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
January 02, 2017 11:45 AM UTC

2016's Top Story: The Year Everyone Got Wrong (Including Us)

  • 8 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Dick Morris, the king of getting it wrong in politics.

At the beginning of 2016 we believe that the eventual outcome of the 2016 elections, both here in Colorado and nationally, could not have been predicted. We feel pretty confident about that because almost no one correctly predicted the course of the primary and general elections in 2016–from the results of the presidential election, to Colorado’s U.S. Senate race, marquee congressional races, and multitude of state legislative contests.

Yes, readers, the political prognostication industry, which includes this humble little blog and stretches upward to include lots of people even you might consider important, failed in a spectacular fashion to predict the outcome of the 2016 elections. We failed in whole by missing Donald Trump’s disruptive appeal to broadly frustrated American voters, which had no equivalent outlet for the left after Democrats crushed the disruption of Bernie Sanders. We failed in part by missing the far higher baseline of support for Trump that manifested on Election Day, which swamped downballot races in many states and made other states (including Colorado) much closer than expected.

We are here to tell you today that we take the failure to predict the dynamics of the 2016 elections very seriously for our part, and we trust in the ability of all the smart people whose job it is to understand why things happen in politics to similarly engage in the kind of hard, unsparing introspection that is now required. In that spirit, let’s take a minute to be very frank about the things we got wrong in 2016–and if we miss anything, we trust our readers will remind us in comments. Be brutally honest. We can take it.

Hillary Clinton carried Colorado much more narrowly than we expected. Colorado was certainly not the only state that underperformed at the top of the Democratic ticket, but we did not anticipate the soft support for Hillary Clinton and stronger-than-expected support for Trump–and adjusting for that margin at the top of the ticket explains many (but not all) developments in downticket Colorado races. We can only say again that the presidential race was misfigured in almost every state–that’s why Clinton was campaigning in Arizona in the final week, a state in which she never had a chance, instead of camping out in the decisive Rust Belt states she ended up losing.

Darryl Glenn lost by much less than we expected. As we’ve noted in other posts, that Democrats held Colorado’s senior U.S. Senate seat for Michael Bennet in what turned out another strong Republican election was the biggest missed opportunity for Colorado Republicans last year. The fact that Glenn was able to attract big money towards the end of the race, shocking observers including our own lying eyes, and pulled within six points of Bennet in the final count, underscores what might have happened if a qualified candidate had won the June 28th Republican primary. In retrospect it’s clear that Sen. Bennet was in more trouble than anyone thought going into 2016, and survived due to a combination of good fortune and a disciplined campaign.

We got Mike Coffman’s race wrong again, and we’ve been getting CD-6 wrong for years. This is a really big one that we know readers have been waiting for. Ever since the last round of redistricting in 2011, in which GOP Rep. Mike Coffman’s district was redrawn from an ultra-safe Republican seat to an economically and culturally diverse battleground, we have been confidently predicting Coffman’s eventual destruction. We hedged a little in 2012 on account of a relatively unknown Democratic candidate, but when Joe Miklosi came far closer to beating Coffman than anticipated, we felt certain that Coffman’s number would be up next time. That’s not what happened. Coffman changed his political stripes with an audacity that mollified some on the left and enraged others, but voters didn’t care either way about the past–they liked what they were hearing then. Coffman’s victory in 2016 in a district Trump lost by a wide margin is proof that what he did worked. Coffman’s ability to remain a faithful Republican vote in Congress while triangulating off the Republican brand to keep his seat is something we can no longer dismiss as unsustainable.

Same with Scott Tipton. On paper the challenge faced by incumbent CD-3 Rep. Scott Tipton from former state Sen. Gail Schwartz of Aspen in 2016 was formidable, but Tipton shellacked Schwartz by 14 points. Here again, there was the Trump tide we didn’t anticipate, and in particular the softness of Pueblo County for Democrats this year as Trump outperformed in a formerly safe Democratic blue-collar locality that we failed to account for. But beyond that, we can no longer ignore the solidification of the Western Slope around Mesa County as an increasingly Republican bastion. The inside-baseball digs on Tipton that Democrats have snickered about for years were simply not enough, and with each passing year Tipton’s roots go deeper. Unless a credible Republican challenger emerges to primary Tipton or CD-3 changes in redistricting after 2020, Tipton is the most comfortable representative of CD-3 since Scott McInnis–who represented the district for over a decade.

We thought Laura Woods’ seat would decide control of the Colorado Senate, and it didn’t. Senate District 19, the closely-divided battleground swing suburban district covering most of Arvada and part of Westminster in Jefferson County, was the overwhelming focus of attention this year. A rematch against the appointed former Democrat who lost the seat in 2014 by the narrowest of margins, the strong game run by Democrats against Woods and a backfiring ad campaign from the GOP Senate “527” organization gave Rachel Zenzinger a solid margin of victory by the standards of this district. Meanwhile, however, Republican Rep. Kevin Priola was closing the gap in Senate District 25, and in this end it was his victory in Adams County that preserved control of the chamber for Republicans. Everyone knew that Senate Democrats had to “run the table” in their competitive races to win back the Senate, but we didn’t predict this to be the race it came down to.

There you have it, folks: five big errors that we made in 2016 and we hope to learn from going forward, and we don’t expect for wait long for readers to point out more. We could certainly write a post about the things we got right in 2016, but those aren’t the lessons we need to learn right now. Having been continuously writing about Colorado politics for over twelve years, we recognize that predictions made before an election reflect on the credibility of the source after the election. It’s never our intention to get it wrong. We’re not journalists, of course, we’re bloggers–and we’re allowed to have opinions. But we have to be careful about allowing our biases to skew what should be objective analysis.

Here’s to, with your help, getting it more right in 2017.

Tweet
Share

Comments

8 thoughts on “2016’s Top Story: The Year Everyone Got Wrong (Including Us)”

  1. I'll offer that Pols' biases were very clear in the commentary about the race in C.D. 6. Far too many people seemed to think that Morgan Carroll was the second coming of……whatever. I recall mentioning in a thread here that, from my vantage point as a C.D. 7 resident, I didn't see a whole lot going on regarding the Carroll campaign.

    I'm now thinking that 2018 will see both C.D. 6 and and C.D. 3 resembling C.D.7 where my party puts up the usual "sacrificial lamb" to run against Ed Perlmutter (unless Ed runs for governor). Perlmutter and Coffman are a lot alike; why turn out somebody who is doing a reasonably good job in favor of somebody from the other party. 

  2. CO has picked a Democrat for president 3 times in a row. 

    Figure it out. Get that "happy to be a purple state" attitude out of mind. Translate Year 4 dynamics down ballot. Quit ignoring EPC – you may not win here but you'll keep R's out of key statewide offices.  (Both Coffmans? Really???)

    Translation: Establishment, Professional Democrats have got to start earning their money again.

    1. Huh? When did CD-3 for vote a Democrat 3 times in a row? Not in the last 20 years IIRC.

      UPDATE: sorry I thought you said CD-3. Maybe that was edited I don’t know.

  3. In an election being labelled as a "change" election, 97% of House incumbents and 90% of Senate incumbents who ran won their races. Few State legislative bodies changed their partisan set up or moved up or down from super-majority status.

    Given all of that, the notion of a "mandate" to do anything substantial seems to be a misreading of sentiment.

  4. Van Jones urges Democrats to move on from the "Clinton Days"

    You have to understand, I think, that the Clinton days are over,” he said. “This idea that we’re going to be this moderate party that’s going to move in this direction, that’s going to throw blacks under the bus for criminal justice reform or for prison expansion, that’s going to throw workers under the bus for NAFTA, those days are over.”

    “If we’re the party for the underdogs everywhere, we win,” he said. 

    This is from someone who knows a little bit about being thrown under the bus.

    Glenn Beck headed a campaign to force Jones, who was Obama's Green Jobs adviser, to resign. Jones, in turn, led Color of Change in a boycott of Beck's advertisers, forcing Beck into the dark little corner of the internet where he resides today, trying to reincarnate as a moderate.

  5. Trump wiped the floor with the primary candidates. At every step his success was discounted. There was no notable thought by Democrats and Republicans on how the electorate was processing Trumps message. 

    The Democrat narrative was established years ago that Hillary would be unbeatable because of her gender and riding the coat tails of Obama. As the election process unfolded the data and perceptions were molded to fit the predetermined narrative.

    Time and time I heard about "ground game" and "organization". Trumps rallies and the sheer size was believed to be ineffective when in reality they were far superior to a "ground game". The rally will be the new measure of campaigning and will replace phone banks of partisans. Is there another Trump celebrity out there, not that I see.

    The anti establishment feeling was so strong because of politicians like Mike Coffman and Cory Gardner and Hillary and many others. People who have public and private views who switch between them with such ease. Trump was telling you this at every rally and the people agreed with him because they knew it to be true.

    Your site is mostly hyper partisan and as a new troll with all vitriol directed at an opposing view I suspect it was easier for you to feed the beast and not have to deal with the kooks who have deluged you with hate. After all you generate revenue with your ads.

    I assume you are serious in wanting to create a better work product. If you drop the snarky tone and state you premise you won't give up anything. Your contributors will continue to be unhinged and entertaining to us trolls. Leave the snark to trolls and kooks and enjoy the ad revenue.

     

    1. I've read this twice now, and still can't decipher what your "advice" to Pols is. Are you telling them to run only stories which please their advertisers? Stay away from controversy? Of course, since you can't or won't spell out "DemocratIC", whatever advice you have to give won't be taken seriously.

      Re: your notions on the election:

      The fact is, Hillary Clinton got 2.8  million more votes than Donald Trump. Voter suppression accounted for probably another 1.5 million* votes lost because registered voters weren't allowed to vote in several states.  So I'm not buying your notion that Trump won because rallies are the new standard for a political campaign, and not the traditional ground game and GOTV. If that were true, Bernie Sanders, who constantly generated huge crowds at rallies, would be our President today.

      The establishment vs. anti-establishment conflict was real, in both parties. Both parties had similar dynamics – ridicule the insurgents, pretend you care about their issues, glad-hand them while secretly undermining their agendas.

      The huge throngs of Sanders supporters were never welcomed nor recruited into the mainstream Democratic party – instead, we were ridiculed and marginalized, given token sops in the party platform, and entreated to vote for the nominee at the last minute. We were congratulated on "pulling Clinton to the left" – while everyone understood that the leftward move would be temporary at best, given her statements and her support from megadonors who favored corporate-friendly policies. Our attention spans were assumed to be short, and our memories shorter.

      From what I saw, the Republican party had a similar dynamic – perhaps a bit more cutthroat and vicious, which has made it harder for them to walk it all back now.

      The Russian hacking, which generated so many news stories critical of HRC and the DNC, while completely ignoring any negative news about Trump or the RNC, had an impact in the last week of the election. Perhaps a critical impact – who knows? 

      But the electoral college structure which denied victory to the popular vote winner, unprecedented voter suppression without the oversight of the Justice Department, and biased Russian leaking of news which swayed late voters to vote against Clinton were the main factors, not loud Trumpsuckers hollering, "Lock her up!" or "Build that wall!"

      Donald Trump is a con man. He conned the Trump U people. He conned and cheated the many people who invested in and worked on his buildings.  He conned you, and all of the other Trumpsuckers who truly believe that this self-absorbed millionaire is the champion of the working stiff. You'll find out. I hope that you'll channel your anger where it belongs – not at immigrants or Muslims, but at the people who lied to you and used you.

      We'll see.

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

89 readers online now

Newsletter

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