Latest Ballot Return Numbers: Strong Returns for Democrats

15 thoughts on “Latest Ballot Return Numbers: Strong Returns for Democrats”

1. Sorry, don't think the graph justifies your comment: . 

   "Democrats have really rocketed upward in recent days." 

   Would use that description to apply to the Unaffiliateds. 

    

   Log in to Reply

   1. Colors are hard

      Log in to Reply

2. I don’t understand why the perception is that ballot returns are strong. Only about 40 percent of voters have actually bothered to vote and they’ve had their ballots for more than two weeks.

   It seems to me that, by now, at least half, or more likely two-thirds, would have taken the few minutes needed to vote. They’ve had plenty of time to “do their research,” after all.

   It’s discouraging.

   Log in to Reply

3. Sec of State’s graphic is NOT especially clear. Total returns as of 11:59 PM October 31, 2024….

   • Dems: 512,662 returned of 1,046,915 active registered
   • Reps: 480,125 returned of    936,638 active registered
   • UAFs: 713,675 returned of 1,945,081 active registered

   It will be interesting to consider how many votes for the D and R slates emerge from these votes.

   Log in to Reply

4. As of the end of October 30, 2024 processing,  Colorado Secretary of State reported voters by gender & age looking like:

   • more women than men, especially in the older age groups
   • among young men (18-34), slightly more Democrats than Republicans
   • among the young Unaffiliated (18-34), slightly more males than females

   Statewide, that sounds good to me.  Participation is lagging in comparison to 2020 — and I'm hoping the exhaution with the Trumpublican show might be a good reason for that lag.

    

   Log in to Reply

5. I think Caraveo has it. This will be a Democratic wave election, she's the incumbent, and she's run a strong campaign.

   I hope Frisch can pull it off. Hurd had been smart and done almost nothing so he's just the generic R vote. And it is a Republican district.

   And unfortunately we get another 2 years of Boebert. My one hope there is 131 passes and then in '26 another Republican may take her out.

   Log in to Reply

   1. I agree with you very much about Prop. 131. Passage will improve our politics by a huge amount.

      Log in to Reply

6. Why anyone is a party member in Colorado is beyond me.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Party involvement is not for everyone, but the purpose still is to gather large numbers of people to organize and try electing like-minded candidates. People who get involved can play a role in getting their chosen ones elected, beyond simply voting. We'll undoubtedly see more unaffiliated candidates into the future, but we'll also soon find out that they're not all the same politically just because they have a U by their name, and they won't have the same type of built-in base of support as Ds or Rs.

      Log in to Reply

   2. I'm not sure I understand it, either. While I get the appeal of wanting to elect people with whom one agrees, a worthy objective, the political party organizations tend to be allergic to anyone new becoming involved. Power and influence is held by a small, "insider" group and open debate or discussion is generally discouraged or even effectively shut down. And dogmas proliferate, often around personalities. For example, criticism of the fairly poor, "talk big but act little" leadership of Jared Polis as governor or the generally do-nothing administration of Phil Weiser as AG is verboten if you are a Democrat. 

      Log in to Reply

      1. Criticize away … some of the Democratic party (including me, a really minor functionary) do, too, airing objections about Polis' stances to members of the Colorado House and Senate, Don't know where you get the idea that there is some agency declaring such criticism as "verboten" — are you confusing parties? 

         My minor functionary role gives me a bit of visibility, acquaintance with other party volunteers and elected officials, and access to formal meetings where I can make an argument when I choose to.

         Log in to Reply

         1. I get the impression that it is forbidden to criticize Democrats because, even though I am one, any criticism is generally met with "go be a Republican if you don't like it" or "we don't need anyone who isn't as progressive as me" or the like.

            I saw it in 2022, for example, when I did criticize Polis, who has done basically nothing, or at least nothing meaningful, about air pollution, climate change, housing prices, transportation (i.e, worsening traffic, worsening roads), the cost of college, or the cost of healthcare. I mean, talk about a guy who seems smugly satisfied with the status quo. And, like I said, the only reason I voted for him was that his opponents were so very much worse, but not because Polis has ever demonstrated any willingness to actually do anything to make anyone's life better or actually solve problems.

            Weiser's the same. Other state AGs file lawsuits to try to influence federal policy. Weiser, not so much. And he has let the air pollution issue in Commerce City fester, going so far as to oppose a tighter federal ozone standard. Weiser has also shown himself willing to overlook significant problems that impact average people, like wage theft, and was not nearly forceful enough in responding to the shooting by Aurora police of an innocent teenager a few years ago. He has been unimpressive, at best, but, again, the only reason he got my vote twice was that his opponents are so incredibly much worse. Weiser is not inspiring. He's the least-bad choice.

            That's what I'm talking about. The Democrats talk a good game, but when given power, they do very little with it. And that gets dispiriting and discouraging. It's one reason why I am whole-heartedly in support of Prop. 131 – if enacted, that will weaken the power of the parties, which would be a good thing, and force their candidates to actually listen to more people and build broader and more durable coalitions. It will also mean they are more likely to be held accountable, which is not happening in this state and hasn't happened in 20 years.

            I don't want right-wing or conservative policy. I want Democrats that do what they say they will do and will not be so consistently over-cautious and, yes, weak when it comes to taking on the big problems.

            Log in to Reply

      2. I hear you, NotHopeful, but it's hard to crack into the highest levels in most big organizations, especially if they're high-stakes or big-money. My life experience has led me to believe that dogma and cults of personality aren't limited to the political sphere either. A couple comments ago, I was really talking more about lower-level involvement, working toward a common goal in a way where a whole bunch of little efforts add up. I know a lot of people who find this low-level involvement worth their time, and in some cases low-level involvement is all people can reasonably give.

         Log in to Reply

      3. Sorry Not Hopeful….I disagree. 

         When I moved here, I immediately attended House District meetings and was warmly welcomed in.  There was never an attempt to exclude, but rather every effort to include.  And I also believe Phil Weiser has been an incredible AG.  If you think he's been a do-nothing, you haven't been watching the news.  He has used the powers of the office wisely. 

          

         Log in to Reply

   3. "What replaces a Party? Billionaires? Fox/Facebook/Xitter?

      (1) Many hands make light work: I'll take Harris's GOTV by the Democratic Party over billionaire spending and social media. 

      (2) You need a political Party to maintain a coherent set of values and policy choices around which like-minded people can organize. The alternative is a messiah-figure like Trump, or again whoever has the money.

      We DO need a much better and honest media ecosystem. Fox News (again with the billionaires) is the only thing holding Trump's Party together.

      Log in to Reply