Not that money matters in these off year elections, but it seems that Jon Caldara's Vote No; Its Your Dough campaign has pulled even in spending with the Vote Yes on C and D campaign guys, maybe even ahead.
How can I come to this conclusion?
The thought first occurred to me on 10/07/2005, while watching Channel 4 News at 10:00. The vote no on c commercials outnumbered the vote yes on c commercials by a margin of 5-2 (and the five vote no commercials ran nearly in a row). Not one of these commercials was paid for by Caldara's campaign, instead they were all paid for by two separate groups, Colorado Club for Growth Issue Committee and If C Wins You Lose.
When you put together the monies spent by Caldara and the allies you get a total of $934,000. Vote Yes on C and D has only spent $3,722,000 (all numbers as of the 9/28 Secretary of State filings). That is a margin of about 4-1, well below the conventional wisdom margin of 10-1 that is needed for a vote yes committee to win against an organized opposition.
Additionally, during the month of September Vote Yes on C and D spent $700,000. The allied front spent $917,000. No referenda item has ever passed when it was outspent by its opposition (during a off-year election).
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Sabato Speaks on Colorado Politics.
Larry Sabato, of Crystal Ball fame, has begun his handicapping of the races for Colorado's Congressional Seats.
You can look at his excellent website here.
Three of Colorado's seven seats made it onto his "Dirty Thirty" most competitive races.
He lists HD 3 (Western Slope) John Salazar's (D) seat as "leans Democrat".
HD 4 (Eastern Plains) Musgrave's (R) seat as "leans Republican".
HD 7 (Lakewood, Arvada and Aurora) an open seat as "toss up".
Also, we will be adding three new links, Technorati so that you can easily search blogs, Rossputin for some more Colorado focused commentary and Colorado Exposed which is perhaps the most off the wall political website in Colorado.
Additionally, it has come to our attention that the link to the futures market is broken. We will be fixing that later today.
You can look at his excellent website here.
Three of Colorado's seven seats made it onto his "Dirty Thirty" most competitive races.
He lists HD 3 (Western Slope) John Salazar's (D) seat as "leans Democrat".
HD 4 (Eastern Plains) Musgrave's (R) seat as "leans Republican".
HD 7 (Lakewood, Arvada and Aurora) an open seat as "toss up".
Also, we will be adding three new links, Technorati so that you can easily search blogs, Rossputin for some more Colorado focused commentary and Colorado Exposed which is perhaps the most off the wall political website in Colorado.
Additionally, it has come to our attention that the link to the futures market is broken. We will be fixing that later today.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Hoi Polloi and Referendum C...
Here is a little musing on the tyranny of the majority...
If by the people you understand the multitude, the hoi polloi, 'tis no matter what they think; they are sometimes in the right, sometimes in the wrong: their judgment is a mere lottery.-John Dryden (1631-1700) Essay of Dramatic Poesy
Monday, October 10, 2005
Praise Apollo! The Oracle Speaks on Referendum C.
Our new model predicts that Referendum C has a 28.6% probability of passing.
If the election was held today referendum C would LOSE 47-53.
How did we get here? We constructed a model based upon looking at other off year elections. The only statistically significant variables we could find were all related to polling numbers. This is the result of using complete data sets from only 2003, 2001 and 1999 and partial data from 1997, 1995 and 1993. Using these numbers we constructed a formula that predicted the outcome of every election that we had full data for. Using the Student's t-Distribution we calculated the probability that C would garner at least 50% of the vote at 28.6%.
This is the equation that we used = X+(.2*Y))+/-Z = a
X = sample mean
Y = Undecided voters (as a percentage).
Z = estimator for the population standard deviation
On a less mathematical point, the first "If C wins you lose" yard sign was sighted today at 20th and Denver West Parkway.
If the election was held today referendum C would LOSE 47-53.
How did we get here? We constructed a model based upon looking at other off year elections. The only statistically significant variables we could find were all related to polling numbers. This is the result of using complete data sets from only 2003, 2001 and 1999 and partial data from 1997, 1995 and 1993. Using these numbers we constructed a formula that predicted the outcome of every election that we had full data for. Using the Student's t-Distribution we calculated the probability that C would garner at least 50% of the vote at 28.6%.
This is the equation that we used = X+(.2*Y))+/-Z = a
X = sample mean
Y = Undecided voters (as a percentage).
Z = estimator for the population standard deviation
On a less mathematical point, the first "If C wins you lose" yard sign was sighted today at 20th and Denver West Parkway.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Delphi on the Battle over Ref. C: Pro Side Needs More Money To Win.
Some members of the Colorado political prognosticati believe that since the Vote Yes on C and D campaign has outraised the Vote No on C side (by dramatic margins in fact) then Referenda C and D have a better chance of passing. Looking back at the most recent off year election it appears that the Pro C side may quickly face diminishing returns, especially as extra issue groups, such as the Backbone Issues Committee and the Independence institute, pile on.
As things currently stand now, the main anti C issue group Vote No; It's Your Dough has spent $129,550 as of 10/03. This doesn't take into account hundreds of thousands of dollars in adds by ally groups.
As of 9/19 (they are late on filing their 9/19 report) the main pro C issue group Vote Yes on C & D has spent $3,141,000. That is a margin of 24-1.
However, estimates are that the Independence Institute has purchased $400,000 of radio ads that basically blast Referendum C, and that the allied issue groups have probably spent another $250,000. The best estimate we have at this time is that the total amount the allied groups has spent is probably close to $750,000. That brings the margin down to 4-1, not enough to pass an initiative in an off year.
Looking back to 2003, the most expensive campaign was over Amendment 33 (the racetrack gambling amendment). The Pro side spent $6,711,400. The Con side spent $3,278,000 (almost all in the last four weeks). The Pro side outspent the Con side 2-1.
Polling shows that Amendment 33 was stuck basically in a statistical tie during the months of July and August, polling in the low to mid forties. An October poll, put its support at 19% (after suffering a marketing blitz by the opposition). It ended up getting only 19% of the vote that November.
Amendment 32 (Gallagher Freeze) polled in the low thirties in July (so it was basically doomed anyway). Even though the pro side outspent the con side by 87-1, it lost by a margin of 2-1.
Referendum A (Water Bonds) polled in the mid sixties in the wake of the drought. However, the pro side only outspent the opposition 2-1 overall, and was basically matched dollar for dollar during the last four weeks.
We are working on a model that can account for the effect of campaign fundraising differentials. We will have an updated model predicting the outcome of this election up on Mile High Delphi this weekend.
If you are a supporter of Referendum C you need to understand this, right now C probably is a 5-1 or a 6-1 underdog. Absent a huge GOTV and a media blitz in the last few weeks of the campaign (read as outspending the allies by a factor of 10-1) C will lose.
As things currently stand now, the main anti C issue group Vote No; It's Your Dough has spent $129,550 as of 10/03. This doesn't take into account hundreds of thousands of dollars in adds by ally groups.
As of 9/19 (they are late on filing their 9/19 report) the main pro C issue group Vote Yes on C & D has spent $3,141,000. That is a margin of 24-1.
However, estimates are that the Independence Institute has purchased $400,000 of radio ads that basically blast Referendum C, and that the allied issue groups have probably spent another $250,000. The best estimate we have at this time is that the total amount the allied groups has spent is probably close to $750,000. That brings the margin down to 4-1, not enough to pass an initiative in an off year.
Looking back to 2003, the most expensive campaign was over Amendment 33 (the racetrack gambling amendment). The Pro side spent $6,711,400. The Con side spent $3,278,000 (almost all in the last four weeks). The Pro side outspent the Con side 2-1.
Polling shows that Amendment 33 was stuck basically in a statistical tie during the months of July and August, polling in the low to mid forties. An October poll, put its support at 19% (after suffering a marketing blitz by the opposition). It ended up getting only 19% of the vote that November.
Amendment 32 (Gallagher Freeze) polled in the low thirties in July (so it was basically doomed anyway). Even though the pro side outspent the con side by 87-1, it lost by a margin of 2-1.
Referendum A (Water Bonds) polled in the mid sixties in the wake of the drought. However, the pro side only outspent the opposition 2-1 overall, and was basically matched dollar for dollar during the last four weeks.
We are working on a model that can account for the effect of campaign fundraising differentials. We will have an updated model predicting the outcome of this election up on Mile High Delphi this weekend.
If you are a supporter of Referendum C you need to understand this, right now C probably is a 5-1 or a 6-1 underdog. Absent a huge GOTV and a media blitz in the last few weeks of the campaign (read as outspending the allies by a factor of 10-1) C will lose.
Cleaning up this page.
This afternoon we are cleaning up this page.
We are fixing some broken links...Such as The Plumber
Adding some new links...Follow the Money..Denver Gas Prices...The Fug Girls
And, after much confusion, we will be moving almost all futures market book info over to polstate, with only the most basic info available here.
We are fixing some broken links...Such as The Plumber
Adding some new links...Follow the Money..Denver Gas Prices...The Fug Girls
And, after much confusion, we will be moving almost all futures market book info over to polstate, with only the most basic info available here.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Closing in on Referendum C! Building a better model.
The first part of building any scientific model (aside from coming up with a hypothesis) is collecting data. My last few days have been filled with the unfortunate experience of collecting new data for the model on Referendum C.
Some of our data raises interesting questions, such as, can we use even year election results to predict an odd year election, or do we need to focus on odd year election results only. Quite frankly we aren't sure yet. If we just go off of the odd year results, the future looks bleak for Ref. C. For example, in 2003 Amendment 33 (the racetrack gambling amendment) polled in a statistical tie in the months of July and August, then suddenly in a late October Ciruli poll it collapsed down to 19%. None of the 2003 ballot issues polled over 35% by October, surprising since Referendum A (the water bonds referendum) polled in the mid 60s in July. Additionally, we saw undecided voters break on average of 4-1 against the ballot measures. That means that for Referendum C to pass it will need to poll about 48% or 49%. Anything lower than that will be the kiss of death.
Can we use 2004 data? Maybe, but until we run the numbers we don't know. Even year elections have higher turnouts than odd year elections, this turnout differential makes a huge difference (h/t to the guys over at soapblox, their election data is great and they turned me on to the drop off that happens between the top of the ticket and the referenda items). Until I can quantify that differential and use it properly, I probably can't use even year data, its just too dissimilar. On example of this is the difference between FasTracks, which passed last year with basically 60% support and Guide the Ride, which was basically the same thing, but it lost with only 40% of the vote in 1997.
Campaign funding also is a big issue. Campaign finances are a statistically significant variable in legislative races (not the most significant however, voter registration numbers rule that roost). Finding the campaign finance numbers for prior year elections here in Colorado, quite frankly, sucks. The Secretary of State's website doesn't allow you to search by campaign issue, so I have to jump through hoops to find any information. Even once I find the name of the issue committee, I have to add up the campaign expenditures because they don't have a running total. I assume that we will end up finding out that the pro side must outspend the con side by a factor of greater than 10-1, that seems to be the conventional wisdom. However, maybe we'll prove the conventional wisdom wrong, I just don't know yet.
Until we work out what data to use, and find the funding numbers, it wouldn't be prudent to update our model. Just from my gut, it looks like C has an uphill battle. I can't find an example of a off year ballot measure winning without polling in the 50s.
Some of our data raises interesting questions, such as, can we use even year election results to predict an odd year election, or do we need to focus on odd year election results only. Quite frankly we aren't sure yet. If we just go off of the odd year results, the future looks bleak for Ref. C. For example, in 2003 Amendment 33 (the racetrack gambling amendment) polled in a statistical tie in the months of July and August, then suddenly in a late October Ciruli poll it collapsed down to 19%. None of the 2003 ballot issues polled over 35% by October, surprising since Referendum A (the water bonds referendum) polled in the mid 60s in July. Additionally, we saw undecided voters break on average of 4-1 against the ballot measures. That means that for Referendum C to pass it will need to poll about 48% or 49%. Anything lower than that will be the kiss of death.
Can we use 2004 data? Maybe, but until we run the numbers we don't know. Even year elections have higher turnouts than odd year elections, this turnout differential makes a huge difference (h/t to the guys over at soapblox, their election data is great and they turned me on to the drop off that happens between the top of the ticket and the referenda items). Until I can quantify that differential and use it properly, I probably can't use even year data, its just too dissimilar. On example of this is the difference between FasTracks, which passed last year with basically 60% support and Guide the Ride, which was basically the same thing, but it lost with only 40% of the vote in 1997.
Campaign funding also is a big issue. Campaign finances are a statistically significant variable in legislative races (not the most significant however, voter registration numbers rule that roost). Finding the campaign finance numbers for prior year elections here in Colorado, quite frankly, sucks. The Secretary of State's website doesn't allow you to search by campaign issue, so I have to jump through hoops to find any information. Even once I find the name of the issue committee, I have to add up the campaign expenditures because they don't have a running total. I assume that we will end up finding out that the pro side must outspend the con side by a factor of greater than 10-1, that seems to be the conventional wisdom. However, maybe we'll prove the conventional wisdom wrong, I just don't know yet.
Until we work out what data to use, and find the funding numbers, it wouldn't be prudent to update our model. Just from my gut, it looks like C has an uphill battle. I can't find an example of a off year ballot measure winning without polling in the 50s.
New polling information out, Ref. C and the Top Of the Ticket.
Earlier today Floyd Ciruli appeared on 850 KOA's Colorado Morning News. In that interview he stated that polling on Referendum C was showing that support for the issue is basically stalled, and that it is statistically tied with those who will vote against the issue. He added the caveat that most Coloradoans don't seem to be paying attention to the election battle yet.
This seems to be in line with, and re-enforces the polling information that we have gotten over here. The most recent numbers that made it into the sunlight are available at our Referendum C and D Homepage. They show support for C at 48% with 44% against it. 8% are undecided and the poll had a margin of error of 4%. So Ciruli's caveat seems right on target, the issue seems statistically tied.
As for the Governors race...
ColoradoPols put these Wall Street Journal-Zogby numbers up earlier today. You can link directly to them here. They credit Coyote Gulch who in turn credits Taegan Goddard's Political Wire who in turn sends you to the Wall Street Journal Online. Quite a journey but well worth it.
Zogby looked at a variety of different matchups that are all possible next November:
But what is perhaps the most interesting tidbit from this poll is what Zogby gleaned from it:
Cross posted at Polstate.
This seems to be in line with, and re-enforces the polling information that we have gotten over here. The most recent numbers that made it into the sunlight are available at our Referendum C and D Homepage. They show support for C at 48% with 44% against it. 8% are undecided and the poll had a margin of error of 4%. So Ciruli's caveat seems right on target, the issue seems statistically tied.
As for the Governors race...
ColoradoPols put these Wall Street Journal-Zogby numbers up earlier today. You can link directly to them here. They credit Coyote Gulch who in turn credits Taegan Goddard's Political Wire who in turn sends you to the Wall Street Journal Online. Quite a journey but well worth it.
Zogby looked at a variety of different matchups that are all possible next November:
Bob Beauprez vs. Bill Ritter
Beauprez: 43.6%
Ritter: 39%
John Hickenlooper vs. Marc Holtzman
Hickenlooper: 48.2%
Holtzman: 36.1%
Bob Beauprez vs. Joan Fitz-Gerald
Beauprez: 45.4%
Fitz-Gerald: 38.6%
But what is perhaps the most interesting tidbit from this poll is what Zogby gleaned from it:
"With term-limited Gov. Bill Owens set to step down, this race promises to be a shootout...Should the Democrats nominate liberal Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, Rep. Beauprez is the GOP's best hope for defeating her. The more conservative Bill Ritter, Denver's district attorney (sic), would be a more formidable opponent and is in a close race with all three Republicans. If Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper -- who has said he has no intentions of running for governor -- enters the race, he is poised to defeat any GOP challenger handily."
Cross posted at Polstate.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Some thoughts on Katrina...
As we work on putting out an improved model for predicting the outcome of Referendum C we haven't lost sight of one of the most responsibilities that the political prognosticati have, helping our readers procrastinate with nifty tidbits.
Here are some thoughts on Katrina...
On the local leadership...
On what Charity to pick...
Charity Navigator lists relief agencies that get three or four star ratings-the highest the group gives out.
The Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance offers various info about the charities.
The IRS provides tips on giving.
And on what is the most American game of all; the blame game...
Hat tip to the Wall Street Journal.
Here are some thoughts on Katrina...
On the local leadership...
So I'm asking Congress, please investigate this now. Take whatever idiot they have at the top of whatever agency and give me a better idiot. Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot. Just don't give me the same idiot.-Aaron Broussard, President of Jefferson Parish, La. (hat tip to Vincent Carroll)
On what Charity to pick...
Charity Navigator lists relief agencies that get three or four star ratings-the highest the group gives out.
The Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance offers various info about the charities.
The IRS provides tips on giving.
And on what is the most American game of all; the blame game...
The urge to blame is an innate human impulse dating back a million years or more. It's an impulse that travels through our bodies to our fingertips, as we all saw in the frenzied finger-pointing over Hurricane Katrina.
Just as meteorologists and coastal engineers predicted the hurricane and flooding, there are "blame researchers" who foresaw the storm of words and pointed fingers that followed. They weren't surprised when politicians, victims and the media angrily affixed blame for the inadequate levee system and deadly slow rescue efforts. In fact, they see the tragedy through the prism of an academic question: can our blame impulses weed out ineptitude, improve conditions and save lives?
Modern America is beset by blame-mongering. At ShiftTheBlame.com you can buy a "calibrated blame-shifting device" for $2.95. It's a giant foam had with the words "It's Your Fault!" on the pointer finger. Run by East Bank Communications, an ad agency in Portland, Ore. the Web site offers tongue-in-cheek mantras: "You have everyone but yourself to blame." "It's not you, it's the printer." The jokes ring true because finding blame is an American Preoccupation...
Hat tip to the Wall Street Journal.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Referendum C in the News; Updated Legislative Odds.
The Rocky mountain News is running a series of articles that examine how Referendum C would effect a handful of local individuals.
The opening article of the series is here.
The first of the seven parts is available here. This first part featured a struggling west slope family who said that they were going to vote against C because they couldn't afford to forfeit their tax rebates over the next five years.
The second article features a 23 year old single professional who lives in Aurora and works in Downtown Denver. She says that she supports C because "[I]n the end... Her TABOR refund would be better spent on improving roads and higher education." You can link to that article here.
The third part of that series features a look at the unusual Mayor of Sterling and his wife. They support C because they want to increase funding for Sterling's High School and because "[L]osing TABOR refunds with Refs C and D wouldn't devastate them." You can link to that story here.
Overall the score is No on C:1 Yes on C:2. I imagine that the Rocky will try to get a balanced look. We will probably see the storyline end with three families supporting C, three against it and one who still hasn't made its mind up.
Meanwhile in the Campaign over C...
A proxy war has sprung up between Republican Gubernatorial Candidates Mark Holtzman and Bob Beauprez. Each accuses the other of not being enough against C and of abusing campaign finance laws. The latest in a series of articles on the subject is available here. This is simply positioning for the primary next fall, as each candidate vies for support from the Republican Party's anti-tax base.
Also...
It seems that the new trend in the media's reporting on the battle over Referendum C is to point out how this side or that has lied. Most recently the No on C side has taken a few big hits. Earlier in the week Jon Caldara, the President of the Independence Institute admitted that the State didn't pay $5,000 for a piece of artwork that featured some dildos hanging on hooks. That charge had been a rallying cry for the anti-C forces. In this article it comes to light that the State didn't give Colorado company Red Robin nearly $100,000 in cash. Instead the State approved Red Robin for a grant that it will receive in the future.
Updating our legislative numbers...
It appears that the GOP is going to have a much harder time winning back the State Legislature next year than we originally thought. While these predictions are only preliminary ones, here is what we think the probability of control for next year is right now:
probability in % terms....................Fractional
GOP Control.............5%......................................19/1
Dem Control.............45%.....................................6/5
Split Control.............50%.....................................1/1
The opening article of the series is here.
The first of the seven parts is available here. This first part featured a struggling west slope family who said that they were going to vote against C because they couldn't afford to forfeit their tax rebates over the next five years.
The second article features a 23 year old single professional who lives in Aurora and works in Downtown Denver. She says that she supports C because "[I]n the end... Her TABOR refund would be better spent on improving roads and higher education." You can link to that article here.
The third part of that series features a look at the unusual Mayor of Sterling and his wife. They support C because they want to increase funding for Sterling's High School and because "[L]osing TABOR refunds with Refs C and D wouldn't devastate them." You can link to that story here.
Overall the score is No on C:1 Yes on C:2. I imagine that the Rocky will try to get a balanced look. We will probably see the storyline end with three families supporting C, three against it and one who still hasn't made its mind up.
Meanwhile in the Campaign over C...
A proxy war has sprung up between Republican Gubernatorial Candidates Mark Holtzman and Bob Beauprez. Each accuses the other of not being enough against C and of abusing campaign finance laws. The latest in a series of articles on the subject is available here. This is simply positioning for the primary next fall, as each candidate vies for support from the Republican Party's anti-tax base.
Also...
It seems that the new trend in the media's reporting on the battle over Referendum C is to point out how this side or that has lied. Most recently the No on C side has taken a few big hits. Earlier in the week Jon Caldara, the President of the Independence Institute admitted that the State didn't pay $5,000 for a piece of artwork that featured some dildos hanging on hooks. That charge had been a rallying cry for the anti-C forces. In this article it comes to light that the State didn't give Colorado company Red Robin nearly $100,000 in cash. Instead the State approved Red Robin for a grant that it will receive in the future.
Updating our legislative numbers...
It appears that the GOP is going to have a much harder time winning back the State Legislature next year than we originally thought. While these predictions are only preliminary ones, here is what we think the probability of control for next year is right now:
probability in % terms....................Fractional
GOP Control.............5%......................................19/1
Dem Control.............45%.....................................6/5
Split Control.............50%.....................................1/1
Monday, September 26, 2005
Delphi on the Battle over Ref. C. End of Sept. Edition.
Eric Sondermann, a local political analyst, wrote a great piece in Sunday's Denver Post. The thesis of his piece was that both sides were using overheated rhetoric in the debate over C. Ref. C won't kill TABOR, it will basically maintain the status quo. On the other side Ref. C won't even begin to fill the wish list for the "fiscal crisis" crowd. If it passes they will have a new fiscal crisis that needs to be solved in the fall of 2006.
An exerpt is available here:
A link to the piece is available here.
As far as the advertisements for and against C go, both sides appear to be lying.
The No on C side has been running ads saying that the average voter will forfeit $3,200 in tax refunds. That number seems to be in doubt:
In truth, the real number is probably somewhere in between. However, the Pro-C adds that accuse the anti-C side of lying about the $3,200 isn't really truthful itself.
In another commercial, the Pro-C side outright lies. Here is what the Denver Post had to say:
When the Pro-C side says that "Three years of recession have caused deep cuts to education that have hit kids hard. Substandard buildings, crowded classrooms and cuts to programs" they aren't telling the truth.
You can link to the story here.
Tomorrow I'll have more links up. Stay tuned.
An exerpt is available here:
These ballot proposals could be approved and yet neither the professed wishes of the proponents nor the desperate fears of the opponents are likely to be realized. Contrary to the proponents' implicit promise, the state's list of unmet needs would remain a lengthy one. Within months, there would be fresh talk of a "fiscal crisis" and impassioned calls for new revenue sources. Contrary to the opponents' claims about the magnitude of the "tax increase," these are essentially status quo measures that would maintain tax and spending at pre-recession levels.
A link to the piece is available here.
As far as the advertisements for and against C go, both sides appear to be lying.
The No on C side has been running ads saying that the average voter will forfeit $3,200 in tax refunds. That number seems to be in doubt:
Based on current estimates, the state would keep and spend an extra $3.7 billion over five years if Referendum C passes. The amount of money that most taxpayers would give up if Referendum C passes is $491, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Council.
Opponents of Referendum C, however, calculate that the average family of four would give up $3,200 in tax refunds.
To get that number, they divide $3.1 billion - another projection of the amount of money the state would keep if C passes - by the number of families.
But that approach assumes each taxpayer qualifies for every possible refund. The legislature has devised 12 special-interest tax breaks for things such as child care and business and capital-gains exemptions. No taxpayer qualifies for every refund.
In truth, the real number is probably somewhere in between. However, the Pro-C adds that accuse the anti-C side of lying about the $3,200 isn't really truthful itself.
In another commercial, the Pro-C side outright lies. Here is what the Denver Post had to say:
The message: Three years of recession have caused deep cuts to education that have hit kids hard. Substandard buildings, crowded classrooms and cuts to programs including preschool, kindergarten and Read to Achieve are the result.
Fact: Read to Achieve, which provides grants to help 2nd- and 3rd-graders who read below their grade level, was cut $11.9 million between fiscal year 2004-05 and 2005-06. Between 2003-04 and 2004-05, 2,000 kids were cut from the state's preschool program. But for 2005-06, money was restored to fund the 2,000 kids and add 1,310 more. In 2001-02, the state cut funding for unsatisfactory schools to send their half-day kindergartners to full-day programs. That funding was restored for 2005-06...Overall, K-12 funding increased between 2001 and 2004 because of Amendment 23, which requires the state to increase funding by student growth and inflation plus 1 percent every year.
Between 2001-02 and 2003-04, the total general fund money to the Education Department increased $149 million, from $2.3 billion to $2.4 billion.
When the Pro-C side says that "Three years of recession have caused deep cuts to education that have hit kids hard. Substandard buildings, crowded classrooms and cuts to programs" they aren't telling the truth.
You can link to the story here.
Tomorrow I'll have more links up. Stay tuned.
Friday, September 23, 2005
Delphi on the Battle over Ref. C.
The Conventional Wisdom is that the debate over Referendum C is creating a rift in the Colorado State Republican Party. An excellent Durango Herald article outlined the basic facts of the rift.
And it is true, the State party is split, but the split is more symbolic than real. A handful of elected GOP officials have come out in support of C, however, straw polls, polling and local party officials have revealed that the Republican party is anything but split, rank and file members don't support C. For instance the Larimer County Republican Executive Committee voted against supporting C, angering some former GOP office holders. An earlier GOP straw poll saw support for C at about 25%. The question that I have to ask is why are these Republicans taking a position that seems suicidal inside their party?
The answer appears to be the recent Democratic surge in Colorado. In 2004 the Democrats picked up both houses of the State Legislature, a Senate Seat and a Congress Seat. Many GOP leaders believe that the reason for that surge was voter disgust at the "wither on the vine" attitude many Republicans have towards State spending. I believe that many of these GOP leaders have made a strategic choice. Support C and take away a Democratic issue. Governor Owens is a perfect example of this approach. If C loses he blunts the criticism of Democrats, but if C wins he can take much of the credit as the highest profile Republican in support of C. Perhaps allowing this one time presidential hopeful to restart his career.
The Democrats see C as a win-win. If C wins they can finally do some damage to the hated TABOR amendment. Democratic constituents have been disproportionately affected by TABOR's limits on spending growth. Quite literally TABOR takes money out of their pockets. They also can blunt some of the effects of Amendment 23, which put the K-12 education budget on autopilot, by undoing parts of TABOR, not modifying 23. If C loses then the Democrats can come back in 2006, and with all the state-wide races, including an open governors seat, they can play the same cards that they won with in 2004, namely that the GOP is ideologically rigid and can't respond to the real world needs of everyday Coloradoans. However this isn't my idea, it comes from the American Prospect:
More often than not the conventional wisdom is wrong. The state GOP is not deeply split over C. When new polls become available look for anywhere from one quarter to one third of the GOP voters to support C, but no where near the huge divide that you hear in the media. Where their is a divide is between the base of the party and the elected officials who believe that the Democrats rode the budget deficit to victory.
The Democrats are going to believe that they have won no matter what. If C passes any reform to amendment 23 will be off the table. If it loses they can play the same cards that won in 2004. And, unless the GOP learns to play the same game as the Democrats they will win.
The Colorado GOP may not be as divided as the media makes it out to be, but it is infected with a cancer. It held power for too long, as Vince Lombardy used to say, sometimes you need to get beat down in order to win. The Colorado Democrats have found out how to win. They blocked any ballot issues to deal with the budget problems while in the minority in 2003 and then accused the GOP of doing nothing, and they won. For the GOP to win in the future they may have to do something that Republicans in the late 1990s never could have imagined, learn from the Democrats.
A November ballot proposal to fix Colorado's financial woes has sparked a nasty and expensive campaign that has split the state's Republican base, already reeling from losses in last fall's elections.
Gov. Bill Owens, once touted as presidential material in conservative Republican circles, teamed with Democrats last spring in drawing up the proposal that will ask voters to give up as much as $3.7 billion in tax refunds over the next five years.
TABOR [The part of the state constitution that limits tax increases and government spending and which would be modified by Ref. C] supporters recently brought in former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who accused Owens in a face-to-face debate of "drinking backslider wine" for supporting the ballot measure. The measure's author, Douglas Bruce, has threatened to sue if voters approve the ballot plan.
Owens acknowledged the plan does not have much support among Republicans, but he said Colorado is facing a crisis next year if voters refuse to give up surplus tax refunds. He said he is simply backing TABOR's provision that requires voter approval involving tax dollars.
And it is true, the State party is split, but the split is more symbolic than real. A handful of elected GOP officials have come out in support of C, however, straw polls, polling and local party officials have revealed that the Republican party is anything but split, rank and file members don't support C. For instance the Larimer County Republican Executive Committee voted against supporting C, angering some former GOP office holders. An earlier GOP straw poll saw support for C at about 25%. The question that I have to ask is why are these Republicans taking a position that seems suicidal inside their party?
The answer appears to be the recent Democratic surge in Colorado. In 2004 the Democrats picked up both houses of the State Legislature, a Senate Seat and a Congress Seat. Many GOP leaders believe that the reason for that surge was voter disgust at the "wither on the vine" attitude many Republicans have towards State spending. I believe that many of these GOP leaders have made a strategic choice. Support C and take away a Democratic issue. Governor Owens is a perfect example of this approach. If C loses he blunts the criticism of Democrats, but if C wins he can take much of the credit as the highest profile Republican in support of C. Perhaps allowing this one time presidential hopeful to restart his career.
The Democrats see C as a win-win. If C wins they can finally do some damage to the hated TABOR amendment. Democratic constituents have been disproportionately affected by TABOR's limits on spending growth. Quite literally TABOR takes money out of their pockets. They also can blunt some of the effects of Amendment 23, which put the K-12 education budget on autopilot, by undoing parts of TABOR, not modifying 23. If C loses then the Democrats can come back in 2006, and with all the state-wide races, including an open governors seat, they can play the same cards that they won with in 2004, namely that the GOP is ideologically rigid and can't respond to the real world needs of everyday Coloradoans. However this isn't my idea, it comes from the American Prospect:
It [the Democratic Da Vinci Code] also echoed Colorado Democrats, who used deficits to win the state Legislature for the first time in 40 years. "The Republicans' obsession with narrow cultural issues while the state's looming fiscal crisis was ignored drove a deep wedge between fiscally conservative live-and-let-live Republicans and the neo-conservative extremists with an agenda," wrote one Denver Post columnist.
More often than not the conventional wisdom is wrong. The state GOP is not deeply split over C. When new polls become available look for anywhere from one quarter to one third of the GOP voters to support C, but no where near the huge divide that you hear in the media. Where their is a divide is between the base of the party and the elected officials who believe that the Democrats rode the budget deficit to victory.
The Democrats are going to believe that they have won no matter what. If C passes any reform to amendment 23 will be off the table. If it loses they can play the same cards that won in 2004. And, unless the GOP learns to play the same game as the Democrats they will win.
The Colorado GOP may not be as divided as the media makes it out to be, but it is infected with a cancer. It held power for too long, as Vince Lombardy used to say, sometimes you need to get beat down in order to win. The Colorado Democrats have found out how to win. They blocked any ballot issues to deal with the budget problems while in the minority in 2003 and then accused the GOP of doing nothing, and they won. For the GOP to win in the future they may have to do something that Republicans in the late 1990s never could have imagined, learn from the Democrats.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Referendum C and D homepage.
Polls:
Mason-Dixon Oct 11-13
Referendum C Yes: 47% No: 44% Undecided: 9% MOE:4%
Referendum D Yes: 44% No: 45% Undecided: 11% MOE:4%
POS Oct 10-12
Referendum C: Yes:49% No:46% Undecided:5% MOE:4.38%
Referendum D: Yes:50% No:44% Undecided:6% MOE:4.38%
Dan Willis* 08/05
Referenda C: For 48%. Against 44%. Undec. 8%. MoE 4%.
Mason Dixon 07/05
Referenda C: For 43%. Against 42%.
Referenda D: For 39%. Against 45%.
Update 10/17/2005 Rosen Reveals Part of GOP Strategy.
Update 10/17/2005 Closer Look at Friday's RMN Poll Results.
Update 10/16/2005 New Denver Post Poll Out.
Update 10/14/2005 New Polling Out, C and D within MOE.
Update 10/12/2005 Caldara and Allies Outspending Vote Yes on C and D.
Update 10/10/2005 Mile High Delphi Reveals New Model. Initial Prediction, C and D lose 47-53.
Update 10/05/2005 C and D Need More Money to Win.
Update 10/04/2005 A look at what we look at as we build the Referendum C and D model.
Update 10/04/2005 Ciruli Says C and D Statistically Tied.
Update 9/26/2005 Delphi on the Battle Over Ref. C and D.
Update 9/23/2005 A look at the coming battle.
Update 9/22/2005
The battle over C and D is shifting into high gear. Republican Gubernatorial candidate Mark Holtzman has hitched his horse to the No on C campaign. If C goes down his stock will go up. He is now being featured on Anti-C commercials that are financed by, among others, his father.
A new front has opened in the battle, earlier in the month Jon Caldara and the No on C campaign sued over the title of the issue. Rocky Mountain News political columnist Peter Blake, a fairminded journalist, sided with Caldara...
Earlier this week Jon Caldara and other foes of Referendum C sued the secretary of state and the legislature because, they said, the ballot title erroneously says it will enable the state to spend extra billions on roads, schools and health care over five years "without raising taxes." In fact, the plaintiffs argue, "if Referendum C passed, the measure would raise net taxes."
In other news, Dan Willis reported on Coloradopols that Referendum C had pulled up to 48-44. We have no reason to doubt these numbers, it still is a statistical tie.
* Not really sure how to characterize this poll. Here is what Dan said about it:
8/30/05 Update.
Original Post 8/21/2005
The big contest this fall is Referendum C (D only matters if C passes).
This page is designed to answer any questions someone may have about C and D and it will provide you with quick links to the supporters and opponents of C and D.
Mile High Delphi has no opinion on C and D.
Lets answer some basic questions. What will C and D do? Who is supporting C and D? Why? Who opposes C and D? Why?
What Will C and D Do?
"What is Referendum C?
C Suspends state spending limits for five years.
C Allows lawmakers to spend about $3.6 billion they otherwise would have to refund to taxpayers.
What is Referendum D?
D Allows the state to borrow against that money to begin transportation and school construction right away."
Source Rocky Mountain News.
Who is supporting C and D and why?
Vote Yes on C and D. The two Referenda are currently (updated on 8/21/05) endorsed by 522 organizations. The Vote Yes on C & D campaign committee had nearly 1.3 million dollars on hand as of July 26th.
Some of the major donors to the Yes on C & D campaign are the AFSCME Council 76 which gave $100,000 on 07/22/05, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce which gave $250,000 on 07/21/05, Centura Health gave $195,000 on 07/15/2005 and the Colorado Education Association gave $200,000 on 07/26/05.
Sometimes you feel like you just get a bunch of spin as to why to vote yes or no on something. Here at Mile High Delphi we've decided to just give you a link to the supporter's website (that way you don't have to read our spin). Here is why Vote Yes on C & D thinks you should vote yes.
Who opposes C and D and why?
Vote No; It's Your Dough. The two Referenda are currently (updated on 8/21/05) opposed by Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, The Club for Growth, Colorado Union of Taxpayers, Freedom Works, National Taxpayers Union, Save Tabor.com and the Colorado Republican Business Coalition. The Vote No; It's Your Dough campaign committee had $107,279.49 on hand as of July 26th.
Vote No; It's Your Dough had only three donors over the reporting period. Helen Sweeney gave $25.00. Edward McVaney gave $100,000. Brent Bickel gave $5,000. All on 07/19/05. This only tells part of the story. Two of the major opponents of C and D, Jon Caldara and John Andrews, both have radio shows which they use to attack the referenda items. Also, the Independence Institute is running radio commercials that basically attack C and D as tax increases (but which don't advocate a no vote so therefore count as "educational" and protect the Institute from losing its tax exempt status).
The best "No on C and D" website I've been able to find so far is this one, TaxIncrease.org.
Polling:
There is only one poll out on C and D so far:
Mason Dixon 07/05
Referenda C: For 43%. Against 42%.
Referenda D: For 39%. Against 45%.
Mason-Dixon Oct 11-13
Referendum C Yes: 47% No: 44% Undecided: 9% MOE:4%
Referendum D Yes: 44% No: 45% Undecided: 11% MOE:4%
POS Oct 10-12
Referendum C: Yes:49% No:46% Undecided:5% MOE:4.38%
Referendum D: Yes:50% No:44% Undecided:6% MOE:4.38%
Dan Willis* 08/05
Referenda C: For 48%. Against 44%. Undec. 8%. MoE 4%.
Mason Dixon 07/05
Referenda C: For 43%. Against 42%.
Referenda D: For 39%. Against 45%.
Update 10/17/2005 Rosen Reveals Part of GOP Strategy.
Update 10/17/2005 Closer Look at Friday's RMN Poll Results.
Update 10/16/2005 New Denver Post Poll Out.
Update 10/14/2005 New Polling Out, C and D within MOE.
Update 10/12/2005 Caldara and Allies Outspending Vote Yes on C and D.
Update 10/10/2005 Mile High Delphi Reveals New Model. Initial Prediction, C and D lose 47-53.
Update 10/05/2005 C and D Need More Money to Win.
Update 10/04/2005 A look at what we look at as we build the Referendum C and D model.
Update 10/04/2005 Ciruli Says C and D Statistically Tied.
Update 9/26/2005 Delphi on the Battle Over Ref. C and D.
Update 9/23/2005 A look at the coming battle.
Update 9/22/2005
The battle over C and D is shifting into high gear. Republican Gubernatorial candidate Mark Holtzman has hitched his horse to the No on C campaign. If C goes down his stock will go up. He is now being featured on Anti-C commercials that are financed by, among others, his father.
A new front has opened in the battle, earlier in the month Jon Caldara and the No on C campaign sued over the title of the issue. Rocky Mountain News political columnist Peter Blake, a fairminded journalist, sided with Caldara...
Earlier this week Jon Caldara and other foes of Referendum C sued the secretary of state and the legislature because, they said, the ballot title erroneously says it will enable the state to spend extra billions on roads, schools and health care over five years "without raising taxes." In fact, the plaintiffs argue, "if Referendum C passed, the measure would raise net taxes."
Under the rules laid down by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, says Caldara, the ballot title should ask: "Shall state taxes be increased $3.7 billion over five years" by raising the TABOR baseline. He asked the Jefferson County District Court to force this change in the ballot title. (For what it's worth, Caldara didn't protest Referendum D, since its operative phrase on the ballot title is "Without increasing any tax rates or imposing any new taxes . . ." In other words it notifies voters of the distinction between hiking taxes and hiking tax rates.)
The point here isn't to debate whether or not spending tax money that would otherwise be refunded to the citizenry is in fact a tax hike. The point is that the courts will refuse to address a possibly faulty ballot title before the election.
In other news, Dan Willis reported on Coloradopols that Referendum C had pulled up to 48-44. We have no reason to doubt these numbers, it still is a statistical tie.
* Not really sure how to characterize this poll. Here is what Dan said about it:
The poll numbers I quoted were given in a public forum I attended a couple of weeks ago. They were supposedly from one of the well-known pollsters (Talemy-Drake is in my mind, but I honestly don't remember for sure).
8/30/05 Update.
Original Post 8/21/2005
The big contest this fall is Referendum C (D only matters if C passes).
This page is designed to answer any questions someone may have about C and D and it will provide you with quick links to the supporters and opponents of C and D.
Mile High Delphi has no opinion on C and D.
Lets answer some basic questions. What will C and D do? Who is supporting C and D? Why? Who opposes C and D? Why?
What Will C and D Do?
"What is Referendum C?
C Suspends state spending limits for five years.
C Allows lawmakers to spend about $3.6 billion they otherwise would have to refund to taxpayers.
What is Referendum D?
D Allows the state to borrow against that money to begin transportation and school construction right away."
Source Rocky Mountain News.
Who is supporting C and D and why?
Vote Yes on C and D. The two Referenda are currently (updated on 8/21/05) endorsed by 522 organizations. The Vote Yes on C & D campaign committee had nearly 1.3 million dollars on hand as of July 26th.
Some of the major donors to the Yes on C & D campaign are the AFSCME Council 76 which gave $100,000 on 07/22/05, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce which gave $250,000 on 07/21/05, Centura Health gave $195,000 on 07/15/2005 and the Colorado Education Association gave $200,000 on 07/26/05.
Sometimes you feel like you just get a bunch of spin as to why to vote yes or no on something. Here at Mile High Delphi we've decided to just give you a link to the supporter's website (that way you don't have to read our spin). Here is why Vote Yes on C & D thinks you should vote yes.
Who opposes C and D and why?
Vote No; It's Your Dough. The two Referenda are currently (updated on 8/21/05) opposed by Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, The Club for Growth, Colorado Union of Taxpayers, Freedom Works, National Taxpayers Union, Save Tabor.com and the Colorado Republican Business Coalition. The Vote No; It's Your Dough campaign committee had $107,279.49 on hand as of July 26th.
Vote No; It's Your Dough had only three donors over the reporting period. Helen Sweeney gave $25.00. Edward McVaney gave $100,000. Brent Bickel gave $5,000. All on 07/19/05. This only tells part of the story. Two of the major opponents of C and D, Jon Caldara and John Andrews, both have radio shows which they use to attack the referenda items. Also, the Independence Institute is running radio commercials that basically attack C and D as tax increases (but which don't advocate a no vote so therefore count as "educational" and protect the Institute from losing its tax exempt status).
The best "No on C and D" website I've been able to find so far is this one, TaxIncrease.org.
Polling:
There is only one poll out on C and D so far:
Mason Dixon 07/05
Referenda C: For 43%. Against 42%.
Referenda D: For 39%. Against 45%.
Top of the Ticket!
Poll average Ritter (D) 51.7% Beauprez (R) 35% Spread Ritter +16.7
Update (10/05/2006)
If you want a page that has everything you could want on this race go here. Real Clear Politics has done as good a job as anyone out there looking at this race.
As for this race. The Beauprez campaign cannot seem to get any traction against Ritter. Beauprez cannot even get the GOP voters lined up behind him, nevermind the unaffiliated voters. Don't mind those biased attacks against the Beauprez campaign that come out from the likes of coloradopols which is a liberal attack blog that masquerades as "Politics, News and Inside Information." (Not that we don't like liberal websites, squarestate.net is a daily read, and they state that they are progressives up front.)
The main problem Beauprez has is that this year the public is generally against the Republicans. National scandals and the 6 year political itch give Beauprez a strong headwind that he seems to be making no progress against. Unless his poll numbers can pull to within five points he will lose to Ritter, if it is a blowout the GOP could lose more seats in the State Legislature (which the Democrats already control) and the Democrats could pick up the 7th Congressional District.
Update (8/15/2006)
I've just received a bunch of data from Matrow that has caused us to move this race from Barely GOP to Lean Dem.
The reasons for this are many and varied and others say it better than we can, but this graph of the price for a futures option from Tradesports.com shows it all.
The market has basically shown that the probability of the Bob Beauprez winning the Governor's race has dropped from about 70% in February to about 20% today. Now this market isn't very liquid, but it does have strong predictive powers.
Below you can see how the price on a Ritter to win option has gone up over the same time.
Larry Sabato has decided to put this race into the Leans Democratic category.
A link to Sabato's Crystal Ball and its page devoted to the Colorado Gubernatorial race is available here.
The Cook Political Report has this race listed as a Toss Up. A link to their gubernatorial Race Ratings page is available here.
Here are some recent polls:
Rasmussen Ritter (D) 48% Beauprez (R) 39% Undec. 12% August 14
Mason-Dixon Ritter (D) 42% Beauprez (R) 35% Undec. 23% July 17
Rasmussen Ritter (D) 42% Beauprez (R) 37% Undec. 16% July 10
The guys over at Coloradopols have a page with more polls on it. Click here.
Polling:
8/19-24/2005 Ritter (D) 44% Beauprez 42% Undec. 14%
Update (4/27/06)
We are going to move this race into the Barely GOP category.
The race breaks down like this. It is going to be a Bill Ritter (D) vs. Bob Beauprez (R) matchup.
Here is a graph of how much a option for the GOP winning the Colorado Governor's race is going for on Tradesports.com:
As you can see the market over at Tradesports has moved the probability of the GOP winning Colorado's open Governor's seat from 70% down to 51% today.
Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has the race listed as a Toss Up, we think he is hedging, but check his site out.
Update (9/22/05)
Here is a link to a post over at Polstate. It appears that a early poll is out that shows Ritter leading Beauprez. All polling information will be placed at the top of this page.
Original post (8/30/05)
As of right now (over a year out from the election) there seems to only be three big players in the Governor's race.
On the Republican side there is Bob Beauprez and Mark Holtzman.
Bob Beauprez's website is available here. So far he appears like the slight favorite in the race. He has won a straw poll and has better name recognition than Holtzman.
Mark Holtzman's website is available here. While Beauprez seems like a slight favorite right now, Holtzman could easily win. We're waiting for some polls to point the way. Holtzman has the money lead right now, but we are a year out.
Edge...Slight Edge to Beauprez.
On the Democratic side there is only one man standing, former Denver D.A. Bill Ritter.
Ritter is a pro-life Democrat. It has been opined that he should be a strong candidate. If he doesn't have a primary we will get to see. Senator Salazar and Denver Mayor Hickenlooper both have declined to run.
Edge...Ritter.
Our predictions for the general election. Colorado had trended Republican during the late 90s and into the early part of this century, however a Democratic tidal-wave hit Colorado in 2004. Our preliminary prediction is that the Republican candidate has a slight advantage.
Update (10/05/2006)
If you want a page that has everything you could want on this race go here. Real Clear Politics has done as good a job as anyone out there looking at this race.
As for this race. The Beauprez campaign cannot seem to get any traction against Ritter. Beauprez cannot even get the GOP voters lined up behind him, nevermind the unaffiliated voters. Don't mind those biased attacks against the Beauprez campaign that come out from the likes of coloradopols which is a liberal attack blog that masquerades as "Politics, News and Inside Information." (Not that we don't like liberal websites, squarestate.net is a daily read, and they state that they are progressives up front.)
The main problem Beauprez has is that this year the public is generally against the Republicans. National scandals and the 6 year political itch give Beauprez a strong headwind that he seems to be making no progress against. Unless his poll numbers can pull to within five points he will lose to Ritter, if it is a blowout the GOP could lose more seats in the State Legislature (which the Democrats already control) and the Democrats could pick up the 7th Congressional District.
Update (8/15/2006)
I've just received a bunch of data from Matrow that has caused us to move this race from Barely GOP to Lean Dem.
The reasons for this are many and varied and others say it better than we can, but this graph of the price for a futures option from Tradesports.com shows it all.
The market has basically shown that the probability of the Bob Beauprez winning the Governor's race has dropped from about 70% in February to about 20% today. Now this market isn't very liquid, but it does have strong predictive powers.
Below you can see how the price on a Ritter to win option has gone up over the same time.
Larry Sabato has decided to put this race into the Leans Democratic category.
A link to Sabato's Crystal Ball and its page devoted to the Colorado Gubernatorial race is available here.
The Cook Political Report has this race listed as a Toss Up. A link to their gubernatorial Race Ratings page is available here.
Here are some recent polls:
Rasmussen Ritter (D) 48% Beauprez (R) 39% Undec. 12% August 14
Mason-Dixon Ritter (D) 42% Beauprez (R) 35% Undec. 23% July 17
Rasmussen Ritter (D) 42% Beauprez (R) 37% Undec. 16% July 10
The guys over at Coloradopols have a page with more polls on it. Click here.
Polling:
8/19-24/2005 Ritter (D) 44% Beauprez 42% Undec. 14%
Update (4/27/06)
We are going to move this race into the Barely GOP category.
The race breaks down like this. It is going to be a Bill Ritter (D) vs. Bob Beauprez (R) matchup.
Here is a graph of how much a option for the GOP winning the Colorado Governor's race is going for on Tradesports.com:
As you can see the market over at Tradesports has moved the probability of the GOP winning Colorado's open Governor's seat from 70% down to 51% today.
Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball has the race listed as a Toss Up, we think he is hedging, but check his site out.
Update (9/22/05)
Here is a link to a post over at Polstate. It appears that a early poll is out that shows Ritter leading Beauprez. All polling information will be placed at the top of this page.
Original post (8/30/05)
As of right now (over a year out from the election) there seems to only be three big players in the Governor's race.
On the Republican side there is Bob Beauprez and Mark Holtzman.
Bob Beauprez's website is available here. So far he appears like the slight favorite in the race. He has won a straw poll and has better name recognition than Holtzman.
Mark Holtzman's website is available here. While Beauprez seems like a slight favorite right now, Holtzman could easily win. We're waiting for some polls to point the way. Holtzman has the money lead right now, but we are a year out.
Edge...Slight Edge to Beauprez.
On the Democratic side there is only one man standing, former Denver D.A. Bill Ritter.
Ritter is a pro-life Democrat. It has been opined that he should be a strong candidate. If he doesn't have a primary we will get to see. Senator Salazar and Denver Mayor Hickenlooper both have declined to run.
Edge...Ritter.
Our predictions for the general election. Colorado had trended Republican during the late 90s and into the early part of this century, however a Democratic tidal-wave hit Colorado in 2004. Our preliminary prediction is that the Republican candidate has a slight advantage.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Referendum C Odds Update 09/21/2005
The market book will be moving over to the Political State Report. Check there daily for price quotes and end of week graphs.
We will still have a condensed book on the sidebar.
Referendum C to win continues to surge up in bidding. Over the past two days it has moved up from 48 to 55. Word over at ColoradoPols is that Ref. C has moved to within striking distance. Hat Tip to Dan Willis for keeping his ear to the grapevine. No action on the No on C contract.
The market has begun. Remember it is free to play. Click on the "sign up" link to the right and join in. There is lots of room for new participants. Sign up. Read the FAQs. Win $200.
Here is where the market stands now:
Name of Contract.0-100...Moneyline...Fractional.
Ref. C to lose.....52......-108...........10/11.
Ref. C to win......55......-122.............5/6.
We will still have a condensed book on the sidebar.
Referendum C to win continues to surge up in bidding. Over the past two days it has moved up from 48 to 55. Word over at ColoradoPols is that Ref. C has moved to within striking distance. Hat Tip to Dan Willis for keeping his ear to the grapevine. No action on the No on C contract.
The market has begun. Remember it is free to play. Click on the "sign up" link to the right and join in. There is lots of room for new participants. Sign up. Read the FAQs. Win $200.
Here is where the market stands now:
Name of Contract.0-100...Moneyline...Fractional.
Ref. C to lose.....52......-108...........10/11.
Ref. C to win......55......-122.............5/6.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Referendum C Futures Market Book 9/20/05
Today's trading starts at 6:00 PM for the Referendum C Futures Market. Remember no trading over the weekend. Below you will see a table that shows the best trading information. The opening prices were established by auction. B Qty = How many contracts are offered for sale at the best price. Bid = the price those contracts are being offered for. Offer = The best price that is being offered for a contract. A Qty = the number of contracts that are wanted at that best price.
Below is the C to win book. Green indicates buyers. Red indicates sellers.
| Contract Name | B Qty | BID | Offer | A Qty | Last | Vol | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. C to Win | 100 | 53 | 50 | 100 | 50 | 75 | +2 |
| Ref. C to Lose | 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 | 52 | 0 | 0 |
Below is the C to win book. Green indicates buyers. Red indicates sellers.
| Qty | Price | Price | Qty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 47 | 53 | 100 |
| 100 | 40 | 55 | 200 |
| 200 | 40 |
| Qty | Price | Price | Qty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 |
Referendum C Odds Update 09/20/2005
Referendum C to win has moved up to even money...
The market has begun. Remember it is free to play. Click on the "sign up" link to the right and join in. There is lots of room for new participants. Sign up. Read the FAQs. Win $200.
Here is where the market stands now:
Name of Contract.0-100...Moneyline...Fractional.
Ref. C to lose.....52......-108...........10/11.
Ref. C to win......50.......100...............1/1.
The market has begun. Remember it is free to play. Click on the "sign up" link to the right and join in. There is lots of room for new participants. Sign up. Read the FAQs. Win $200.
Here is where the market stands now:
Name of Contract.0-100...Moneyline...Fractional.
Ref. C to lose.....52......-108...........10/11.
Ref. C to win......50.......100...............1/1.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Friday, September 16, 2005
Week in review.
This week the market acted much as we thought it would. The opening prices didn't change at all. We signed up a dozen new traders. It appears that everyone is waiting for some new information before they begin to move.
Referendum C Futures Market Book 9/16/05 (week in review tonight at 7:00)
Today's trading starts at 6:00 PM for the Referendum C Futures Market. Remember no trading over the weekend. Below you will see a table that shows the best trading information. The opening prices were established by auction. B Qty = How many contracts are offered for sale at the best price. Bid = the price those contracts are being offered for. Offer = The best price that is being offered for a contract. A Qty = the number of contracts that are wanted at that best price.
Below is the C to win book. Green indicates buyers. Red indicates sellers.
| Contract Name | B Qty | BID | Offer | A Qty | Last | Vol | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. C to Win | 25 | 48 | 47 | 25 | 48 | 0 | 0 |
| Ref. C to Lose | 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 | 52 | 0 | 0 |
Below is the C to win book. Green indicates buyers. Red indicates sellers.
| Qty | Price | Price | Qty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 47 | 48 | 25 |
| 100 | 40 | 50 | 50 |
| 200 | 40 |
| Qty | Price | Price | Qty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 |
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Referendum C Futures Market Book 9/15/05
Today's trading starts at 6:00 PM for the Referendum C Futures Market. Below you will see a table that shows the best trading information. The opening prices were established by auction. B Qty = How many contracts are offered for sale at the best price. Bid = the price those contracts are being offered for. Offer = The best price that is being offered for a contract. A Qty = the number of contracts that are wanted at that best price.
Below is the C to win book. Green indicates buyers. Red indicates sellers.
| Contract Name | B Qty | BID | Offer | A Qty | Last | Vol | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. C to Win | 25 | 48 | 47 | 25 | 48 | 0 | 0 |
| Ref. C to Lose | 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 | 52 | 0 | 0 |
Below is the C to win book. Green indicates buyers. Red indicates sellers.
| Qty | Price | Price | Qty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 47 | 48 | 25 |
| 100 | 40 | 50 | 50 |
| 200 | 40 |
| Qty | Price | Price | Qty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 |
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Referendum C Odds Update.
The market has begun. Remember it is free to play. Click on the "sign up" link to the right and join in.
Here is where the market stands now:
Name of Contract.0-100...Moneyline...Fractional.
Ref. C to lose.....52......-108...........10/11.
Ref. C to win......48.......108...........11/10.
Here is where the market stands now:
Name of Contract.0-100...Moneyline...Fractional.
Ref. C to lose.....52......-108...........10/11.
Ref. C to win......48.......108...........11/10.
Referendum C Futures Market Book 9/14/05
Today's trading starts at 6:00 PM for the Referendum C Futures Market. Below you will see a table that shows the best trading information. The opening prices were established by auction. B Qty = How many contracts are offered for sale at the best price. Bid = the price those contracts are being offered for. Offer = The best price that is being offered for a contract. A Qty = the number of contracts that are wanted at that best price.
Below is the C to win book. Green indicates buyers. Red indicates sellers.
| Contract Name | B Qty | BID | Offer | A Qty | Last | Vol | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. C to Win | 25 | 48 | 47 | 25 | 48 | 0 | 0 |
| Ref. C to Lose | 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 | 52 | 0 | 0 |
Below is the C to win book. Green indicates buyers. Red indicates sellers.
| Qty | Price | Price | Qty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | 47 | 48 | 25 |
| 100 | 40 | 50 | 50 |
| 200 | 40 |
| Qty | Price | Price | Qty |
|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 |
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Referendum C Futures Market Book 9/13/05
Today's trading starts at 6:00 PM for the Referendum C Futures Market. Below you will see a table that shows the best trading information. The opening prices were established by auction. B Qty = How many contracts are offered for sale at the best price. Bid = the price those contracts are being offered for. Offer = The best price that is being offered for a contract. A Qty = the number of contracts that are wanted at that best price.
| Contract Name | B Qty | BID | Offer | A Qty | Last | Vol | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. C to Pass | 25 | 48 | 47 | 25 | 48 | 0 | 0 |
| Ref. C to Lose | 50 | 52 | 53 | 25 | 52 | 0 | 0 |
Monday, September 12, 2005
Referendum C Futures Market 9/12/05
Trading starts today at 6:00 PM for the Referendum C Futures Market. Below you will see a table that shows the best trading information. The opening prices were established by auction. B Qty = How many contracts are offered for sale at the best price. Bid = the price those contracts are being offered for. Offer = The best price that is being offered for a contract. A Qty = the number of contracts that are wanted at that best price.
| Contract Name | B Qty | BID | Offer | A Qty | Last | Vol | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ref. C to Pass | 25 | 48 | 47 | 25 | 48 | 0 | 0 |
| Ref. C to Lose | 25 | 52 | 53 | 25 | 52 | 0 | 0 |
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
How to sign up.
During the auction:
During the auction (09/06/05-09/11/05):
The first thing you need to do is open an account. Send an e-mail to milehighdelphi@yahoo.com
Include your e-mail address and a username. We will give you a codeword. It will arrive in your e-mail within 24 hours. This allows you to access your account. Everyone's account starts at $100.
When you contact us you will need to state how many shares you want, of which contract and what you are willing to pay per contract.
Example e-mail:
blogicus@yahoo.com username: blogicus 100 shares for C to Win at 50 cents. codename alpha.
During the market period (09/12/05 - 11/01/05):
The first thing you need to do is open an account. Send an e-mail to milehighdelphi@yahoo.com
Include your e-mail address and a username. We will give you a codeword. It will arrive in your e-mail within 24 hours. This allows you to access your account. Everyone's account starts at $100.
Once you have an open account you can trade in two different ways. Live trading will occur between 6:00 and 7:00 PM. You can send us buy and sell orders anytime during the day, we will fill them on a first in - first out basis. During our live hours you can also call us at 720-252-7728.
When you contact us you will need to state how many shares you want to buy or sell, which type of contract, and either what you are willing to pay or what you are willing sell you contracts for.
Example e-mail:
blogicus@yahoo.com username: blogicus BUY 100 shares for C to Win at 50 cents. codename: alpha
Results and open orders will be available on Polstate.com after the close of business each day.
During the auction (09/06/05-09/11/05):
The first thing you need to do is open an account. Send an e-mail to milehighdelphi@yahoo.com
Include your e-mail address and a username. We will give you a codeword. It will arrive in your e-mail within 24 hours. This allows you to access your account. Everyone's account starts at $100.
When you contact us you will need to state how many shares you want, of which contract and what you are willing to pay per contract.
Example e-mail:
blogicus@yahoo.com username: blogicus 100 shares for C to Win at 50 cents. codename alpha.
During the market period (09/12/05 - 11/01/05):
The first thing you need to do is open an account. Send an e-mail to milehighdelphi@yahoo.com
Include your e-mail address and a username. We will give you a codeword. It will arrive in your e-mail within 24 hours. This allows you to access your account. Everyone's account starts at $100.
Once you have an open account you can trade in two different ways. Live trading will occur between 6:00 and 7:00 PM. You can send us buy and sell orders anytime during the day, we will fill them on a first in - first out basis. During our live hours you can also call us at 720-252-7728.
When you contact us you will need to state how many shares you want to buy or sell, which type of contract, and either what you are willing to pay or what you are willing sell you contracts for.
Example e-mail:
blogicus@yahoo.com username: blogicus BUY 100 shares for C to Win at 50 cents. codename: alpha
Results and open orders will be available on Polstate.com after the close of business each day.
Rules and info for Futures Market will be posted at 5:00.
We are hammering out the details and rules for the futures market.
They will be posted later today.
We also will have details as to how the auction will work for establishing the opening prices for the contracts.
They will be posted later today.
We also will have details as to how the auction will work for establishing the opening prices for the contracts.
General Info and FAQ's
What is this?
The 2005 Referendum C Futures Market is an on-line futures market where the contract payoff is based upon the outcome of the upcoming Referendum C vote. This market is operated by the staff of Mile High Delphi. It is designed to test the predictive nature of futures markets.
How does it work?
The 2005 Referendum C Futures Market works in two ways; The A market is a regular futures market. You can purchase one of two contracts, a "Referendum C To Win" contract or a "Referendum C to Lose" contract. Each contract will pay $1, depending upon the outcome of the election. The B market is a contest where each participant in the A market gets one vote on what the actual percentage of the vote will be for Referendum C (to 1/100th of a percent, for example 52.13%). These votes will be due no later than 5:00 PM, Mountian Time, Monday, October 31st.
Who can participate?
This market is for research and teaching purposes. Anyone with a valid e-mail address can participate. Please don't double dip, one e-mail address per person.
Are the participants playing with real money?
NO. This is only a beta. You will receive $100 worth of "Betting Disks" that you can use to purchase futures contracts. We have to get "no-action-letters" from the Division of Trading and Markets of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission so that we can operate with real money without the risk of prosecution. With those we can start a real money market for the 2006 elections. The top three winners (those who would have had the greatest return if we were using real money) and the investor who most closely guesses the actual percentage of the vote that Referendum C receives will win prizes.
UPDATE: (10/26/2005) The payouts for the A market are 1st $100, 2nd $50 and 3rd $25. The payout for the B market is $100 for first.
How do we sign up?
You will go to our sign-up page. All you need to create an account with us is a e-mail account and a user name.
The 2005 Referendum C Futures Market is an on-line futures market where the contract payoff is based upon the outcome of the upcoming Referendum C vote. This market is operated by the staff of Mile High Delphi. It is designed to test the predictive nature of futures markets.
How does it work?
The 2005 Referendum C Futures Market works in two ways; The A market is a regular futures market. You can purchase one of two contracts, a "Referendum C To Win" contract or a "Referendum C to Lose" contract. Each contract will pay $1, depending upon the outcome of the election. The B market is a contest where each participant in the A market gets one vote on what the actual percentage of the vote will be for Referendum C (to 1/100th of a percent, for example 52.13%). These votes will be due no later than 5:00 PM, Mountian Time, Monday, October 31st.
Who can participate?
This market is for research and teaching purposes. Anyone with a valid e-mail address can participate. Please don't double dip, one e-mail address per person.
Are the participants playing with real money?
NO. This is only a beta. You will receive $100 worth of "Betting Disks" that you can use to purchase futures contracts. We have to get "no-action-letters" from the Division of Trading and Markets of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission so that we can operate with real money without the risk of prosecution. With those we can start a real money market for the 2006 elections. The top three winners (those who would have had the greatest return if we were using real money) and the investor who most closely guesses the actual percentage of the vote that Referendum C receives will win prizes.
UPDATE: (10/26/2005) The payouts for the A market are 1st $100, 2nd $50 and 3rd $25. The payout for the B market is $100 for first.
How do we sign up?
You will go to our sign-up page. All you need to create an account with us is a e-mail account and a user name.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Soy De Aqui! MHD's 2005 Referendum C Futures Market Opens 09/12.
Mile High Delphi will be opening the only futures market devoted to the upcoming vote on Referendum C.
The purpose of this futures market is to test if a market mechanism can be, or is, more correct than polling in predicting the winner and/or margin of victory in an election.
The following will explain how the market will function.
On 09/06 we will post the trading rules for this market. The market will function in much the same way as the Iowa Presidential Futures market, with some minor variations. Full rules will be available on Tuesday.
During the next week we will begin an auction to determine the opening prices for the market. The auction will be conducted from Tuesday until the 12th. Full details for the auction will be available tomorrow.
Live trading will be conducted Monday thru Friday. Results will be available on Polstate.
The purpose of this futures market is to test if a market mechanism can be, or is, more correct than polling in predicting the winner and/or margin of victory in an election.
The following will explain how the market will function.
On 09/06 we will post the trading rules for this market. The market will function in much the same way as the Iowa Presidential Futures market, with some minor variations. Full rules will be available on Tuesday.
During the next week we will begin an auction to determine the opening prices for the market. The auction will be conducted from Tuesday until the 12th. Full details for the auction will be available tomorrow.
Live trading will be conducted Monday thru Friday. Results will be available on Polstate.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Referendum C and D update (8/30/05).
Over the last week the Referendum C and D campaign entered a new phase. The Pro-C side shifted its tactics. They transformed their campaign from a single pronged attack that focused on introducing and selling the referenda to the voters, into a multi-front campaign. The new tactic was introduced on the 23rd by a series of Lynn Bartels articles in the Rocky Mountain News. One focuses on the attack against the Independence Institute. A link to it can be found here. The other focuses on the attack on the Colorado Club for Growth and Colorado Freedom Works. A link to it can be found here.
On the 25th a Bill Scanlon article revealed that two liberal groups, The League of Women Voters and Colorado Common Cause, were joining the Vote Yes on C&D campaign in calling for the Independence Institute, Colorado Freedom Works and the Colorado Club for Growth (all identified as conservative) to reveal their donors. A link to that article is available here.
In another Bill Scanlon article, this one from today, it became obvious that the Anti-C side was determined to repeal the attacks from the Pro-C side. House Minority Leader Joe Stengal (R) filed a complaint against Buffie McFadyen (D) saying that she was promoting C and D on taxpayer financed time.
The guys over at Coloradopols.com posted on this story on the 25th. If you don't already know, Coloradopols.com is THE place where political fanatics and insiders go in Colorado. A link to their post is available here. It is interesting not only for the body of the post, but the discussion in the comments section is also a wealth of information. They also have a poll that asks if you think C and D will pass. A link to that poll is available here.
Some more interesting sites to check for info on C and D.
Anti C:
Colorado Freedom Works
Colorado Freedom Report
Pro C:
The Bell Action Network
Vote No Its Your Dough.com
Cross posted at Polstate.com.
On the 25th a Bill Scanlon article revealed that two liberal groups, The League of Women Voters and Colorado Common Cause, were joining the Vote Yes on C&D campaign in calling for the Independence Institute, Colorado Freedom Works and the Colorado Club for Growth (all identified as conservative) to reveal their donors. A link to that article is available here.
In another Bill Scanlon article, this one from today, it became obvious that the Anti-C side was determined to repeal the attacks from the Pro-C side. House Minority Leader Joe Stengal (R) filed a complaint against Buffie McFadyen (D) saying that she was promoting C and D on taxpayer financed time.
The guys over at Coloradopols.com posted on this story on the 25th. If you don't already know, Coloradopols.com is THE place where political fanatics and insiders go in Colorado. A link to their post is available here. It is interesting not only for the body of the post, but the discussion in the comments section is also a wealth of information. They also have a poll that asks if you think C and D will pass. A link to that poll is available here.
Some more interesting sites to check for info on C and D.
Anti C:
Colorado Freedom Works
Colorado Freedom Report
Pro C:
The Bell Action Network
Vote No Its Your Dough.com
Cross posted at Polstate.com.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
In the hopper...
On the evening of September 30th we will update our C and D homepage, there is much to report on the campaign along with new links that need to be added.
We will open our "Top of the Ticket" section which will look at the 2006 Governor's race. We will have links to the different campaign websites along with predictions of who will win in November.
Lastly, we will begin an analysis called "From Tabor to Today" where we will look at what all of the statewide ballot referenda were supposed to do and what they either have or have not done, from Tabor's passage in the early 1990s until last year's election. Tabor to Today will wrap up the weekend before the big election.
We will open our "Top of the Ticket" section which will look at the 2006 Governor's race. We will have links to the different campaign websites along with predictions of who will win in November.
Lastly, we will begin an analysis called "From Tabor to Today" where we will look at what all of the statewide ballot referenda were supposed to do and what they either have or have not done, from Tabor's passage in the early 1990s until last year's election. Tabor to Today will wrap up the weekend before the big election.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Updated predictions on C and D.
I've been creating some new models for predicting elections. I didn't feel very good after the 2004 elections because my models weren't anywhere near 95% accurate (especially on state issues). I've been working hard with the numbers. I'm using models now that instead of predicting percentages of the vote (like my last batch) now predict the likelihood of passage.
Using these new models, I now predict that Referendum C has a 20% likelihood of passage. Referendum D has a 16% probability of passage.
The current models only explain 80% of the results, in the coming months, as I add in more data from prior years, the models will get better and the numbers will change.
Using these new models, I now predict that Referendum C has a 20% likelihood of passage. Referendum D has a 16% probability of passage.
The current models only explain 80% of the results, in the coming months, as I add in more data from prior years, the models will get better and the numbers will change.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Early poll out on Ref. C and D.
A Mason Dixon poll from July found that support for Referendum C was at 43%. 42% of the 625 respondents said they would vote against the measure and 15% said that they were undecided. The poll was conducted July 11-13. Support for Referendum D was at 39%, with 45% against it.
Normally for a ballot issue to pass it must poll in at least the high 60s if it stands a chance of passing. However the supporters of C and D have already raised over $1 million while the referenda's opponents have raised only $100,000.
Normally for a ballot issue to pass it must poll in at least the high 60s if it stands a chance of passing. However the supporters of C and D have already raised over $1 million while the referenda's opponents have raised only $100,000.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Still here.
Just in case anyone was wondering, we are still here. We just have been collecting data and throwing around some new ideas for MHD. Don't worry, we'll have lots of info coming up in a few weeks.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Delphi on the State Senate.
We began our initial projection for control of the State Senate at 50-50. In general, the GOP has three more seats to defend than the Democrats, 10-7. Adding to the GOP's burden is the fact that they will have five Senators who are term limited, while the Democrats only have one.
In the past these seats have been easier for the GOP to defend. 2006 is a non-presidential year, the average turnout in these races in '02 was about 50%, however, the effects of campaign finance haven't been observed yet on these seats.
Average Democratic Vote: 15434
Average Republican Vote: 21486
Breakdown of total vote: Democratic 41.8% Republican 58.2%
Non-Competitive Democratic Seats: SD 3, 32, 34.
Non-Competitive Republican Seats: SD 1, 2, 5, 15.
Competitive Democratic Seat: SD 24. Open Seat/Term Limits.
Competitive Republican Seats: SD 7, 9, 13, 22, 30. All Open/Term Limits.
Very Competitive Democratic Seats: SD 6, 16, 20.
Very Competitive Republican Seat: SD 11.
Cheat Sheet:
SD 6: GOP came close last time, Isgar should improve.
SD 11: Won by less than a thousand last time. Jones is about the only Republican that can win this seat. Light at the end of the El Paso County Dems tunnel?
SD 16: Fitz-Gerald may or may not be term limited. GOP came within 5% of Senate President last time, she's a big target. Repeat of Daschle?
SD 20: Keller won by 187 last time in Perlmutter's old district. If Jensen runs could be very close. Jeffco GOP stinging from recent losses, may have hit bottom in 2004.
The GOP has a lot of open seats to defend, if the Democrats have a good strategy and suck up some money by running in those districts they could easily defend all of their competitive seats and pick up SD 11. Due to the impact of campaign finance reform we don't believe that the GOP will perform as well this cycle as they did in 2002 (Owens swept the state with over 60%). Because of this we are moving the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the State Senate to 70%. We need to see if Fitz-Gerald will be term limited out and who the candidates line up for each race.
Our new projections for the state legislature now stand at GOP Control: 24% Democratic Control: 14% Split Control: 62%.
Cross Posted at Polstate.com.
In the past these seats have been easier for the GOP to defend. 2006 is a non-presidential year, the average turnout in these races in '02 was about 50%, however, the effects of campaign finance haven't been observed yet on these seats.
St. Senate - District 1 Eastern Plains
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 9941 24.82 %
(REP) 30112 75.18 %
MHD PVI: R + 16.98
St. Senate - District 2 SE Colorado
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 16545 40.84 %
(REP) 23962 59.16 %
MHD PVI: R + .96
St. Senate - District 3 Pueblo
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 26118 63.84 %
(REP) 14792 36.16 %
MHD PVI: D + 22.04
St. Senate - District 5 San Luis Valley and Southern Mountains
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 16553 39.00 %
(REP) 25895 61.00 %
MHD PVI: R + 2.8
St. Senate - District 6 Four Corners
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 24302 53.56 %
(REP) 21072 46.44 %
MHD PVI: D + 11.76
St. Senate - District 7 Grand Junction and surrounding areas
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 0 00.00 %
(REP) 28948 100.00 %
MHD PVI: R + 41.8
St. Senate - District 9 Part of El Paso County
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 0 00.00 %
(REP) 32139 100.00 %
MHD PVI: R + 41.8
St. Senate - District 11 Colorado Springs
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 11607 48.63 %
(REP) 12260 51.37 %
MHD PVI: D + 6.83
St. Senate - District 13 Weld County
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 0 00.00 %
(REP) 28245 100.00 %
MHD PVI: R + 41.8
St. Senate - District 15 Greater Ft. Collins
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 18531 37.55 %
(REP) 30825 62.45 %
MHD PVI: R + 4.25
St. Senate - District 16 Central Mountains
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 26585 52.39 %
(REP) 24156 47.61 %
MHD PVI: D + 10.59
St. Senate - District 20 Wheat Ridge
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 19707 50.24 %
(REP) 19520 49.76 %
MHD PVI: D + 8.44
St. Senate - District 22 Southern Jefferson County
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 15275 34.81 %
(REP) 28600 65.19 %
MHD PVI: R + 6.99
St. Senate - District 24 Northglen and Thornton
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 17383 57.55 %
(REP) 12820 42.45 %
MHD PVI: D + 15.75
St. Senate - District 30 Highlands Ranch and Parker
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 13076 29.06 %
(REP) 31925 70.94 %
MHD PVI: R + 12.74
St. Senate - District 32 SW Denver
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 28180 100.00 %
(REP) 0 00.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 58.2
St. Senate - District 34 West Denver
2002 Election Results:
(DEM) 18576 100.00 %
(REP) 0 00.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 58.2
Average Democratic Vote: 15434
Average Republican Vote: 21486
Breakdown of total vote: Democratic 41.8% Republican 58.2%
Non-Competitive Democratic Seats: SD 3, 32, 34.
Non-Competitive Republican Seats: SD 1, 2, 5, 15.
Competitive Democratic Seat: SD 24. Open Seat/Term Limits.
Competitive Republican Seats: SD 7, 9, 13, 22, 30. All Open/Term Limits.
Very Competitive Democratic Seats: SD 6, 16, 20.
Very Competitive Republican Seat: SD 11.
Cheat Sheet:
SD 6: GOP came close last time, Isgar should improve.
SD 11: Won by less than a thousand last time. Jones is about the only Republican that can win this seat. Light at the end of the El Paso County Dems tunnel?
SD 16: Fitz-Gerald may or may not be term limited. GOP came within 5% of Senate President last time, she's a big target. Repeat of Daschle?
SD 20: Keller won by 187 last time in Perlmutter's old district. If Jensen runs could be very close. Jeffco GOP stinging from recent losses, may have hit bottom in 2004.
The GOP has a lot of open seats to defend, if the Democrats have a good strategy and suck up some money by running in those districts they could easily defend all of their competitive seats and pick up SD 11. Due to the impact of campaign finance reform we don't believe that the GOP will perform as well this cycle as they did in 2002 (Owens swept the state with over 60%). Because of this we are moving the likelihood of the Democrats keeping the State Senate to 70%. We need to see if Fitz-Gerald will be term limited out and who the candidates line up for each race.
Our new projections for the state legislature now stand at GOP Control: 24% Democratic Control: 14% Split Control: 62%.
Cross Posted at Polstate.com.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Delphi on the 2006 Governors race.
In a new Ciruli Associates poll, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) polled extremely well. He had a higher positive to negative ratio than any other official mentioned in the poll, including Democratic Senator Ken Salazar, Republican Governor Bill Owens and President Bush.
Overall, Senator Salazar had the highest favorable rating; 71%. He was followed by Governor Owens who had a favorable rating of 66%, Mayor Hickenlooper with a rating of 61%, President Bush with 54%, Republican Senator Wayne Allard with 53% and CU Professor Ward Churchill with 11%.
Recently, a campaign has sprung up to "draft Hick." Some pundits have been talking up Hickenlooper for weeks, such as Colorado Luis and Colorado Pols.
Hickenlooper appears to be strong not only in the City and County of Denver, where he recently polled in the low 90s, but also in the entire metro region. According to Ciruli:
It appears that if Hickenlooper runs the early battle will be to define him.
Additionally, it remains to be seen how "favorability" correlates to actual election results. Ken Salazar, who leads the poll with a favorability rating of 71% only received 51% of the vote in last year's Senate race against beer baron Pete Coors.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Overall, Senator Salazar had the highest favorable rating; 71%. He was followed by Governor Owens who had a favorable rating of 66%, Mayor Hickenlooper with a rating of 61%, President Bush with 54%, Republican Senator Wayne Allard with 53% and CU Professor Ward Churchill with 11%.
Front Range voters, which comprise about 80 percent of Colorado's electorate, have an overwhelmingly positive view of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper. Sixty-one percent of voters rate him favorably, and his positive-to-negative ratio is more than 10-to-1, exceeding that of many of the state’s leading politicians and President George W. Bush...Hickenlooper achieved his 61 percent favorable score despite of more than a third (34%) of voters not being familiar with him.
Recently, a campaign has sprung up to "draft Hick." Some pundits have been talking up Hickenlooper for weeks, such as Colorado Luis and Colorado Pols.
Hickenlooper appears to be strong not only in the City and County of Denver, where he recently polled in the low 90s, but also in the entire metro region. According to Ciruli:
Hickenlooper scores his highest favorability rating (75%) in the Denver metro area where he also is very well-known (only 19% can’t rate him). Nearly half of northern Colorado voters are unable to rate him and 78 percent of southern Colorado voters are unfamiliar with him. Because his negative-to-positive rate is high in the North and South Front Ranges, as more voters become familiar with him, his ratings should improve, at least under current circumstances.
It appears that if Hickenlooper runs the early battle will be to define him.
Additionally, it remains to be seen how "favorability" correlates to actual election results. Ken Salazar, who leads the poll with a favorability rating of 71% only received 51% of the vote in last year's Senate race against beer baron Pete Coors.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Delphi on the State House.
We will break the State House seats into three categories based upon their PVIs. An look at how the PVI (partisan voter index) that Mile High Delphi uses is available here. Basically, it is just a quick political handicapping tool that gives us a very general feel for how competitive the district is.
The three categories that we are going to break House seats down into will be Very Competitive (with a PVI below 5), Competitive (PVI between 5 and 10), and Non-Competitive (PVI above 10). This breakdown will give us a general feel for how competitive the House will be and what races we need to watch.
Dem Non-Competitive: HD 1-13, 24, 32, 34, 35, 41, 42, 46, 53, 61 and 62. Total 23.
GOP Non-Competitive: HD 14-17, 19-21, 38, 40, 43-45, 48, 51, 54, 57-59, 63 and 65. Total 20.
Dem Competitive: HD 18, 26, 36, 55 and 56. Total 5.
GOP Competitive: HD 25, 28, 37 and 60. Total 4.
Dem Very Competitive: HD 23, 29, 30, 31, 47, 50 and 64. Total of 7.
GOP Very Competitive: HD 22, 27, 33, 39, 49 and 52. Total of 6.
We will start out by looking at the "Sweet Sixteen." The Sweet Sixteen is made up of the sixteen most competitive districts. They are listed below from the most competitive to the least. From this we constructed our first prediction, which reveals how we have came up with our probabilities for who will control the House after 2006.
The sweet sixteen is made up of 7 GOP seats and 9 Democratic seats. Due to the record turnout last election (something on the order of 88%) and the fact that '06 is a midterm year, the Democratic tide that swept the state legislature last year will have difficulties increasing their holdings. If the 3% Democratic bump that normally accompanies presidential years is taken away the Democrats stand to lose at least 4 seats. Because of these factors, we put the probability of the GOP taking back the State House at 80%.
The State Senate has gone from GOP control in '98 to Dem control in '00, back to the GOP in '02 and back to the Dems in '04. Because of this, we will begin our probability of either party controlling the State Senate next year at 50%.
Those two numbers give you the projections that we currently have. GOP 40%, Dem 10% and Split Control at 50%.
I also found a few statistical points of interest.
Since the green party only ran in one House election, I focused my attention on the 17 races with a Republican, a Democrat and a Libertarian on the ballot. On AVERAGE the Republican got 13071 votes (47%), the Democrat got 13761 (49.5%) and the Libertarian got 928 votes (3.5%). Meaning, on average that the Libertarian vote would have to split seven votes Republican and two votes Democratic for the GOP to pick up those seats. ON AVERAGE. In reality, I only found one election where the Libertarian got a larger number of votes than the winning margin between the major parties (HD 23).
In the 31 districts where you had only a Democrat and a Republican on the ballot, on average the Republican got 15178 votes (51%) and the Democrat got 14525 votes (49%).
Perhaps the most interesting statistical fact was this. Each district should have a nearly equal population, and, all things being equal, you would think that having a 3rd party on the ballot would increase turnout. However, the average turnout for a race with three parties on the ballot was 27760, while 29703 turned out for the two party races. That is an increase of 7.2% on average. So it appears that, at least as far as these elections were concerned, the participation of 3rd parties lowered voter participation.
Cross posted at Polstate.
The three categories that we are going to break House seats down into will be Very Competitive (with a PVI below 5), Competitive (PVI between 5 and 10), and Non-Competitive (PVI above 10). This breakdown will give us a general feel for how competitive the House will be and what races we need to watch.
Dem Non-Competitive: HD 1-13, 24, 32, 34, 35, 41, 42, 46, 53, 61 and 62. Total 23.
GOP Non-Competitive: HD 14-17, 19-21, 38, 40, 43-45, 48, 51, 54, 57-59, 63 and 65. Total 20.
Dem Competitive: HD 18, 26, 36, 55 and 56. Total 5.
GOP Competitive: HD 25, 28, 37 and 60. Total 4.
Dem Very Competitive: HD 23, 29, 30, 31, 47, 50 and 64. Total of 7.
GOP Very Competitive: HD 22, 27, 33, 39, 49 and 52. Total of 6.
We will start out by looking at the "Sweet Sixteen." The Sweet Sixteen is made up of the sixteen most competitive districts. They are listed below from the most competitive to the least. From this we constructed our first prediction, which reveals how we have came up with our probabilities for who will control the House after 2006.
HD 52 PVI R - .00 2004 Results R 50.7% D 49.3%
HD 22 PVI R + .80 2004 Results R 51.8% D 48.2%
HD 27 PVI R + 1.04 2004 Results R 52.0% D 48.0%
HD 23 PVI D + 1.08 2004 Results R 49.9% D 50.1%
HD 33 PVI R + 1.67 2004 Results R 52.7% D 47.3%
HD 29 PVI D + 1.87 2004 Results R 49.1% D 50.9%
HD 47 PVI D + 2.76 2004 Results R 48.2% D 51.8%
HD 31 PVI D + 2.73 2004 Results R 48.3% D 51.7%
HD 50 PVI D + 4.12 2004 Results R 46.9% D 53.1%
HD 39 PVI R + 4.20 2004 Results R 55.2% D 44.8%
HD 64 PVI D + 4.72 2004 Results R 46.3% D 53.7%
HD 49 PVI R + 4.84 2004 Results R 55.8% D 44.2%
HD 30 PVI D + 4.85 2004 Results R 46.1% D 53.9%
HD 60 PVI R + 5.13 2004 Results R 56.1% D 43.9%
HD 56 PVI D + 5.69 2004 Results R 45.3% D 54.7%
HD 36 PVI D + 6.21 2004 Results R 44.8% D 55.2%
The sweet sixteen is made up of 7 GOP seats and 9 Democratic seats. Due to the record turnout last election (something on the order of 88%) and the fact that '06 is a midterm year, the Democratic tide that swept the state legislature last year will have difficulties increasing their holdings. If the 3% Democratic bump that normally accompanies presidential years is taken away the Democrats stand to lose at least 4 seats. Because of these factors, we put the probability of the GOP taking back the State House at 80%.
The State Senate has gone from GOP control in '98 to Dem control in '00, back to the GOP in '02 and back to the Dems in '04. Because of this, we will begin our probability of either party controlling the State Senate next year at 50%.
Those two numbers give you the projections that we currently have. GOP 40%, Dem 10% and Split Control at 50%.
I also found a few statistical points of interest.
Since the green party only ran in one House election, I focused my attention on the 17 races with a Republican, a Democrat and a Libertarian on the ballot. On AVERAGE the Republican got 13071 votes (47%), the Democrat got 13761 (49.5%) and the Libertarian got 928 votes (3.5%). Meaning, on average that the Libertarian vote would have to split seven votes Republican and two votes Democratic for the GOP to pick up those seats. ON AVERAGE. In reality, I only found one election where the Libertarian got a larger number of votes than the winning margin between the major parties (HD 23).
In the 31 districts where you had only a Democrat and a Republican on the ballot, on average the Republican got 15178 votes (51%) and the Democrat got 14525 votes (49%).
Perhaps the most interesting statistical fact was this. Each district should have a nearly equal population, and, all things being equal, you would think that having a 3rd party on the ballot would increase turnout. However, the average turnout for a race with three parties on the ballot was 27760, while 29703 turned out for the two party races. That is an increase of 7.2% on average. So it appears that, at least as far as these elections were concerned, the participation of 3rd parties lowered voter participation.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Delphi on Election 2006: House Districts in the Denver Metro Area.
Here are the 2004 election results (without any 3rd party candidates) and some modified Cook Partisan Voting Index numbers for the State House and Senate districts located in the seven county metro region (Denver Metro Area). Developed originally by Charlie Cook, these numbers give you a quick assessment of the generic partisan strength in any given district. Our Mile High PVI uses only the two party vote in each district for 2004. Here is how the numbers break down for a house member. Statewide Republicans got 51.00% of the vote in State House elections, Democrats won 49.00%. If a Democratic House member won in 2004 with 55% then that district's Mile High PVI is D + 6. (State Senate PVIs will be available later)
Adams County:
St. Senate - District 25
2004 Election Results:
Stephanie Takis (DEM) 22606 56.53 %
Kevin D. Blount (REP) 17386 43.47 %
St. Rep. District 30
2004 Election Results:
Mary Hodge (DEM) 10426 53.85 %
Shae Ortega (REP) 8936 46.15 %
MHD PVI: D + 4.85
St. Rep. District 31
2004 Election Results:
Judy Solano (DEM) 17563 51.73 %
Pam Rhodes (REP) 16386 48.27 %
MHD PVI: D + 2.73
St. Rep. District 32
2004 Election Results:
Valentin "Val" Vigil (DEM) 13117 62.48 %
David M. Borstel (REP) 7876 37.52 %
MHD PVI: D + 13.48
St. Rep. District 34
2004 Election Results:
Lois Tochtrop (DEM) 17214 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 35
2004 Election Results:
Larry Pace (REP) 7399 35.26 %
Ann Ragsdale (DEM) 13585 64.74 %
MHD PVI: D + 15.74
Arapahoe County:
St. Senate - District 26
2004 Election Results:
Jared B. Ingwalson (DEM) 27488 48.67 %
Jim Dyer (REP) 28994 51.33 %
St. Senate - District 27
2004 Election Results:
Nancy Spence (REP) 42749 61.52 %
Lisa Karen Love (DEM) 26740 38.48 %
St. Senate - District 28
2004 Election Results:
Bruce Cairns (REP) 22631 44.64 %
Suzanne S. Williams (DEM) 28066 55.36 %
St. Senate - District 29
2004 Election Results:
Bob Hagedorn (DEM) 20985 63.30 %
Mike Martin (REP) 12169 36.70 %
St. Rep. District 36
2004 Election Results:
Jim Parker (REP) 10676 44.79 %
Morgan Carroll (DEM) 13159 55.21 %
MHD PVI: D + 6.21
St. Rep. District 37
2004 Election Results:
Thomas M. Donahue (DEM) 13883 40.54 %
Lauri Clapp (REP) 20360 59.46 %
MHD PVI: R + 8.46
St. Rep. District 38
2004 Election Results:
Joe Stengel (REP) 19743 61.65 %
Glen L. Emerson (DEM) 12279 38.35 %
MHD PVI: R + 10.65
St. Rep. District 39
2004 Election Results:
David G. Balmer (REP) 21996 55.20 %
Mollie T.M. Cullom (DEM) 17851 44.80 %
MHD PVI: R + 4.2
St. Rep. District 40
2004 Election Results:
Martha J. Karnopp (DEM) 11107 36.91 %
Debbie Stafford (REP) 18982 63.09 %
MHD PVI: R + 12.09
St. Rep. District 41
2004 Election Results:
E. C. Gaffney Jr. (REP) 10404 38.40 %
Nancy J. Todd (DEM) 16066 59.29 %
MHD PVI: D + 10.29
St. Rep. District 42
2004 Election Results:
Michael Garcia (DEM) 10255 68.49 %
Marie Evelyn Archuleta-Rossmiller (REP) 4717 31.51 %
MHD PVI: D + 19.49
Boulder County:
St. Senate - District 17
2004 Election Results:
Brandon C. Shaffer (DEM) 34470 56.43 %
Sandy Hume (REP) 26616 43.57 %
St. Senate - District 18
2004 Election Results:
Ron Tupa (DEM) 52332 78.36 %
Krista Poch (REP) 14456 21.64 %
St. Rep. District 10
2004 Election Results:
Alice Madden (DEM) 27522 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 11
2004 Election Results:
Jack Pommer (DEM) 27680 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 12
2004 Election Results:
Paul Weissmann (DEM) 20842 67.03 %
Jim Egerton (REP) 10253 32.97 %
MHD PVI: D + 18.03
St. Rep. District 13
2004 Election Results:
Tom Plant (DEM) 31407 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
City and County of Broomfield:
St. Senate - District 23
2004 Election Results:
Shawn Mitchell (REP) 37787 58.43 %
Curt Darius Williams (DEM) 26889 41.57 %
St. Rep. District 33
2004 Election Results:
Dianne Primavera (DEM) 17454 47.33 %
Bill Berens (REP) 19426 52.67 %
MHD PVI: R + 1.67
City and County of Denver:
St. Senate - District 31
2004 Election Results:
Jennifer Veiga (DEM) 34856 100.00 %
St. Senate - District 33
2004 Election Results:
Peter C. Groff (DEM) 36863 100.00 %
St. Senate - District 35
2004 Election Results:
Ronald B. Olson (REP) 18258 34.76 %
Ken Gordon (DEM) 34272 65.24 %
St. Rep. District 1
2004 Election Results:
Dave Lewis (REP) 8534 39.39 %
Fran N. Coleman (DEM) 13132 60.61 %
MHD PVI: D + 11.61
St. Rep. District 2
2004 Election Results:
Mike Cerbo (DEM) 11687 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 3
2004 Election Results:
David A. Sprecace (REP) 12097 38.87 %
Anne L. McGihon (DEM) 19027 61.13 %
MHD PVI: D + 12.13
St. Rep. District 4
2004 Election Results:
K. Jerry Frangas (DEM) 15753 80.29 %
Rick D. Nevin (REP) 3866 19.71 %
MHD PVI: D + 31.29
St. Rep. District 5
2004 Election Results:
Joel Judd (DEM) 16310 78.75 %
John Wren (REP) 4402 21.25 %
MHD PVI: D + 29.75
St. Rep. District 6
2004 Election Results:
Andrew Romanoff (DEM) 23782 71.69 %
Gregory Nathan Golyansky (REP) 9391 28.31 %
MHD PVI: D + 22.69
St. Rep. District 7
2004 Election Results:
Terrance Carroll (DEM) 17994 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 8
2004 Election Results:
Rosemary Marshall (DEM) 22266 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 9
2004 Election Results:
Jerry B. Wheeler (REP) 10436 39.10 %
Alice Borodkin (DEM) 16255 60.90 %
MHD PVI: D + 11.90
Douglas County:
St. Senate - District 4
2004 Election Results:
Jim Miller (DEM) 23733 30.68 %
Tom J. Wiens (REP) 53617 69.32 %
St. Rep. District 43
2004 Election Results:
Craig Ziesman (DEM) 12945 35.82 %
Ted Harvey (REP) 23193 64.18 %
MHD PVI: R + 13.18
St. Rep. District 44
2004 Election Results:
Mike May (REP) 32787 100.00 %
MHD PVI: R + 49
St. Rep. District 45
2004 Election Results:
Penny Burley (DEM) 13057 30.49 %
James R. "Jim" Sullivan (REP) 29761 69.51 %
MHD PVI: R + 18.51
Jefferson County:
St. Senate - District 19
2004 Election Results:
Sue Windels (DEM) 31200 53.70 %
Jessica Corry (REP) 26905 46.30 %
St. Senate - District 21
2004 Election Results:
Deanna Hanna (DEM) 31046 59.48 %
Tori Merritts (REP) 21153 40.52 %
St. Rep. District 22
2004 Election Results:
Matt Knoedler (REP) 16607 51.80 %
Peter Mazula (DEM) 15450 48.20 %
MHD PVI: R + .80
St. Rep. District 23
2004 Election Results:
Ramey Johnson (REP) 13378 49.92 %
Gwyn Green (DEM) 13419 50.08 %
MHD PVI: D + 1.08
St. Rep. District 24
2004 Election Results:
Cheri Jahn (DEM) 18425 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 25
2004 Election Results:
Donna Red Wing (DEM) 16072 41.07 %
John Witwer (REP) 23057 58.93 %
MHD PVI: R + 7.93
St. Rep. District 26
2004 Election Results:
Betty Boyd (DEM) 16606 57.20 %
Mike Smith (REP) 12424 42.80 %
MHD PVI: D + 8.2
St. Rep. District 27
2004 Election Results:
Chris Rose (DEM) 15330 47.96 %
Bill Crane (REP) 16637 52.04 %
MHD PVI: R + 1.04
St. Rep. District 28
2004 Election Results:
Thomas Dittemore (DEM) 14079 42.44 %
Don Lee (REP) 19091 57.56 %
MHD PVI: R + 6.56
St. Rep. District 29
2004 Election Results:
Debbie J. Benefield (DEM) 15124 50.87 %
Bob Briggs (REP) 14604 49.13 %
MHD PVI: D + 1.87
Adams County:
St. Senate - District 25
2004 Election Results:
Stephanie Takis (DEM) 22606 56.53 %
Kevin D. Blount (REP) 17386 43.47 %
St. Rep. District 30
2004 Election Results:
Mary Hodge (DEM) 10426 53.85 %
Shae Ortega (REP) 8936 46.15 %
MHD PVI: D + 4.85
St. Rep. District 31
2004 Election Results:
Judy Solano (DEM) 17563 51.73 %
Pam Rhodes (REP) 16386 48.27 %
MHD PVI: D + 2.73
St. Rep. District 32
2004 Election Results:
Valentin "Val" Vigil (DEM) 13117 62.48 %
David M. Borstel (REP) 7876 37.52 %
MHD PVI: D + 13.48
St. Rep. District 34
2004 Election Results:
Lois Tochtrop (DEM) 17214 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 35
2004 Election Results:
Larry Pace (REP) 7399 35.26 %
Ann Ragsdale (DEM) 13585 64.74 %
MHD PVI: D + 15.74
Arapahoe County:
St. Senate - District 26
2004 Election Results:
Jared B. Ingwalson (DEM) 27488 48.67 %
Jim Dyer (REP) 28994 51.33 %
St. Senate - District 27
2004 Election Results:
Nancy Spence (REP) 42749 61.52 %
Lisa Karen Love (DEM) 26740 38.48 %
St. Senate - District 28
2004 Election Results:
Bruce Cairns (REP) 22631 44.64 %
Suzanne S. Williams (DEM) 28066 55.36 %
St. Senate - District 29
2004 Election Results:
Bob Hagedorn (DEM) 20985 63.30 %
Mike Martin (REP) 12169 36.70 %
St. Rep. District 36
2004 Election Results:
Jim Parker (REP) 10676 44.79 %
Morgan Carroll (DEM) 13159 55.21 %
MHD PVI: D + 6.21
St. Rep. District 37
2004 Election Results:
Thomas M. Donahue (DEM) 13883 40.54 %
Lauri Clapp (REP) 20360 59.46 %
MHD PVI: R + 8.46
St. Rep. District 38
2004 Election Results:
Joe Stengel (REP) 19743 61.65 %
Glen L. Emerson (DEM) 12279 38.35 %
MHD PVI: R + 10.65
St. Rep. District 39
2004 Election Results:
David G. Balmer (REP) 21996 55.20 %
Mollie T.M. Cullom (DEM) 17851 44.80 %
MHD PVI: R + 4.2
St. Rep. District 40
2004 Election Results:
Martha J. Karnopp (DEM) 11107 36.91 %
Debbie Stafford (REP) 18982 63.09 %
MHD PVI: R + 12.09
St. Rep. District 41
2004 Election Results:
E. C. Gaffney Jr. (REP) 10404 38.40 %
Nancy J. Todd (DEM) 16066 59.29 %
MHD PVI: D + 10.29
St. Rep. District 42
2004 Election Results:
Michael Garcia (DEM) 10255 68.49 %
Marie Evelyn Archuleta-Rossmiller (REP) 4717 31.51 %
MHD PVI: D + 19.49
Boulder County:
St. Senate - District 17
2004 Election Results:
Brandon C. Shaffer (DEM) 34470 56.43 %
Sandy Hume (REP) 26616 43.57 %
St. Senate - District 18
2004 Election Results:
Ron Tupa (DEM) 52332 78.36 %
Krista Poch (REP) 14456 21.64 %
St. Rep. District 10
2004 Election Results:
Alice Madden (DEM) 27522 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 11
2004 Election Results:
Jack Pommer (DEM) 27680 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 12
2004 Election Results:
Paul Weissmann (DEM) 20842 67.03 %
Jim Egerton (REP) 10253 32.97 %
MHD PVI: D + 18.03
St. Rep. District 13
2004 Election Results:
Tom Plant (DEM) 31407 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
City and County of Broomfield:
St. Senate - District 23
2004 Election Results:
Shawn Mitchell (REP) 37787 58.43 %
Curt Darius Williams (DEM) 26889 41.57 %
St. Rep. District 33
2004 Election Results:
Dianne Primavera (DEM) 17454 47.33 %
Bill Berens (REP) 19426 52.67 %
MHD PVI: R + 1.67
City and County of Denver:
St. Senate - District 31
2004 Election Results:
Jennifer Veiga (DEM) 34856 100.00 %
St. Senate - District 33
2004 Election Results:
Peter C. Groff (DEM) 36863 100.00 %
St. Senate - District 35
2004 Election Results:
Ronald B. Olson (REP) 18258 34.76 %
Ken Gordon (DEM) 34272 65.24 %
St. Rep. District 1
2004 Election Results:
Dave Lewis (REP) 8534 39.39 %
Fran N. Coleman (DEM) 13132 60.61 %
MHD PVI: D + 11.61
St. Rep. District 2
2004 Election Results:
Mike Cerbo (DEM) 11687 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 3
2004 Election Results:
David A. Sprecace (REP) 12097 38.87 %
Anne L. McGihon (DEM) 19027 61.13 %
MHD PVI: D + 12.13
St. Rep. District 4
2004 Election Results:
K. Jerry Frangas (DEM) 15753 80.29 %
Rick D. Nevin (REP) 3866 19.71 %
MHD PVI: D + 31.29
St. Rep. District 5
2004 Election Results:
Joel Judd (DEM) 16310 78.75 %
John Wren (REP) 4402 21.25 %
MHD PVI: D + 29.75
St. Rep. District 6
2004 Election Results:
Andrew Romanoff (DEM) 23782 71.69 %
Gregory Nathan Golyansky (REP) 9391 28.31 %
MHD PVI: D + 22.69
St. Rep. District 7
2004 Election Results:
Terrance Carroll (DEM) 17994 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 8
2004 Election Results:
Rosemary Marshall (DEM) 22266 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 9
2004 Election Results:
Jerry B. Wheeler (REP) 10436 39.10 %
Alice Borodkin (DEM) 16255 60.90 %
MHD PVI: D + 11.90
Douglas County:
St. Senate - District 4
2004 Election Results:
Jim Miller (DEM) 23733 30.68 %
Tom J. Wiens (REP) 53617 69.32 %
St. Rep. District 43
2004 Election Results:
Craig Ziesman (DEM) 12945 35.82 %
Ted Harvey (REP) 23193 64.18 %
MHD PVI: R + 13.18
St. Rep. District 44
2004 Election Results:
Mike May (REP) 32787 100.00 %
MHD PVI: R + 49
St. Rep. District 45
2004 Election Results:
Penny Burley (DEM) 13057 30.49 %
James R. "Jim" Sullivan (REP) 29761 69.51 %
MHD PVI: R + 18.51
Jefferson County:
St. Senate - District 19
2004 Election Results:
Sue Windels (DEM) 31200 53.70 %
Jessica Corry (REP) 26905 46.30 %
St. Senate - District 21
2004 Election Results:
Deanna Hanna (DEM) 31046 59.48 %
Tori Merritts (REP) 21153 40.52 %
St. Rep. District 22
2004 Election Results:
Matt Knoedler (REP) 16607 51.80 %
Peter Mazula (DEM) 15450 48.20 %
MHD PVI: R + .80
St. Rep. District 23
2004 Election Results:
Ramey Johnson (REP) 13378 49.92 %
Gwyn Green (DEM) 13419 50.08 %
MHD PVI: D + 1.08
St. Rep. District 24
2004 Election Results:
Cheri Jahn (DEM) 18425 100.00 %
MHD PVI: D + 51
St. Rep. District 25
2004 Election Results:
Donna Red Wing (DEM) 16072 41.07 %
John Witwer (REP) 23057 58.93 %
MHD PVI: R + 7.93
St. Rep. District 26
2004 Election Results:
Betty Boyd (DEM) 16606 57.20 %
Mike Smith (REP) 12424 42.80 %
MHD PVI: D + 8.2
St. Rep. District 27
2004 Election Results:
Chris Rose (DEM) 15330 47.96 %
Bill Crane (REP) 16637 52.04 %
MHD PVI: R + 1.04
St. Rep. District 28
2004 Election Results:
Thomas Dittemore (DEM) 14079 42.44 %
Don Lee (REP) 19091 57.56 %
MHD PVI: R + 6.56
St. Rep. District 29
2004 Election Results:
Debbie J. Benefield (DEM) 15124 50.87 %
Bob Briggs (REP) 14604 49.13 %
MHD PVI: D + 1.87
Monday, January 17, 2005
"Its gonna be a long two years..."
Today marks the start of the second week of the 2005 session of the Colorado General Assembly. Here is a link to the Rocky Mountain New's coverage of the state legislature. The Denver Post doesn't have a special legislature page, but here is a link to their "local politics" page.
Last week we saw the first fireworks of what promises to be a nasty two years. The Republicans have not been in the minority of both houses in Colorado since Kennedy was in office and some members of the caucus are bitter over the loss.
The tone for the 2005 session was set early when State Senator Norma Anderson (R) of Lakewood made a move to block the election of State Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald (D) of Golden from assuming the post of President. The move failed, but it inspired some local columnists such as self described hippie Mike Littwin and the guys over at Colorado Pols to cry foul. (Check out Colorado Pols for an interesting line on the upcoming gubernatorial race, some interesting work going on there, still waiting on the odds for control of the State Legislatue)
Governor Bill Owens shot some rhetorical warning shots over the bow of the Democratic leadership in his State of the State address last week. If you compare it to State Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald’s opening day remarks you can see where some of the biggest battles will be. Look for internal battles among the Democrats when it comes to social issues, such as the bill that would add sexual orientation to employment anti-discrimination state laws and between the Democrats and Republicans on fiscal matters, especially when it comes to the fate of Colorado's Tabor amendment which limits taxes and government growth.
Also, the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Bloggers got an invite to sit down with Governor Owens after the State of the State. It appears that the Guv has taken notice of the work of these well connected and articulate conservative bloggers. A picture of the gaggle is available here.
Look for a continuation later this week of my series on the state legislature. My last article can be found here. Cross posted at Polstate.
Last week we saw the first fireworks of what promises to be a nasty two years. The Republicans have not been in the minority of both houses in Colorado since Kennedy was in office and some members of the caucus are bitter over the loss.
The tone for the 2005 session was set early when State Senator Norma Anderson (R) of Lakewood made a move to block the election of State Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald (D) of Golden from assuming the post of President. The move failed, but it inspired some local columnists such as self described hippie Mike Littwin and the guys over at Colorado Pols to cry foul. (Check out Colorado Pols for an interesting line on the upcoming gubernatorial race, some interesting work going on there, still waiting on the odds for control of the State Legislatue)
Governor Bill Owens shot some rhetorical warning shots over the bow of the Democratic leadership in his State of the State address last week. If you compare it to State Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald’s opening day remarks you can see where some of the biggest battles will be. Look for internal battles among the Democrats when it comes to social issues, such as the bill that would add sexual orientation to employment anti-discrimination state laws and between the Democrats and Republicans on fiscal matters, especially when it comes to the fate of Colorado's Tabor amendment which limits taxes and government growth.
Also, the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Bloggers got an invite to sit down with Governor Owens after the State of the State. It appears that the Guv has taken notice of the work of these well connected and articulate conservative bloggers. A picture of the gaggle is available here.
Look for a continuation later this week of my series on the state legislature. My last article can be found here. Cross posted at Polstate.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Delphi on Colorado: State Senate Leadership.
Today marks the first time since Kennedy was President that Democrats have control over both houses of Colorado's legislature. A link to the Rocky Mountain news is available here. As the state legislature opens, we can look forward to a colorful session. Tabor, the nationally known Taxpayers Bill of Rights, is sure to come under direct attack, not only by the Democratic majority, but by Higher Ed. and the AARP. Additionally, we will get the pleasure of watching infighting in both parties.
On the Democratic side: Colorado Labor Unions staged a rally today at the capital to announce exactly what they want from the Democrats, who, while they may not have signed IOUs, certainly owe Colorado Labor for their victory last election cycle. Key members of the Colorado Democratic party believe that if they play the "fiscal responsibility" card they can maintain their majorities in Colorado, a state where even as the GOP lost its majorities in the state legislature, it received tens of thousands more votes than the Democrats overall. This attempt by the Democratic leadership to stay away from "social issues" will sting the party faithful, who are already calling the historic Democratic victory a win for "GOP Lite."
Republicans are having some difficult times themselves. Immediately after their loss they chose new, more moderate leaders. However, this belies a civil war that is occurring in the party. An example of this is a open letter from the Chairman of the Jefferson County GOP to Bob Schaffer over a mailing that Schaffer sent out during the general election which probably cost a moderate Republican her seat. And how can we ignore the three ring circus that is Douglas Bruce's election to the El Paso County Commissioners.
Here is a look at the new leadership of the Colorado State Senate.
State Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald (D) Golden, a social and fiscal liberal from New York, is the first female President of the State Senate.
The fiscally conservative Colorado Union of Taxpayers ranks Senator Fitz-Gerald as the 8th most fiscally liberal member of the State Senate. This is a special achievement since some Democrats, such as Paula Sandoval of Denver and Bob Hagedorn or Aurora are ranked as the 5th and 7th most conservative members of the State Senate (sandwiching outgoing Senate President John Andrews). In 2002 she voted with the Colorado Farm Bureau 75% of the time. In 2004 she received a A rating from the Colorado Political Voice for Animals. Also in 2004 she voted with the Colorado PIRG 100% of the time (if you aren’t familiar with the work of the state PIRGs, think of Ralph Nader), voted with the Colorado National Federation of Independent Business 41% of the time, voted with Equal Rights Colorado 100 % of the time, voted with Colorado Conservation Voters 100% of the time, voted with Colorado Women's Agenda 100% of the time, voted with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners 0% of the time in 2003 and got a grade of an F from the NRA in 2002. Going farther back she voted with the Colorado AFL-CIO 100% of the time in 2001. For a link to project vote smart’s group rating page click here. Overall, Senator Fitz-Gerald’s liberal pedigree is impeccable. In 2004 the most generally conservative think tank in Colorado, the Wilberforce Center, ranked Joan Fitz-Gerald the second most liberal member of the Colorado State Senate, behind only Ron Tupa (D) of Boulder.
Senator Ken Gordon, considered a moderate by many, has voting patterns that make him appear to be a mainstream to liberal Democrat, not a moderate.
The fiscally conservative Colorado Union of Taxpayers ranks Senator Gordon in the middle of the pack in the State Senate. In 2002 he voted with the Colorado Farm Bureau 80% of the time. In 2004 he received a A- rating from the Colorado Political Voice for Animals. Also in 2004 he voted with the Colorado PIRG 100% of the time, voted with the Colorado National Federation of Independent Business 41% of the time, voted with Equal Rights Colorado 100% of the time, voted with Colorado Conservation Voters 100% of the time, voted with Colorado Women's Agenda 100% of the time, voted with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners 0% of the time in 2003 and got a grade of an F from the NRA in 2004. Going farther back he voted with the Colorado AFL-CIO 100% of the time in 2001. Overall, it is hard to call Senator Gordon a moderate in a true sense of the word. However, in the more narrow context of among Democrats, he does appear to be mainstream. For those keeping count on how liberal this "mainstream" Democrat is, he is ranked fourth most liberal member of the State Senate by the Wilberforce Center.
This is the first in a series of articles looking at the State Legislature and how the mainstream media portrays it. Look for an in depth analysis of how the election was won in the coming weeks.
Cross posted at Polstate.
On the Democratic side: Colorado Labor Unions staged a rally today at the capital to announce exactly what they want from the Democrats, who, while they may not have signed IOUs, certainly owe Colorado Labor for their victory last election cycle. Key members of the Colorado Democratic party believe that if they play the "fiscal responsibility" card they can maintain their majorities in Colorado, a state where even as the GOP lost its majorities in the state legislature, it received tens of thousands more votes than the Democrats overall. This attempt by the Democratic leadership to stay away from "social issues" will sting the party faithful, who are already calling the historic Democratic victory a win for "GOP Lite."
Republicans are having some difficult times themselves. Immediately after their loss they chose new, more moderate leaders. However, this belies a civil war that is occurring in the party. An example of this is a open letter from the Chairman of the Jefferson County GOP to Bob Schaffer over a mailing that Schaffer sent out during the general election which probably cost a moderate Republican her seat. And how can we ignore the three ring circus that is Douglas Bruce's election to the El Paso County Commissioners.
Here is a look at the new leadership of the Colorado State Senate.
State Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald (D) Golden, a social and fiscal liberal from New York, is the first female President of the State Senate.
The fiscally conservative Colorado Union of Taxpayers ranks Senator Fitz-Gerald as the 8th most fiscally liberal member of the State Senate. This is a special achievement since some Democrats, such as Paula Sandoval of Denver and Bob Hagedorn or Aurora are ranked as the 5th and 7th most conservative members of the State Senate (sandwiching outgoing Senate President John Andrews). In 2002 she voted with the Colorado Farm Bureau 75% of the time. In 2004 she received a A rating from the Colorado Political Voice for Animals. Also in 2004 she voted with the Colorado PIRG 100% of the time (if you aren’t familiar with the work of the state PIRGs, think of Ralph Nader), voted with the Colorado National Federation of Independent Business 41% of the time, voted with Equal Rights Colorado 100 % of the time, voted with Colorado Conservation Voters 100% of the time, voted with Colorado Women's Agenda 100% of the time, voted with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners 0% of the time in 2003 and got a grade of an F from the NRA in 2002. Going farther back she voted with the Colorado AFL-CIO 100% of the time in 2001. For a link to project vote smart’s group rating page click here. Overall, Senator Fitz-Gerald’s liberal pedigree is impeccable. In 2004 the most generally conservative think tank in Colorado, the Wilberforce Center, ranked Joan Fitz-Gerald the second most liberal member of the Colorado State Senate, behind only Ron Tupa (D) of Boulder.
Senator Ken Gordon, considered a moderate by many, has voting patterns that make him appear to be a mainstream to liberal Democrat, not a moderate.
The fiscally conservative Colorado Union of Taxpayers ranks Senator Gordon in the middle of the pack in the State Senate. In 2002 he voted with the Colorado Farm Bureau 80% of the time. In 2004 he received a A- rating from the Colorado Political Voice for Animals. Also in 2004 he voted with the Colorado PIRG 100% of the time, voted with the Colorado National Federation of Independent Business 41% of the time, voted with Equal Rights Colorado 100% of the time, voted with Colorado Conservation Voters 100% of the time, voted with Colorado Women's Agenda 100% of the time, voted with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners 0% of the time in 2003 and got a grade of an F from the NRA in 2004. Going farther back he voted with the Colorado AFL-CIO 100% of the time in 2001. Overall, it is hard to call Senator Gordon a moderate in a true sense of the word. However, in the more narrow context of among Democrats, he does appear to be mainstream. For those keeping count on how liberal this "mainstream" Democrat is, he is ranked fourth most liberal member of the State Senate by the Wilberforce Center.
This is the first in a series of articles looking at the State Legislature and how the mainstream media portrays it. Look for an in depth analysis of how the election was won in the coming weeks.
Cross posted at Polstate.
Text of letter from Jeffco GOP Chairman to Bob Schaffer.
Dear Bob:
As a loyal Republican and as Chairman of the Jefferson County Republicans I
was stunned by the Voucher mailing sent out to constituents of Ramey Johnson
in House District 23.
Although cleverly written not to urge voting against Ramey there can be not
other conclusion from the tenure of its content.
Bob, you have greatly disappointed many Republicans who were your greatest
supporters in your run for the U.S. Senate and who were upset over the way
they perceived you were treated by state leaders of our party with the
addition of Pete Coors as a candidate.
Under the circumstances I would have thought you would be more
sophisticated, especially with your background in our party and as a
legislator both here in Colorado in Washington, to have willingly engaged in
trying to influence the defeat of one of our party‚s standard bearers in
this general election. Right or wrong the time for such action would have
been to with an eye to a primary in support of one who might hold similar
beliefs about vouchers, or after the election --- not one week before the
general election.
I have spent two years as Chairman of our County urging all Republicans to
consider that they have more in common with each other than with the
Democrats. If people like you to whom many look to for leadership cannot be
trusted to work for all of our candidates that have earned their way on to
the ballot, what hope do we have for the future.
This party can not endure if segments of it continue to have such tunnel
vision for their one big issue that they fail to see the big picture that
our party, to be significant here in Colorado, must recognize that it is a
coalition of many factions held together by some very basic underlying
principles that distinguish us from the Dems.
We need people like you to be in the front lines bringing our party together
rather than sowing seeds of division.
Lynn Watwood
Chairman, Jefferson County Republicans
As a loyal Republican and as Chairman of the Jefferson County Republicans I
was stunned by the Voucher mailing sent out to constituents of Ramey Johnson
in House District 23.
Although cleverly written not to urge voting against Ramey there can be not
other conclusion from the tenure of its content.
Bob, you have greatly disappointed many Republicans who were your greatest
supporters in your run for the U.S. Senate and who were upset over the way
they perceived you were treated by state leaders of our party with the
addition of Pete Coors as a candidate.
Under the circumstances I would have thought you would be more
sophisticated, especially with your background in our party and as a
legislator both here in Colorado in Washington, to have willingly engaged in
trying to influence the defeat of one of our party‚s standard bearers in
this general election. Right or wrong the time for such action would have
been to with an eye to a primary in support of one who might hold similar
beliefs about vouchers, or after the election --- not one week before the
general election.
I have spent two years as Chairman of our County urging all Republicans to
consider that they have more in common with each other than with the
Democrats. If people like you to whom many look to for leadership cannot be
trusted to work for all of our candidates that have earned their way on to
the ballot, what hope do we have for the future.
This party can not endure if segments of it continue to have such tunnel
vision for their one big issue that they fail to see the big picture that
our party, to be significant here in Colorado, must recognize that it is a
coalition of many factions held together by some very basic underlying
principles that distinguish us from the Dems.
We need people like you to be in the front lines bringing our party together
rather than sowing seeds of division.
Lynn Watwood
Chairman, Jefferson County Republicans
Delphi on Colorado version 2.0
We are back, look for some heavy posting over the next few days as we get our sea legs back. We are putting the finishing touches our overview of the 2004 election, which, we are still trying to get published (hello Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News).
Look to see the site get some major updates, new links and new analysis.
Sorry you all couldn't come to Mazatlan with us, but our southern command is only so big.
Look to see the site get some major updates, new links and new analysis.
Sorry you all couldn't come to Mazatlan with us, but our southern command is only so big.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)