As we wait for the final tallies, Me and Joe will be doing an analysis of the Colorado State Legislature elections. We both have an hypothesis that the extra money that the Democrats had in most races made the difference.
When that report becomes available, we will post it here. Look for it some time in Mid-December.
As for MHD. We are working on a Colorado Centric version of the Almanac of American Politics. Hopefully we can sell it to High School civics classes and intro to Political Science students at the University level.
We will be tracking the Colorado State Legislature this year, something that few non-partisan institutions do. Each member will have there group ratings posted, will be given MHD ratings for Economic and Social voting patterns, and we will develope, or more probably just apply, something like the Cook Partisan Voting Index. Basically, you'll know who is the most conservative and most liberal members of the body.
Looking forward, we may be moving to a new site in the coming months, somewhere where we can have interactive maps of the Colorado State House and Senate Districts. We won't be neglecting the 2003 elections, god knows what will show up next year.
I'll be posting regularly at Polstate, look for my posts.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Il Silencio...MHD pays tribute to our fighting forces.
Originally from the WSJ last Friday...
But its the letters to be opened in the event of a death that are the most difficult to listen to, and at the same time the most tender, the most loving. Wearing a red sweater with a heart shaped U.S. flag knit into the front, Melissa Givens, the widow of Pfc. Jesse A. Givens, reads from a letter he wrote to her and their two sons:
"My family, I never thought that I would be writing a letter like this, I really don't know where to start. I've been getting bad feelings though and well if you're reading this...The happiest moments in my life all dealt with my little family. I will always have with me the small moments we all shared. the moments when you quit taking life so serious and smiled. The sounds of a beautiful boy's laughter or the simple nudge of a baby unborn. Each one of you. You saved me from the loneliness and taught me how to think beyond myself...Don't ever think that since I wasn't around that I didn't love you. You were conceived of love and I came to this terrible place for love...Please understand that I had to be gone so that I could take care of my family...Do me a favor. After you tuck Toad and Bean in, give them hugs and kisses from me. Go outside and look at the stars and count them. Don't forget to smile."
Pfc. Givens, assigned to Second Squadron, Third Armored Calvary Regiment out of Fort Carson, Colorado, died in a tank accident on May 1, 2003. He was 34 years old.
But its the letters to be opened in the event of a death that are the most difficult to listen to, and at the same time the most tender, the most loving. Wearing a red sweater with a heart shaped U.S. flag knit into the front, Melissa Givens, the widow of Pfc. Jesse A. Givens, reads from a letter he wrote to her and their two sons:
"My family, I never thought that I would be writing a letter like this, I really don't know where to start. I've been getting bad feelings though and well if you're reading this...The happiest moments in my life all dealt with my little family. I will always have with me the small moments we all shared. the moments when you quit taking life so serious and smiled. The sounds of a beautiful boy's laughter or the simple nudge of a baby unborn. Each one of you. You saved me from the loneliness and taught me how to think beyond myself...Don't ever think that since I wasn't around that I didn't love you. You were conceived of love and I came to this terrible place for love...Please understand that I had to be gone so that I could take care of my family...Do me a favor. After you tuck Toad and Bean in, give them hugs and kisses from me. Go outside and look at the stars and count them. Don't forget to smile."
Pfc. Givens, assigned to Second Squadron, Third Armored Calvary Regiment out of Fort Carson, Colorado, died in a tank accident on May 1, 2003. He was 34 years old.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Technology Thursday.
Planning on buying a new computer this holiday season? Ever wondered how to transfer your data from the old PC to the new one? Walter Mossberg has some help for you in today's Wall Street Journal.
The best product that he has found for moving data from one PC to another is Detto IntelliMover. The same company makes a product called Move2Mac that can transfer your data from a PC to a Mac.
If you need to move more than files try Alohabob PC Relocator from Eisenworld. It works for PCs.
Check out the Wall Street Journal's free Personal Technology Website.
The best product that he has found for moving data from one PC to another is Detto IntelliMover. The same company makes a product called Move2Mac that can transfer your data from a PC to a Mac.
If you need to move more than files try Alohabob PC Relocator from Eisenworld. It works for PCs.
Check out the Wall Street Journal's free Personal Technology Website.
Delphi on Election 2004.
Wow, what a great election. Over the next week we will look at the election results and break down how everything came out, basically this much input, that much output.
We almost called the Senate race exactly, (and with such a simple model; Democratic vote percent increases by 3.5% during Prez election cycles, always add 7.5% to GOP vote percent for polling errors, blam you get a net positive of 4% for the GOP candidate) the 2008 race should be great, we are looking at an open GOP seat (Allard won't be running) and a open Prez race.
The House races had no real surprises. Even with Jared Polis, the twenty something internet millionare, pouring money into ads against Beauprez and Musgrave, the Democrats only picked up the 3rd (Walcher surged at the end, but our initial projection was almost spot on, goes to show that you shouldn't tweak a econometric model with soft variables, such as our "surge factor" that pushed the 3rd into the toss-up category. We still called all the races correctly.
The State Senate was within our predicted range. Look for a huge battle in two years to take back the chamber by the GOP. The lesson must be learned that Colorado voters split tickets, they vote for the person, not the party. The GOP cannot afford to underfund their State Senate candidates. Our initial numbers on these races show that the Democrats outspent the GOP by a margin of 2:1, and for that they only gained a cumulative win differential (Dem vote % - GOP vote %) of 1.2%. They will have some massive fights ahead if they hope to keep the State Senate for longer than two years.
The State House was a complete surprise. We forcasted a 2 seat pickup, not a five seat loss. Haven't even started to crunch the numbers. But we are going to find a way to account for all the independent group numbers.
What to look for in 2006, the Governor's seat, State Senate and State House.
Our early projections will start this spring.
Watch for some major gridlock this spring, as the GOP minority and Governor Owens will try to force the Dems to push more radical bills that will be vetoed and used in 2006 as campaign fodder.
We almost called the Senate race exactly, (and with such a simple model; Democratic vote percent increases by 3.5% during Prez election cycles, always add 7.5% to GOP vote percent for polling errors, blam you get a net positive of 4% for the GOP candidate) the 2008 race should be great, we are looking at an open GOP seat (Allard won't be running) and a open Prez race.
The House races had no real surprises. Even with Jared Polis, the twenty something internet millionare, pouring money into ads against Beauprez and Musgrave, the Democrats only picked up the 3rd (Walcher surged at the end, but our initial projection was almost spot on, goes to show that you shouldn't tweak a econometric model with soft variables, such as our "surge factor" that pushed the 3rd into the toss-up category. We still called all the races correctly.
The State Senate was within our predicted range. Look for a huge battle in two years to take back the chamber by the GOP. The lesson must be learned that Colorado voters split tickets, they vote for the person, not the party. The GOP cannot afford to underfund their State Senate candidates. Our initial numbers on these races show that the Democrats outspent the GOP by a margin of 2:1, and for that they only gained a cumulative win differential (Dem vote % - GOP vote %) of 1.2%. They will have some massive fights ahead if they hope to keep the State Senate for longer than two years.
The State House was a complete surprise. We forcasted a 2 seat pickup, not a five seat loss. Haven't even started to crunch the numbers. But we are going to find a way to account for all the independent group numbers.
What to look for in 2006, the Governor's seat, State Senate and State House.
Our early projections will start this spring.
Watch for some major gridlock this spring, as the GOP minority and Governor Owens will try to force the Dems to push more radical bills that will be vetoed and used in 2006 as campaign fodder.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Colorado Election Results Mixed Bag for GOP, MHD.
The following is cross posted at Polstate where I blogged the election live.
President: Bush (R)
Senate: Salazar (D)
House: out of 7, 3 (D), 3 (R), one to close to call (3rd).
Major Setbacks for GOP in the State Senate, as of this writing GOP may lose control of the State Senate by one vote.
Also in the State House, the unthinkable, a major Democratic coup, Dems knock off at least five GOP seats, may take State House for first time in over a generation.
9:15 CBS Projects Colorado For Bush.
11:00 Rocky Mountain News Projects Salazar the winner of Colorado's Senate Seat.
11:02 Drudge Calls the Election for Bush. GOP Headquarters went wild.
As of midnight.
President: MHD: Bush. Results: Bush (R) 53%, Kerry (D) 46%. 70% reporting.
U.S. Senate: MHD: Salazar (D) 50.3%, Coors (D) 48.3%. Results: Salazar 51%, Coors 48%. 82% reporting.
U.S. House:
District 1: MHD: Degette. Results: Degette (D) 73%, Chicas (R) 24%. 88% reporting.
District 2: MHD: Udall. Results: Udall (D) 63%, Hackman (R) 34%. 54% reporting.
District 3: MHD: Toss-up. Results: Salazar (D) 49%, Walcher (R) 47%. 67% reporting.
District 4: MHD:Musgrave. Results: Musgrave (R) 51%, Matsunaka (D) 44%. 68% reporting.
District 5: MHD: Hefley. Results: Hefley (R) 70%, Hardee (D) 27%. 91% reporting.
District 6: MHD: Tancredo. Results: Tancredo (R) 59%, Conti (D) 38%. 99% reporting.
District 7: MHD: Beauprez. Results: Beauprez (R) 55%, Thomas (D) 42%. 98% reporting.
State Senate: MHD: GOP 17-20, Dems 15-18. Results: GOP 17, Dems 17, Toss-up 1. GOP has lost SD 28, only if Hume wins in SD 17 can they hold the State Senate. As of this writing zero % reporting.
State House: MHD: GOP 39, Dems 26. Results GOP 30, Dems 32, Toss-up 3. Reports coming in over 850 KOA, the GOP may also lose the State House for the first time since Watergate, Dems have picked up HD 18, 29, 31, 61 and 64. HD 48, 50 and 56 are still either to close to call or don't have enough results in. Either way this is a major set back for the Republican State Party.
State Wide Ballot Issues:
Amendment 34 - Developer Lawsuit Reform: MHD:For 36%, Against 64%. Results: For 23%, Against 76%. 83% reporting.
Amendment 35 - Raise Taxes on Cigarettes: MHD:For 55%, Against 45%. Results: For 61%, Against 38%. 83% reporting.
Amendment 36 - Electoral College Reform: MHD:For 25%, Against 75%. Results: For 34%, Against 65%. 83% reporting.
Amendment 37 - Renewable Energy Mandates: MHD:For 46%, Against 54%. Results: For 52%, Against 47%. 80% reporting.
Ref. A: MHD: Pass. Results: For 39%, Against 60%. 80% reporting.
Ref. B: MHD: Pass. Results: For 69%, Against 30%. 80% reporting.
Denver Metro Items.
Ref. 4A (FasTracks): MHD: For 46%, Against 54%. Results: For 58%, Against 41%. 71% reporting.
Ref. 4B (SCFD): MHD: Pass. Results: For 65%, Against 34%. 85% reporting.
State Senate Seat By Seat (Campaign Funds for Select Races)
SD 1 Eastern Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 2 Southeastern Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 3 Northwest Pueblo County (D)
No Election
SD 4 Lake, Park, Teller, Douglas Counties and northwestern El Paso County (Leans Rep)
Jim Miller (D) $31,055 vs. Tom Weins $45,235(R) Projected Winner (R)
SD 5 South Central Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 6 Southwestern Colorado (D)
No Election
SD 7 Mesa County (R)
No Election
SD 8 Northwestern Colorado (Weak Rep)
Inc. Jack Taylor $40,080(R) vs. Jay Fetcher $69,381(D) Projected Winner (R)
SD 9 Northern El Paso County (R)
No Election
SD 10 Eastern El Paso County (Strong Rep)
Inc. Ron May (R) unopposed
SD 11 Central Colorado Springs (R)
No Election
SD 12 Southern El Paso County (Strong Rep)
Inc. Andy McElhany (R) vs. Robert Herzfeld (Lib.) no Dem. Projected Winner (R)
SD 13 Most of Weld County (R)
No Election
SD 14 Ft. Collins (Toss-up)
Bob Bacon $161,098(D) vs. Ray Martinez $1,425(R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 15 Larimer County except Ft. Collins (R)
No Election
SD 16 North central mountains (D)
No Election
SD 17 Louisville, Lafayette (Toss-up)
Brandon Shaffer $117,421(D) vs. Sandy Hume $68,065(R) Projected Winner (Not enough data)
SD 18 Boulder (Safe Dem)
Inc. Ron Tupa (D) vs. Krista Poch (R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 19 Arvada, Westminster (Weak Dem)
Inc. Sue Windels $115,701(D) vs. Jessica Corry $59,425(R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 20 Golden, Wheat Ridge (D)
No Election
SD 21 Lakewood (Leans Dem)
Inc. Deanna Hanna $125,858(D) vs. Tori Merritts Unknown(R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 22 Southern Jefferson County (R)
No Election
SD 23 Southern Weld County (Leans Rep)
Shawn Mitchell $39,345(R) vs. Curt Darius Williams $10,334(D) Projected Winner (R)
SD 24 Federal Heights (D)
No Election
SD 25 Adams County (Leans Dem)
Inc. Stephanie Takis (D) vs. Kevin Blount (R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 26 Englewood, Littleton (Leans Rep)
Inc. Jim Dyer $15,584(R) vs. Jared Ingwalson (D) Projected Winner (R)
SD 27 Eastern Arapahoe County (Leans Rep)
Inc. Nancy Spence $36,245(R) vs. Lisa Love $2,476(D) Projected Winner (R)
SD 28 Southern Aurora (Toss-up)
Inc. Bruce Cairnes $61,210(R) vs. Suzanne Williams $136,991(D) Projected Winner (D)
SD 29 Northen Aurora (Safe Dem)
Inc. Bob Hagedorn (D) vs. Mike Martin (R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 30 Parker, Highlands Ranch (R)
No Election
SD 31 Central, Northwest Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Jennifer Veiga unopposed Projected Winner (D)
SD 32 South Denver (Safe Dem)
No Election
SD 33 Northeast Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Peter Groff unopposed Projected Winner (D)
SD 34 West Denver (D)
No Election
SD 35 Southeast Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Ken Gordon (D) vs. Ron Olson (R) Projected Winner (D)
President: Bush (R)
Senate: Salazar (D)
House: out of 7, 3 (D), 3 (R), one to close to call (3rd).
Major Setbacks for GOP in the State Senate, as of this writing GOP may lose control of the State Senate by one vote.
Also in the State House, the unthinkable, a major Democratic coup, Dems knock off at least five GOP seats, may take State House for first time in over a generation.
9:15 CBS Projects Colorado For Bush.
11:00 Rocky Mountain News Projects Salazar the winner of Colorado's Senate Seat.
11:02 Drudge Calls the Election for Bush. GOP Headquarters went wild.
As of midnight.
President: MHD: Bush. Results: Bush (R) 53%, Kerry (D) 46%. 70% reporting.
U.S. Senate: MHD: Salazar (D) 50.3%, Coors (D) 48.3%. Results: Salazar 51%, Coors 48%. 82% reporting.
U.S. House:
District 1: MHD: Degette. Results: Degette (D) 73%, Chicas (R) 24%. 88% reporting.
District 2: MHD: Udall. Results: Udall (D) 63%, Hackman (R) 34%. 54% reporting.
District 3: MHD: Toss-up. Results: Salazar (D) 49%, Walcher (R) 47%. 67% reporting.
District 4: MHD:Musgrave. Results: Musgrave (R) 51%, Matsunaka (D) 44%. 68% reporting.
District 5: MHD: Hefley. Results: Hefley (R) 70%, Hardee (D) 27%. 91% reporting.
District 6: MHD: Tancredo. Results: Tancredo (R) 59%, Conti (D) 38%. 99% reporting.
District 7: MHD: Beauprez. Results: Beauprez (R) 55%, Thomas (D) 42%. 98% reporting.
State Senate: MHD: GOP 17-20, Dems 15-18. Results: GOP 17, Dems 17, Toss-up 1. GOP has lost SD 28, only if Hume wins in SD 17 can they hold the State Senate. As of this writing zero % reporting.
State House: MHD: GOP 39, Dems 26. Results GOP 30, Dems 32, Toss-up 3. Reports coming in over 850 KOA, the GOP may also lose the State House for the first time since Watergate, Dems have picked up HD 18, 29, 31, 61 and 64. HD 48, 50 and 56 are still either to close to call or don't have enough results in. Either way this is a major set back for the Republican State Party.
State Wide Ballot Issues:
Amendment 34 - Developer Lawsuit Reform: MHD:For 36%, Against 64%. Results: For 23%, Against 76%. 83% reporting.
Amendment 35 - Raise Taxes on Cigarettes: MHD:For 55%, Against 45%. Results: For 61%, Against 38%. 83% reporting.
Amendment 36 - Electoral College Reform: MHD:For 25%, Against 75%. Results: For 34%, Against 65%. 83% reporting.
Amendment 37 - Renewable Energy Mandates: MHD:For 46%, Against 54%. Results: For 52%, Against 47%. 80% reporting.
Ref. A: MHD: Pass. Results: For 39%, Against 60%. 80% reporting.
Ref. B: MHD: Pass. Results: For 69%, Against 30%. 80% reporting.
Denver Metro Items.
Ref. 4A (FasTracks): MHD: For 46%, Against 54%. Results: For 58%, Against 41%. 71% reporting.
Ref. 4B (SCFD): MHD: Pass. Results: For 65%, Against 34%. 85% reporting.
State Senate Seat By Seat (Campaign Funds for Select Races)
SD 1 Eastern Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 2 Southeastern Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 3 Northwest Pueblo County (D)
No Election
SD 4 Lake, Park, Teller, Douglas Counties and northwestern El Paso County (Leans Rep)
Jim Miller (D) $31,055 vs. Tom Weins $45,235(R) Projected Winner (R)
SD 5 South Central Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 6 Southwestern Colorado (D)
No Election
SD 7 Mesa County (R)
No Election
SD 8 Northwestern Colorado (Weak Rep)
Inc. Jack Taylor $40,080(R) vs. Jay Fetcher $69,381(D) Projected Winner (R)
SD 9 Northern El Paso County (R)
No Election
SD 10 Eastern El Paso County (Strong Rep)
Inc. Ron May (R) unopposed
SD 11 Central Colorado Springs (R)
No Election
SD 12 Southern El Paso County (Strong Rep)
Inc. Andy McElhany (R) vs. Robert Herzfeld (Lib.) no Dem. Projected Winner (R)
SD 13 Most of Weld County (R)
No Election
SD 14 Ft. Collins (Toss-up)
Bob Bacon $161,098(D) vs. Ray Martinez $1,425(R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 15 Larimer County except Ft. Collins (R)
No Election
SD 16 North central mountains (D)
No Election
SD 17 Louisville, Lafayette (Toss-up)
Brandon Shaffer $117,421(D) vs. Sandy Hume $68,065(R) Projected Winner (Not enough data)
SD 18 Boulder (Safe Dem)
Inc. Ron Tupa (D) vs. Krista Poch (R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 19 Arvada, Westminster (Weak Dem)
Inc. Sue Windels $115,701(D) vs. Jessica Corry $59,425(R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 20 Golden, Wheat Ridge (D)
No Election
SD 21 Lakewood (Leans Dem)
Inc. Deanna Hanna $125,858(D) vs. Tori Merritts Unknown(R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 22 Southern Jefferson County (R)
No Election
SD 23 Southern Weld County (Leans Rep)
Shawn Mitchell $39,345(R) vs. Curt Darius Williams $10,334(D) Projected Winner (R)
SD 24 Federal Heights (D)
No Election
SD 25 Adams County (Leans Dem)
Inc. Stephanie Takis (D) vs. Kevin Blount (R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 26 Englewood, Littleton (Leans Rep)
Inc. Jim Dyer $15,584(R) vs. Jared Ingwalson (D) Projected Winner (R)
SD 27 Eastern Arapahoe County (Leans Rep)
Inc. Nancy Spence $36,245(R) vs. Lisa Love $2,476(D) Projected Winner (R)
SD 28 Southern Aurora (Toss-up)
Inc. Bruce Cairnes $61,210(R) vs. Suzanne Williams $136,991(D) Projected Winner (D)
SD 29 Northen Aurora (Safe Dem)
Inc. Bob Hagedorn (D) vs. Mike Martin (R) Projected Winner (D)
SD 30 Parker, Highlands Ranch (R)
No Election
SD 31 Central, Northwest Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Jennifer Veiga unopposed Projected Winner (D)
SD 32 South Denver (Safe Dem)
No Election
SD 33 Northeast Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Peter Groff unopposed Projected Winner (D)
SD 34 West Denver (D)
No Election
SD 35 Southeast Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Ken Gordon (D) vs. Ron Olson (R) Projected Winner (D)
Monday, November 01, 2004
Final Projections.
President Bush 273, Kerry 265. GOP Hold.
U.S. Senate 52 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Ind. GOP Hold.
U.S. House 234 Republicans, 201 Democrats (including Sanders of Vermont). GOP Hold.
Colorado Senate Salazar (D) 50.3%, Coors (R) 48.3%. Dem Pickup.
Colorado House CD 1(D) Strong Dem, CD 2(D) Strong Dem, CD 3(Toss-up) , CD 4(R) Leans GOP, CD 5(R) Strong GOP, CD 6(R) Strong GOP, CD 7(R) Weak GOP.
Final Projection for the 3rd, a tie of 47%-47%. As such it is a toss-up, but all the momentum is for the GOP.
Delphi on the Colorado State Legislative Races.
State Senate 17-20 Republicans, 15-18 Democrats. Leans GOP.
State House 39 Republicans, 26 Democrats. GOP Hold.
State Wide (Except 4A and 4B) Ballot Issues. (Confidence Levels)
Amendment 34 - Developer Lawsuit Reforms - For 36%, Against 64%. (Landslide)
Amendment 35 - Raise Taxes on Cigarettes - For 55%, Against 45%. (Weak)
Amendment 36 - Reforming Colorado's Electorial College Vote - For 25%, Against 75%. (Landslide)
Amendment 37 - Renewable Energy Mandates - For 46%, Against 54%. (Weak)
FasTracks (Ref. 4A) - For 46%, Against 54%. (Weak)
SCFD (Ref. 4B) - For , Against . (Landslide)
Ref. A - Pass (Landslide)
Ref. B - Pass (Landslide)
U.S. Senate 52 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Ind. GOP Hold.
U.S. House 234 Republicans, 201 Democrats (including Sanders of Vermont). GOP Hold.
Colorado Senate Salazar (D) 50.3%, Coors (R) 48.3%. Dem Pickup.
Colorado House CD 1(D) Strong Dem, CD 2(D) Strong Dem, CD 3(Toss-up) , CD 4(R) Leans GOP, CD 5(R) Strong GOP, CD 6(R) Strong GOP, CD 7(R) Weak GOP.
Final Projection for the 3rd, a tie of 47%-47%. As such it is a toss-up, but all the momentum is for the GOP.
Delphi on the Colorado State Legislative Races.
State Senate 17-20 Republicans, 15-18 Democrats. Leans GOP.
State House 39 Republicans, 26 Democrats. GOP Hold.
State Wide (Except 4A and 4B) Ballot Issues. (Confidence Levels)
Amendment 34 - Developer Lawsuit Reforms - For 36%, Against 64%. (Landslide)
Amendment 35 - Raise Taxes on Cigarettes - For 55%, Against 45%. (Weak)
Amendment 36 - Reforming Colorado's Electorial College Vote - For 25%, Against 75%. (Landslide)
Amendment 37 - Renewable Energy Mandates - For 46%, Against 54%. (Weak)
FasTracks (Ref. 4A) - For 46%, Against 54%. (Weak)
SCFD (Ref. 4B) - For , Against . (Landslide)
Ref. A - Pass (Landslide)
Ref. B - Pass (Landslide)
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Technology Tuesday.
Taken from Lee Gomes "Portals" 10/04/2004 in the Wall Street Journal.
"What is it about the future that leaves us unable to ever quite guess how its going to turn out? The question comes up, this time, because of the recent, much discussed ascent of Web logs, or blogs. The blogging phenomenon illustrates how some very smart people ended up being both very right and very wrong about a future just beyond the horizon.
A year ago, blogs -outside of the small circle of people who actually wrote and read them- were regarded as the daily diaries of peole with no real lives to chronicle in the first place. No more...For historians of technical predictions, blogs are noteworthy because of what the reveal aobut the evolution of something called XML.
XML stands for Extensible Markup Language. It's basically a format that two computers can use to exchange information.
Five or so years ago, XML was going to be technology's Next Big Thing. If you remember Microsoft's .Net initiative...XML was the catalyst the wold enable .Net...
Fast forword now to something called RSS, or Really Simple Syndication, with is a technology that bloggers use to, in a manner of speaking, broadcast their writing throughout the Internet. RSS, it turns out, is actually a kind of XML.
Because of blogging, RSS is very hot right now, and it's spreading quickly...Last week, Yahoo gave RSS a big embrace: If something is available in RSS, you'll be able to put it on your My Yahoo page.
In other words, thanks to blogs, XML-in the form of RSS- has finally arrived...
One issue to watch with the current growth spurt of RSS is what it will do to traditional Web economics. For example, some political junkies...spend much of their time these days using Web site called Bloglines to follow election oriented blogs. Because of its felicitous use of RSS technology, Bloglines will often let you read all of the entries from some very popular blogs without leaving the bloglines site- in other words, without vistiong each blogs Web pages individually.
What will happen when bloggers realize that RSS may lead to fewer eyeballs at their sites?
"What is it about the future that leaves us unable to ever quite guess how its going to turn out? The question comes up, this time, because of the recent, much discussed ascent of Web logs, or blogs. The blogging phenomenon illustrates how some very smart people ended up being both very right and very wrong about a future just beyond the horizon.
A year ago, blogs -outside of the small circle of people who actually wrote and read them- were regarded as the daily diaries of peole with no real lives to chronicle in the first place. No more...For historians of technical predictions, blogs are noteworthy because of what the reveal aobut the evolution of something called XML.
XML stands for Extensible Markup Language. It's basically a format that two computers can use to exchange information.
Five or so years ago, XML was going to be technology's Next Big Thing. If you remember Microsoft's .Net initiative...XML was the catalyst the wold enable .Net...
Fast forword now to something called RSS, or Really Simple Syndication, with is a technology that bloggers use to, in a manner of speaking, broadcast their writing throughout the Internet. RSS, it turns out, is actually a kind of XML.
Because of blogging, RSS is very hot right now, and it's spreading quickly...Last week, Yahoo gave RSS a big embrace: If something is available in RSS, you'll be able to put it on your My Yahoo page.
In other words, thanks to blogs, XML-in the form of RSS- has finally arrived...
One issue to watch with the current growth spurt of RSS is what it will do to traditional Web economics. For example, some political junkies...spend much of their time these days using Web site called Bloglines to follow election oriented blogs. Because of its felicitous use of RSS technology, Bloglines will often let you read all of the entries from some very popular blogs without leaving the bloglines site- in other words, without vistiong each blogs Web pages individually.
What will happen when bloggers realize that RSS may lead to fewer eyeballs at their sites?
Monday, October 11, 2004
Delphi on Colorado State-Wide Referenda.
MHD is currently working on a universal model to predict these state wide issues. If I can finish tweaking it this week, you should see something much like the CAPM that you may have met in Biz School.
If you see any links missing, or want me to add your site, tell me. If you know of any poll I may have missed, tell me.
Amendment 34. Pro side Committee to Take Back Our Property Rights . Con side Coloradans for Responsible Reform.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
9/14-18-Cirulli-43%-31%
9/23-POS-44%-41%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-22%-64%
Amendment 35. Pro side Citizens for a Healthier Colorado. Against a group called "Protect Our Constitution, Vote No on 35" which doesn't seem to have a website and The Independece Institute a libertarian think tank which opposes most tax increases.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
10/8-SUSA-62%-36%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-58%-35%
Amendment 36. Pro side All Votes Matter. Against Coloradoans Against a Really Stupid Idea and Tyroblog's 86 36, a blog devoted to defeating Amendment 36.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
9/22-RMN/News4-47%-35%
10/6-Mason/Dixon-35%-44%
10/8-SUSA-45%-44%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-31%-55%
Amendment 37. Pro side Coloradans for Clean Energy. Against Citizens for Sensible Energy Choices.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
9/12-13-POS-74%-19%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-45%-39%
Ref. 4-A "FasTracks". Not state wide, only in Denver area. Pro side FasTracks Yes!. Against Taxpayers Against Congestion and The Independence Institute.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
12/15-16-POS-63%-33%
4/30-Hill-69%-30%
9/12-13-POS-62%-32%
10/8-Hill-52%-25%
FasTracks Yes! released a internal poll from the same time as the Denver Metro Chamber's Hill poll, but until some internals are available, I'm loath to add it.
10/8-Mason-Dixon-54%-33%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-50%39%
If you see any links missing, or want me to add your site, tell me. If you know of any poll I may have missed, tell me.
Amendment 34. Pro side Committee to Take Back Our Property Rights . Con side Coloradans for Responsible Reform.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
9/14-18-Cirulli-43%-31%
9/23-POS-44%-41%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-22%-64%
Amendment 35. Pro side Citizens for a Healthier Colorado. Against a group called "Protect Our Constitution, Vote No on 35" which doesn't seem to have a website and The Independece Institute a libertarian think tank which opposes most tax increases.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
10/8-SUSA-62%-36%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-58%-35%
Amendment 36. Pro side All Votes Matter. Against Coloradoans Against a Really Stupid Idea and Tyroblog's 86 36, a blog devoted to defeating Amendment 36.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
9/22-RMN/News4-47%-35%
10/6-Mason/Dixon-35%-44%
10/8-SUSA-45%-44%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-31%-55%
Amendment 37. Pro side Coloradans for Clean Energy. Against Citizens for Sensible Energy Choices.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
9/12-13-POS-74%-19%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-45%-39%
Ref. 4-A "FasTracks". Not state wide, only in Denver area. Pro side FasTracks Yes!. Against Taxpayers Against Congestion and The Independence Institute.
Past Poll Results:
Date-Firm-For-Against
12/15-16-POS-63%-33%
4/30-Hill-69%-30%
9/12-13-POS-62%-32%
10/8-Hill-52%-25%
FasTracks Yes! released a internal poll from the same time as the Denver Metro Chamber's Hill poll, but until some internals are available, I'm loath to add it.
10/8-Mason-Dixon-54%-33%
10/25-27-Mason-Dixon-50%39%
Delphi on Colorado, Monday updates.
This week we will finish our links to Colorado Races.
Monday: Links and averages for state-wide issues.
Tuesday: Technology Tuesday and finish links to State Legislative Races. We will have links to all State Senate Races. Our links to State House Races will only be for battle-ground districts.
Wednesday: Wictory Wednesday and our new and improved models for state-wide issues and for the congressional district races.
Thursday: Technology Thursday and predictions for all State Senate races.
Friday: Financial Friday. We find great articles on personal finance, you use them to increase your wealth.
Monday: Links and averages for state-wide issues.
Tuesday: Technology Tuesday and finish links to State Legislative Races. We will have links to all State Senate Races. Our links to State House Races will only be for battle-ground districts.
Wednesday: Wictory Wednesday and our new and improved models for state-wide issues and for the congressional district races.
Thursday: Technology Thursday and predictions for all State Senate races.
Friday: Financial Friday. We find great articles on personal finance, you use them to increase your wealth.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Updated Presidential and Senate Predictions.
We have added Real Clear Politics to our electoral vote average. The new averages (dividing tossups in half) gives Bush a lead of 283 electoral votes and Kerry trails with 255 electoral votes. The only site to update its figures was Electoral-Vote.com, its old figures were Bush-285 and Kerry-232 with 17 electoral votes tied. Electoral-Vote.com now has Kerry leading 280-239 with 19 electoral votes tied.
Our old figures were Bush-293, Kerry 245 on 10/6/2004. Bush has lost 10 EV in the last two days.
We have also updated our Colorado Senate race figures. Coors now leads Salazar 50.33% to 48.66%. The new USA Today poll, which shows Salazar with a massive lead has pulled the race into basically a dead-heat.
Our old figures were Coors 53.2%, Salazar 46.6% on 9/28/2004.
Our old figures were Bush-293, Kerry 245 on 10/6/2004. Bush has lost 10 EV in the last two days.
We have also updated our Colorado Senate race figures. Coors now leads Salazar 50.33% to 48.66%. The new USA Today poll, which shows Salazar with a massive lead has pulled the race into basically a dead-heat.
Our old figures were Coors 53.2%, Salazar 46.6% on 9/28/2004.
Delphi on the Second Presidential Debate.
With Bush and Kerry dead-locked in the polls here in Colorado, scores of CU students have decided that the best way to deal with the close election is the have some fun.
Your correspondent will (at great personal risk being a Republican in Boulder) attend several of these "Debate" parties. It seems that a new drinking game has sprung up around the presidential race. Every time either candidate says "Iraq" everyone has to take a drink. From what I understand, that doesn’t mean a sip, but a shot or an entire beer.
Hopefully I can avoid being in any house when foreign policy comes up, but if I am, I'll be taking pictures to document the student's rebellion against the administration's crackdown on drinking, and the constant badgering from liberals and conservatives alike, ie "Are you registered to vote?"
Cross posted at Polstate.com, which also has a open thread for the debate, feel free to go over there and debate the debate, nonpartisan site with lots of traffic.
Your correspondent will (at great personal risk being a Republican in Boulder) attend several of these "Debate" parties. It seems that a new drinking game has sprung up around the presidential race. Every time either candidate says "Iraq" everyone has to take a drink. From what I understand, that doesn’t mean a sip, but a shot or an entire beer.
Hopefully I can avoid being in any house when foreign policy comes up, but if I am, I'll be taking pictures to document the student's rebellion against the administration's crackdown on drinking, and the constant badgering from liberals and conservatives alike, ie "Are you registered to vote?"
Cross posted at Polstate.com, which also has a open thread for the debate, feel free to go over there and debate the debate, nonpartisan site with lots of traffic.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Wictory Wednesday. Focus on SD 19.
State Senate District 19 (Westminster and Arvada) is our featured legislative race this cycle. It pits incumbent Sue Windels (D) against Jessica Corry (R).
This district was, until four years ago, represented by the solidly conservative Jim Congrove, who now is running for Jeffco Commissioner after defeating a rare Republican RTD Director, Wally Pulliam.
Jessica Corry works at the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank in Golden that has been the spring board for such Colorado conservative icons as Jon Caldara, Mike Rosen, Tom Tancredo and Bill Armstrong. Jessica heads up the Campus Accountability Project, an effort “to serve as an educational resource on free speech, ideological diversity, and racial discrimination, and to operate as a watch dog, seeking to ensure that universities are observing the individual rights of faculty, staff, and students.”
She faces Sue Windels (who Joe will be interviewing in a week or so for balance). Senator Windels, who won victory last time by less than the margin of the Libertarian candidate, has not voted like the moderate she would need to be to keep the seat, instead she has voted like a true liberal. The GOP won her State House seat back when she went to the Senate, its time to bring this seat back to the GOP.
MHD chose this seat because it is the home of the most vulnerable incumbent. It also represents the huge difference in ideology between the two candidates. Windels has raised $80,551 so far. Her top five donors are the DSCF Democratic Senate C Fund: $5,000, JCEA-PAC Small Donor Committee:$2,000, Colorado Professional Firefighters SDC: $2,000, Pipefitters Local 208: $2,000, Colorado AFL-CIO Nonparisian: $2,000. A lot of Union money and small donor committee money coming in here.
Corry has so far raised $42,860, her top five contributors are herself: $8,000, Steve Durham: $400, Chris Drummond: $200, Joe Smith: $200, Linda Corry: $200. Besides herself, her largest contributors are small personal donations. She needs help if she is going to win. Donate here. I’ve put together four volunteers who are going to help me walk her district with her. I challenge everyone who reads this and is a GOP partisan, donate $40 dollars to Jessica, then e-mail me or post your donation. Lets set a goal of $400. I just need nine other people to pitch in to reach that goal.
Oh, and trust me, Joe is working on something for our liberal readers, Colorado Republicans have got to get their butts in gear; we’re slacking.
This district was, until four years ago, represented by the solidly conservative Jim Congrove, who now is running for Jeffco Commissioner after defeating a rare Republican RTD Director, Wally Pulliam.
Jessica Corry works at the Independence Institute, a libertarian think tank in Golden that has been the spring board for such Colorado conservative icons as Jon Caldara, Mike Rosen, Tom Tancredo and Bill Armstrong. Jessica heads up the Campus Accountability Project, an effort “to serve as an educational resource on free speech, ideological diversity, and racial discrimination, and to operate as a watch dog, seeking to ensure that universities are observing the individual rights of faculty, staff, and students.”
She faces Sue Windels (who Joe will be interviewing in a week or so for balance). Senator Windels, who won victory last time by less than the margin of the Libertarian candidate, has not voted like the moderate she would need to be to keep the seat, instead she has voted like a true liberal. The GOP won her State House seat back when she went to the Senate, its time to bring this seat back to the GOP.
MHD chose this seat because it is the home of the most vulnerable incumbent. It also represents the huge difference in ideology between the two candidates. Windels has raised $80,551 so far. Her top five donors are the DSCF Democratic Senate C Fund: $5,000, JCEA-PAC Small Donor Committee:$2,000, Colorado Professional Firefighters SDC: $2,000, Pipefitters Local 208: $2,000, Colorado AFL-CIO Nonparisian: $2,000. A lot of Union money and small donor committee money coming in here.
Corry has so far raised $42,860, her top five contributors are herself: $8,000, Steve Durham: $400, Chris Drummond: $200, Joe Smith: $200, Linda Corry: $200. Besides herself, her largest contributors are small personal donations. She needs help if she is going to win. Donate here. I’ve put together four volunteers who are going to help me walk her district with her. I challenge everyone who reads this and is a GOP partisan, donate $40 dollars to Jessica, then e-mail me or post your donation. Lets set a goal of $400. I just need nine other people to pitch in to reach that goal.
Oh, and trust me, Joe is working on something for our liberal readers, Colorado Republicans have got to get their butts in gear; we’re slacking.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Delphi on the Presidential Race.
Final Update: 11/01/2004
Our final average for the 2004 election is in. Bush should narrowly beat Kerry 273 to 265. In the popular vote, the averages predict a small Bush victory of 49.66% to Kerry's 48.35%.
My personal projection, it won't be that close. We will know by about midnight mountain time who the winner is.
Update: 10/11/2004. Three updates today. Election Projection is now forecasting a narrow Bush win. Bush 274, Kerry 264. Electoral-Vote.com is forecasting a Kerry win with Kerry getting 280 electoral votes and Bush getting 254 (NH is a toss-up). Real Clear Politics is forecasting Bush getting 264, Kerry getting 220, with 54 electoral votes in tossup states.
The Crystal Ball and Federal Review have no updates.
As such the new totals are Bush 274+256+295+284+264+27/5 = 280. Kerry 264+282+243+254+220+27/5 = 258.
On 10/6/2004 the average was Bush 293, Kerry 245. Two days later it was Bush 283, Kerry 255. As it stands now, Bush has lost 3 electoral votes since 10/9/04 and Kerry has picked up three.
Original Post: 10/06/2004
MHD isn't even going to try to do the heavy lifting in the Presidential race. Instead, we will update on a regular basis the average electoral college numbers from Election Projection, Electoral-Vote.com, Federal Review and The Crystal Ball. Each site is weighted the same.
If you know of any other sites that deserve to be included in the average, post it, we are slaves to our readers.
Our final average for the 2004 election is in. Bush should narrowly beat Kerry 273 to 265. In the popular vote, the averages predict a small Bush victory of 49.66% to Kerry's 48.35%.
My personal projection, it won't be that close. We will know by about midnight mountain time who the winner is.
Update: 10/11/2004. Three updates today. Election Projection is now forecasting a narrow Bush win. Bush 274, Kerry 264. Electoral-Vote.com is forecasting a Kerry win with Kerry getting 280 electoral votes and Bush getting 254 (NH is a toss-up). Real Clear Politics is forecasting Bush getting 264, Kerry getting 220, with 54 electoral votes in tossup states.
The Crystal Ball and Federal Review have no updates.
As such the new totals are Bush 274+256+295+284+264+27/5 = 280. Kerry 264+282+243+254+220+27/5 = 258.
On 10/6/2004 the average was Bush 293, Kerry 245. Two days later it was Bush 283, Kerry 255. As it stands now, Bush has lost 3 electoral votes since 10/9/04 and Kerry has picked up three.
Original Post: 10/06/2004
MHD isn't even going to try to do the heavy lifting in the Presidential race. Instead, we will update on a regular basis the average electoral college numbers from Election Projection, Electoral-Vote.com, Federal Review and The Crystal Ball. Each site is weighted the same.
If you know of any other sites that deserve to be included in the average, post it, we are slaves to our readers.
This week at MHD.
This week MHD will focus on one very important thing, making the site more user friendly. In the pursuit of this, we will be adding links to nearly all of the candidates in the Colorado legislative races and links to the ballot issues.
Wictory Wednesday will come off as usual.
Thursday will be "Technology Thursday" with some great links to resources that will help you take advantage of the future of radio and cleaning up that messy pile of business cards in your desk drawer.
Sometime during the week we will add in the links to the legislative races, ballot issues and Federal candidates.
Over the weekend we will introduce our new model for predicting races, we still have about a hundred data points to enter, and then we have to teak the model, but by Monday, you should be able to look at predictions for all the Colorado ballot issues and legislative races.
Wictory Wednesday will come off as usual.
Thursday will be "Technology Thursday" with some great links to resources that will help you take advantage of the future of radio and cleaning up that messy pile of business cards in your desk drawer.
Sometime during the week we will add in the links to the legislative races, ballot issues and Federal candidates.
Over the weekend we will introduce our new model for predicting races, we still have about a hundred data points to enter, and then we have to teak the model, but by Monday, you should be able to look at predictions for all the Colorado ballot issues and legislative races.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Delphi on the Colorado Legislative Races.
As it stands now the GOP controls Colorado's State Senate by a single vote. This election the Democrats stand to pick up maybe one seat, but they are defending two very competitive seats. It could break either way.
Best Democratic Projection: Dem. 18, Rep. 17.
Best GOP Projection: Rep. 20, Dem. 15.
Current Estimates: Dem. 15-18, Rep. 17-20. Likely outcome: leans GOP.
Interactive Maps: State Senate Districts Outside the Metro Area.
Metro Denver State Senate Districts.
The Colorado House is safe GOP, it would take a major shift (a la Watergate) for the Democratic party to take control of the State House.
State Senate Seat By Seat:
SD 1 Eastern Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 2 Southeastern Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 3 Northwest Pueblo County (D)
No Election
SD 4 Lake, Park, Teller, Douglas Counties and northwestern El Paso County (Leans Rep)
Jim Miller (D) $31,055 vs. Tom Weins $45,235(R)
SD 5 South Central Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 6 Southwestern Colorado (D)
No Election
SD 7 Mesa County (R)
No Election
SD 8 Northwestern Colorado (Weak Rep)
Inc. Jack Taylor $40,080(R) vs. Jay Fetcher $69,381(D)
SD 9 Northern El Paso County (R)
No Election
SD 10 Eastern El Paso County (Strong Rep)
Inc. Ron May (R) unopposed
SD 11 Central Colorado Springs (R)
No Election
SD 12 Southern El Paso County (Strong Rep)
Inc. Andy McElhany (R) vs. Robert Herzfeld (Lib.) no Dem.
SD 13 Most of Weld County (R)
No Election
SD 14 Ft. Collins (Toss-up)
Bob Bacon $161,098(D) vs. Ray Martinez $1,425(R)
SD 15 Larimer County except Ft. Collins (R)
No Election
SD 16 North central mountains (D)
No Election
SD 17 Louisville, Lafayette (Toss-up)
Brandon Shaffer $117,421(D) vs. Sandy Hume $68,065(R)
SD 18 Boulder (Safe Dem)
Inc. Ron Tupa (D) vs. Krista Poch (R)
SD 19 Arvada, Westminster (Weak Dem)
Inc. Sue Windels $115,701(D) vs. Jessica Corry $59,425(R)
SD 20 Golden, Wheat Ridge (D)
No Election
SD 21 Lakewood (Leans Dem)
Inc. Deanna Hanna $125,858(D) vs. Tori Merritts Unknown(R)
SD 22 Southern Jefferson County (R)
No Election
SD 23 Southern Weld County (Leans Rep)
Shawn Mitchell $39,345(R) vs. Curt Darius Williams $10,334(D)
SD 24 Federal Heights (D)
No Election
SD 25 Adams County (Leans Dem)
Inc. Stephanie Takis (D) vs. Kevin Blount (R)
SD 26 Englewood, Littleton (Leans Rep)
Inc. Jim Dyer $15,584(R) vs. Jared Ingwalson (D)
SD 27 Eastern Arapahoe County (Leans Rep)
Inc. Nancy Spence $36,245(R) vs. Lisa Love $2,476(D)
SD 28 Southern Aurora (Toss-up)
Inc. Bruce Cairnes $61,210(R) vs. Suzanne Williams $136,991(D)
SD 29 Northen Aurora (Safe Dem)
Inc. Bob Hagedorn (D) vs. Mike Martin (R)
SD 30 Parker, Highlands Ranch (R)
No Election
SD 31 Central, Northwest Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Jennifer Veiga unopposed
SD 32 South Denver (Safe Dem)
No Election
SD 33 Northeast Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Peter Groff unopposed
SD 34 West Denver (D)
No Election
SD 35 Southeast Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Ken Gordon (D) vs. Ron Olson (R)
State House Seat By Seat:
Use these interactive maps to check on each district.
State House Districts Metro Denver North of Hampden Ave. House Districts 1-9, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 41 and 42.
State House Districts Southern Front Range, Pueblo to Hampden Ave. House Districts 14-18,20, 21, 25, 28, 36-39, 44 and 47.
State House Districts Northern Front Range, 120th Ave to Wyoming. House Districts 10-13, 31, 33, 48, 51 and 52.
Colorado House Districts Outside of the Front Range. House Districts 65-53, 50, 49, 46, 45, 43, 40, 19.
Best Democratic Projection: Dem. 18, Rep. 17.
Best GOP Projection: Rep. 20, Dem. 15.
Current Estimates: Dem. 15-18, Rep. 17-20. Likely outcome: leans GOP.
Interactive Maps: State Senate Districts Outside the Metro Area.
Metro Denver State Senate Districts.
The Colorado House is safe GOP, it would take a major shift (a la Watergate) for the Democratic party to take control of the State House.
State Senate Seat By Seat:
SD 1 Eastern Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 2 Southeastern Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 3 Northwest Pueblo County (D)
No Election
SD 4 Lake, Park, Teller, Douglas Counties and northwestern El Paso County (Leans Rep)
Jim Miller (D) $31,055 vs. Tom Weins $45,235(R)
SD 5 South Central Colorado (R)
No Election
SD 6 Southwestern Colorado (D)
No Election
SD 7 Mesa County (R)
No Election
SD 8 Northwestern Colorado (Weak Rep)
Inc. Jack Taylor $40,080(R) vs. Jay Fetcher $69,381(D)
SD 9 Northern El Paso County (R)
No Election
SD 10 Eastern El Paso County (Strong Rep)
Inc. Ron May (R) unopposed
SD 11 Central Colorado Springs (R)
No Election
SD 12 Southern El Paso County (Strong Rep)
Inc. Andy McElhany (R) vs. Robert Herzfeld (Lib.) no Dem.
SD 13 Most of Weld County (R)
No Election
SD 14 Ft. Collins (Toss-up)
Bob Bacon $161,098(D) vs. Ray Martinez $1,425(R)
SD 15 Larimer County except Ft. Collins (R)
No Election
SD 16 North central mountains (D)
No Election
SD 17 Louisville, Lafayette (Toss-up)
Brandon Shaffer $117,421(D) vs. Sandy Hume $68,065(R)
SD 18 Boulder (Safe Dem)
Inc. Ron Tupa (D) vs. Krista Poch (R)
SD 19 Arvada, Westminster (Weak Dem)
Inc. Sue Windels $115,701(D) vs. Jessica Corry $59,425(R)
SD 20 Golden, Wheat Ridge (D)
No Election
SD 21 Lakewood (Leans Dem)
Inc. Deanna Hanna $125,858(D) vs. Tori Merritts Unknown(R)
SD 22 Southern Jefferson County (R)
No Election
SD 23 Southern Weld County (Leans Rep)
Shawn Mitchell $39,345(R) vs. Curt Darius Williams $10,334(D)
SD 24 Federal Heights (D)
No Election
SD 25 Adams County (Leans Dem)
Inc. Stephanie Takis (D) vs. Kevin Blount (R)
SD 26 Englewood, Littleton (Leans Rep)
Inc. Jim Dyer $15,584(R) vs. Jared Ingwalson (D)
SD 27 Eastern Arapahoe County (Leans Rep)
Inc. Nancy Spence $36,245(R) vs. Lisa Love $2,476(D)
SD 28 Southern Aurora (Toss-up)
Inc. Bruce Cairnes $61,210(R) vs. Suzanne Williams $136,991(D)
SD 29 Northen Aurora (Safe Dem)
Inc. Bob Hagedorn (D) vs. Mike Martin (R)
SD 30 Parker, Highlands Ranch (R)
No Election
SD 31 Central, Northwest Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Jennifer Veiga unopposed
SD 32 South Denver (Safe Dem)
No Election
SD 33 Northeast Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Peter Groff unopposed
SD 34 West Denver (D)
No Election
SD 35 Southeast Denver (Safe Dem)
Inc. Ken Gordon (D) vs. Ron Olson (R)
State House Seat By Seat:
Use these interactive maps to check on each district.
State House Districts Metro Denver North of Hampden Ave. House Districts 1-9, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 41 and 42.
State House Districts Southern Front Range, Pueblo to Hampden Ave. House Districts 14-18,20, 21, 25, 28, 36-39, 44 and 47.
State House Districts Northern Front Range, 120th Ave to Wyoming. House Districts 10-13, 31, 33, 48, 51 and 52.
Colorado House Districts Outside of the Front Range. House Districts 65-53, 50, 49, 46, 45, 43, 40, 19.
Delphi on Colorado's Competitive House Races (3rd and 7th)
MHD will be leaving the current predictions up until we have finished constructing a new model some time in the next fortnight. The new model will add a variable for "funding advantage" as a amendment to our current model which is Coloradocentric and leans heavily on prior race results and voter registration numbers.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Wictory Wednesday.
For our conservative and/or Republican readers, go to this link. Hugh Hewitt is on the ball when it comes to the races for control of the United States Senate.
For a look at the competitive Colorado State Senate seats that Senate President John Andrews is targeting go to Coloradosenate.com.
Joe is still working on his Ottoman Empire book, but don't be discouraged my liberal readers, I'm certain he'll have a post for me to send to you shortly.
For a look at the competitive Colorado State Senate seats that Senate President John Andrews is targeting go to Coloradosenate.com.
Joe is still working on his Ottoman Empire book, but don't be discouraged my liberal readers, I'm certain he'll have a post for me to send to you shortly.
Technology Tuesday.
If you don't know what VoIP is, now is the time to learn. This Forbes.com article is the place to start.
In the past we thought that we would have video-phones. Instead, it appears that the PC is taking the place of the telephone. We now have a functional video phone, only it does so much more.
Telephone companies are slowly learning that they have a commodity, not a monopoly. Look for a shake-up in that industry in the near future. I suggest, if any of you are investors, that you place some bets on the companies that are pioneering VoIP today. Chances are that most of them won't be around in a decade, but you'll make a handsome profit off of those that are.
And as a extra dividend, they are finally putting the squeeze on the "baby bells" which effectively screwed their customers for a generation.
In the past we thought that we would have video-phones. Instead, it appears that the PC is taking the place of the telephone. We now have a functional video phone, only it does so much more.
Telephone companies are slowly learning that they have a commodity, not a monopoly. Look for a shake-up in that industry in the near future. I suggest, if any of you are investors, that you place some bets on the companies that are pioneering VoIP today. Chances are that most of them won't be around in a decade, but you'll make a handsome profit off of those that are.
And as a extra dividend, they are finally putting the squeeze on the "baby bells" which effectively screwed their customers for a generation.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Update on the Colorado senate race.
Update: 10/11/2004
Our new update for the Coors vs. Salazar Senate races comes from the three most recent polls. The Gallup Poll from 10/03-10/06 Gives Salazar a 11 point edge, Salazar 54, Coors 43. Mason/Dixon had a poll from 10/04-10/06. It gave Salazar a 2 point lead, Salazar 46, Coors 44. The most recent poll shows a dead heat. SUSA's poll from 10/05-10/07 had the race at a dead heat. Coors 48, Salazar 48.
As such our new prediction is Coors (((43+44+48)/3)+4)= 49; Salazar ((54+46+48)/3)= 49.33.
Ken Salazar is now our predicted winner. Our old figures were Coors 53.2%, Salazar 46.6% on 9/28/2004 and Coors 50.33%, Salazar 48.66% on 10/08/2004.
Original Post: 9/28/2004
Our most recent projection for the Coors vs. Salazar senate race is Coors 52.3% and Salazar 46.6%.
We looked at several factors in constructing this projection.
Firstly, and surprisingly, there seems to be no strong correlation between the funding advantage that one senate candidate has and the percentage of the vote that that candidate received. For example, in 2002 the Republican candidate got 50.5% of the total campaign donations and 51% of the vote, the Democratic senate candidate got 49.5% of the total campaign donations and received 46% of the vote. In 1998, a similar correlation existed, with the GOP candidate getting 62.5% of the financing pie and 62% of the vote and the Democratic candidate getting 37.5% of the financing pie and 35% of the vote. However in 1996 and 1992 the correlation was reversed. The GOP candidate in 1996 got 43.5% of the total campaign donations and received 51% of the vote, while the Democrat got 56.5% of the campaign donations and got 46% of the vote. In 1992 the Republican got 58% of the financing pie and 43% of the vote, while the Democrat got 42% of the funds and 52% of the vote.
The most recent fundraising numbers that I have seen show that Salazar has out fundraised Coors by a margin of 6-4. If that margin reaches 7-3, then I will take the fundraising advantage into account in the equation, until then, I have to stick to the step wise regression that says that it is not statistically significant.
Throwing out the fundraising numbers, I’m left only with past polls and final election results (registration numbers also are not statistically significant, but we are looking into a “strength of primary win” variable). No Democrat has ever won with over 52% of the vote in a Colorado senate election. Ben Campbell won with that amount in 1992. A Democrat has won a senate election in Colorado two other times since 1978. In 1980 with 50.3 of the vote and in 1986 with 50%.
I also looked at the periodicity of the vote. Maybe Dems scored better during Presidential election years (the big turnout argument). Since 1978 there have been nine senate elections in Colorado. The average Democratic vote percentage during midterm elections was 42.6%, during Presidential election years it was 45.825%. So we can estimate that during an average Presidential election year the Democrat should see a 3% bounce from the higher voter turnout.
As for the polling. There seems to be a consistent polling error of about 7 % against the Republican. In 1998 a Cirulli poll showed Campbell (R) beating Lamm (D) 54%-33%. 2002 showed a similar pattern, the average of two Zogby polls and a USA Today/Gallup poll showed Allard (R) getting 45.6% of the vote and Strickland winning with 47.6%. On election night Allard won with 51% to Strickland’s 46%.
As such, we simply adjust the poll numbers to give the GOP candidate a 4% bump, this should correct for the polling error seen in the last two elections (which were both midterm elections) and the increased voter turnout.
This formula is the most efficient one we have now, however, it is subject to change before election day.
For our calculations we used the three most recent polls, which you can access here.
Our new update for the Coors vs. Salazar Senate races comes from the three most recent polls. The Gallup Poll from 10/03-10/06 Gives Salazar a 11 point edge, Salazar 54, Coors 43. Mason/Dixon had a poll from 10/04-10/06. It gave Salazar a 2 point lead, Salazar 46, Coors 44. The most recent poll shows a dead heat. SUSA's poll from 10/05-10/07 had the race at a dead heat. Coors 48, Salazar 48.
As such our new prediction is Coors (((43+44+48)/3)+4)= 49; Salazar ((54+46+48)/3)= 49.33.
Ken Salazar is now our predicted winner. Our old figures were Coors 53.2%, Salazar 46.6% on 9/28/2004 and Coors 50.33%, Salazar 48.66% on 10/08/2004.
Original Post: 9/28/2004
Our most recent projection for the Coors vs. Salazar senate race is Coors 52.3% and Salazar 46.6%.
We looked at several factors in constructing this projection.
Firstly, and surprisingly, there seems to be no strong correlation between the funding advantage that one senate candidate has and the percentage of the vote that that candidate received. For example, in 2002 the Republican candidate got 50.5% of the total campaign donations and 51% of the vote, the Democratic senate candidate got 49.5% of the total campaign donations and received 46% of the vote. In 1998, a similar correlation existed, with the GOP candidate getting 62.5% of the financing pie and 62% of the vote and the Democratic candidate getting 37.5% of the financing pie and 35% of the vote. However in 1996 and 1992 the correlation was reversed. The GOP candidate in 1996 got 43.5% of the total campaign donations and received 51% of the vote, while the Democrat got 56.5% of the campaign donations and got 46% of the vote. In 1992 the Republican got 58% of the financing pie and 43% of the vote, while the Democrat got 42% of the funds and 52% of the vote.
The most recent fundraising numbers that I have seen show that Salazar has out fundraised Coors by a margin of 6-4. If that margin reaches 7-3, then I will take the fundraising advantage into account in the equation, until then, I have to stick to the step wise regression that says that it is not statistically significant.
Throwing out the fundraising numbers, I’m left only with past polls and final election results (registration numbers also are not statistically significant, but we are looking into a “strength of primary win” variable). No Democrat has ever won with over 52% of the vote in a Colorado senate election. Ben Campbell won with that amount in 1992. A Democrat has won a senate election in Colorado two other times since 1978. In 1980 with 50.3 of the vote and in 1986 with 50%.
I also looked at the periodicity of the vote. Maybe Dems scored better during Presidential election years (the big turnout argument). Since 1978 there have been nine senate elections in Colorado. The average Democratic vote percentage during midterm elections was 42.6%, during Presidential election years it was 45.825%. So we can estimate that during an average Presidential election year the Democrat should see a 3% bounce from the higher voter turnout.
As for the polling. There seems to be a consistent polling error of about 7 % against the Republican. In 1998 a Cirulli poll showed Campbell (R) beating Lamm (D) 54%-33%. 2002 showed a similar pattern, the average of two Zogby polls and a USA Today/Gallup poll showed Allard (R) getting 45.6% of the vote and Strickland winning with 47.6%. On election night Allard won with 51% to Strickland’s 46%.
As such, we simply adjust the poll numbers to give the GOP candidate a 4% bump, this should correct for the polling error seen in the last two elections (which were both midterm elections) and the increased voter turnout.
This formula is the most efficient one we have now, however, it is subject to change before election day.
For our calculations we used the three most recent polls, which you can access here.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Coming up this week.
This is going to be a busy week at Mile High Delphi. After a long Yom Kippur break, from which we wish that all of your names shall be added to the book of life, we will dive into some serious modeling.
On Monday we will add a "Current Projections" area to the top right of the screen.
On Tuesday we will continue our technology series and we will update the Senate race between Coors and Salazar.
On Wednesday we will focus on the competitive House races and we will continue the "Wictory Wednesday" series.
Thursday will see a recap of the state legislative races.
Friday we will issue our projections on all of the state wide referenda plus FasTracks.
On Monday we will add a "Current Projections" area to the top right of the screen.
On Tuesday we will continue our technology series and we will update the Senate race between Coors and Salazar.
On Wednesday we will focus on the competitive House races and we will continue the "Wictory Wednesday" series.
Thursday will see a recap of the state legislative races.
Friday we will issue our projections on all of the state wide referenda plus FasTracks.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Sorry for the delay.
Hey everyone, I couldn't get to a PC today, and my Mac won't support these graphs, so I'll try and post some more graphs tomorrow.
Some food for thought as you wait.
In 2002 the polls predicted (an average of the last three taken) that Allard (R) would get 45.6% and Strickland (D) would get 47.6%. The final results were 51% for Allard and 46% for Strickland.
In 1998 the polls showed Ben Campbell (R) defeating Lamm (D) 54%-33%. The final results were 62% to 35%.
Something to think about when looking at this elections polls.
Some food for thought as you wait.
In 2002 the polls predicted (an average of the last three taken) that Allard (R) would get 45.6% and Strickland (D) would get 47.6%. The final results were 51% for Allard and 46% for Strickland.
In 1998 the polls showed Ben Campbell (R) defeating Lamm (D) 54%-33%. The final results were 62% to 35%.
Something to think about when looking at this elections polls.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Delphi on Colorado: FasTracks.
As promised I will begin to unveil how I come up with my projections, starting first with FasTracks.
If you click here you will be taken to a graph that shows the original graph that I did using just the Guide the Ride poll data from 1997 and the final election result.
Why even look at a referendum that failed 7 years ago. Well, in business you access things, such as how much you should pay for a company, or what the fair price of an IPO stock is by looking at comparables. FasTracks is, in most ways, a repackaged Guide the Ride. Therefore, Guide the Ride is the most apt example we have of a FasTracks like referendum.
A word on reading the graphs. At the top is the actual regression equation. In all cases C2 refers to the percentage vote in favor of Guide the Ride and C1 refers to the number of days before the election. The equation that I produced explains about 90% of variation in the expected vote percentage based simply upon how far the referendum is away from election day. It also predicted that Guide the Ride would fail with 46.67% of the vote.
As we have begun to look at FasTracks, one thing is certain, it, like other referendums before it, will lose support before election day. The question is, will the decrease in support level off before election day, or will it increase? And will it matter if the support for FasTracks is in the 60s. The regression that I had built using the same quadratic equation as the Guide the Ride equation proved unsatisfactory to me. If you click here you can see why. I can only explain about three quarters of the variation in the model, and the points are not very well defined around the regression line.
This lead to the most recent incarnation of the FasTracks model, which is a cubic equation. As such it fits the data more exactly, explaining almost 80% of the variation in the model.
Some questions remain unsolved. Should I weight the election result in '97 more heavily than other poll results. I probably should since an election should have a much higher statistical significance than a poll. However, I haven't weighted the 42% vote in 1997 more heavily than any other poll. The reason is that I have heard much criticism over 1997 being an off year election, and that more pro FasTracks people will show up in an presidential election year. While that isn't what the Guide the Ride supporters were saying in 1997, I can respect that today. So I figure that by not weighting the vote in '97, I am in fact, correcting for the increased voter turnout in this presidential election year.
So now the Mile High Delphi prediction is that FasTracks will lose with 47% of the vote. However, three or four more polls in the 60s could swing the model around to predicting a narrow victory.
Hope you enjoy the graphs, tomorrow I will put up our graphs for the Senate race and for one or both of the US House Districts.
If you click here you will be taken to a graph that shows the original graph that I did using just the Guide the Ride poll data from 1997 and the final election result.
Why even look at a referendum that failed 7 years ago. Well, in business you access things, such as how much you should pay for a company, or what the fair price of an IPO stock is by looking at comparables. FasTracks is, in most ways, a repackaged Guide the Ride. Therefore, Guide the Ride is the most apt example we have of a FasTracks like referendum.
A word on reading the graphs. At the top is the actual regression equation. In all cases C2 refers to the percentage vote in favor of Guide the Ride and C1 refers to the number of days before the election. The equation that I produced explains about 90% of variation in the expected vote percentage based simply upon how far the referendum is away from election day. It also predicted that Guide the Ride would fail with 46.67% of the vote.
As we have begun to look at FasTracks, one thing is certain, it, like other referendums before it, will lose support before election day. The question is, will the decrease in support level off before election day, or will it increase? And will it matter if the support for FasTracks is in the 60s. The regression that I had built using the same quadratic equation as the Guide the Ride equation proved unsatisfactory to me. If you click here you can see why. I can only explain about three quarters of the variation in the model, and the points are not very well defined around the regression line.
This lead to the most recent incarnation of the FasTracks model, which is a cubic equation. As such it fits the data more exactly, explaining almost 80% of the variation in the model.
Some questions remain unsolved. Should I weight the election result in '97 more heavily than other poll results. I probably should since an election should have a much higher statistical significance than a poll. However, I haven't weighted the 42% vote in 1997 more heavily than any other poll. The reason is that I have heard much criticism over 1997 being an off year election, and that more pro FasTracks people will show up in an presidential election year. While that isn't what the Guide the Ride supporters were saying in 1997, I can respect that today. So I figure that by not weighting the vote in '97, I am in fact, correcting for the increased voter turnout in this presidential election year.
So now the Mile High Delphi prediction is that FasTracks will lose with 47% of the vote. However, three or four more polls in the 60s could swing the model around to predicting a narrow victory.
Hope you enjoy the graphs, tomorrow I will put up our graphs for the Senate race and for one or both of the US House Districts.
Wictory Wednesday!
While this blog trys to stay non-partisan six days a week, on Wednesdays we will devote some time to encourage everyone to donate or volunteer with a campaign.
I think that Joe is going to be doing a "Move On Monday" or he may post links to the "Texas Tuesday" liberal version of Wictory Wednesday. Since he hasn't piped in on the subject this week, I will start with recommending a liberal website that is a great place if you want to put $25 bucks to work, Markos over at DailyKos has a link to his Kos Dozen. If you want to donate to a Democratic campaign this seems to be as good a place as any to start.
I myself would like to use this first Wictory Wednesday to urge every Republican (or if you are unaffiliated, register as a Republican, or at least a Democrat, join a party and make a real difference from the inside) to register at least two people (that's what I've done so it seems like a fair challenge) and to sign up for the 96 Hour Victory Team. It may come down to GOTV this November, and we don't have any time to waste.
Also, let me add, why isn't there a Republican version of Act Blue, what a great website. The Democrats are pushing the efficient frontier, we have some catching up to do.
In the coming weeks I'll try to coordinate with some other GOP Bloggers so that we can amplify our voices and focus on the make it or break it races here in Colorado and across the nation. Who knows, maybe the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Bloggers will create the Conservative version of Act Blue, and get rich in the process.
I think that Joe is going to be doing a "Move On Monday" or he may post links to the "Texas Tuesday" liberal version of Wictory Wednesday. Since he hasn't piped in on the subject this week, I will start with recommending a liberal website that is a great place if you want to put $25 bucks to work, Markos over at DailyKos has a link to his Kos Dozen. If you want to donate to a Democratic campaign this seems to be as good a place as any to start.
I myself would like to use this first Wictory Wednesday to urge every Republican (or if you are unaffiliated, register as a Republican, or at least a Democrat, join a party and make a real difference from the inside) to register at least two people (that's what I've done so it seems like a fair challenge) and to sign up for the 96 Hour Victory Team. It may come down to GOTV this November, and we don't have any time to waste.
Also, let me add, why isn't there a Republican version of Act Blue, what a great website. The Democrats are pushing the efficient frontier, we have some catching up to do.
In the coming weeks I'll try to coordinate with some other GOP Bloggers so that we can amplify our voices and focus on the make it or break it races here in Colorado and across the nation. Who knows, maybe the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Bloggers will create the Conservative version of Act Blue, and get rich in the process.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Technology Tuesday
As a new feature here we will be rolling out daily "topical" posts. Tuesday's we'll try and bring a new technology article or subject to Mile High Delphi.
As Technology Tuesday makes its maiden voyage, lets look at an article from last week's Wall Street Journal.
Walter S. Mossberg, who does a weekly "Personal Technology" article wrote a piece on Thursday last week on "how to protect yourself from vandals, viruses. If you use windows".
In short Mr. Mossberg has eight suggestions.
Firstly, you can opt out of using a windows PC. This post comes to you via an iMac. Newer Macs can operate MS Office, and the files that it produces are compatable with MS Office for Windows.
If your turned off by Macs, you can always follow option two, Halting Hackers with software. Mr. Mossberg recommends that the first thing you do is buy a software firewall. Hopefully one that doesn't just stop hackers from getting in but that stops suspicious programs already on your PC from sending out info. Zone Labs offers a free firewall available here. Use the Zone Labs firewall instead of the wimpy one you probably have on your PC.
If you have a broadband connection or a home network, Mr. Mossberg recommends that you make sure that your modem or router has a NAT. A NAT, or Network Address Translation makes it harder for hackers to even find your PC on the internet. Even with a NAT make sure you have a firewall, it won't protect you from all attacks and the firewall is your second line of defense.
Thirdly you need a strong antivirus program. Try Norton AntiVirus ($50), not the lame security suite but the stand alone progam.
Fourth, stop that spyware. Antivirus programs don't stop spyware. Try Spy Sweeper($30) from Webroot software. It not only will stop all spyware you encounter in the future, but it will clean out the stuff that is already infesting you PC now.
Fifth, stop spam. No anti-spam program is perfect, but MailFrontier Desktop($30) is the best. If you are sick and tired of spam then turn on the "challenge" feature. It forces unknown senders to pass a simple test that baffles spammers.
Sixth, browse safely. Dump MS Internet Explorer web browser. Try Mozilla Firefox(free). More secure, more modern, more advanced, ie. tabbed browsing and a better pop up blocker than MS IE.
Seventh, be careful. Never download software unless you are sure of the source. If a website requires a special plug in, be careful. Common viewer software, like those from Real Networks, Apple or Macromedia should only be downloaded from those companies' offical sites.
Lastly, stay current. Install MS's new SP2 update. and install all the "critical updates" MS issues for Windows.
I highly recommend the Wall Street Journal. I started reading my bosses copy during lunch when I was 18. The editorial page changed my life and made my professors miserable.
If you want, you can contact Mr. Mossberg at mossberg@wsj.com.
As Technology Tuesday makes its maiden voyage, lets look at an article from last week's Wall Street Journal.
Walter S. Mossberg, who does a weekly "Personal Technology" article wrote a piece on Thursday last week on "how to protect yourself from vandals, viruses. If you use windows".
In short Mr. Mossberg has eight suggestions.
Firstly, you can opt out of using a windows PC. This post comes to you via an iMac. Newer Macs can operate MS Office, and the files that it produces are compatable with MS Office for Windows.
If your turned off by Macs, you can always follow option two, Halting Hackers with software. Mr. Mossberg recommends that the first thing you do is buy a software firewall. Hopefully one that doesn't just stop hackers from getting in but that stops suspicious programs already on your PC from sending out info. Zone Labs offers a free firewall available here. Use the Zone Labs firewall instead of the wimpy one you probably have on your PC.
If you have a broadband connection or a home network, Mr. Mossberg recommends that you make sure that your modem or router has a NAT. A NAT, or Network Address Translation makes it harder for hackers to even find your PC on the internet. Even with a NAT make sure you have a firewall, it won't protect you from all attacks and the firewall is your second line of defense.
Thirdly you need a strong antivirus program. Try Norton AntiVirus ($50), not the lame security suite but the stand alone progam.
Fourth, stop that spyware. Antivirus programs don't stop spyware. Try Spy Sweeper($30) from Webroot software. It not only will stop all spyware you encounter in the future, but it will clean out the stuff that is already infesting you PC now.
Fifth, stop spam. No anti-spam program is perfect, but MailFrontier Desktop($30) is the best. If you are sick and tired of spam then turn on the "challenge" feature. It forces unknown senders to pass a simple test that baffles spammers.
Sixth, browse safely. Dump MS Internet Explorer web browser. Try Mozilla Firefox(free). More secure, more modern, more advanced, ie. tabbed browsing and a better pop up blocker than MS IE.
Seventh, be careful. Never download software unless you are sure of the source. If a website requires a special plug in, be careful. Common viewer software, like those from Real Networks, Apple or Macromedia should only be downloaded from those companies' offical sites.
Lastly, stay current. Install MS's new SP2 update. and install all the "critical updates" MS issues for Windows.
I highly recommend the Wall Street Journal. I started reading my bosses copy during lunch when I was 18. The editorial page changed my life and made my professors miserable.
If you want, you can contact Mr. Mossberg at mossberg@wsj.com.
Monday, September 13, 2004
Current Projections for Colorado and The United States.
U.S. President: Bush
U.S. Senate 52 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Ind.
U.S. House 234 Republicans, 201 Democrats (including Sanders of Vermont).
Colorado
U.S. Senate Coors (R) 49%, Salazar (D) 48%.
U.S. House HD 1 Dem. HD 2 Dem. HD 3 See below. HD 4 GOP. HD 5 GOP. HD 6 GOP. HD 7 See below.
HD 3 Salazar (D) 52% Walcher (R) 45%.
HD 7 Thomas (D) 47% Beauprez (R) 46%.
State Senate 20 Republicans, 15 Democrats.
State House 39 Republicans, 26 Democrats.
Amendment 36 - Reforming Colorado's Electorial College Vote - For 41%, Against 59%.
FasTracks - For 46%, Against 54%.
U.S. Senate 52 Republicans, 47 Democrats and 1 Ind.
U.S. House 234 Republicans, 201 Democrats (including Sanders of Vermont).
Colorado
U.S. Senate Coors (R) 49%, Salazar (D) 48%.
U.S. House HD 1 Dem. HD 2 Dem. HD 3 See below. HD 4 GOP. HD 5 GOP. HD 6 GOP. HD 7 See below.
HD 3 Salazar (D) 52% Walcher (R) 45%.
HD 7 Thomas (D) 47% Beauprez (R) 46%.
State Senate 20 Republicans, 15 Democrats.
State House 39 Republicans, 26 Democrats.
Amendment 36 - Reforming Colorado's Electorial College Vote - For 41%, Against 59%.
FasTracks - For 46%, Against 54%.
Rocky opens attack on FasTracks.
The Rocky Mountain News has taken the lead in the attack on FasTracks, the multibillion dollar transit referendum facing metro Denver voters this November 2nd.
In the first of a three part editorial series. This editorial entitled “Transit Plan Won’t Improve Our Mobility.” In this editorial the Rocky argues that while Fast Tracks will cost $4.7 billion, even The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), one of the biggest proponents of FasTracks, admits that FasTracks will have little to no impact on highway speeds in the metro area. The thesis of this editorial is that “[I]n short, FasTracks will have no perceptible impact on highway speeds - even at rush hour”.
Part two of the attack , “Bill For FasTracks Should Derail It” examines the staggering cost of the planned build out. The Rocky points out the staggering cost of adding riders to each line, this on top of the fact that the supporters of FasTracks cannot guarantee that it will significantly reduce traffic congestion. “According to the Denver Regional Council of Governments - and remember, DRCOG is a FasTracks fan - the cost per rider on the proposed rail lines will range from a low of $4.83-$5.65 in the west corridor through Lakewood to Golden to $16-$18.79 on the diesel commuter train that would run from downtown Denver up U.S. 36 and on to Longmont. That's each way in a daily commute, and those estimates include a significant proportion of riders - in some corridors, easily half - who already are taking mass transit. In other words, the cost for each new daily transit rider on the train to Longmont will certainly top $60, and most likely be substantially more.”
The Rocky closes its assault on FasTracks with this editorial. In it they close the circle by stating that FasTracks, like Guide the Ride before it, is a flawed plan that will take too many resources, over one half of all transportation dollars, and allocate those resources to at best 4% of the transportation mix, mass transit. The Rocky argues for voters to reject FasTracks, and for RTD to come back with smaller regional programs such as T-Rex.
The Rocky may be right. T-Rex won at the ballot box. Guide the Ride, a plan stunningly similar to FasTracks lost by a huge margin. It to was ahead in the polls better than 60-40 this time in that election cycle. Surely more will be written on this subject as we approach election day.
Cross posted at Polstate .
In the first of a three part editorial series. This editorial entitled “Transit Plan Won’t Improve Our Mobility.” In this editorial the Rocky argues that while Fast Tracks will cost $4.7 billion, even The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), one of the biggest proponents of FasTracks, admits that FasTracks will have little to no impact on highway speeds in the metro area. The thesis of this editorial is that “[I]n short, FasTracks will have no perceptible impact on highway speeds - even at rush hour”.
Part two of the attack , “Bill For FasTracks Should Derail It” examines the staggering cost of the planned build out. The Rocky points out the staggering cost of adding riders to each line, this on top of the fact that the supporters of FasTracks cannot guarantee that it will significantly reduce traffic congestion. “According to the Denver Regional Council of Governments - and remember, DRCOG is a FasTracks fan - the cost per rider on the proposed rail lines will range from a low of $4.83-$5.65 in the west corridor through Lakewood to Golden to $16-$18.79 on the diesel commuter train that would run from downtown Denver up U.S. 36 and on to Longmont. That's each way in a daily commute, and those estimates include a significant proportion of riders - in some corridors, easily half - who already are taking mass transit. In other words, the cost for each new daily transit rider on the train to Longmont will certainly top $60, and most likely be substantially more.”
The Rocky closes its assault on FasTracks with this editorial. In it they close the circle by stating that FasTracks, like Guide the Ride before it, is a flawed plan that will take too many resources, over one half of all transportation dollars, and allocate those resources to at best 4% of the transportation mix, mass transit. The Rocky argues for voters to reject FasTracks, and for RTD to come back with smaller regional programs such as T-Rex.
The Rocky may be right. T-Rex won at the ballot box. Guide the Ride, a plan stunningly similar to FasTracks lost by a huge margin. It to was ahead in the polls better than 60-40 this time in that election cycle. Surely more will be written on this subject as we approach election day.
Cross posted at Polstate .
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Battle for Colorado Part Three. Overview of the State House.
In my last update I gave a predicted makeup for the Colorado State Senate, Democrats can expect 15-18 seats, the GOP can hope for 17-20. Since the State Senate has 35 members, a majority is 18 seats. The Democrats had an incredible year in 2000, the last time this batch of seats was up for election, so they are playing defense this time around. The odds on them retaking the State Senate are 4-1. However, since these districts have been redistricted some uncertainty has been added to the equations.
Today I would like to focus on the State House. Ohwillek did an excellent piece on the races for this house a few months back. Little has changed since. These races are much easier to figure out since the 2002 races were in the same districts as today. I have a map entitled Colorado House Districts Wide View. It covers House Districts 65-53, 50, 49, 46, 45, 43, 40 and 19. Of these twenty districts two are safe Democratic seats, fifteen are safe Republican seats and three are competitive.
If you click here you can go to my map entitled “Northern Front Range House Districts.” This map covers House Districts 10-13, 31, 33, 48, 51 and 52. Of these nine races four are competitive.
If you click here you can go to my map entitled “Southern Front Range Pueblo to Hampden.” This map covers House Districts 14-18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 36-39, 44 and 47. Of these 15 seats two are competitive.
If you click here you can go to my Map entitled “Metro Denver North.” This map covers House Districts 1-9, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 41 and 42. Of these twenty districts four are competitive.
Updates on the fourteen close races will be coming up in the next week.
The Democrats need to pick up five seats to take control of the House. They are defending seven competitive seats, the same as the Republicans. Currently the Republicans are projected to maintain control of the House.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Today I would like to focus on the State House. Ohwillek did an excellent piece on the races for this house a few months back. Little has changed since. These races are much easier to figure out since the 2002 races were in the same districts as today. I have a map entitled Colorado House Districts Wide View. It covers House Districts 65-53, 50, 49, 46, 45, 43, 40 and 19. Of these twenty districts two are safe Democratic seats, fifteen are safe Republican seats and three are competitive.
If you click here you can go to my map entitled “Northern Front Range House Districts.” This map covers House Districts 10-13, 31, 33, 48, 51 and 52. Of these nine races four are competitive.
If you click here you can go to my map entitled “Southern Front Range Pueblo to Hampden.” This map covers House Districts 14-18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 36-39, 44 and 47. Of these 15 seats two are competitive.
If you click here you can go to my Map entitled “Metro Denver North.” This map covers House Districts 1-9, 22-24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 41 and 42. Of these twenty districts four are competitive.
Updates on the fourteen close races will be coming up in the next week.
The Democrats need to pick up five seats to take control of the House. They are defending seven competitive seats, the same as the Republicans. Currently the Republicans are projected to maintain control of the House.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Battle for Colorado part 2: Focus on the Metro Area State Senate Races.
Here is a look at the Denver Metro area State Senate districts that have elections this year. If you would like to see an interactive map of the districts, click here.
Senate District 17, Eastern Boulder County, features Republican Sandy Hume facing Democrat Brandon Shaffer. Shaffer has a fundraising advantage, $17,689 to Hume’s $10,095. He also has the advantage of this district electing term limited Democratic State Senator Terry Phillips by a 54% to 41% margin in 2000. This district is basically the same as it was before redistricting, and as such, it leans Democratic.
Senate District 18, the City of Boulder (or People’s Republic as some call it here) and some of central Boulder County. This is a Safe Democratic Seat. Ron Tupa is running for re-election. Since the GOP failed to even get 25% of the vote last time, look for them to lose this time around also. But if you are interested in who will be losing to Senator Tupa, click here.
Senate District 19, North Eastern Jefferson County, a toss-up. Senate District 19 is featuring what is probably the showcase battle this year. Incumbent Sue Windels (D) is looking to win a second term. She beat the very conservative Jim Congrove (R) in 2000, but the margin of her victory was smaller than the votes that the Libertarian candidate got. Also of note, this district hardly changed during redistricting. Look for a barn burner as GOP upstart Jessica Peck Corry, a 25 year old community activist and a Director at the Libertarian Independence Institute looks to take the district back for the GOP. Last time Windels won by the skin of her teeth, 49.35% to 47.5%. This time she has little choice; she can either increase her razor thin margin, or go into retirement.
Senate District 21. Incumbent Deanna Hanna (D) represents the heart of Lakewood. She is challenged by former School Board member Tori Merritts (R). Deanna Hanna beat the very conservative State House Representative Penn Pfiffner (R) in 2000. The GOP won back his old house seat last year, and they are targeting this seat this year. It is commonly accepted that if Republican moderate and former mayor of Lakewood Linda Morton would have won the primary against Pfiffner in 2000, she would have beaten any Democrat. Tori Merritts avoided a primary (as did Jessica Corry in SD 19) through some back room deals at the GOP headquarters. She seems to be the moderate that is needed to beat Deanna Hanna. However, Hanna had a convincing victory last time, 54% to 46%, and until more information becomes available, I have to say that this district leans Democratic.
Senate District 23 is an open seat, and also looks to be a featured race this election season. In 2000 Republican Ken Arnold won by .8% against Michael Massarotti, and that was with him running as an incumbent. However, this district has changed dramatically with redistricting. No longer just the south east corner of Boulder County, SD 23 now encompasses the City and County of Broomfield (which broke off from Boulder County not so long ago) and much of south west Weld County. Now in 2004 Republican Shawn Mitchell is facing off against Democrat Kurt Williams. I’m keeping this one in the toss-up category. But I have the feeling that the redistricting could change that prediction before October.
Senate District 25. Democratic incumbent Stephanie Takis should sail to an easy victory against her Republican challenger Kevin Blount. She won in 2000 with 55% of the vote. While the GOP has been making gains in Adams County, this Senate Seat is safely in Democratic hands. It would take an incredible GOTV on the part of the Republicans to win this seat. Maybe in 2008, with the completion of some more suburbs, the Republicans can make Adams County more competitive.
Senate District 26, Safe GOP. In 2000 the Democrats didn’t even field a challenger to now incumbent Jim Dyer. This time they’ve sent Jared Ingwalson to be defeated by Dyer.
Senate District 27 makes up the lions share of Arapahoe County. In 2000, before redistricting, this was a competitive district, since it was centered on the I-25 corridor near the Denver Tech Center. However, look for this race to be nowhere near as close as the 52% to 46% race in 2000. This seat leans GOP. The Democrats have Lisa Love, who has raised less than $1,000. She is facing Republican Nancy Spence, who has raised over 25 times that amount.
Senate District 28. Republican incumbent Bruce Cairns is looking to keep his seat which he won in 2000 with 52.6% of the vote. He should benefit from getting some of SD 27’s Republican parts. The Democrats have sent Suzanne Williams against Senator Cairns. This race is a target for a Democratic pickup. Suzanne Williams has raised over $40,000 (mainly from labor unions). Senator Cairns has only raised about $22,000. Until I have determined how much of a factor that extra money is in this race, I’m keeping this race in the leans GOP column.
Senate District 29. Safe Democratic. Look for Bob Hagedorn (D) to increase his margin of victory from the 11% that it was in 2000. His Republican opponent Mike Martin doesn’t have much of a chance.
Senate District 31. Safe, but open, Democratic seat. This is the Central Platte Valley. If the GOP gets more than 25% of the vote it is a victory. Look for Jennifer Veiga to enjoy her term in the State Senate as she moves up from the House. The Republicans have no one running.
Senate District 33. North East Denver, Safe Democratic seat. Peter Groff (D) is heading to an easy election since he has no opponent.
Senate District 35. Safe Democratic seat. Ken Gordon (D) is seeking re-election, this time against Ron Olson (R).
Projected make-up of Colorado State Senate: Democrats 15-18, Republicans 17-20. Structurally, since the Democrats are defending two tossups and the GOP is defending only one, it is highly unlikely for a repeat of the year 2000 when they won control of the state senate. I need to look at some more current fundraising numbers and I need to look at the new registration numbers, but I put the odds of the Democrats winning the State Senate at 4-1 subject to some changes before election day.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Senate District 17, Eastern Boulder County, features Republican Sandy Hume facing Democrat Brandon Shaffer. Shaffer has a fundraising advantage, $17,689 to Hume’s $10,095. He also has the advantage of this district electing term limited Democratic State Senator Terry Phillips by a 54% to 41% margin in 2000. This district is basically the same as it was before redistricting, and as such, it leans Democratic.
Senate District 18, the City of Boulder (or People’s Republic as some call it here) and some of central Boulder County. This is a Safe Democratic Seat. Ron Tupa is running for re-election. Since the GOP failed to even get 25% of the vote last time, look for them to lose this time around also. But if you are interested in who will be losing to Senator Tupa, click here.
Senate District 19, North Eastern Jefferson County, a toss-up. Senate District 19 is featuring what is probably the showcase battle this year. Incumbent Sue Windels (D) is looking to win a second term. She beat the very conservative Jim Congrove (R) in 2000, but the margin of her victory was smaller than the votes that the Libertarian candidate got. Also of note, this district hardly changed during redistricting. Look for a barn burner as GOP upstart Jessica Peck Corry, a 25 year old community activist and a Director at the Libertarian Independence Institute looks to take the district back for the GOP. Last time Windels won by the skin of her teeth, 49.35% to 47.5%. This time she has little choice; she can either increase her razor thin margin, or go into retirement.
Senate District 21. Incumbent Deanna Hanna (D) represents the heart of Lakewood. She is challenged by former School Board member Tori Merritts (R). Deanna Hanna beat the very conservative State House Representative Penn Pfiffner (R) in 2000. The GOP won back his old house seat last year, and they are targeting this seat this year. It is commonly accepted that if Republican moderate and former mayor of Lakewood Linda Morton would have won the primary against Pfiffner in 2000, she would have beaten any Democrat. Tori Merritts avoided a primary (as did Jessica Corry in SD 19) through some back room deals at the GOP headquarters. She seems to be the moderate that is needed to beat Deanna Hanna. However, Hanna had a convincing victory last time, 54% to 46%, and until more information becomes available, I have to say that this district leans Democratic.
Senate District 23 is an open seat, and also looks to be a featured race this election season. In 2000 Republican Ken Arnold won by .8% against Michael Massarotti, and that was with him running as an incumbent. However, this district has changed dramatically with redistricting. No longer just the south east corner of Boulder County, SD 23 now encompasses the City and County of Broomfield (which broke off from Boulder County not so long ago) and much of south west Weld County. Now in 2004 Republican Shawn Mitchell is facing off against Democrat Kurt Williams. I’m keeping this one in the toss-up category. But I have the feeling that the redistricting could change that prediction before October.
Senate District 25. Democratic incumbent Stephanie Takis should sail to an easy victory against her Republican challenger Kevin Blount. She won in 2000 with 55% of the vote. While the GOP has been making gains in Adams County, this Senate Seat is safely in Democratic hands. It would take an incredible GOTV on the part of the Republicans to win this seat. Maybe in 2008, with the completion of some more suburbs, the Republicans can make Adams County more competitive.
Senate District 26, Safe GOP. In 2000 the Democrats didn’t even field a challenger to now incumbent Jim Dyer. This time they’ve sent Jared Ingwalson to be defeated by Dyer.
Senate District 27 makes up the lions share of Arapahoe County. In 2000, before redistricting, this was a competitive district, since it was centered on the I-25 corridor near the Denver Tech Center. However, look for this race to be nowhere near as close as the 52% to 46% race in 2000. This seat leans GOP. The Democrats have Lisa Love, who has raised less than $1,000. She is facing Republican Nancy Spence, who has raised over 25 times that amount.
Senate District 28. Republican incumbent Bruce Cairns is looking to keep his seat which he won in 2000 with 52.6% of the vote. He should benefit from getting some of SD 27’s Republican parts. The Democrats have sent Suzanne Williams against Senator Cairns. This race is a target for a Democratic pickup. Suzanne Williams has raised over $40,000 (mainly from labor unions). Senator Cairns has only raised about $22,000. Until I have determined how much of a factor that extra money is in this race, I’m keeping this race in the leans GOP column.
Senate District 29. Safe Democratic. Look for Bob Hagedorn (D) to increase his margin of victory from the 11% that it was in 2000. His Republican opponent Mike Martin doesn’t have much of a chance.
Senate District 31. Safe, but open, Democratic seat. This is the Central Platte Valley. If the GOP gets more than 25% of the vote it is a victory. Look for Jennifer Veiga to enjoy her term in the State Senate as she moves up from the House. The Republicans have no one running.
Senate District 33. North East Denver, Safe Democratic seat. Peter Groff (D) is heading to an easy election since he has no opponent.
Senate District 35. Safe Democratic seat. Ken Gordon (D) is seeking re-election, this time against Ron Olson (R).
Projected make-up of Colorado State Senate: Democrats 15-18, Republicans 17-20. Structurally, since the Democrats are defending two tossups and the GOP is defending only one, it is highly unlikely for a repeat of the year 2000 when they won control of the state senate. I need to look at some more current fundraising numbers and I need to look at the new registration numbers, but I put the odds of the Democrats winning the State Senate at 4-1 subject to some changes before election day.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Monday, September 06, 2004
Upcoming posts.
Wednesday 9/8/04 Metro Area State Senate plus map. All 65 State House Seats plus one to five interactive maps.
Thursday 9/9/04 Preliminary prediction on 3rd CD (Walcher vs. Salazar).Preliminary prediction on 7th CD (Beauprez vs. Thomas).Map of Congressional Districts. All predictions will be added to top right of main page. Preliminary prediction of Senate Seat (Coors vs. Salazar).
Thursday 9/9/04 Preliminary prediction on 3rd CD (Walcher vs. Salazar).Preliminary prediction on 7th CD (Beauprez vs. Thomas).Map of Congressional Districts. All predictions will be added to top right of main page. Preliminary prediction of Senate Seat (Coors vs. Salazar).
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Map of Colorado's State Senate Districts.
I've finally done it. If you want to see a map of the Districts that I posted on earlier today, click here.
A look at the State Senate Elections outside of the Denver Metro area.
There are five State Senate races outside of the Denver metro area.
Two of the districts, 10 and 12, both encompass parts of Colorado Springs, and the Republican incumbents, Ronnie J. May of District 10 and Andy McElhany of District 12 will face no Democratic opposition and will win re election.
District 4, the central Colorado front range, is an open seat. In the 2000 election the GOP took 59% of the vote. After redistricting more GOP areas were added to the district. However, don’t look for the Democratic candidate, Jim Miller, to go down without a fight. According to the Rocky Mountain News he has raised $24,400. Tom Wiens, the Republican has only raised $6,295. However, this race looks like a safe Republican seat.
District 8 makes up the north eastern corner of Colorado. In the 2000 election the GOP took 49% of the vote, with the Democrats trailing with 47%. After redistricting some of the more Democratic parts of the district were peeled off. Republican Jack Taylor is an incumbent and is looking to improve his margin of victory against Jay Fletcher (D). However Fletcher and the Democratic Party will not go quietly into the night, Fletcher has raised over twice as much as Taylor, $33,967 to $15,525 respectively. This race leans Republican, thanks mainly to the redistricting, which made Senate District 16 a safer district for the Democratic Senate Leader, who does not face election this year.
Lastly is Senate District 14, the truest tossup of the bunch. An open seat that is centered upon the city of Ft. Collins this race features the Republican mayor of Ft. Collins, Ray Martinez, against Bob Bacon. Bacon has amassed a $52,552 war chest which could make the difference in this close race. In 2000 The Democrats received 52% of the vote. The GOP got 45%. Redistricting makes this district larger, and more competitive.
In my opinion, Senate Districts 4, 10 and 12 are all safe GOP seats. SD 8 leans Republican and SD 14 is a very competitive tossup.
Ohwillek has done a great series on the races for the Colorado State Senate. For a look at who is running unopposed click here. For a look some of Ohwillek's early handicapping click here. We have some disagreements on what races are safe vs. leans, but only a few and he gives some great analysis.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Two of the districts, 10 and 12, both encompass parts of Colorado Springs, and the Republican incumbents, Ronnie J. May of District 10 and Andy McElhany of District 12 will face no Democratic opposition and will win re election.
District 4, the central Colorado front range, is an open seat. In the 2000 election the GOP took 59% of the vote. After redistricting more GOP areas were added to the district. However, don’t look for the Democratic candidate, Jim Miller, to go down without a fight. According to the Rocky Mountain News he has raised $24,400. Tom Wiens, the Republican has only raised $6,295. However, this race looks like a safe Republican seat.
District 8 makes up the north eastern corner of Colorado. In the 2000 election the GOP took 49% of the vote, with the Democrats trailing with 47%. After redistricting some of the more Democratic parts of the district were peeled off. Republican Jack Taylor is an incumbent and is looking to improve his margin of victory against Jay Fletcher (D). However Fletcher and the Democratic Party will not go quietly into the night, Fletcher has raised over twice as much as Taylor, $33,967 to $15,525 respectively. This race leans Republican, thanks mainly to the redistricting, which made Senate District 16 a safer district for the Democratic Senate Leader, who does not face election this year.
Lastly is Senate District 14, the truest tossup of the bunch. An open seat that is centered upon the city of Ft. Collins this race features the Republican mayor of Ft. Collins, Ray Martinez, against Bob Bacon. Bacon has amassed a $52,552 war chest which could make the difference in this close race. In 2000 The Democrats received 52% of the vote. The GOP got 45%. Redistricting makes this district larger, and more competitive.
In my opinion, Senate Districts 4, 10 and 12 are all safe GOP seats. SD 8 leans Republican and SD 14 is a very competitive tossup.
Ohwillek has done a great series on the races for the Colorado State Senate. For a look at who is running unopposed click here. For a look some of Ohwillek's early handicapping click here. We have some disagreements on what races are safe vs. leans, but only a few and he gives some great analysis.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Blogroll coming...
I'm sorry for the wait on the blogroll. I'm taking a crash course in HTML (they don't teach this stuff in Biz School). Once I'm done, we'll be cooking.
The Economist evaluates Colorado Politics.
In this week’s issue of The Economist, Colorado was examined as one in a series that The Economist has been doing on the so called “Battle Ground States.” The article is only available online for a fee, so I will paraphrase it here.
Colorado should be a solid Bush state. The Governor, Bill Owens, one of the most conservative Governors in the nation, won reelection 62%-32% in 2002. Both houses of the State Legislature are controlled by the GOP and the Republicans have increased their registration margin over Democrats from 102,000 in 1996 to 181,000 today.
No Democrat has won the state’s electoral votes since 1964, save Bill Clinton who won in 2000 when Ross Perot took 23% of the vote. But recent polls show the state in a dead heat between President Bush and Senator John Kerry.
“There is a lot of talk in Kerry circles about “battleground clusters”. The argument is that Mr. Bush is not as strong in the west as you might think -- he narrowly lost New Mexico in 2000-- and that the Western Cluster (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado) may be easier pickings than some more familiar swing states.”
Also the Republicans have three problems in Colorado. First is the economic slowdown, Walmart is now Colorado’s biggest employer, not Qwest. Secondly, the state's population is extremely fluid, the immigration of social conservatives in the 1990s has given way to a influx of Latinos, who now make up 18% of the population. The third problem is that Republicans in Colorado are CONSERVATIVE, not moderate.
Now I disagree with much of the analysis in the article, the unemployment rate in Colorado is 5.1%, economists generally agree that 5% is the natural rate of unemployment, no problem there. Demographics do seem to be moving against the GOP, but then again, the registration margin has remained at well over 100,000 for basically a decade. Lastly, our state GOP is deeply divided between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. However, unlike in the past, I believe that the party has learned a lesson from its defeats in the senate elections in 2000. Look at the lack of GOP primaries in the close State Senate districts and the selection of Coors as the party's Senate candidate.
Speaking of Pete Coors, the Economist also has an article on him. Coors weaker than he looks. They see Coors as a weak candidate, clearly making Salazar the favorite for the race. Perhaps poetically (or ironically) they have a link to a October 24th 2002 article on the Allard vs. Strickland Senate race. Could 2004 be a repeat of 2002 and 1996, races that were predicted to be close, but turned out to be surprisingly easy GOP victories? Stay tuned political junkies, this race is just starting to get hot.
Cross posted at Polstate .
Colorado should be a solid Bush state. The Governor, Bill Owens, one of the most conservative Governors in the nation, won reelection 62%-32% in 2002. Both houses of the State Legislature are controlled by the GOP and the Republicans have increased their registration margin over Democrats from 102,000 in 1996 to 181,000 today.
No Democrat has won the state’s electoral votes since 1964, save Bill Clinton who won in 2000 when Ross Perot took 23% of the vote. But recent polls show the state in a dead heat between President Bush and Senator John Kerry.
“There is a lot of talk in Kerry circles about “battleground clusters”. The argument is that Mr. Bush is not as strong in the west as you might think -- he narrowly lost New Mexico in 2000-- and that the Western Cluster (Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado) may be easier pickings than some more familiar swing states.”
Also the Republicans have three problems in Colorado. First is the economic slowdown, Walmart is now Colorado’s biggest employer, not Qwest. Secondly, the state's population is extremely fluid, the immigration of social conservatives in the 1990s has given way to a influx of Latinos, who now make up 18% of the population. The third problem is that Republicans in Colorado are CONSERVATIVE, not moderate.
Now I disagree with much of the analysis in the article, the unemployment rate in Colorado is 5.1%, economists generally agree that 5% is the natural rate of unemployment, no problem there. Demographics do seem to be moving against the GOP, but then again, the registration margin has remained at well over 100,000 for basically a decade. Lastly, our state GOP is deeply divided between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. However, unlike in the past, I believe that the party has learned a lesson from its defeats in the senate elections in 2000. Look at the lack of GOP primaries in the close State Senate districts and the selection of Coors as the party's Senate candidate.
Speaking of Pete Coors, the Economist also has an article on him. Coors weaker than he looks. They see Coors as a weak candidate, clearly making Salazar the favorite for the race. Perhaps poetically (or ironically) they have a link to a October 24th 2002 article on the Allard vs. Strickland Senate race. Could 2004 be a repeat of 2002 and 1996, races that were predicted to be close, but turned out to be surprisingly easy GOP victories? Stay tuned political junkies, this race is just starting to get hot.
Cross posted at Polstate .
Friday, August 27, 2004
Early predictions.
Here are our early predictions for the big races here in Colorado.
For the Coors vs. Salazar Senate race....Toss Up.
Congressional breakdown...CD 1 (Denver) Safe Dem. CD 2 (Boulder) Safe Dem. CD 3 (Western Slope) Toss Up. CD 4 (Eastern Plains) Safe GOP. CD 5 (Colorado Springs) Safe GOP. CD 6 (Southern Denver Suburbs) Safe GOP. CD 7 (Inner ring Suburbs) Leans Repubican.
Sorry for the toss ups, by mid-September there will be no toss ups in these big races.
As for the State Senate...Toss Up.
And State House...GOP Control.
Next posting, maps and predictions on the State Senate and state-wide issues and hopefully our blogroll will be in place.
For the Coors vs. Salazar Senate race....Toss Up.
Congressional breakdown...CD 1 (Denver) Safe Dem. CD 2 (Boulder) Safe Dem. CD 3 (Western Slope) Toss Up. CD 4 (Eastern Plains) Safe GOP. CD 5 (Colorado Springs) Safe GOP. CD 6 (Southern Denver Suburbs) Safe GOP. CD 7 (Inner ring Suburbs) Leans Repubican.
Sorry for the toss ups, by mid-September there will be no toss ups in these big races.
As for the State Senate...Toss Up.
And State House...GOP Control.
Next posting, maps and predictions on the State Senate and state-wide issues and hopefully our blogroll will be in place.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Welcome to Mile High Delphi
Welcome to the first post of Mile High Delphi. Like the oracle we hope to make predictions, that, over time, will have 99% accuracy. What will we predict exactly, well, the outcomes of elections here in Colorado, and in the United States in general.
What makes us different from some other prediction sites? Unlike some other prediction sites that just tell you what the polls say, we will use tested econometric models on close races. Our goal is to beat the pollsters, and everyone else quite frankly, and to provide a home for liberals and conservatives to argue on the issues of the day.
What makes us different from some other prediction sites? Unlike some other prediction sites that just tell you what the polls say, we will use tested econometric models on close races. Our goal is to beat the pollsters, and everyone else quite frankly, and to provide a home for liberals and conservatives to argue on the issues of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)