Some More Colorado Party ID Returns

The Denver Post has an article today highlighting the election returns and party breakdown. For those interested parties who may have missed it, we took some time to dissect exit poll data for Colorado in several posts (along with the data for several other swing states). The article goes over some of the same ground, but I thought it worthwhile to go over some it again to make some new points.

According to new numbers from the Colorado secretary of state's office, Republicans in November voted in greater numbers than Democrats and — even more surprising — also turned out in higher percentages when compared with the parties' numbers of registered voters. In a state at the heart of the Democrats' Western strategy, Republicans still accounted for the largest voting bloc and yet lost in all of the highest-profile races.

That brain-twister, say political pundits, underscores the challenges both parties face moving toward what are expected to be equally contentious 2010 races for governor and U.S. Senate in a state that is now of decidedly mixed political leanings.

"Looking at 2010, you would at least say at this point there is a slight edge for the Democrats," said pollster Floyd Ciruli. "But it is very slight. This is now truly a competitive state."

I will be the first to concur that Colorado is not yet quite a blue state. It is for this reason that I think Democrats should be concerned about losing Ken Salazar's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat. By no means should Democrats make any broad assumptions about Colorado being a reliable nine electoral votes in the blue column.

All of that being said, I think that the pollster Mr. Ciruli badly understates what these numbers say. Yes, the exit polls show that self-identified Republicans made up 31% of election voters, versus 30% being Democrats. However, that split was 38-29 in favor of the GOP just four years. That is an aggrevate movement of eight points, no small potatoes. Looking more closely at the data, we see that whereas George Bush won GOPers by 93-6 in 2004, McCain carried this group by 87-13, a movement of 13 points towards the blue team. This is a bit more evidence that the very slight 31-30 advantage highlighted in the article really does not mean much.

Statewide, Republicans still outpace Democrats in terms of total registered voters — though the numbers are closing and Democrats now count more active voters among their ranks than Republicans.

Independents, who make up the largest group of registered voters, trailed Republicans and Democrats in turnout this year. About 100,000 fewer unaffiliated voters cast ballots than did Republicans or Democrats. About 67 percent of registered independents voted in the election.

The key to the election, though, was how those unaffiliated people voted, said David Flaherty, chief executive of voter tracking firm Magellan Data and Mapping Strategies, which works with Republican candidates.

"The Republican get-out-the-vote effort executed very well," Flaherty said. "But at the end of the day, doing all those things right, it's about appealing to unaffiliated voters."

Yes and no. Sure, independents held a big role in the outcome in Colorado (as in just about every other state), but it is was only one piece of the electoral puzzle. In 2004, self-identified indies made up 33% of all votes, and they broke for Kerry 52-45. This year, they went up to 39%, and broke to Obama by a bit better 55-44 split, an aggregate movement of +3 points (which does mean more given the 6% turnout increase). In other words, there was key improvement here, but I am not sure I would say it was the reason Obama carried Colorado. When you win a state by 54-45, there are multiple reasons for it. I won't get into my analysis of Colorado again, needless to say there is oodles of data and armchair conclusions in my posts linked above.

To be sure, the gap in turnout between Republicans and Democrats this year was small, nowhere near the wide advantage Republicans once held, Ciruli said. About 15,600 more Republicans voted in the election than Democrats, out of a record 2.4 million total voters statewide. In terms of turnout, slightly more than 80 percent of all registered Republicans voted this year, compared with about 79 percent of registered Democrats.[...]

But state Republican Party chairman Dick Wadhams sees a silver lining in his party's 2008 storm clouds: The GOP turnout machine's still got it.

"This is probably the best effort we ever had in Colorado," Wadhams said. "We got the Republican vote out."

I know what spin is. It is used by both parties, especially after they have suffered a bad loss. Dick Wadhams, who spearheaded Bob Schaffer's Senate campaign this year, had a rough go of it, as Schaffer was crushed by Mark Udall, the man Wadham all-but-renamed "Boulder Liberal" in an attempt to tarnish him. But to say that he is satisfied with his party's turnout is a lot to take. The Colorado GOP is in bad shape today, and the exit data provides little comfort.

But nothing succeeds like success, and with that in mind the Colorado GOP is going to have two opportunities to make a comeback in 2010 with the Senate and governor's contests. Given that Bill Ritter was elected by something like 17 points in 2006, he is likely safe for re-election. But if Wadhams can keep Tom Tancredo out and recruit former Governor Bill Owens to run for Senate, he might be able to get a key victory under his belt. Owens could definitely win, but any loss would set the party back even further.

In the last few years, Democrats have taken over the state legislature, flipped a 5-2 deficit in the congressional delegation to a current 5-2 advantage, and have won both Senate seats and the governor's mansion, two decisively. Colorado is not yet New Jersey in terms of political make-up and Democratic reliability, but anyone claiming that the state is now at this moment basically even would be fooling himself.