloper @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 16:43:35 PM CST

Diplomacy, Pols? Try some

In order to debunk the relative lunacy of the article, you needn't state such an extreme position, disrespecting the Western Slope in the process.  Plus, you've now created an unnecessary distraction.  Let us pray together on the importance of civility.

---

by: Jambalaya @ Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 18:33:47 PM CST

'Reliable' Western Slope partisans

The Western Slope is changing pretty quickly.  To imagine there are no swing votes out here is wrong.  Look at how the numbers have shifted over the last decade.  

Sure, he's a Blue Dog, but John Salazar actually WON in Moffat County last cycle (by a few votes).  Obama won a third of the WS counties, and others were literally right down the middle.

La Plata, San Miguel, Gunnison, Pitkin are all reliably Democratic (sure, conservative, independent-minded but Democratic in how races usually end up).  Garfield is split down the middle.  Eagle and Summit--lots of independents, certainly--are also predominantly Democratic in their vote.  

Much of this has shifted in the last decade or so.  

Other places, like Delta's North Fork, include pockets that are either mixed (close to 50-50 in how votes broke down in 2008) or even Democratic even as they sit in the middle of a dark red county (Delta as a whole voted 70/30 for McCain, Paonia precincts split close to 50/50).

Are the numbers sufficient in these changing counties to recommend basing an electoral strategy on swinging them?  No, as the diary points out, the numbers aren't there.  But neglecting the Western Slope altogether--and failing to win the reliably Democratic places, achieve parity in the swing areas, and avoid getting unduly creamed elsewhere--remains important for statewide candidates.  

There are a lot of folks, city dwellers apparently, who believe that the Western Slope today is the Western Slope they remember as a child--monolithic and red (except for a few resort communities).  

This is a myopic view, based on people who drive out for a visit on a nice summer day, or to ski, but don't really get the population out here, that the politics and even the voter make up is more complex and nuanced.  One thing that almost 100% unites West Slope denizens is the gratitude we have in not having to live on the Front Range.  And, yes, we would like to keep the water.

"Yes Twitty, I'm an idiot." Ben Stein's $$

---

by: ClubTwitty @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 09:21:08 AM CST

The columnist speaks ...

Wow! I think more people have commented on my column here than have ever read it back in the little redneck town of Snowmass Village where it first ran.

First, I'll admit to one bit of stupidity. "Conservative Denver" was a typo. It should have been "Conservative Colorado Springs," as one reader noted. Sorry.

Otherwise, I stand by the column. I call as my first witness Floyd Ciruli. I think you may have heard of him. He's a pollster, which means he knows a little about numbers. Plus, he's from Denver, which means he's smarter than those of us out here on the Western Slope.

This is what Ciruli told me last year during the presidential election: "Electoral votes are the very point of a battleground, and the Western Slope is the place that the battle is going to be fought. The growth on the I-70 corridor, the new influx of the oil patch, the changing demographics .... The West Slope just looks like it has a lot of potential."

Maybe Colorado Pols is right. Or maybe Floyd Ciruli is. You make the call. Obviously, you can't win the state without winning the Front Range. But when the Front Range splits down the middle, you might find it helpful to have some Western Slope voters on your side.

---

by: davidmfrey @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 17:10:14 PM CST

Ciruli has been a few years behind

for a long time. He's a reliable spinner of out-of-date conventional wisdom, and you'd be wise to get a second opinion whenever you go to him for analysis.

That said, it's good of you to stop by and weigh in. Political reporting at smaller papers is unsung work.

---

by: RedGreen @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 17:44:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I won't hold it against you that you cited Ciruli

He's an anachronism, but he still manages to get his name into the papers now and then.  You're not alone.

When I use lots of words, they always form an analysis (and, while producing high volume, also produce high information-density).
--Steve Harvey, 2009

---

by: Ralphie @ Fri Jan 29, 2010 at 20:41:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]