Colorado polling

[Tommy Duncan]

2000 Election: Bush won by 9.4

Bush 50.8
Gore 42.4
Nader 5.3


www.rasmussenreports.com/...August.htm (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Colorado_August.htm)

Bush 47
Kerry 47

[Joe Chalupa]

Too close to call.

[Tommy Duncan]

www.economist.com/World/n...id=3128045 (http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3128045)

Swing states: Colorado

Can Kerry carry cowboy country?

Aug 26th 2004 | DENVER
The Economist

The club of swing states has plenty of venerable members, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. This year it may enrol an unexpected new one: Colorado

ON PAPER, the state that gave birth to the rodeo is solid Bush country. Colorado's Republicans have lost only one presidential election since 1964—in 1992, when Ross Perot split the Republican vote. George Bush won the state by eight percentage points in 2000. The Republicans control both houses of the state legislature as well as the governor's mansion (Bill Owens, one of the country's most conservative governors, won re-election in 2002 by 62% to 33%). Both of the state's senators in Washington are Republicans, as are five of its seven members of the House of Representatives. The Republicans have increased their edge over the Democrats among registered voters from 102,000 in 1996 to 181,000 today.

Yet the two most recent opinion polls in Colorado put Mr Bush and John Kerry in a dead heat, with 47% of the vote each. Republican jaws drop. How can that be?

http://www.economist.com/images/20040828/CUS991.gif

Mr Kerry raised more money than Mr Bush in the months before the Democratic convention, and he has generally held on to leads in states such as Florida and New Hampshire. Now he wants to widen the presidential fight from the usual battleground states to include states that Mr Bush would like to take for granted.

There is a lot of talk in Kerry circles about “battleground clusters”. The argument is that Mr Bush is not as strong in the west as you might think—he narrowly lost New Mexico in 2000—and that the “western cluster” (Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado) may provide easier pickings than some more familiar swing states.

The Democrats would love to make sure that Colorado is part of this western cluster. They have a fair chance of picking up both Ben Nighthorse Campbell's Senate seat and one or even two congressional districts. Sentiment plays a part. Mr Kerry was born in the state, in an army hospital near Denver; this helps him claim he's not just the Boston Brahmin his enemies call him. Anyway, the Democrats are not quite as feeble in Colorado as the list of the state's top office-holders might suggest. They held the governorship from 1974 to 1998. One reason why Mr Bush won Colorado so easily in 2000 is that Ralph Nader got more than 5% of the vote. The left-wingers of Boulder and Denver may not take that risk again.

For their part, the Republicans go into the election with three potential problems. The most obvious is the economy. In the 1990s Colorado had proportionately more high-tech workers than any other state, and ranked third in venture-capital financing. All this changed with the bursting of the high-tech bubble. The “gazelle companies” that had once bred so merrily in Colorado's clear air have shed workers, or shut down. Wal-Mart, not Qwest, is now the state's biggest employer.

A combination of economic slowdown and tax cuts is playing havoc with the public finances: at one point, there was talk of selling some state buildings. The Republicans' image may be shifting from that of benevolent tax-cutters to mean-spirited wreckers of popular services.

The second problem is the fluidity of the state's population. In the 1990s the Republicans benefited from the large number of high-tech social conservatives who flocked to Colorado in search of a family-friendly environment. Enrolment in private schools rose much faster than in state schools, and the number of home-schooled children tripled. But lately the state has attracted a growing number of Latino immigrants. Latinos now make up 18% of its population.

Until now the Latinos have been punching below their weight. But this year the Democrats hope to take advantage of the fact that two popular Latino brothers are running for two of the state's most prominent jobs: Ken Salazar, the attorney-general, for Ben Nighthorse Campbell's Senate seat, and John Salazar for a House seat. New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson, is helping to mobilise the local Latinos, and national Latino money pours in.

http://www.economist.com/images/20040828/CUS902.gif

The third problem is the especially hard edge of Colorado's Republicans. This is a stronghold of both Christian conservatives and tax-cutters. James Dobson's mighty Focus on the Family has its headquarters in Colorado Springs. The state boasts two of the most conservative members of Congress—Marilyn Musgrave, a leading proponent of the constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, and Tom Tancredo, a vociferous critic of lax immigration policy.


Splitting the vote

The Republicans' hard line has brought two difficulties. One is relentless faction-fighting. The religious right has been ruthless in using primaries to defeat moderate Republicans; it is now snapping at Mr Owens over the failure of his marriage. The second is the growing alienation of many moderate Republicans, particularly in the business wing of the party. Bill Clinton won the state in 1992 because 23% of Colorado voters preferred Ross Perot to George Bush senior. Votes could drift away again.

There is a further wrinkle. On the same day when they choose between Messrs Bush and Kerry, Colorado's voters will also have to decide on a ballot initiative that would shift the state's votes in the electoral college from a winner-takes-all system to a proportional one, based on the popular vote. The initiative explicitly says that it applies “retroactively” to the 2004 election. But the courts will have to decide whether it can do so. The Democrats have been all for the initiative. But what if Mr Kerry were to win the state and have to split those votes with Mr Bush? They could yet come to rue the measure if it passes.

[Yonivore]

God help us all!!!

[Tommy Duncan]

www.americanresearchgroup.com/ (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/)

Sep. 13
600 LV
MOE 4.0

Bush 46
Kerry 45

[Opinionater]

IMO, this could be a crucial State and could turn the tide left or right...........................

[Tommy Duncan]

True, though Wisconsin would fit that description as well.

[Nbadan]

Colorado is way to close to call

http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/colorado.png

[Tommy Duncan]

www.rasmussenreports.com/...202004.htm (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Colorado_Fall%202004.htm)

Sep. 16
500 LV
MOE 4.5

Bush 46
Kerry 45

[Tommy Duncan]

www.chieftain.com/metro/1095857101/4 (http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1095857101/4)

600 RV
MoE +/-4.0

Bush 50
Kerry 38
Nader 3
Undecided/Other 9

[Nbadan]

SUSA
9/21-9/23
626 Likely Voters
4.0 Margin of Error

Bush 52
Kerry 44
Nadar 03