2016 Election Aftermath (short post)

...is it too early to say "I told you so" again?

Quick debrief, with more later:

Federal races: 8/8 called, 1 toss-up (no call)
CU Regent: 2/2 called, 1 toss-up (leans D, wrong)
Board of Ed: 3/3 called
State Senate: 16/17 called, 1 toss-up (leans R, right)
State House: 65/65 called

In other words, 99% right.

And bonus:
Judicial Districts: 21/22 called

If you factor these in, it's a paltry 98%.  Bugger.

For those of you looking at what I got wrong, that was SD25, JD9, and CU Regent at-large (although that was called a toss-up, so it's not factoring into the calculation).

The amendments, sadly, went about as I expected.

Once again, Colorado loses big time.  And once again, I'm hardly surprised by this.

2016 Predictions

Unfortunately, due to mommying and starting a new job, I wasn't able to get this out when I had hoped, nor have as much detail together as I would have liked.  However, here is a quick (and very late) update to the Forecast.  Forecast predictions hold unless noted in the predictions column (so, for example, all Congressional races are as forecasted except CD6).

Type	Office	Forecast	Prediction
Federal	Congressional	1 + 2 +7 are D holds 4 + 5 are R holds 3 is leans R 6 is toss-up/leans slightly D	6 is toss-up/no call
Federal	President	Toss-up/leans D	Leans D
Federal	US Senate	Toss-up/leans D	Leans D
Statewide	CU Regent	At-Large: Toss-up/leans D 1 = D hold 4 is R hold	No change
Statewide	Board of Ed	3 + 5 + 6 are R holds	No change
Legislature	State Senate	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	19 is D Pick-up 26 is D hold 35 is toss-up/leans R
Legislature	State House	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	29 is D hold 59 is D pick-up
Judicial District	District Attorney	n/a	2 + 3 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 9 + 10 + 12 + 17 + 20 are D holds 1 + 4 + 8 + 11 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 18 +19 +21 +22 are R holds

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: Debate Analysis

It was obvious to even the non-objective observe that Romney won last night.  Obama almost didn't even bother to show up.  Maybe if he brings his teleprompter next time, just because he's so used to seeing it, it will help him psychologically to be more "in the zone" (not that we really want him to be).  It's no big secret that Obama is not a great speaker, he's a great reader.  Or maybe he speaks well, he just can't impromptu.  At all.

Romney had some great moments.  He had a few good zingers, at the beginning especially (bring up the "middle class has been buried" line was inspired).  He made excellent points on things like the debt not just being an economic issue, but a moral one, and that $90 billion of subsidies to bankrupt energy companies (all but one I believe are now bankrupt, but don't quote me on that) was like 50 years worth of subsidies (my personal favorite line of the night--his later point about that being able to hire 2 million teachers I thought was much weaker).  He seemed much more solid and alive than I've ever seen him this campaign.

Romney also had some bad moments.  Let's be honest--and hope he gets better before the next debate.

Areas to improve on or watch for next time:

• When Obama lies, don't whine about it ("But... but... but... he LIED about my economic plan!" sounds like a 5 year old, not a Presidential candidate).  It's not like it surprises anyone on our side of the fence that Obama lies, and that would have been a great time for a joke, not a whine. 
• Be careful not to cross the line between being strong and not letting the media/moderator run roughshod over you and coming across like a jerk.  I think Romney came awful close to that line last night, so he needs to watch that carefully.  On the plus side, I was pleased to see him actually appear to have grown a pair and was glad he kind of took charge there.
• Do not cave on things like regulations, taxes and getting the federal government out of things it doesn't belong in (like healthcare and education).  Romney really worried me with his statement about how the free market can't exist without regulations, and his repeated statements about not actually wanting to lower taxes (he usually meant, I think, to the point where it adds to the deficit, but didn't always add that in) or get rid of regulations or keep parts of Obamacare (which should NOT be a federal issue in the first place) or that the Federal Government should help out with education at a state level (again, so NOT a federal issue) are very troubling.
• Romney must get a better answer on the Obamacare vs. Romneycare issue and stop saying repeal and REPLACE.  It should be repeal and repudiate, then repeal all the federal regulations that are causing price spikes in healthcare.  Even with Obama barely there, Romney lost that section from what I saw.  He has to get stronger on that, and quickly.
• What struck me as odd last night was Romney's attempts to make his positions sounds like Obama's on several issues, and then have Obama be the one trying to draw distinctions.  Usually, it is the other way around.  I didn't like that approach and hope it is never used again.

Overall, even with areas to improve on, I thought Romney did surprisingly well--certainly much better than I expected, to be perfectly frank.  I also really liked the format of this debate as compared to previous Presidential and primary debates.

A brief note now on "independents" and the "audience" for the debate:

• Most people who claim to be "independent" or are registered that way are NOT middle of the road, no matter how much they tell you that.  A significant portion always vote for one party or another, they simply don't want to be affiliated with a party for whatever reason.  Anyone who says otherwise is probably lying.
• Most Republicans who left the party to become independents didn't do so because they wanted the GOP to be more "liberal", but because it wasn't conservative enough, or pro-liberty enough.  Pandering middle of the road-to-left in a general election, therefore, further alienates that voting block--and Romney is going too far left for many of them, from what I've been hearing.
• Debates don't win elections.  Most people have their minds made up by now, even if they don't want to admit it.  Most people either don't like Romney or Obama, but the "undecideds", based on my experience, are largely looking for a reason to vote for Romney or Obama, not just against the person they don't like.  People watch the debates to get a positive reason to vote, and I'm not sure that last night's debate did that for either candidate.  Yes, Romney came across strong for the first time, and yes, he obviously won.  But he also said some very troublesome things about the free market, taxes, regulations, etc.  Wanting to save parts of Obamacare doesn't help him, either.  Obama totally not showing up certainly didn't help him.
• Finally, who watches these debates?  Honestly, it's largely the wonks and people who have already made up their minds (how many Romneyites or Obamaheads were tweeting/blogging/facebooking/commentating last night?  LOTS...).  Any arguments that Romney "had to" go left because of the audience is just plain naive.  Additionally, no candidate should ever change their message because of the audience.  How it is presented, yes--absolutely.  But never the content of the message.  Romney can't say he want to cut taxes on the campaign trail just to turn around in the debates and say... well, not really, and many other things that sounded to me like contradictions.  Flip-flopping, or at least appearing to, will not win you an election because it erodes trust.