2016 Colorado Elections Forecast

Don’t worry!  Full predictions will be coming before ballots drop on October 17, but in the meantime, I wanted to give you a sneak peek at what I’m looking at and give you a chance to weigh in on what you realistically think will happen this election cycle.

Remember, this is about reality, not what I wish would happen or what I would make happen in a perfect world. 

Reality Check

Let’s look at a few facts about Colorado elections:

• Presidential election years have favored Democrats in Colorado since 2004 (Democrats average 50.39% in all statewide, congressional, and legislative races in the last three Presidential election cycles to Republican’s 46.65%, or put another way, it’s a 3.74% Democratic advantage in Presidential years over Republicans)
• Years with more ballot initiatives favor Democrats since 2000 (particularly given the content of some of the initiatives this cycle)
• And, while I don’t much care for lies, damn lies, statistics, and political polling, it’s pretty clear without a poll that the electorate is incredibly divided and I suspect there will be a lot of mixed party ballots cast this cycle, which changes things in terms of predictability

Bottom Line: I predict this election will have one of the squirreliest results of any Colorado election in recent memory.  I also predict that we will not see a break in the trend of largely Democratic victories in presidential, ballot initiative-heavy election years.

Hold on a Minute…

Yes, I know, it’s unpopular to predict Democrat victories, especially in the circles in which I run.  It wasn’t any more popular in 2012 when I was right 97% of the time, or in 2014 when I was right 94% of the time.  So… maybe third time’s the charm?

The point of these predictions isn’t to be popular.  Let’s face it, I’ve never been one to win a popularity contest, particularly in politics. 

The point is to be right and to see if there are trends that can be established.  Most importantly, it’s to build the case for 2021 redistricting and reapportionment, where the landscape of Colorado elections will be set until 2032.  Think about that for a minute while you keep reading.

Primaries

Given some fairly high-profile races, Colorado primaries were amazingly calm compared to previous election cycles.  That doesn’t mean they were without their issues, however.  Most notably:

• Colorado Pioneer Action’s meddling in races (which left them 3-4) shows we must still fear the walking dead in the Colorado GOP Establishment (affecting HD16, HD38, HD63, HD64, SD4, SD12, and Douglas County Commissioner District 3)—my personal favorite is political hack Mike Ciletti working for AND against Lori Saine in HD63, who thankfully won that primary, despite hackerific Ciletti's best (worst?) attempts
• The surprise victory of Darryl Glenn not once (at state assembly) but twice (in the primary) was, perhaps, the biggest upset of any… at least my time in politics, since 1998
• The brouhaha with the national delegates over casting votes for Cruz (to whom they pledged but were not bound) and some ultimately voting for Trump in July
• Democrats having more primaries than Republicans (say WHAT? that never happens!)—not an issue, just a point of interest here, folks

Honestly, this was a pretty unremarkable primary season, again when compared to past cycles.  Certainly with some issues, but it seemed almost sane by comparison.  Which is weird, to say the least.

Redistricting and Reapportionment

Yes, I know it last happened in 2011 and won’t happen again until 2021, but in case you haven’t noticed yet, it has the single most profound effect on election results in Colorado State House, State Senate, and Congressional Districts.  District lines, NOT demographics, are the #1 predictor of election results in a given district.  Don’t believe me?  Let’s play a numbers game…

Note

Before we get to the fun stuff, I should mention that the State Senate Districts that are up in Gubernatorial years tend to favor Republican victories, Presidential years tend to favor Democratic victories.  Coincidence?  I think it’s by design.  But keep that in mind when looking at the numbers for State Senate seats.

Additionally, the results for State Senate seats contain two numbers: R or D seats won vs. how many were up that cycle (and the ultimate result it had in the Senate make-up).

The numbers below are every vote cast in each district for Republican candidates and Democratic candidates, for that election then averaged.  In other words, if lines were truly representative of how the districts vote… what would our landscape look like?  

Proportional results are rounded (since you can’t have a fraction of a legislator… well, technically speaking.  Some of them seem to do a fraction of the job, but that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.  When numbers don’t add up to 100%, there may be a few legislators missing—maybe we’d actually get some third party/unaffiliated legislators in with proportional representation?

2010

State Senate 2010	Average	Actual Result	Proportional Result
Republicans	55.78%	9/18 (15/35)	10/18 (16/35)
Democrats	48.68%	9/18 (20/35)	8/18 (19/35)

State House 2010	Average	Actual Result	Proportional Result
Republicans	55.46%	33/65	36/65
Democrats	43.46%	32/65	29/65

Congressional 2010	Average	Result
Republicans	48.88%	4/7
Democrats	46.63%	3/7

2012

State Senate 2012 *	Average	Actual Result	Proportional Result
Republicans	43.49%	6/20 (15/35)	9/20 (18/35)
Democrats	51.36%	14/20 (20/35)	10/20 (16/35)

* note, because of the 2013 recalls, the Senate shifted to 18D/17R between 2012 and 2014’s elections

State House 2012	Average	Actual Result	Proportional Result
Republicans	47.82%	28/65	31/65
Democrats	45.64%	37/65	30/65

Congressional 2012	Average	Result
Republicans	47.24%	4/7
Democrats	43.01%	3/7

2014

State Senate 2014	Average	Actual Result	Proportional Result
Republicans	60.33%	11/18 (18/35)	11/18 (18/35)
Democrats	35.37%	7/18 (17/35)	6/18 (16/35)

State House 2014	Average	Actual Result	Proportional Result
Republicans	54.31%	31/65	35/65
Democrats	43.72%	34/65	28/65

Congressional 2014	Average	Result
Republicans	50.22%	4/7
Democrats	46.53%	3/7

More Notes

Is this not insane?  How is it, in a year that Democrats won a net 5 seats, they actually received fewer total votes than Republicans in the State House (2012)?  How about an election year that netted a 1 seat advantage for Republicans in the State Senate (2014) being a near 2-1 trouncing of Democrats in the overall percentage of votes?  

This, friends.  This is why district lines are the single most important issue when determining election outcomes.  Not demographics.  Not polls.  Not money raised or spent.  Lines.  District lines.  Politically drawn marks on a map that change the destiny of Colorado a decade at a time.

Forecast

Fellow Coloradans, November 8, 2016 is shaping up to be partly cloudy with a chance of Democratic victory.  There may also be a blood moon in there somewhere, but you’ll have to check with someone who tries to divine the return of Christ through signs for that one.

At this point, given what I know and if the election were held today, my forecast for Colorado Election results is:

Statewide: 3D/0R

• President, US Senate, and CU Regent At-Large are leans D

CU Regent: 1D/1R

• 1 = D hold
• 4 is R hold

Board of Ed: 0D/3R

• 3 + 5 + 6 are R holds

Congressional: 3D/3R/1 toss-up

• 1 + 2 +7 are D holds
• 4 + 5 are R holds
• 3 is leans R
• 6 is toss-up/leans slightly D

State Senate (of the 18 seats up): 9D/6R/2 toss-up (possible D net gain of 2)

• 14 + 17 + 18 + 21 + 25 + 28 +29 + 31 + 33 are D holds
• 4 + 8 + 10 + 12 + 23 + 27 are R holds
• 19 + 26 + 35 are toss-up/leans D

State House: 35D/28R/2 toss-ups (likely D net gain of up to 3)

• 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 + 11 +12 + 13 + 18 + 23 + 24 + 26 + 28 +31 + 32 + 33 + 34 + 35 + 36 + 40 + 41 + 42 + 46 + 50 + 52 + 53 + 61 + 62 are D holds
• 17 + 30 are D pick-ups
• 14 + 15 + 16 + 19 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 25 + 27 + 37 + 38 + 39 + 43 + 44 + 45 + 47 + 48 + 49 + 51 + 54 + 55 + 56 + 57 + 58 + 60 + 63 + 64 + 65 are R holds
• 29 + 59 are toss-ups/leans D

Conclusion 

So there you have it folks! Full predictions (which, when I get to dig in a little more, may shift slightly—this is, after all, a Colorado weather forecast) coming in the first two weeks of October, so stay tuned!

The predictions will also include District Attorneys (which I just haven’t had time to look at before this post, I don’t expect much change there, though), a run down of the amendments, and county turnout data for the past several cycles with trend projections as well.

In the mean time…

Questions?

Comments?

Rants?

Corrections?

Please share those with me!

Comment, share, like, tweet, pin, +, argue, praise… just please don’t wake the babies if you’re going to yell.

Thanks for reading and stay tuned!

Opinion: 50 Shades of Ryan Call (He's Just Not That Into You)

If "corruption" was a color, we'd need more than 50 Shades for this post.


I have, thus far (and surprisingly successfully), stayed almost entirely out of the 2015 Colorado Republican Chairman's race.

It's no secret that Ryan Call and I aren't exactly friendly (I am, after all, on his enemies list), and that I supported and voted for Steve House at State Assembly for Governor in 2014.  Needless to say, this one is a no-brainer for me.  But without a vote on March 14, it seemed unnecessary for me to step in and rehash so many old things... until now.

This past weekend was the final straw for me, and for many in the Colorado GOP.  Many have continued to come back over and over to someone who has continually thumbed his nose at us, but it's time to make a clean break once and for all.

Before we do that, however, let's see what built up to this moment.  Yes, it's snarky and sarcastic, but solidly based in reality (as you'll see with all the links and endnotes).  Did you really expect anything else from me?  At this point, the joke is on all of us—all Colorado Republicans, and we're all losing because of it.  Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.  Enough is enough.

Join me (and those signed below) in breaking up with Ryan Call—and if you're bold enough, let me know and I'll add your name to this letter, too (man or woman... unlike Ryan Call, I won't discriminate based on gender).

If Call wins, Colorado loses.  It's that simple.

From the Desk of

Colorado Republican Women

March 3, 2015

Our dear Chairman Ryan Call,

We’ve been together for almost 4 years now.  Maybe it’s time to think about where we are at, and what we have accomplished in our relationship.

The Colorado Republican Party has made some improvements.  We’re now caught up to the early 2000s in technology, as opposed to dwelling in the 1980s dark ages... so there’s that. 

We applaud you for your attempt at building an infrastructure, such as it is, but with nothing there before, it’s a good place to start.

However… not everything has been so rosy.

I mean, we might have been able to overlook your $400 maxed-out contribution in 2006 to Bernie Buescher (screenshots here), a Democratic candidate, while you were Denver County Republican Party Vice Chair… if you didn’t threaten to withhold money from viable Republican candidates because they didn’t pick a company you liked to work with them on their campaign.

We could forget your lovely 2011 mug shot—from a traffic ticket you managed to forget to show up to court for… as a lawyer—if you weren’t funneling tens of thousands of Colorado Republican Committee dollars to your own law firm[1].

It would be possible to forget that you threw two Republican state legislators (Sen. Vicki Marble and Rep. Lori Saine) under the bus… if you didn't admonish the entire House and Senate Republican delegation over opposing in-state tuition for illegal aliens (in clear opposition to the Party platform[2]).

We could turn a blind eye to your pathetic and paltry support of state legislative candidates[3, 4]… if only your pet IEC hadn’t just been found guilty of violating state law on 4 counts—while you are a member of the RNC Finance Committee, and after you trumpeted on the radio that the “independent” committee was, in fact, coordinating with the Republican Party after all.

Maybe we could live with all the secrecy and non-transparency of your entire administration if you didn’t hire a convicted crook to run your new IEC.  I mean… you let someone guilty of federal crimes into our home?  We thought you cared more about our safety, credibility, and integrity as a Party than that.

Speaking of money… you promised us back in 2011 that we would win in November 2012, or our money back—guaranteed!  Here’s what over $8 million (mostly given to you by the blood, sweat, and tears of the RNC, and not from your own shoe leather) bought us in 2012:

• A loss for Romney in Colorado.
• A loss in our only statewide election.
• No change in Congress (despite a potential pick up in at least one district).
• No change at the CU Board of Regents (when there were two potential pick-ups).
• No change at the State Board of Education (granted, with only CDs 2 and 4 up, there wasn’t going to be any change this election cycle).
• No change in the State Senate (despite two very winnable seats, and two more toss-ups).
• The largest loss in the State House, from 33R-32D to 37D-28R, since 2004—the year of The Blueprint.

Oops.  That was kind of embarrassing.  Let’s move on to something better, shall we?   Like 2014.  This past election, we saw…

• A loss for Beauprez; but wins for 3 other statewide Republicans.
• No change in Congress; but a win for Gardner.
• No change at the CU Board of Regents.
• No change at the State Board of Education.
• A 1-seat (net) gain in the State Senate (18R/17D)—could have been 3 net wins.
• A 3-seat gain in the State House (34D/31R)—could have been 6 wins.

That’s a little more positive, isn’t it?  Slow clap on winning one national race while largely letting the rest of the state stay stagnant.

Look.  We might be able to applaud your minimal gains for Republicans in Colorado after 2 terms and nearly $20 million dollars spent on elections[5]… if only registration for active Republicans hadn’t dropped by 5.49% under your tenure, with an overall drop of 1.29% of total registered Republicans during that time[6, 7].

And then there’s your statement on October 7, 2013 about the Senate District 19 recall (“This recall election would undermine our efforts in the governor’s race, the U.S. Senate race and to win a senate majority if voters perceive that Republicans are trying to win a majority through recalls.” [source]).  Now, this we might forgive and forget if it wasn’t just so blatantly wrong—after all, we did win the U.S. Senate seat and the State Senate majority… only and entirely because this seat was up for election in 2014.  This is, of course, after you opposed the ruling that made success even possible in the Senate Districts 3 and 11 recalls… and then tried to cover that up by removing the press release from your website.

Here’s the rub.  There’s a lot we are willing to turn a blind eye to in the name of “unity”.  There’s even a lot that we think can, and should, be kept behind closed doors. 

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that nothing ever gets resolved behind closed doors because you pretend like we don’t exist.  Let’s face it.  You have a very poor track record of dealing with us women.  I mean, just look at the numbers:

• 4/30 female candidates in 2014 received State Party support
• 5/24 female candidates in 2012 received State Party support
• A mere 14% of funds given to candidates in 2012 and 2014 went to women, who made up almost 1/3rd of all candidates for statewide and state legislative offices

And yet, despite all that, we stayed steadfast, loyal, and true.  But no more.

The final straw, Mr. Chairman, was the transparent and blatant power grab just this past weekend in Costilla County, where you chose to unseat duly elected officers and replace them with your handpicked voters.  We are willing to tolerate a lot, but you finally crossed a bridge too far and we just can’t do it anymore.

We’re not asking for special treatment.  We’re not even asking for the same treatment you give to men.  All we want is a little bit of fair play.  Is that really so much to ask?

It’s time for us to face the truth.  You’ve shown that you’re not that into us. 

Well… guess what?  That feeling is mutual. 

We’re just not that into you, either. 

And no… we can’t be ‘just friends.’  We’re through.

Disaffectionately,

Colorado Republican Women

Sarah Arnold, Regan Benson, Meaghan Croghan, Sharon Croghan, Lana Fore, Mary Anne Greer, Leslie Hanks, Alexandra Harden, Judy Howell, Tina Jones Griffiths, Dorié Ann Lehan, Becky Mizel, Julie Naye, Jen Raiffie, Mailyn Salabarria, Julie Scott, Anita Stapleton, Nancy Wenlock

And the men who love Colorado Republican women...
Matt Arnold, George Athanasopoulos, Kim Herzfeld, William Howell, Simon Kane, Robert Pryor, Joe Webb

__________________

END NOTES

[1] $147,225.00 from 2011-current paid to Hale Westfall LLP by the Colorado Republican Committee. Search committee #C00033134.

[2] “Illegal immigrants should not receive any non-emergency benefits, services or privileges from federal, state or local governments.” [source]

[3] 28.66% of CRC funds, according to TRACER, went directly to non-federal candidates in 2012. 62.41% of CRC funds, according to TRACER, went directly to non-federal candidates in 2014—a number which drops dramatically to a mere 14.85% when you remove contributions to gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez. Search committee #19991500072.

[4] CRC money spent in the state of Colorado in 2012 on non-federal elections was 4.41% of the total operating budget that cycle. CRC money spent in the state of Colorado in 2014 on non-federal elections was 8.04% of the total operating budget that cycle. See notes 1 and 3 to find committee information on TRACER and FEC.
        In other words, 1.21% of total CRC money was spent on non-federal candidates in 2012; and only 4.65% of total CRC money was spend on non-federal candidates in 2014… or 1.11% if you take out Beauprez’s contributions.

[5] 64 Republicans in statewide and federal office in 2011 vs. 66 Republicans in statewide and federal office in 2015 (out of 130).

[6] 38.33% active registered Republicans as of 1 April 2011, 32.69% total registered Republicans as of 1 April 2011 [source]

[7] 32.84% active registered Republicans as of 1 February 2015, 31.40% total registered Republicans as of 1 February 2015 [source]

Lessons Learned

Picture found here.

If you weren't following this blog in 2012, you may have missed the predictions I made then.  Well, fear not, because 2014's predictions are now out.  My goal is to meet or come close to last cycle's 97% accuracy.  Frankly, anything about 90% is nothing to sneeze at, so I'll set that as my lofty goal.  I certainly learned more from the 3 races I got wrong in 2012 than the 94 I got right, which has helped adjust my model.

2014's predictions will be a little more scientific than in 2012.  In fact, I learned a few good lessons in and since 2012 that I applied when making these predictions.  While my model is based almost entirely on past performance and registered voters, occasionally there are circumstances that might cause a shift in a race, which I held out as long as I did on posting my predictions.

Without further ado, on to the lessons learned...

1. No matter how much I like a candidate, tough races are tough races and districts perform much like the numbers indicate they should.  
I admit to weighting races in 2012 generously (and, in the case of some, too generously) for candidates that I particularly liked--something I am trying to avoid in this year's predictions.  It helps that I know fewer of the candidates in 2014 as well as I knew the 2012 candidates.  In fact, some folks of less than savory integrity and character have used this point as a means to attempt to discredit the results.  I didn't actually set out in 2012 to be nearly as accurate as I was, to be honest.  It was more a fun, informational post than the eerily accurate predictions it turned out to be.  I learned what worked and what to improve, so hopefully this time around is less "opinion" and more "fact".  I suppose you could say that 2012 was an accidental test run.  Hindsight is 20/20, and I would have been more judicious in my use of "toss-up" and gone with my gut instinct on result in more races in 2012 if I had it to do over.


2. Historical district performance outweighs registration advantages.
Speaking of improperly weighting things, 2012 taught me that registration numbers and district performance numbers are not equal.  In 2012, I considered the two to be equally important.  The results of 2012 proved that district performance outweighs a registration advantage in a district.  Instead of looking at them both primarily to determine the District Ranking for this year's predictions, I looked at performance primarily, and registration secondarily.


3. It has been confirmed to me time and again that Jon Caldera's number one rule (that there is nothing Republicans can't eff up) is even more true in Colorado than anywhere else.  
Since there has been very little in the way of leadership change since 2012, I expect equally (or more) dismal results after Election Day for the GOP.  Maybe Ryan Call will finally get the hint that if he campaigned for Republicans as strenuously as he did to save his own six figure job, we might not be entirely in the mess we are now.  Based on what I've seen come out of State Party this cycle, their number one goal is to elect Cory Gardner, with the secondary goal of re-electing Mike Coffman.  While that's nice, that completely ignores the state of Colorado, and specifically the Legislature, where candidates need support much more than Gardner or Coffman do.  Of course, there are the puff pieces about Beauprez that started coming out from the State Party before the primary was over, but that's because it'd be political suicide to "ignore" the top race in the state.


4. Thanks to Redistricting and Reapportionment, Republicans in Colorado are screwed until 2022.
It's not like I didn't know this in 2012, but the results of 2012 proved just how true this really is.  Republicans will be very hard pressed to regain control of the House at all this decade.  The Senate is easier, but still not easy.


5. There is such a thing as too much data.  
After 2012, I started compiling data I had been collecting for over a decade, with over 150 data points for each district, to try and create a predictions model.  Using that much data made picking a selected outcome easy, but not necessarily accurate.  Rather than make the mistake of the failed CU Presidential Predictions Model, I decided to focus on the two areas that made my results so accurate in 2012: voter registration and district performance.


6. The biggest difference between my predictions and others is polling and money.  
I generally find polling to be a useless waste of money and time unless I can see all the cross tabs on it, and even then, I rarely trust it.  There is almost nothing easier to manipulate in politics than polling.  Remember that internal poll that showed Cantor up by 34 points?  I'm sure that looked like a good use of money after he got his butt handed to him (12 points!) by someone who spent a fraction of what he did.  Do you realize that's a 46% swing from what was predicted by a poll to what actually happened?  Of course, that's an extreme case.

This race also serves to prove my money point, which makes it a perfect example.  The candidate with the most money doesn't always win ($5,026,626 to $122,793).  Again, this is an extreme case, but the point is this: poll results and money raised/spent do not determine outcomes of elections.  Sure, the money side certainly has an effect on the outcome of a race, and it isn't unimportant, but it is a relatively small piece of the puzzle compared to voter registration and historical district performance.  And that is where I drastically differ from anyone else I've ever seen make predictions, because I honestly don't even look at polls or funds raised/spent when determining what I think will happen in a race until after all the other data has been weighed.  Variables can certainly swing a race, but 90% of the battlefield is laid in past performance and voting populace.


7. 2013 was a fascinating year.  
2013 brought about horrific voting law changes, including same day registration, ridiculously lax residency requirements, and all mail-ballot elections, which will likely drastically change the way elections play out in the future, and probably not in favor of liberty or Republicans.  Because of these changes (the significant potential for "vote shifting" and the same day registration parts in particular), I honestly don't know how well, if at all, election predictions can be done going forward.  2014 is going to be an interesting experiment in how this will affect the historical performance of a district.

The one plus of mail-ballot elections is old/inactive voters have finally been taken off the rolls.  The number of voters in Colorado has been steadily increasing since 2004 (the first year I have data), which is something you'd expect as the population grows and ages.  Until now.  Between November 1, 2012 and August 1, 2014, there are 2.42% fewer overall voters on the rolls.  Democrats are down 4.18% of their voters overall, Republicans are down by 2.47%, and Unaffiliateds down 1.1%.  Interestingly, Libertarians are at almost 118% of their 2012 number.  What effect, if any, this will have in November remains to be seen, but it is a fascinating bit of data.

On the flip side, the recall efforts proved that "unwinnable" seats can be flipped temporarily, even with crappy replacements, when a galvanizing issue is strong and relevant enough (and, again, proving my point about how money alone doesn't win elections).  The November 2013 election was also a good sign in Jefferson County, but I wouldn't count those chickens before they hatch.  It is yet to be seen how the recalls and November 2013 elections will have an impact in 2014.  I fear that they were too long ago to make a big enough difference this year, but we'll just have to wait and see.


8. Simplicity is key (or, Keep It Simple, Sarah).  
Rather than list out all the races in the lengthy manner I did in 2012, I'm going to condense the information on "holdovers" (2s and 6s), because they're less interesting from a predictions standpoint as a general rule.  There are summary posts coming as well, if you don't want to read the lengthy predictions post.


9. Finally, Nate Silver isn't as good as I am.  
Seriously.  At least for now.  He made predictions in a little over a third of the number of the races I did (which, to be fair, isn't quite an apples to apples comparison anyways because his races were federal, and mine were all Colorado-based, and predominately local races, but just go with me here).  His result was a 94% accuracy--which is nothing to sneeze at, don't get me wrong.  But, at least for 2012, I can claim to be better than Nate Silver.  Yes, this isn't so much a lesson as a personal point of bragging--but be honest, if you bested the "best" in the business, wouldn't you brag about it too?