CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 13, 2010 08:56 PM UTC
44 Comments
Nate does use voter registration numbers and other non poll types of info (fundraising, etc.) in his analysis. This info factors more heavily in races where not much polling has been done.
I was initially trying to figure out if the Republicans were going to take Markey’s seat but only one other in the house, which one would it be. After studying the numbers you have to be impresed with the job Frazier is doing in CD-07. That said, Salazar looks more vulnerable than Perlmutter.
There is no way you are going to pick off either of them. None. Zero. Salazar is on Appropriations, and he has money. He’ll be there until he decides to do something else.
Permlutter is a fantastic campaigner, who is well liked in his district, and has brought home a bunch of jobs.
I’m willing to debate CO-04, but those two. Safe. Not one. Hell, you guys pick up either seat, and I’ll buy you both dinner. Not a bet. Just the way it is.
Markey has no volunteers, judging by the Windsor Parade, and the DNCC just gave up and cut off her funding. Gardner is leading big in the polls, has plenty of money, and has a rock solid campaign organization. He has signs everywhere, including lots of 4×8’s, while Markey has almost none.
I believe Perlmutter is losing in the polls.
I sure hope you find rides to the polls for all the campaign signs supporting Gardner.
but all the people who read them will. Idiot.
Probably the best comprehensive rundown I’ve seen on Pols re this cycle. I agree that the vast majority of the outcome is explained by party breakdown. Yes, a great candidate may be worth 5 pts, a crap opponent another 5 pts, and a high-turnout yr for your party another 5. That explains Markey’s 2008 win; she had all 3 plus factors helping her beat the party breakdown. So she and probably Salazar are underdogs in my book; Perlmutter seems likely to survive because he supplements his 10-pt party edge by being a good pol.
We don’t overly rely on voter registration numbers here, because Colorado voters tend to split their ticket. For example, look at 2008 in two swing counties:
JEFFERSON COUNTY
Registered Voters as of Nov. 2008
118,344 Democrats
127,255 Republicans
123,796 Unaffiliated
Presidential Election Results
158,158 Barack Obama
131,628 John McCain
LARIMER COUNTY
Registered Voters as of Nov. 2008
60,381 Democrats
74,451 Republicans
74,452 Unaffiliated
Presidential Election Results
89,832 Barack Obama
73,642 John McCain
As you can see, in Jefferson County McCain only got 4,000 more votes than there were registered Republicans. In Larimer County, McCain didn’t even get more votes than all of the registered Republicans in total.
In CD-3, John Salazar has always won by far bigger margins than the voter registration numbers would suggest. Don’t assume that most Democrats and Republicans are going to vote a straight ticket with their party affiliation. They normally don’t.
Markey also had a gazillion dollars thrown at her campaign by a pissed off gay Billionaire who did not appreciate Musgrave’s take on family values. That may have got her in but voting at odds with the majority of her constituents makes for a pretty fast exit.
Markey was in a district a Dem shouldn’t win but she had the benefit of not only (a) a big dem turnout yr thanks to Obama, and (b) running a good campaign, but (c) having an opponent whose views, even if you (H-Man) agree with them, were so strident and so strenuously pressed that she made herself a national target of the left. If you’re not in a super-duper-safe district (like DeGette’s or Lamborn’s), it’s risky politics to be Michelle Bachman or Alan Grayson; it means even if you’re a multi-term incumbent, you’re likely to face opponents with millions on a recurring basis — which means that the first time the opposition has a big-turnout yr, you’re at real risk.
I was just adding that Markey getting the seat in the first place was rather amazing. I can’t see any way she maintains it. Now all of her good luck is gone and with Buck from her district the Republicans will be out in force.
I don’t see her being with 5%.
… I wasn’t considering Markey’s voting pattern a factor, but yes, she might have gotten herself another few percentage points, had she spent the past 2 yrs as the Ben Nelson of Colorado. Of course, that might still not have been enough, as you note in guessing that she may lose by a big margin. And moving right is a tricky calculus not sure to work: if she’d gone Ben Nelson, she’d lose some liberal money and support. Which is just to say that she just wasn’t likely to be able to keep this seat no matter what she did.
One of the variables at play, which by not treating it in my analysis would make it a wash, is voter enthusiasm. I tried to be as objective as I could and it is imposssible to quantify voter enthusiasm. In 2008 the Dems had that working for them. In 2010 all indicatiions are the Republicans have that working for them.
Applying that to the registered voter overlay reinforces my sense of how this plays out. As I see it, Markey is as good as gone. Salazar is on the ropes and Perlmutter, who should not really be at risk, is facing an unexpectedly tough race. Frazier is a good candidate and it is a Republican year. I think Frazier will make it close but in the end lose.
… other than “I sure hope all Dems win, so I’m going to predict that they will!” I see no other logical way to explain your prediction that all Dems will win all statewide races, and that all Dems in swing congressional districts will hold their seats despite consistent indications R turnout will vastly exceed D turnout.
Tells you alot of people came out to vote locally and said “BS” to voting nationally, aka Pres and Senatorial races.
Before I considering running I looked hard at 2008. We have a serious issue this time around that the “unaffiliated” voter better be taken seriously.
You need to examine the current voter registrations and those to be posted after Oct 4th. One doesn’t have to look farther than the “Offical Ballot for November” to see “something in the making.”
food for thought.
Here they are:
Jan 08 Nov 08 Aug 10
Republican 34.8% 33.2% 35.4%
Dems 30.3% 32.9% 33%
Unaffiliated 34.4% 33.3% 30.8%
The Unaffiliated are losing voter registration. Using those numbers what appears in the making is Republican gains and less unaffiliated.
Like I said check after Oct 4th.
See what happened and the polls illustrate this there is a massive movement to “get rid of the guy who is in office.”
But after the primaries, when the BUCK N’ BENNET won, those same people stood and look within themselves and are now going…”WTF.”
Just examine the “very unfavorable ratings,” here locally, but I must say, I have been following a similar trend across the USA.
Independents and Unaffiliated have been leaning REP. But you won’t have the 20% you need to WIN. Not when you will lose 10-20% from each party. I am not saying they will vote “Unaffiliated.” Not to mention, what will all the “Unaffiliated” do now that they have a fiscal conservative with liberal ideas?
We certainly know from history, they won’t vote Green or Libertarian. We will just have to wait and see.
But here’s the essential problem. Look at the ballots across those same regions. Man..
In Colorado, 1,091,130 voters are unaffiliated; 1,067,467 are Democrats; and 1,069,238 are Republican, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.
Notice “Unaffiliated” is the Majority.
Here are the July 2010 numbers:
Republicans 855,667 or 35%
Dems 817,458 or 33%
Unaffiliated 765,845 or 31%
Notice “unaffiliated is in last place.
from Sec of State as of Aug. Total Numbers.
In Colorado, 1,091,130 voters are unaffiliated; 1,067,467 are Democrats; and 1,069,238 are Republican, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office.
“TOTAL” = active + inactive
Inactive can activate theoretically up to the day of the ballot, Officially OCT. 4th.
Provisional Ballots can still be processed after Oct 4th on Voting Day for any problems, and I don’t think the Sec. of State is gonna make an issue, when some 80 year old wants to vote and happens to be listed as inactive.
I could be wrong. Maybe that vote wont count, but generally, everyone is allowed and then its questioned. Unless you are talking Gore-Bush 2000
Inactive voters don’t have to vote provisional, they can just vote.
The definition of “inactive” is simply someone who didn’t vote in the last general (maybe two, I don’t remember) and didn’t return a postcard saying they wanted to remain active. But as long as they haven’t been purged off the rolls, they can vote.
So its still the simple majority. Almost 1.2 Million Voters. A lot of them, ones I talked too were so discussed with 2008 at that time they didn’t vote. But they said they would not.
The reality is the “Unaffiliated” is the simple majority, and whether they will stand together with an alternative that was “hijacked” by either party, remains to be seen.
I can see unaffiliated voters leaning to the REP side, simply because they want to “Fire” the incumbent. How they will vote when they see another “unaffiliated” is another question, that I urged all polling groups to consider.
I mean Jorge .aka. J is right below me and then there’s the a few others, sorry last names are hard to remember, so maybe people will vote that way.
I must admit I never do. I simply look through the ballot and if I don’t know the person, I will try to make an objective choice rather than leaving the spaces empty.
For me, long names and difficult parties lack familiar with me. Not to say I have any advantage. Maybe, I am wrong.
We will see.
But back to the Numbers. Fact, is again. “Unaffiliated” is a simple majority, and each party depends are their vote. That isn’t going to happen this year. Plus you have to look at the 17-23% of those in the party who will “flee” and vote otherwise or traditionally not vote on that ticket.
I noticed this before I ran, looking at 2008, all the counties, how many people voted and how many voted for Pres and Senator. Most importantly how many voted and didn’t.
This year there is the nuclear option, which apparently everyone is exercising across the USA.
of looking at these numbers is that the Democrats have gained more voters, relatively speaking, than the Republicans have since January 2008.
The percentage of GOP voters has risen by 0.6 percentage points, while the proportion of Democrats is up by 2.7 percentage points.
Now, you’d have to know the base at which each party began in January 2008 to know the absolute numbers those increases translate into, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that the Democratic registration growth is faster.
Moreover, despite the right wing’s claims that Obama is so unpopular that Democrats are threatened everywhere, Democratic registration growth had not, as of last month, turned negative.
First, your analysis is spot on, generally, but the claim that Registration equates to performance in CD-04 is sketchy, at best. I’ll explain:
The Eastern Plains will see a Dem lose by about 10,000 votes. Maybe a great/liked Dem can lose them by 8K. But the work required to do that is not worth the 2K votes.
Larimer will see a Dem win, at least based on the past 8 or so years, by about 12K. A good GOP candidate can move this, say 3K in his favor, and a bad one can move it 2K against. Musgrave notwithstanding (and 2008 represents a significant divergence).
Boulder is going to go for the Dem by about 2K.
All told, plains + Larimer + Boulder (-10 + 12 + 3) results in a Dem up by 5K votes.
The key for a Democrat in CD-04 is to lose Weld Co. by less than 5,000 votes. Typical performance is a loss by about 7,500. That’s an overall loss for a Democrat.
This year is doing to be a rough year. Betsy’s done a lot on the plains, but Cory’s popular out there. I’ll call it a push (Betsy loses by 10K).
Betsy’s well known in Larimer, and well liked, too. Kefalas and Fisher, and strong campaigns by Karen Stockley (HD-49) and Rich Ball will help here, so I’ll say Betsy does well, as the Loveland and Windsor (which is not in the county, but the comment fits) Tea Parties are really just establishment masquerading as something grassroots (Betsy wins by 14K).
In Boulder, I suspect we’ll see what we usually see. (Betsy wins by 2K).
In Weld, it’s going to come down to turnout, and, in particular, it’s going to come down to Hispanic turnout. I expect Buck to drive solid Weld GOP turnout, and fear-of-Buck to drive Dem turnout. But with Tancredo running, and Buck running, and Hickenlooper’s savvy choice of a Weld rep, and Joe Perez as County chair (DEM), I think we’ll see fairly significant Hispanic turnout, and I am reasonably sure that this will be enough to get Betsy over the top (Betsy loses Weld by 3,500, winning the district by 2,500 (which, by gorilla math, is the same as the 8-points I’ve predicted before… LOL).
I should note that I also expect Sheriff Cooke to play dirty politics and place Sheriff’s officers at all the voting places to “keep the peace” as he did in 2008. If the Weld Dems have brains, they will encourage mail ballots, and chase them like mad.
OK, there you have it. Absolute truth about CO-04. Unless I’m wrong. Then I was drinking when I wrote this.
I think your breaking things down as you did was helpful and makes sense. On the plains front I see things as you do. In Boulder, I don’t see things all that differently. Larimer and Weld are the key to the race.
A couple thoughts that are difficult to quantify that makes your extrapolation from recent years as to those counties more uncertain. One, I would expect a much more enthused Republican/Tea Party base in those counties and a much higher than the last few cycles turn out for them for that reason. Two, with Buck in the US Senate race from Weld who did extremely well in Larimer I expect a certain amount of coattail effect for Gardner.
Basically, this is a Republican cycle and it sucks to be a Dem. Trust me the Republicans know how it feels.
My take Gardner by 5-10%.
that would help Bennet?
I’ve watched the Tea Party grow in Weld, and I have to say, that almost every person I know to be engaged with the Tea Party is a strong conservative voter. I don’t think there is much in the way of independent participation, and outside of GOP GOTV efforts being positively affected (if you’re in their corner), I don’t think the Tea Party effect is going to be as much a Tsunami as the press would indicate. I predict Weld and Larimer will trend, roughly, as they’ve trended in the recent path.
Could be wrong. We’ll see in a few weeks.
(BTW, sorry Pols, I was a smidge over the top about your criticism.)
Of course, what happened in 2008 will not happen again in 2010. Our point was just to show that Colorado voters don’t really vote straight-ticket, so we wouldn’t rely too much on voter registration numbers. Just because Democrats or Republicans have a voter registration advantage in a particular area doesn’t mean that this advantage will translate into votes.
One, because Buck will pick up a far larger share of unaffiliateds and independents than Bennet. Two, because I’m seeing much more support for Gardner than Markey. And three, because I live there and will be doing everything I can to keep Dems from winning. 🙂
Lot’s to think about, and an appreciated absence of unsubstantiated shill.
I’m glad to recommend this.
a “lead” of 2-4% is likely not a lead at all and in most polls would fall within the MOE and be considered a statistical tie.
Tipton has one major drawback- his last name isn’t Salazar. The Salazar political machine can and likely will deliver the votes in November, just you wait and see.
and be sworn in shortly thereafter. A 2-4% lead is not a tie. Nate Silver has Buck winning by 4% and gives him a 74% chance of being elected, not a 50-50 chance.
an election isn’t a predictive poll, which is the crap you’ve been touting here all along. And I’ve told you time and again here, you’ll be crying in your beer in November. You’ve made such outrlandish claims about this election, I wait for you to come out and say maes will win.
But JPS is right. I am pretty sure that those guys are, and I know that I am, as bright and educated as you are. Your analysis kind of reminds me of a recent video clip of Bennet:
a poll before an election has a margin of error, every one does. a difference in a result of 2-4% is generally within the margin of error and considered a statistical tie.
You throw out a red herring trying to compare an actual election to a poll taken before an election. The poll attempts to predict the results of the elections. The election is the answer to the accuracy of the poll.
Because of margin of error, most campaigns would consider a 2-4% lead or deficit to be a tie.
That’t the wisest thing you’ve said on this diary yet.
If the Bennet Buck race is a statistical dead heat come election night it will translate into a Buck win. It is the Republican Party that is energized (Similar to the Dems being energized in 2008). National polls are showing unafils are unhappy with the current path our country is on. That blame will fall on the Dems who hold the executive branch and both houses.
Bennet seems to have lost favor with Romanoff supporters far more than Buck lost in the Norton camp. One only has to check out blog, social media, and coloradopols to see a portion of Romanoff supporters are stating they will not vote for Bennet. I remember seeing those same comments about McCain. Guess what? A sizable percentage of Republicans did not vote for McCain. Coloradopols illustrated that point previously.
Sirota even has Bennet vulnerable to “left and right” combinations from Buck. Sirota complains that Bennet is alienating Obama ardent supporters. Bennet’s attempt at painting himself as a fiscal conservative is going to fall on deaf ears.
Very little media buys for Buck from 527s or the Buck campaign with Bennet on TV and radio. Bennet is burning through the cash with minimal success. When Buck hits the airwaves Bennet will be reading a Buck bumper sticker.
a statistical tie is just what it is, nothing more, nothing less. It is absolutely an indicator that a prediction can’t be made with any sense of certainty based on the result of the poll.
But of course, if you’re a Rovian conservative, I guess you just make up facts to suit your world-view and then go to bed. Nite-nite!