U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 10, 2010 12:40 AM UTC
37 Comments
n/t
the dynamic observed nationally this year: the Republican base is more energized than the Dem base.
That said, it’s not a huge disparity.
This has more to do with the fact that R’s tend to be people with stable addresses and somewhat higher average SES than anything else.
I would guess it’s more due to the Democrats having one statewide primary vs. three statewide primaries and two congressional primaries on the GOP side.
The percentages are ballots returned / total active voters. They include unaffiliateds, and total active voters has no relationship to ballots sent.
The formula changed this year.
Here’s a note I got from Mesa County:
It looks like the SoS has broken out Rs and Ds in contravention of his own directive, so YOU’RE right, owilleke.
Also not sure why the 300k Dem voter figure is thought to be important for MB??
A ballot for your thoughts Ralphie…..
Because AR is thought to enjoy the support of party activists. These people will always vote in the primary, good years or bad. MB needs the so-called “Lazy Ds” who may skip a primary or two, and newly minted Obama dems, to counteract that effect.
Low turnout = The Old Guard
High turnout = More of a mixture
turnout #s vs. party affiliation – now sounds as though we are in fact getting SOS figures showing turnout as a % of registered D/R voters.
Understand the logic of + turnout good for MB. just wondering where the 300k ‘threshold’ comes from.
In any event, looks as though that figure will be well surpassed.
Would be more than 100,000 Democratic ballots than were cast in 2008. Basically, it’s an entire third of the electorate. If the first 200,000 voters were fairly even in selecting Bennet or Romanoff, the new 100,000 voters (new as of 2008) are much more likely to swing for Bennet, which is how 300,000 becomes a theoretical tipping point.
You mean in the primary right?
are more likely to be for Bennet, and that 300k Dem votes represents a theoretical tipping point) then, given the Dem votes reported this afternoon are only ~22,000 votes shy of that 300k threshold – and more ballots are still in the mail, with more voting to come tomorrow – Michael Bennet wins handily.
Not sure I fully subscribe to the hypothesis – though I’d LIKE to believe in its inevitable conclusion.
Bennetpols propaganda, pure and simple. At least try to keep some measure of impartiality so your posts won’t be taken as the tripe they seem to be.
Bennet is the establishment candidate. Romanoff the insurgent. Bennet enjoys the support of all the party insiders and power brokers, Romanoff the support of the workers and activists.
Andrew will get the grass roots votes which will put the swing in his favor.
Let’s see tomorrow night who was right.
I try to never confuse correlation with causation.
The Dem returns are less than the R returns.
But the Dems have fewer contested races, so intuition would tell you that interest might be lower.
The other thing is, what else might be causing the lower D turnout? I got a call last Thursday from the Bennet campaign asking if I had returned my ballot yet. I said Yes, and haven’t gotten a call since. Could the lower Dem turnout be a result of an anemic GOTV effort by the Romanoff campaign? I can’t say.
Without knowing WHY the Dem turnout is lower, I am loathe to ascribe significance to it.
Bennet will have no trouble getting to +300k Dem voters, given they’re only 20,538 shy of that figure now…..
I assume that means I don’t need to drop off my ballot tomorrow, right?
you don’t.
You’re always good for a laugh.
now let’s bury that hatchet, shall we?
today. Dropped it off at the Adams County elections office.
This was as exhausting emotionally as 2008 primary. No, I take that back. Obama/Clinton and CD2 primary in 2008 was much more stressful/exhausting.
Either Andrew Romanoff or Michael Bennet will serve us well in the Senate!
This site here is for headaches, heartaches, and bellyaches.
Then we can all be honest about both candidates 🙂
Haven’t you been honest?
I’ve agreed that “looted” was a lie and that the robocall was total bullshit. But there have been very few on here that have been willing to admit that their candidate is imperfect.
I do give props to MADCO who was up front about it stating that giving ammunition to the opposition is not a smart thing to do.
we Dems all thought Obama was the Messiah. I don’t recall very many claiming their candidate was perfect in the first place.
Not a piddly little thing, one real thing. Maybe you have before but I missed it if you did. (And being late to respond to Romanoff’s attacks doesn’t count – I’m talking policy & votes.)
Bennet’s voice does sound like Thurston Howell III.
Romanoff never ran the positive ad his campaign produced.
financial reform. Do think he does not yet realized just how screwed up Wall Street Banking is. Do believe he has more capacity for coming around while obviously having the knowledge to grasp the complexities enough to do some good work in the area. On the other hand I think Romanoff’s intentions are very good but he just doesn’t have a clue how it all works and therefore would be much more prone to being sold nice populist sounding solutions with unintended consequences stemming from the details.
I came up with a reply and this is the thanks I get. Crickets.
[Warning, PDF] http://www.denvergov.org/Porta…
An increase in on-site voting, but nothing spectacular.
We’ll know soon