I was walking today and I saw this sign on the yard of a person I would have guessed to be republican:  This old white woman is voting for Obama.

Of the seven houses on my block (on my side), six for sure are going Obama.  And of course the area near the college and downtown is mostly democratic but for the first time in my 30+ years here, the democratic party is really active.

It is possible to fundamentally change the demographic nature of the voting electorate, but I would hate to have to stake my chances on that. And anyway I'm doubtful that it's really so simple in a Presidential election.

There ought to be a similar level of effort here in the closest state last time, with a difference of only 11,401 votes that could have turned us red.  And I just don't see that much going on here in Wisconsin.  I went by the Obama office downtown the other day in the largest city, too, and there were no posters in the windows.  Just blank.  I also see few yard signs and cannot recall bumper stickers here.  By this point last time, we already were through several stolen Kerry signs.:-)  So I was down at that office often to pick up new ones, and it always was busy.  

1. On Pitken/Delta Counties and Entz:

The strategy worked in a local race in 2006:

Aspen Mayor Mick Ireland, an Obama supporter, cited the 2006 election of state Sen. Gail Schwartz as proof that this supercharged Pitkin County strategy works. In that contest, Schwartz pulled 82 percent of the Pitkin County vote after a similar local voter registration push. Ireland said the Pitkin County vote overrode more conservative sections of the district and propelled Schwartz's narrow victory over Republican incumbent Lewis Entz. "We totally outweighed Delta County," Ireland said.

Lewis Entz was already fading in 2006, due in part to Ken Salazar's Democratic surge in 2004 and his popularity and influence around the state, but also due to matters unrelated to GOTV efforts (Entz's opposition to rural projects in South-Central Colorado, his missteps on serious water issues, and missteps on C&TSR appropriations, for example). He was also too closely tied to previous Republican cronies in South-Central, South-Western Colorado, and was seen generally as more of a problem than a solution.

2. On Western Slope voters

Ken Salazar earned respect among Western Slope Republicans for his advocacy on behalf of veterans issues, general rural issues, and water issues (specifically), and for his no-nonsense, practical approach to problem-solving as a U.S. Senator. He was also highly respected as Colorado's AG, which has given him lots of street cred with Western Slope Republicans. Additionally, Salazar has rural roots and is a fifth-generation Coloradan ag producer - again, giving him street cred with these Republicans.

The Western Slope, even among so-called unaffiliated voters, is really unlikely to turn blue - even if Obama invests $$$, time, GOTV, moving unaffiliated into Dem column. It's a simple, generations old Western Slope mentality: they may have a booming city in Grand Junction and the area may be in flux, but they retain centuries-old rural, ag producing, pioneering, pragmatic mindsets and simplicity that can be summed up as this: the fewer words one uses as a politician, the better; you'd better "show me" and not talk something to death.

Obama doesn't come anywhere near meeting that threshhold, even with Ken Salazar's enthusiastic support. It was said for years and years among politicians that if you didn't understand and "get" the Western Slope, you didn't win, period. This still holds true.

And the same is true for the Eastern Plains and most of Northern/Northeastern Colorado. Keep in mind: Colorado is 80-85% rural, even though Denver/CSprings may break approximately even in the number of people.

3. So, can Obama's get out the vote effort generate enough new voters to cancel out the smaller, largely Republican counties? And is there any way to predict which way the unaffiliated voters in the big counties will go?

There are two interconnected parts to this answer.

First, The simple answer to first part of your question is No. Even though on paper there are large numbers of unaffiliated voters across the state, in practice this is nothing new. Colorado has always been quirky this way - more so than other parts of the country. It is one measure of being "conservative" in the broadest sense of the definition (conserving energy, speech, thought, judgment, etc.).

The second part of this has to do with Colorado's libertarian streak, which influences voting registration/parties/patterns. And Coloradans tends to be more conservative-libertarian than liberal-libertarian.

Second, from the voter registration numbers you provided, I've done some back-of-the-napkin calculations to incorporate Indie voters. Taken as a whole, these numbers aren't good for Democrats, except perhaps in Boulder and Adams Counties. Republicans still outnumber Dems across the board (no surprise here). What is really worrisome are the Indie voters and where they are likely to fall given voter registration percentages/patterns. If you use a very simple proportional calculation that puts Indies into respective R + D columns (other than Boulder and Adams), Indies are going to break squarely for Republicans.  

-- El Paso: 158,000 (68%) Republican + 76,000 (68%) Independents = 234,000 votes Republican;
-- Jefferson: 124,000 (53%) R + 62,000 (53%) I = 186,000 votes R;

-- Arapahoe: 110,000 (51%) R + 53,000 (51%) I = 163,000 votes R; *

-- Adams: 55,000 (43%) R + 33,000 (43%) I = 88,000 votes R;
-- Larimer: 72,000 (57%) R + 40,000 (57%) I = 112,000 votes R;

-- Douglas: 84,000 (70%) R + 37,000 (70%) I = 121,000 votes R; *

Keep in mind that counties bordering and surrounding Adams County (Weld, Morgan, Logan) - have nearly 2:1 registered Republicans and will cancel out Adams and Boulder Dem voters, even without Indies. If Indies are included in proportion to the party registration numbers, again they will swing strongly Republican.

If environmental issues play a role in Colorado's ballot propositions (like they did in 2004), Indies may break more evenly for Democrats because the environment is one of the things that motivates Indies and Democrats (and some Republicans in the state, albeit for different reasons and in different ways).

Here are the caveats:

#1: In spite of Douglas County's strong Republican v.r. numbers, my gut tells me that Douglas County may go Democratic this year. Even though Douglas Co. is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, most of these folks are upscale based on what was 5 years ago. They bought homes with the same ARMs that have reset, will reset, have seen their salaries peak and remain stagnant, but now have families/responsibilities they can't afford. They - even more than others in Colorado - are worth any mining effort the Obama campaign can engage in, because they're primed big time for change.

#2: Arapahoe County, I think, will also go Democratic this year. Arapahoe has been undergoing a quiet transformation over the last 10 or so years, from a true burb to something akin to a mini-Denver. It's not as upscale as Douglas, but likes to think of itself as a progressive community and has a big percentage of area businesses, from health care to insurance to finance + small, homegrown businesses.

#3: I don't honestly know what impact the "personhood" amendment will have on which way Indies go but instinct, history, experience with Colorado tells me that if Indies come out in force this year it will be bad for this amendment and could prove a real boon to Democrats, simply as an F.U. to evangelical Christians in the state. Remember: Coloradans have a libertarian streak.

Whew! I honestly didn't mean to write this much, but this particular topic of discussion is one that always animates me, from personal and political experience in the state.