Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Live Digest: 12/7 (251 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Both your points are accurate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Allen, MichaelNY

    My response to the former: I still expect Colorado to continue shifting leftwards in the coming years, even though it "stalled" from the past election, which I attribute to Obama's overperformance in 2008.  Consider this, Nevada's PVI shifted GOP compared to 2008, but no one seems to be arguing Nevada is getting redder as a state, that's more a function of Nevada's numbers coming back down to earth from Obama's unusually strong performance last time.  Nevada is still believed (by most I've seen) to have a long-term Dem trend that should continue in the future.  And I feel the same way about Colorado.  Of course, that's just a feeling, I can't know for sure how Colorado will behave in 2016, but I think a small increase in Dem PVI is likely.

    As for the early spending thing, I know that's a fallacy.  No one can "lock down" anything in an election.  I phrased it as trying to lock down, but I should have just said we should focus on it early, spend a lot of money so we don't get caught by surprise, and generally treat it as a critical state.

    •  Possible. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jncca, Skaje, Bobby Big Wheel, MichaelNY

      Two-party vote shares, CO was D+0.9 last time and D+0.7 this time.  It was R+1.2 in 2004.  Gore+Nader got about 51% nationally and about 48% in Colorado, so it was R+3.  Uh, 1996, Bill got a little less than half of the two-party vote, so call it R+5.  1992, who knows, but it was actually probably about even.  It was also quite close to even in 1988.  In 1984 it was perhaps R+5 or R+6.  In 1980 it was probably R+4 to R+10 depending on how you account for Anderson.  1976, R+6.  1972, R+2 or R+3.  It went 50/41/8 for Nixon/Humphrey/Wallace, compared to about 43/43/13 nationally.  Again, that's ambiguous.  It was about even in 1964, about R+5 in 1960, maybe R+2 in 1956, maybe R+5 in 1952, and vaguely even in 1948.

      What's my point?  Just that we should put these "decades-long" trends in context.  Colorado went R+5 to R+3 to R+1 to D+1 from 1996 to 2000 to 2004 to 2008.  I think it's hard to simultaneously believe in Colorado trending D and to believe that Obama over-performed in 2008.  But we also simply shouldn't expect these trends to last forever.  I don't think it's so unlikely that Colorado will settle in as a slightly D-leaning state.

      27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

      by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 01:57:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's definitely something to keep in context (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        we've seen a lot of standpat elections in recent years but that doesn't mean we won't see a lot more schizophrenic voting patterns in the future.

        Sean Trende is a hack but his book "The Lost Majority" is a pretty good read that talks about that kind of stuff.

        RRH expat (known as AquarianLeft). Also known as freepcrusher on leip atlas forum

        by demographicarmageddon on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 02:41:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There ya go again (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Xenocrypt, MichaelNY

        bringing up actual numbers and contradicting my argument. :)

        I knew that Obama shot up significantly in Colorado compared to Kerry, but I hadn't considered that his "overperformance" was about the same level as Kerry's overperformance of Gore+Nader.  So I can't really argue Obama's 2008 numbers in Colorado were uncharacteristically high, as they simply continued the trend of the state gaining a couple points to PVI each election from 1996 on.  1992 is harder to quantify as you note...hard to read too much into a 40-36-24 result...Perot took from both sides heavily in the state.  Before that, Colorado seemed to fluctuate around R+5 going back to the 40s.  So I shouldn't have said decades without actually going back decades.

        You are correct that we cannot expect a trend to continue indefinitely simply because it is a trend.  But based on the changing demographics of Colorado, I suspect it will eventually be considered a bluer state than the midwest group (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) which have been better for Democrats than Colorado for decades...and I actually checked back decades for that one!

        •  And also there's 1988. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Skaje, MichaelNY

          Where Colorado was very close to the national results.  I actually wasn't meaning to contradict you per se--I think Colorado trended D for at least 1996-2008, which would fit with the usual use of "for decades" (i.e., it trended D in the 90s and 00s).

          27, Dem, Dude seeing a dude, CT-04(originally), PA-02/NY-10 (formerly PA-02/NY-12, then PA-02/NY-14).

          by Xenocrypt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 03:07:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site