Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

A coming blue tide?

Rocky Mountain News

Published October 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

There's been "a tidal shift" in Colorado toward the Democratic Party, Lori Weigel of Public Opinion Strategies told Rocky Mountain News editors and reporters Friday.

Her polling company is Republican, by the way.

Weigel was commenting on the latest results of a Rocky Mountain News/CBS 4 survey of state voters, and the results bear her out. Compared to just a couple of months ago, the shift in support from John McCain to Barack Obama has been dramatic - from a statistical dead heat to a comfortable 12-point Obama lead.

Does that mean the drama over whether this state goes red or blue in November is over? Not really. Not every recent poll has shown quite that margin, and public opinion is fickle. It has shifted before. It can shift again.

Still, Democrats have reason for increasing optimism. Their presidential candidate hasn't been in such a strong position in Colorado this close to Election Day for decades.

Clearly some of the surge toward Democrats is unique to this season. The meltdown of financial markets has solidified the belief among a huge majority of voters that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Hard as it may be to believe, just last year Coloradans were telling a Ciruli Associates poll that the most important issue for state leaders to address was immigration, followed by health care. Immigration topped the chart in 2006 as well.

Today, needless to say, Coloradans identify the economy as the chief concern for state leaders.

Meanwhile, the Republican president's approval rating is "tied for its worst in the history of the Times/CBS poll," The New York Times reported Friday - and favorable views of Republicans in general have collapsed as well.

The not-so-surprising upshot: Enthusiasm over voting is dominated by those who support Obama. That 12-point spread? Maybe McCain should be thankful it's not more.

The larger question is whether Colorado, if it does go Democratic this time, remains in the blue camp for years to come. Party registration figures have undergone a decided shift, from a Republican advantage of 180,000 in 2004 to a virtual dead heat today. Some of this is a factor of the enthusiasm gap and dismay with Republicans - sentiments that will fade in due course - but it also reflects more enduring trends.

Earlier this year, RealClearPolitics published an analysis of Colorado election history since 1952, a period in which the state has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate just twice, in 1964 and 1992. One graph plotted this state's "Republican tilt," meaning the extent to which it has supported the GOP candidate more than the nation has as a whole. "Though the [graph] line bounces around quite a bit," Jay Cost noted, "it still has a downward slope, which indicates that it has moved from the right to the middle. When analysts suggest that Colorado is an emerging purple state, this is what they are on about."

Still, no one should get carried away. Four years ago, despite a war that was going badly and an electorate increasingly disenchanted with the White House, President Bush finished with a 4.7-point victory in Colorado over John Kerry. If current polling trends hold, Colorado may not look like a swing state after Nov. 4, but we suspect that underlying reality will not allow either party to take us for granted.

Comments

  • October 25, 2008

    12:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    clyde writes:

    Don't count the chickens yet. I believe that the election is still a few days away. The fat lady is still in rehearsal, although Obama is acting as if it's already over. Beware the over-confident, their fall is farther than most.

  • October 25, 2008

    8:25 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ghoax writes:

    the masses cheer but have no clue what Blue will do. There are plenty of people making plans to move business out of this state, simply because of the blue regime currently in place. As the state becomes more business hostile, (as evident with the ritter regime) business will go to more business friendly places.

    The blue crowd will have you believe the more government, more taxes on productivity will benefit you...when will one of you blues ask the simple question...How?

    It doesn't take an MBA to figure out that a band of fools playing king and duke is bad for business meaning bad for everyone.

    I can't think of even 1, again not 1 democrat policy or regulation that has made our lives better, our economy stronger or has protected our family...all I've found has been expanding government and elitist rule over our lives while they find more ways to confiscate what you've worked hard for.

  • October 25, 2008

    8:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    sunshinestate writes:

    The GOP is losing the fierce grasp it had enjoyed by design since 1980 on the state's 'conservative' hunters and related outdoor constituency.

  • October 25, 2008

    9:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Cowboy63 writes:

    So what if there is a "blue tide". These trends are all cyclical. Both Democrats and Republicans have had stranglehold control of Washington from time to time and it always swings back again. Each time the party out of power claims it's the end of the World.

    Republican to shared to Democrat to shared to Republican to shared... The only thing that ever seems to be proven is that The American People don't like either party in complete control for any extended time. And this time will be no different.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  • October 25, 2008

    9:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dilligaf writes:

    ghoax
    Again your blowing smoke. My wife and I own a business. And there is a strong possibility that we will have to pay more in taxes. But we are also smart enough to realize that if the middle class gets more money in their pocket that can bring more business to us. Our business has suffered under your great George W Bush. We were doing great under Clinton. So bozo we aren't going anywhere.

  • October 25, 2008

    9:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dilligaf writes:

    Cowboy63
    There is a couple things you need to understand. First is this state has always been red. But it has only been twice it has voted blue for President. And if you also look at our senator's, house of representatives, mayors, and governor it is all going blue. This is a reflection of the older generation moving on and the youth moving in. And I'm sorry to tell you but our youth is not warmongers and have more open minds to issues.

  • October 25, 2008

    10:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Glider writes:

    Barack Obama- the most extreme pro-abortion presidential candidate ever (and why I can't vote for him).

    Http://www.JillStanek.com

    The effect of many of our laws is to impose a moral code on society at large.
    Man's laws, if they are said to be legitimate
    in the end derive from some higher power, at least something higher than
    our own narrow ,inward ,selfish ,self interest and are constructed toward a common good.

    You cannot equate the death penalty with
    abortion.
    Abortion is ALWAYS the DELIBERATE destruction of INNOCENT human LIFE.
    You cannot equate poverty with abortion
    I myself have been hungry and gone without food
    but thanks to being alive, I know what the upside of life is.
    A child of poor mother who is aborted will not even know the simple pleasure of a Big Mac.
    (Of course women who have aborted do not merit comdemnation or our judgement, but healing).

    With the Death penalty, you are putting to
    death the most heinous of murderers.
    It is possible for an INNOCENT person to be put to death but it is rare and it is not INTENTIONAL. Many states do not employ the death penalty at all. But in every state abortions are performed. There is the law of proportionality here too.

    As far as WAR goes,it should be used only if all other remedies have been exhausted, but it is
    sometimes necessary.It is also a prudential judgement of those in power(in other words a judgement call)
    Joan of Arc, who was declared a saint, led an army into war.
    Lincoln had the North fight a war against the South (in part) to free the slaves. Was that wrong to do or should he allowed slavery to continue?
    Saddan Hussen caused to be murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people The Iraqis are glad to be rid of him.

    Social programs: This argument was used four years ago. It's important to note that
    George Bush spent more than any previous president on social programs, education and AIDS.

    Everone needs to read Bill Donohue's tongue in cheek column on why a Catholic could support David Duke for president.
    He was basically using some of pro-abortion supporters logic against them. I mean just because I feel racism and discrimination are wrong,
    why should I impose my moral beliefs on those who believe in segregation?

    Or what if I want to own a slave? Or have multiple wives? Or marry a 12 year old? Should those
    in society who advocate these things be denied just because I or others feel they are wrong?

  • October 25, 2008

    10:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Glider writes:

    Another thing to consider:
    The right of citizens in places like Washington DC
    and Chicago to own and carry a gun prevailed by
    ONE vote. At this time, no city or state can prevent
    this right.

    Does anyone out there believe that Obama will
    nominate judges that are friendly to gun ownership?
    Bill Clinton didn't and It's hard to believe Barack will.

    I believe he will also nominate judges who will find in favor
    of same sex marriage.

  • October 25, 2008

    11:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    kay writes:

    I wish there were no political parties; just 4 individuals running. This party thing is divisive. It should be mandatory to lay out your plan for your presidency and the media's job should be to keep them honest, by investigating any smears, lies or unevenhandedness. They should also give equal airtime to all candidates; not just the two richest ones.
    I happen to support Obama/Biden this election, not because of party affiliation, but because I believe in his plans. I don't care how smooth someone talks or how well dressed they are or come off on camera. I don't care about their height, the color of their skin, the way they wear their hair or what their hobbies are. I care about this country, the next generation and our standing in the world. I put personalities aside, the campaign rhetoric and research the policies they are proposing. Of course, honesty, intelligence and integrity help; but we are talking about politicians and I try not to get too hopeful on this one. I just read about what they want to do and I only read facts; I never trust one party to tell me what their competitor is proposing; too much twisting the truth there. I find out for myself and vote with the policies I agree with more. Wish more people did that instead of letting their parties use them in a such a disrespecting and hurtful way. It just keeps us divided in a very hateful and unproductive way; great for their campaigns but stinks for us and this country.

  • October 25, 2008

    11:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ActualThinker writes:

    Glider-You've had a prolife president 20 of the last 28 years and no efforts were made to reverse it. It's about time to start looking at other more pressing issues given that abortion isn't changing anytime soon no matter who the president is.

  • October 25, 2008

    2:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    redmike writes:

    What I don't understand is why the McCain campaign isn't using information such as that found at

    http://obamafarleft.notlong.com

    which reveals, with evidence, Obama's ties to a far left socialist/communist organization.

    It would do Obama incalculable damage and might mortally wound him.

    It is very hot on the blog sites now so why isn't the MSM reporting the findings?

    Mike

  • October 25, 2008

    5:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Andy writes:

    I think the story of this election is that conservatives lost credibility because of their support for President Bush. Just look at what happened in the "mainstream" media. The Republican Party hasn't even been allowed to make its argument this year because the rest of the country doesn't want to hear it. Instead of being allowed to argue conservative points (which are certainly valid), the country has drowned them out in a continuous stream of ridicule. McCain isn't the reason the Republican ticket will lose this election. Neither is Palin. What we're seeing is the country telling conservatives that basically we don't trust them anymore because they were so wrong about Bush. Simply admitting that they don't like Bush either is irrelevant. That's simply admitting the truth. In fact it has the affect of reinforcing the anger. The Republican Party is being held responsible for seriously damaging the country. Honestly, did you really think it the American people were going to let it get away unpunished?

    By the way, while the Republicans are correct to point out they didn't have complete control or congress during the Bush administration, it was never about who controlled congress, nor how unpopular it is.

    The Republican Party is about to get clobbered, and you know what? I believe they deserve it.

  • October 25, 2008

    7:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Freddy43 writes:

    The day of the right wing evangelical war monger is past. Hail Obama!! Start taxing churches!!

  • October 26, 2008

    7:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    KJH writes:

    The sub-prime mortgage crisis has impacted all Americans. I encourage you to read the link below for an analysis of how we got into this financial mess.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/1...

  • October 26, 2008

    7:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jh49 writes:

    redmike, blogs and MSM are two different animals. Anyone can claim anything in a blog and back it up with links to other blogs

    Stories in the MSM media are vetted. Facts are checked and double-checked.

    That's why the MSM is not reporting what some blog is reporting. Peel back the layers of the onion and you find out it's really not true.

  • October 26, 2008

    8:16 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RecoveringRepublican writes:

    I am committed to, and I hope everyone else will consider as well, focusing on issues and refraining from negative attacks and ridiculous smear attempts.

    The Rove-style fear and smear tactics are exactly what the majority of people are sick to death of. That is one of the reasons that McCain has fallen so far in this election. Instead of focusing on issues and dealing with facts, his campaign chose to focus much of its energy on lies, distortions and innuendo as reasons not to vote for Obama.

    If we've become a nation that is more persuaded by this kind of politics, it would truly be a sad day for our country. But I firmly believe that people are waking up to the fact that this hurts our country internally and makes us look like a bunch of buffoons to the world.

    We face many challenges ahead. And, acting like a bunch of schoolyard bullies does not move us forward. We need to all come together on November 5th, support our president-elect, and work to solve our problems together, focusing on what we agree on, not what separates us.

    VOTE!

  • October 26, 2008

    9:10 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BuffDriver writes:

    This Pelosi/Reid Congress has accomplished nothing....nothing for two years. It has the lowest rating in US history...much lower than President Bush's! Now, it appears ill-informed voters are going to 'reward' them with increased seats in both houses of Congress. It actually scares me to think of an Obama/Reid/Pelosi world. This great republic will be unrecognizable in 4 years.

  • October 26, 2008

    4:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Alask27 writes:

    Well spoken RecRep. BuffDriver - "two-year congress...has the lowest rating in US history" a continuation of the ratings of an 8-year republican majority. Do you really think 2 years of very marginal dem control was going to make a huge difference under the Bush/Cheney presidency?

  • October 26, 2008

    4:23 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Spencer writes:

    In the 1960's the Democratic Party had to re-invent itself largely due to the Civil Rights issue. 5 southern states voted Republican for the first time in 100 years because of Democratic support for Civil Rights. The GOP needs to re-invent itself. It is being controlled by hardcore religious groups. Why would the party of limited government have a pro-life platform? Why would the party of fiscal responsibility support deficit spending? How did they support and start a war that was unnecessary? The GOP needs to claim back its party from the hardcore religious groups. Stop wasting so much effort on BS like gay marriage etc.

  • October 26, 2008

    9:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    robbyr2 writes:

    As an old-timer, I find it amusing that "redmike" can be so concerned about "socialists/communists." Not sure how this all got messed up, but "reds" are communists.

    Another history lesson, communists and socialists are not the same thing. I know, I know. But look it up. Most of the 13 countries richer than us (per capita GDP) are socialist. Just isn't fair is it?

  • October 26, 2008

    10:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike846 writes:

    My suspicion is that things are closer than the public prints would have one think. My evidence? All the mainstream media are running as many stories as they can saying that Obama is all but elected, including the Post and News here in Denver. They continue to attack Palin with flimsey stories and paint McCain's campaign as disorganized and desperate. Hmmmm. If they weren't so heavy-handed about it, I might not have noticed. Its very much like the 5-10 point poll lead that Carter had over Reagan before the 1980 election (depending on which poll you read). In short, look for very, very "early" calls giving Eastern states to Obama by the networks, even before voting booths close in the Midwest and West. They've tried this before. The Left is pulling out all the stops, from fraudulent mail-in ballots to blocking overseas mail-in's from our troops, exactly as they did in 2000 and 2004. Of course, since the exit polls won't match the actual vote in many areas, there will be allegations of voter fraud on the Republican side. Problem is, a lot of folks won't vote for Obama, but they also won't tell the truth to anyone who asks WHY or how they voted. I think if McCain can stay within 5-10 points, he's got a puncher's chance. And that's all you can ask, given the billion dollars or so George Sauros and other big Leftist contributors have poured in the campaign. If you don't think so, ask any number of "prohibitive" favorites, from Mike Tyson to the 1980 Russian hockey team. Thats why you play the games. Mike

  • October 27, 2008

    7:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    UncleZancle writes:

    A filibuster-proof Senate will functionally outlaw the Republican Party. The pendulum is stuck and locked. I was considering moving my company to Georgia, but if Republicans are illegal, so is freedom.

  • October 28, 2008

    11:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Derge writes:

    Colorado turning Blue: A condition of the liberals moving to this state from predominately California and the New England area bringing their (faile) politics into our home.