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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 25, 2010 11:59 PM UTC

Turnout Numbers Updated; Still No GOP "Wave"

  • 72 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Over at DemNotes, Dan Slater runs some more historical numbers and finds a surge in voters…but with Democrats, not Republicans:

Statewide, Democrats have cast 37% of the votes to date; Republicans have cast 42% of the votes.  That’s a five-point difference between the two parties. In 2008, at the top of the Democratic surge, those numbers were even.  However, in 2006 — a good year for Colorado Democrats by any measure — Republicans outvoted Democrats by SIX points.  

Read that again: Democrats are voting early at a better clip than they did in 2006.[Pols emphasis]

Folks, we’ve been saying the same thing here for months: Don’t get caught up in the national narrative about a “Republican wave” of angry voters, because our ballots don’t just say “Vote for All Republicans” or “Vote for All Democrats.” Media outlets should be careful about blindly repeating this theory, because it’s starting to look more and more like it was always just a theory.

We’re not saying that Republicans aren’t going to vote in higher numbers than Democrats — they may — but that doesn’t exactly meet our definition of a “wave” or “surge.”

—–

The Colorado Secretary of State’s office has just released the latest ballot return numbers for Colorado. Click here to see the full county-by-county numbers. You can compare today’s numbers with the first batch of turnout results released on October 20.

As of October 25, 2010

443,611 Total Ballots Counted

(There are 3,282,855 total registered voters in Colorado as of Oct. 1, 2010)

Democrats: 159,882

– 15% of all registered Democrats

– 20% of “active” Democrats

Republicans: 184,982

– 17% of all registered Republicans

– 21% of “active” Republicans”

Unaffiliated: 95,926

– 9% of total registered Unaffiliated voters

– 13% of “active” Unaffiliated voters

These numbers are about double from the October 20 report, but the percentage differences aren’t changing a whole lot. If there is a massive Republican wave of voters, they’re apparently going to wait to vote at the polls. Either way, this election (like most Colorado elections) looks like it will be decided by the Unaffiliated voters — most of whom are still waiting to vote, apparently.

In 2006 (the last non-Presidential election year), 1,586,105 voters cast a ballot for a turnout rate of 62.59%. Thus far in 2010, 443,611 voters have had their ballot counted, for a turnout rate of about 14%.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

72 thoughts on “Turnout Numbers Updated; Still No GOP “Wave””

    1. As to your other point, there is no indication (that we know of) that any of these non-U.S. citizens have actually voted. Furthermore, Colorado’s various Clerks and Recorders testified to the Legislature earlier this year that there is no record of someone who is not a U.S. citizen having ever actually cast a ballot. Not one.

      1. Spokesman Rich Coolidge said Wednesday it’s unknown how many of those voters actually are not citizens, but the issue isn’t likely to affect any race. The voters failed to check a box affirming that they are citizens when they registered.

        Coolidge said no effort is made to track down these cases because voters also must sign a document saying they are U.S. citizens. It’s a felony for non-citizens to sign that document.

        Does the state auto DQ these voters for failing to attest to their citizenship or is this a gaping hole for illegal aliens, tempory work permit holders and green card holders to vote?

            1. Failing to check a box but still signing the document?  Logically, one would assume that it’s a simple mistake.

              Maybe a small percentage, in the hundredths of a percent, are completing deliberate fraud, but I would argue that you’ll find far more cases of voter fraud among correctly filled out documents.  

                    1. It hurts!

                      Obviously you’ve never registered and voted yourself or you’d know how totally ludicrous you are.

                  3. http://www.660news.com/news/wo…

                    In Seattle, illegal immigrants going door-to-door for Democratic candidates

                    Manuel Valdes, The Associated Press Oct 23, 2010

                    SEATTLE – When Maria Gianni is knocking on voters’ doors, she’s not bashful about telling people she is in the country illegally. She knows it’s a risk to advertise to strangers that she’s here illegally – but one worth taking in what she sees as a crucial election.

                    The 42-year-old is one of dozens of volunteers – many of them illegal immigrants – canvassing neighbourhoods in the Seattle area trying to get naturalized citizens to cast a ballot for candidates like Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who is in a tight race with Republican Dino Rossi.

                    1. Millions of illegal aliens are working in this country.

                      So what? It’s not immoral to employ illegal aliens. It’s the free market at its finest.

        3. The piece said nothing about what the state does next, which actually is a pretty fair question. The piece also failed to ask Tancredo and Lamborn why they weren’t also concerned about the number who failed to check the box swearing they were of legal voting age, or even what that number was. Was it more than 12,000? Why doesn’t Tancredo think THAT should be a felony too?

          On the other hand, it’s interesting how many people who want to slash government spending nevertheless want to spend $$ tracking down the citizenship status of what amounts to four-hundredths of 1 percent of the Colorado electorate, many of whom likely are citizens who simply forgot to check the box.

          Common sense also would tell you that if you wanted to commit voter fraud the first thing you would do would be to check the box that attests to your legality.

    2. That’s 12,000 who didn’t check the U.S. Citizen box on a registration form. That’s a big leap even for you to decide that means none of them are U.S. citizens.

      The SOS plans to issue its next report Wednesday afternoon.

        1. … but (c) refused to check the citizenship box b/c they didn’t want to lie?  That’s seriously what you’re arguing?  Do you even get why that makes no sense?

          You posit this army of nefarious killers and vote-fraudsters invading from Mexico, yet you think the Colorado voters who failed to check the “citizen” box must be these evildoers … who are so honest they leave their crime visible by declining to check a box. Do I get the gist of your illogical worldview?

    3. “Nearly 12,000 registered voters in Colorado . . . failed to check a box affirming that they are citizens when they registered.”  This list includes “3,106 inactive voters.”  Every voter affirms their citizenship when they sign a voter registration document in any case, something that applies whether or not they checked the box.

      Registered voters aren’t permitted to cast a vote, in any case, without making an affirmation that they are U.S. citizens either on the mail in ballot flap, or at the election judge’s desk prior to voting.

      The “12,000 voters” claim has nothing to do with anything but checking a box on a form.  No one has ever claimed to identify any one of those individuals are a non-citizen on any basis.  In most cases, a voter can only register to vote by having a Colorado ID that affirms U.S. citizenship.

      Moreover, active registered voters have all previously affirmed their citizenship when voting in the past, even if they didn’t mark the box on their most recent voter registration form.

      If one is going to show that there are non-citizens voting in Colorado, a redundant check box on a voter registration application doesn’t cut it as proof.

      The likelihood that 0.2% of registered voters in the state simply made a slight bureaucratic slip is far greater than the likelihood that any are not U.S. citizens.

      The real number of non-citizens who vote in elections is miniscule and usually involved someone who believed that they were a citizen due to marriage or filing a citizenship application, when a naturalization ceremony was not yet complete.  For example, a 2005 investigation in Utah showed that just 9 people had illegal voted due to a lack of citizenship in their most recent election.

      It happens, but not often at all.

    4. The number cited by the SoS office is the number of people who forgot to check the box on their registration forms.  It has nothing to do with non-citizens being registered to vote.

      They will be challenged at the polls.

      2. Methinks he dost protest too much… trying to throw us off the scent. I think I’ll make a call to CIS.

        I hope this doesn’t count as an attempt to out him or her, does it? I don’t want to be thrown in timeout. I might have to spend time with him/her or beej then.

  2. Generally, Republicans use mail ballot more than Ds, so I’m told.  The fact that Ds, in percentage terms, almost match the R turnout here is thus cautious good news, indicating the D GOTV effort is bearing results.

      Still a week to go of early voting and mail returns, but the notion that most likely to vote is overwhelmingly republican and that the all voters majority for Ds will stay home doesn’t seem to be bearing out.  New York Times reports similar results in other states.

      Don’t start celebrating yet, Democrats, keep working your butts off.  If we do, then we may have some good news at 7 p.m. on Nov. 2.

      As for those Republican victory parties that the GOP shills have had on pols for several weeks, keep ’em going.  They fire up our troops and lure yours into overconfidence.

      1. So far, early voting reflects a Republican wave that hasn’t happened.

        That’s why I called it cautious good news for democrats…emphasis on the cautious.

      2. We’ve all been hearing for months about this

        “wave” of angry Republican voters, but thus far they haven’t voted in particularly higher numbers than they ever have.

        1. I was under the impression the MSM narrative was about a ‘wave’ that would result in a highly favorable GOP outcome nationally this year.

          That could come not only from greater turnout among registered GOP voters. But from a majority of unaffiliateds deciding they’re voting GOP this year. And of course could also come from voters who are registered as Dems, but are ‘soft’ in their party support.

          I think you’re conflating the alleged ‘enthusiasm gap’ between the two parties with the broader (and very likely) GOP-favorable wave across the country.

          They’re related of course but not wholly the same: registered Dem and GOP voters could turn out in their historic proportions – and Dem candidates still get crushed….

          (All that said, my 100% unscientific gut sense tells me that Colorado’s federal-office Dem candidates do okay next Tuesday: with wins by Bennet, Salazar, Perlmutter and maybe maybe maybe even Markey. Colorado’s federal Dem candidates are quite simply ‘better’ than their GOP opponents this year on the whole – and the Colorado electorate not so susceptible to Tea Party seduction – I hope.)  

        2. Perhaps 2010 is going to be a GOP waive in Colorado?

          Could all the excitement be a misunderstanding based on a spelling/transcription error? If waive was intended all along, it would explain a lot about the candidates that the GOP is running in Colorado this year.

    2. Republicans have 41.7% to the Dems 36%.  In 2008 the early voting total numbers were Republicans 35.9% to the Dems 37.7%.  Historically the absantee ballots have been pretty equal.  In 2008 it was 99K Republican to 96K Dem.

      1. The appropriate comparison for this election is 2006. Many, many more people turn out to vote in Presidential years, for obvious reasons. There are a lot of people who only vote in Presidential years.

      2. HERE are the numbers: In 2008, 659,278 Democrats voted early (either by mail or early voting); 644,806 Republicans voted early. Percentage-wise, that yields 36% for each party of the total early vote.

        There are about 50,000 more votes in the numbers released today than what I used in my DemNotes analysis; however, the numbers seem to be staying pretty steady.

        Further, in 2006, 286,000 Dems voted early compared to 328,000 Republicans.

        So, no, H-man, you’re quite incorrect to say, “Historically the absantee [sic] ballots have been pretty equal.”

        Oh, and in case you want to argue that 2006 was the anomaly, in 2004, 309,000 Dems voted early (Mail or EV) compared to 386,000 Republicans (that’s a 43-34 advantage for the GOP).  And that’s the year the Dems took over both houses of the Legislature.

          1. I’m getting my data directly from the raw voter data.  In 2008, 529,307 Democrats voted by mail. In 2008, 530,442 Republicans voted by mail.  When you add in early voting, you get the numbers I cited above.  And, yes, the numbers do add up to 36% each.  The actual percentage is 36.4834% Dem to 35.6825% Republican.

            The links you cite don’t say what you want them to say.  The 5280 link comes from earlier in the 08 cycle than today is in the 2010 cycle. And the GMU link references AP data which apparently don’t have all of the early votes listed (1.807 million votes were cast early in Colorado in 2008, yet the GMU site only lists 1.704 million early votes cast).

            But, again, you’re ignoring the point: comparing any voter turnout to 2008 is irrelevant, because it is in NO WAY a comparable year.  2006 is much more comparable — and that was a Democratic year.

            1. For deterrmining the amount of voters the previous midterm 2006 would be the correct comparison.  For comparing voter sentiment shifts, the immediately previous election would be the correct comparison.  In 2008 the Dems overperformed their registered voter share compared to republicans.  This year they are underperforming their registered voter share compared to republicans.  Those differences are what most people would refer to as the enthusiasm difference.  The diary suggests that there is no enthusiasm difference so far.  The numbers show there is.

      1. no holdout, no wave.  Almost the exact same difference as in 2006.  

        And I doubt that very many Rs haven’t made up their minds between Tommy the Liar and Tin Foil Danny Maes.  

      2. Someone might actually be sitting down contemplating a vote for Dan Maes? If you haven’t already decided to vote for him, there’s nothing you’re going to find that will convince you to take the plunge.

        2. A larger % of Dem likely voters had voted.

          Guys this is a wave.  In 2008 Dems % exceeded Rupublican % by 1.8%.  This year Republican percentage exceeds Dem % by 5.7%, a turn around of 7.5%.  If you think a 7.5% difference is not a big deal, see what it means in a week.

          1. because even though 25,00 MORE Pubs than Dems have voted so far, Bennet is ahead 49% to 46% among those who have ALREADY voted. Pubs and Independents seem to be voting for Bennet, and NOT Buck, in surprising numbers.

            PPP cut off calling Sat. afternoon.

        4. His numbers in the polls keep dropping. I know many people who were planning on voting for him but are now reconsidering. Including some people on Pols.

        5. There is a group calling R’s to vote for Maes to “save” the party %.  How organized or effective it will be I can’t say…I’ve been excluded except for reports from friends.  

      3. Do we know the ballot return percentage for ACP members?

        Oh, and when the GOP gets demoted to minor party status, will they even track the stat for them anymore?

    4. the percentage of Dems who voted early in previous years, out of all Dems who voted, compared to the same percentage for Reps?  If in previous elections (to simplify) 50% of Reps who voted did so early but only 40% of Dems, then I would be heartened by the fact that Reps have a fairly small advantage at this point.  If a greater portion of Dems typically show up on “election” day, I would expect that advantage to evaporate.

      Without those numbers, and having them look really promising, I for one am nervous.  Anyone have those numbers handy?

      1. DSlater has the early numbers for 2008 as being equal by both parties, 36%.

        So far in 2010 the Republicans have 41.7% of the early vote to the Dems 36%.  Most of the pollsters who projected an enthusiasm gap used about 6% so this is pretty much as expected.

        Of the eleven largest counties, Dems lead in Denver, Boulder, Adams and Pueblo. The Republicans lead in El Paso, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer, Arapahoe, Weld and Mesa.

        Overall Republicans are up by 25K with about 25% of the vote counted, so they are looking at about a 100K advantage on about 1.75-1.8 million votes. I would guess 750K republicans, 650 Dems and 350-400K others.

        1. Your exchange with DS was over what percentage of the early vote was R vs. D.  I’m interested in what percentage of the R vote was early and what percentage of the D vote was early.  Basically, I want to know if there’s any support for Voyageur’s opening speculation that R’s use mail ballots at a greater rate than Ds so that we can project forward from current ballots cast by party to total ballots cast by party at the end of the day.

          If we assume the final vote is in proportion to today, and that the latest DP/9N poll holds, the partisan vote will look like this:

                                   Total        Buck         Bennett

          Rep vote:           42            36.1         4.2

          Dem vote:          36              3.6         31.3

          Indep                  22               9.7        10.1

          Total                  100            49.4        45.6

          Given the assumptions, Buck wins based entirely on the superior number of Rs who turn out.  If Voyageur’s right and more Dems vote the last day, closing that gap, it’s a toss up.  I’m skeptical the historical data supports his assumption.

          Another way to look at it, the DP/9N poll was composed of 36% Rs and 35% Ds.  If the actual spread is larger (and so far it is), Buck is the favorite.   I would put him at 2:3.

          1. In 2008 the early voting according to Dem Vice Chair Slater was:

            Dems: 659,278

            Republicans: 644,806, Dems + 14.5K

            In 2010 so far the numbers are:

            Dems: 159,882

            Republicans: 184,982, Republicans +25

            Percent of vote so far as percent of active voters 18.2%.

            How are the dems doing in their famed GOTV efforts in Denver and Boulder?

            Denver Dems 17%

            Boulder Dems 20%

            How is that terrible GOP GOTV effort going in El Paso and Douglas?

            El Paso Rep 19.3%

            Douglas Rep 20.8%

            I don’t think ColoradoPols is going to recognize the wave until after they are under water.

  4. If these Democratic-registered voters do about as they did in 2006 and 2008 and vote by and large for Democrats – well then, it looks as if a tidal wave will not materialize.

    But if – BIG “if” – there is a greater percentage than usual of these Democrats who decide to cross party lines and vote Republican because they believe the Republican candidate has better credentials on jobs or taxes, then that could affect the results.

    Although so far I have to say that the Republicans seem to be doing everything possible to discourage such crossover voting. Their “contract with America,” or whatever they are calling it, is a pale imitation of the Newt’s 1994 campaign.

    1. I’ve already forgotten the “plan” they unveiled a month ago because it was so vague. All they really have is “we’re not Democrats” and that’s not good enough for the middle.

      1. If an R screws up, I’ll be doing that in 2012 … I have only 3 state GOP candidates that are currently reping me – AG, State Senate, and CU Regent.

        1. Except… Most of the people I hear from I mostly just listen to. So unless they’re reading my mind, it’s not coming from me.

          I think a problem a lot of people who work in the political arena have is they know of all the legislation passed and they know how hard everyone is working. So they figure everything is great.

          But to people outside of politics, the economy sucks and they don’t see us Dems addressing that. And that’s all they see.

    2. heard him on CPR last night. Not much impressed. There are so many ways to slice and dice the numbers, it isn’t even funny. He reminds me of a successful hedge fund manager- looks like a genius while his model works, and takes the money and runs when it comes crashing down.

      These phenomena are just too complex for easy polling or predictive data analysis. As the securities traders constantly remind us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. When his model breaks down (as I hope and pray it does this cycle) he’ll be out with his excuses and a promise to refine the model to make it work better.

  6. Its not the “Unaffiliated Voters” that will send lame duck Senator Bennet packing up his crap into a cardboard box Weds but the people of Colorado saying….

    “You can’t buy our Senate Seat and the People of Colorado are taking it back!”

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

66 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!