Colorado The Bellwether

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:46:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Perhaps the effects of the 50 State Strategy elixir have worn off because Chris Bowers states the obvious today - Colorado is the bellwether for this election:

The path to victory goes through Colorado. I have a hard time seeing any realistic scenario where the candidate who loses Colorado wins the election (I know it is possible--I just think it is highly unlikely). I mean, given all of the advantages we have in that state, how can we expect Obama to win Ohio or Virginia if he doesn't win Colorado? As such, Colorado is the 2008 equivalent of Ohio 2004 and Florida 2000.

This was hashed out during the Democratic primary - Democrats picked the Obama electoral map -with its Western possibilities (Colorado (9 EVs), New Mexico (5 EVs) and Nevada (5 EVs)) + Iowa (7 EVs) + the Kerry states over the Clinton electoral map - 0hio (20 EVs) + Florida (27 EVs) + Arkansas (6 EVs) + the Kerry states. Of course Obama CAN win Ohio (imo, Obama WILL win Ohio), Florida and Virginia (13 EVs) (Clinton had no chance in Virginia.) But Clinton would have won Ohio, Florida and Arkansas. BTW, I believe an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket would have won them all. But that is water under the bridge.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Drudge: "The Disco Of Right Wing News Sites" | Clinton And Biden >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Colorado The Bellwether | 69 comments (69 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:57:30 AM EST

would have been a lock in PA as well where Obama may lose that state that Kerry won.

Obama is a lock in PA (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:59:21 AM EST

just noting that (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:01:37 AM EST

the state polls there have been moving away from Obama instead of toward him.


: Check them out again (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:03:29 AM EST

after the past few days.

Once (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:20:26 AM EST

again, we are down to one state deciding the election.

And, yes, you are right. All the rest is water under the bridge. Nothing can be done to change that now.

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by IzikLA on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:54:07 AM EST

With that last assessment but I'm still confused as to why the this is called the Obama Electoral Map (CO, IA, NV, NM), when half of those states were won by Clinton as well.

I still think he can pull it out though...

Good luck with that... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Lora on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:54:23 AM EST

'In Bed With Voting Vendors': Details Revealed on the Abrupt Resignation of CO's Election Director

A quote (emphasis mine):

Just last month, the non-partisan voting watchdog organization VotersUnite.org, released a 50-page report [PDF] detailing the dangers inherent in the growing relationships between election officials and private vendors, as encouraged by HAVA.

And:

Both voter registration roll problems, as well as concerns about the validity of election results, as reported by easily-manipulated, non-transparent, admittedly error-prone private voting systems may pose a nightmare for the country this November.

Do you want to bet your vote that the cozy relationship between a (now former) Colorado election official and a private voting machine vendor would have absolutely no effect on the election results?

Seriously (none / 0) (#21)
by WS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST

election reform needs to be one of the issues taken up by the next government. There's the paper trail bill but is there a way to curtail the ID requirement and what the previous poster mentioned through federal action?


Reform! (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:31:58 AM EST

Election reform had to be done after the 2000 election and nothing really changed. 2004 came the screams for reform came again and what did we get that time? Voter ID's! It seems the only reforms we get are Republican reforms to suppress voting.


They had (none / 0) (#28)
by WS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:39:37 AM EST

control. Hopefully, we'll have control this time.


Same day registration (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM EST

is a Dem reform that could be pursued. It works in eight states, it should be national.


WS (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Lora on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:47:23 AM EST

How can we have control when the privately-owned election hardware and software companies are Republican-owned and controlled?

And how can a paper-trail bill work when even the paper trails have found to be useless when confronted with a knowledgable hacker, access, and a few seconds of time?


The movement has (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:54:03 AM EST

been to optical scan machines, that read a real, bona-fide ballot just like a standardized test answer sheet. The machines are relatively simple and reliable. If need be, there is a genuine ballot that can be counted by hand.


: There is a need (none / 0) (#65)
by Lora on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:47:24 PM EST

If need be, there is a genuine ballot that can be counted by hand.
That's exactly what we need. Opscan machines are only as accurate and as trustworthy as the software that totals up the votes. Unfortunately that software can have errors and be susceptible to an attack.

Amazing how that works. (5.00 / 5) (#33)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:48:36 AM EST

When we were the minority we couldn't block or get anything done. Now we're the majority and it's the minority that blocks and keeps us from us from getting anything done.

I don't expect anything to be done for Democrat's until there's new leadership in Congress. Pelosi and Reid are beyond worthless.


Huh (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:55:29 AM EST

Did the congress or senate even bring this up for a vote? Not that I remember.

This is one of my problems this year: Somehow things are going to change if Obama gets into office. I just don't see it. The congress and the senate has shown that they are unwilling to lead on anything.


Senate Republicans and Bush (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by WS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM EST

were the bottlenecks in the 110th Congress. Hopefully, with increased margins in the Senate and a Democrat in the White House, the bottleneck will be broken.


Here's (5.00 / 3) (#44)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:46:12 AM EST

my issue: It's not that they didn't get passed, it's that Pelosi et al didn't even try. They failed to set a governing agenda and did nothing more than either react or cave when it came to Bush.


We'll see (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by mmc9431 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:08:50 AM EST

I understand the inability to pass anything. My concern was they they were pathetic in blocking terrible legislation.


Always (none / 0) (#45)
by WS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:51:21 AM EST

willing to give someone a second chance.


: Should read (none / 0) (#46)
by WS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:52:10 AM EST

I'm always willing to give someone a second chance.

Exactly (none / 0) (#59)
by sj on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:13:17 PM EST

Republicans should actually have to filibuster right out there in public. Instead they have the benefit without any cost.

Dem Leadership just threw up their hands because "they don't have the votes" and didn't even have a vote.


No (none / 0) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:04:56 AM EST

voter ID is here to stay imo. They've found a way to make it work here in GA so I imagine other states will follow suit.

IMO, the paper trail bill is more important. Don't waste anymore time or energy trying to change the voter ID laws.


Not changing in some ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:37:01 AM EST

states, protecting them.

You still don't need ID to vote in NY.


Signature check. (none / 0) (#36)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:55:05 AM EST

In NYC, at least, you sign in to vote, and the signature is compared to a scan of what was on your voter registration card.


: Can (none / 0) (#43)
by WS on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:44:44 AM EST

Congress legislate signature checks and prohibit ID voting? Can Congress do that?

worries (none / 0) (#57)
by christinep on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:05:43 PM EST

We do have paper ballots this year in Colorado (as well as mail-in and drop-off.)


Are the Kerry states (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:50:48 AM EST

really safe? Sitting here in Minnesota, I get a bad feeling. Now, with our blue history, I can't believe that we would ever go for McCain, but it is closer than it should be. Obama is spending nothing here, and McCain ads are on a lot.

No (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:57:23 AM EST

they're not safe right now. Unless new polling comes out showing something different Obama is going to have to work to keep them.


no way (none / 0) (#41)
by TruthMatters on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM EST

seriously you really think McCain has a shot here in Minnesota?

because he has a few ads out or that Star Trib poll? I welcome McCain to spend as much money in Minnesota he wants, it can be 2004 again, he can go after it and flip it.

how often has McCain been here since the RNC? they held their damn convention here and yet we still aren't important enough for a return visit.

compare that to how many times Obama has been back to CO.

If Obama loses MN, its because he lost all the other states also.


: Actually (none / 0) (#48)
by eric on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:37:56 AM EST

McCain is coming tomorrow... LINK

: Minnesota will probably stay blue, but... (none / 0) (#58)
by christinep on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:09:17 PM EST

a look at its recent history will show some movement in the direction of red. In a close election, it will get attention.

: The Repub gov elected by Minnesota (none / 0) (#66)
by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:44:58 PM EST

was a fluke? Uh, no. The concealed carry law? Uh, no -- not a fluke, either.
There have been significant population shifts in the upper Midwest for years now.

Of course you can win w/o Colorado! (3.00 / 1) (#39)
by kenosharick on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:27:24 AM EST

Clinton did it in 1996, Gore in 2000 (til the right wing supremes stole it), and Kerry would have done it if a few thousand votes in Ohio had gone his way. Hillary would have won this thing EASILY without Colorado. Obama on the other hand, really needs Co, since he is weak in so many states that Hillary would have had wrapped up by now.

It' almost like the movie (none / 0) (#60)
by christinep on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST

If it does come down to Colorado (and, I emphasize "if"), then it may well begin to resemble the recent movie "Swing Voter." Being decided in Colorado really might shift to incredible focus on the Denver suburbs and Latino/a vote. Considering the latter, Obama may want to beef up the ground game with personal outreach. See Tuesday's Pueblo Chieftain (usually a Democratic paper) following Obama's visit there, wherein the paper ruefully noted that the Senator should have made some reference to Hispanic voters (close to majority) in the county. While I think that longterm trends here favor Obama, there are certain sensitivities in each state to observe....


: And look more at what "Dem" means (none / 0) (#67)
by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:49:45 PM EST

in Colorado -- look at its anti-choice governor, for one. Obama was a Westerner decades ago, but he does not seem to fit the definition of Dem there now.
Where is the evidence that Coloradoans blindly vote D, no matter the differences with the Eastern D agenda? The evidence seems stronger that a Dem in Colorado is an Independent in the East.

Well....okay. (none / 0) (#1)
by Fabian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:52:23 AM EST

Total media buys by state may point to which states are the most hotly contested.

(A jealous Buckeye state resident. ;-))

Actually it's bellwether (none / 0) (#2)
by Demi Moaned on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:54:46 AM EST

From Merriam-Webster:

leading sheep of a flock

Really? (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:55:40 AM EST

I did not know that.

Not changing it though, cuz no one else knows it either.


I knew it! (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:56:50 AM EST

I was debating whether to say anything.

Wikipedia informs me that "wether" is a Middle English term for a castrated ram. No wonder the thought of having to win Colorado makes me go "ewe."


Apparently it was just me (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:57:12 AM EST

I am going to change it


Really (none / 0) (#7)
by Demi Moaned on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:57:34 AM EST

I gave a link in my comment to substantiate. (I bet oculus knows.)


Yep (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:59:57 AM EST

My ignorance is on display in this thread. Everyone else knew this except me.

I changed it.


: Oh well, ... (none / 0) (#12)
by Demi Moaned on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:04:50 AM EST

I've certainly displayed my own ignorance plenty of times (as you know). The remedy is to admit it when called on it as you did here. Those who are afraid of displaying their ignorance shouldn't blog.

: Not just you (none / 0) (#30)
by CST on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:43:39 AM EST

I just got here, and thought you spelled bellwether wrong... until I got to this part of the thread.

: I didn't know it either (none / 0) (#52)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:04:25 PM EST

I thought the term had something to do with a weather bell like a tornado alarm.
That's why I read TL - I never know which of my long-held beliefs will be challenged!

Ohio (none / 0) (#13)
by Coral on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:10:22 AM EST

Is Obama running "economy" ads in Ohio + PA? McCain is very vulnerable with the current meltdown -- on social security privatization and his health care proposal which would tax employer benefits, induce more employers to abandon health care plans for employees, and replace that with a terribly inadequate tax credit.

And then there is trade -- Obama could push a little there.

The last few days could change the map for good.

Via Digby, Harry Reid made a strong statement calling up the ghost of Herbert Hoover:

We can't afford another Republican president who will follow his party's ghosts down the path of recession, depression and more suffering. We desperately need a president who understands that working people, not industry titans, are the backbone of our economy.

: Conjuring (none / 0) (#14)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:16:56 AM EST

up the ghost of Herbert Hoover isn't going to work. We've lost a lot of elections over the past decade doing this. Time for something else.

: Yes. (none / 0) (#25)
by liminal on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:32:12 AM EST

I've seen several Obama ads on the economy. I'm in a cheap media market that includes a big swath of rural southern Ohio. Right now, the majority of the ads I see are: Lunsford-McConnell (Kentucky); Obama-McCain (from the Obama and McCain campaigns, and from SEIU); and Barth-Capito (WV-02).
The ads from Obama and SEIU are fine. They're much better than the truly stupid ads they ran in local markets during the endless primaries - but those were some horrible, generic, thoughtless ads.

Re: (none / 0) (#16)
by az on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:49:17 AM EST

Obama won't win Ohio.

He has had no traction there .

He is not even visiting the state that much...

Maybe Hillary wll win Ohio? (none / 0) (#20)
by Fabian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:56:49 AM EST

Snark to be sure, but it'll be interesting to see what the Obama/Clinton ratio is in various states.


: for sure the pollsters (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by TimNCGuy on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:18:18 AM EST

will let us know after Nov 4th. You just know they will have exit polling that will show how Clinton would have done against McCain.

Not quite "water under the bridge" (none / 0) (#19)
by joanneleon on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:55:40 AM EST

though highly unlikely. But if they really think they might lose this election, don't you think they would consider making a change?

Given all the other unprecedented things going on in this country, I just feel like anything could happen.

Just for kicks, what is the deadline for a change in the VP candidate?

Chris is right, of course (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:33:06 AM EST

I wish people could have been more realistic about this during the primary.

I don't see CO as a ... (none / 0) (#29)
by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:40:49 AM EST

bellwether. It's just another western coin-flip state. Two flaps of a butterfly's wings in Boulder could tilt the election there.

It makes no sense to me (none / 0) (#40)
by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 10:31:03 AM EST

to consider CO a bellwether state.

Whether it goes toward Obama or not has little to do with whether OH, MI, FL, or PA goes to him, given how different the underlying cultures might be.

I'd guess that if Obama loses CO, it would be a bad sign for his ability to win those other states, but his winning CO would mean little as to whether he could win the others.

A bellwether state should, at minimum, be the state that will predict a candidate's overall fortunes in either direction.

I'd expect either OH or PA to be far better "bellwether" states, not only predicting the overall fortune of candidates, because they have all those Reagan Democrats like the other crucial swing states, but also playing a major role in the outcome because of the number of electoral votes they contribute.

Missouri would beg to differ, of course (none / 0) (#49)
by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST

as the famous bellwether for more than a century, in all but one election, and that was more than half a century ago. An interesting take on whassup in the Show Me state is at (sorry, this computer not enabling embedding) a Missouri blog called the Moderate Voice, authored by a Pete Abel.

Worrying result from FL (none / 0) (#50)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:42:14 AM EST

SUSA:

McCain 51
Obama 45

Of course, SUSA utterly fails at polling blacks again, but the real worry is the Hispanic vote. McCain wins it by a much bigger margin here than I would have expected.

Ouch, too (none / 0) (#51)
by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EST

from the SUSA report:

McCain holds 81% of the GOP base. But Obama holds just 71% of Democrats. 23% of Democrats today cross over to vote Republican. Independents split.

Only worrying if you ever thought Obama had (none / 0) (#53)
by ruffian on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:06:45 PM EST

a chance in FL.

I'm glad he planned on winning without it.


: Given the national numbers (none / 0) (#54)
by andgarden on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:07:35 PM EST

and the economy, he should have a shot.
But it seems like white voters are just too dead set against him there.

: He's (none / 0) (#56)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:57:44 PM EST

planning on dumping 39 million dollars into the state is what I've read. I guess he thinks he needs it to win if he's doing that don't you?
Of course, I agree that Obama has never really had a shot in FL.

Hmm (none / 0) (#64)
by Steve M on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 04:33:13 PM EST

the baseline among those pesky Latinos is Bush 56%, Kerry 44%.

Obama is actually doing just about as well with white voters as Kerry did.

Something I've never been clear on, which is relevant both in Florida and here in New York, is how they count Black Hispanics for purposes of these polls and how that constituency actually lines up in this election.


A question (none / 0) (#55)
by frankly0 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 12:35:19 PM EST

Isn't it fair to say that we are still in a situation in which Obama can't really win unless he wins at least one, and likely two, of the big swing states, OH, MI, FL, or PA?

: The number is two (none / 0) (#61)
by christinep on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:24:31 PM EST

If McCain loses, Ohio...uncork the champagne. If Obama loses Michigan (or, heaven forbid, Pennsylvania) Democrats may not be feeling too well early on.

Kerry was behind (none / 0) (#62)
by jb64 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM EST

in Pa and Wisconsin on this date 4 years ago, and he managed to pull them out, albeit by less than 2% in both. I'm inclined to believe that Obama will do the same.

Interestingly, on this date 4 years ago Kerry projected on 211 electoral votes. Obama is currently at 244.

Cite the site? Obama is at 203 (none / 0) (#68)
by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:52:04 PM EST

on electoral-vote.com, which has McCain ahead in the EC projections for the first time today.


: Sorry, typo -- 243 (none / 0) (#69)
by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:55:32 PM EST

at electoral-vote.com; 202 at realclearpolitics.com (without tossups). The trend, though, is what ought to be worrisome, as Obama was at over 300 at electoral-vote.com little more than a week ago -- and it tends to be a pro-Obama site.

Colorado would definitely be a good win (none / 0) (#63)
by s5 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 03:37:22 PM EST

But at this point, it's clear that Obama has more than one path to victory. Either it's Colorado or Virginia or Ohio, or more likely than Ohio, Florida, or some scenarios that include Nevada or Indiana.

You may see as a repudiation of the 50 state strategy, but it's clear that Obama spent the primaries expanding his reach across the country, which allowed him to have more than one path to victory. In 2004, it was Ohio and Ohio only. In 2008, we have a bunch of options. All in all, a good place to be.