Mythbusting the OGREs Use of "Common Core" Math Regarding 2012 Elections

Apparently some... mathematically challenged individuals, in a great display of the new "Common Core" math standards, are perpetuating the false meme that Libertarians caused a whole bunch of Republicans to lose in Colorado in 2012.  I've heard everywhere from 10-20 races (still circulating as recently as the State Republican Assembly last weekend, 12 April) where those pesky Libertarians "stole" Republican votes and caused a Democrat to win... except not so much.

Reality check: There were only 2* races in 2012 in Colorado where the margin of victory between the losing Republicans were made up by Libertarian/3rd Party votes... (CU Regent At-Large and SD19) and 1 race where the margin of victory between the losing Democrat was made up by Libertarian/3rd Party votes (SD35).  

Hmm.  Doesn't seem anywhere near even 10 races, now does it?

I suppose you could look at races like HD3 and HD33 as "close"--where the Democrats got less than 1% over 50%, but OVER 50% still wins, no matter HOW much over!  Maybe we need to make a basic math exam a pre-requisite for Republicans pontificating about elections in Colorado.

I know it's an inconvenient truth to your narrative, OGREs.  I'm sorry to once again burst your factually inaccurate bubble.  And I know, just because I'm a math girl doesn't mean everyone is.  But come on--if you're going to lie about something, at least made it something much harder to fact check than this.

For those of you interested, since the SOS Official Results don't include percentages, I've put that into a spreadsheet for you to check out for yourself.

*HD61 had a former Democrat Legislator running as an Unaffiliated in this race, obviously changing the dynamics.  The Libertarian in this race only received 2.73%, and in this case, it is highly unlikely the majority of the 3rd Party votes would have gone for the Republican--another fun trope the OGREs parade about--so I'm not sure it really counts towards this total, but in the interest of completeness, I've included this footnote.

Winners and Losers in Colorado's 2013 Election and a Look Ahead

Now that the dust has settled a little bit, I wanted to just quickly review what happened in the 2013 election in Colorado.  I'm talking about the November elections, not the recalls (that's a whole 'nother beast).  I am hip-deep in finishing up my book (which, if you haven't pre-ordered yet, you can here) and attending a School Choice Conference put on by the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, but I wanted to give a very brief summary from my perspective of what happened and what that may mean for 2014.

Winners:

• Kids
• Parents
• Teachers
• Taxpayers
• School choice advocates

Losers:

• Unions
• Michael Bloomberg
• John Hickenlooper
• Political operatives

Analysis:

Douglas County, Jefferson County, Denver Public Schools, and several school districts in Adams, Larimer, and Weld counties in particular had great success with reform candidates and slates, which bodes well for improving education across the state.  Notice where some of these changes occurred--Denver, Jefferson, and Adams county, where you have majority Democrats or have been trending Democrat in the past several elections county-wide.  School choice and reform is not a partisan issue.

Coloradoans voted down a nearly $1 billion/year tax increase by a nearly 2-1 margin.

In a bizarre twist of strangeness that only Colorado could concoct, by nearly the same margin as one tax increase was voted down, a tax was passed on marijuana.  In Colorado, apparently it is "tax for thee but not for me."

Sadly, in some cases, reform candidates succeeded in spite of, rather than because of, some of the same old (bad) political operatives.  As long as we continue to have these folks around, we will have to fight that much harder to actually succeed in elections.

Looking ahead:

It is way too early to make predictions for 2014.  To say Hickenlooper is on the defensive now after two losses (the recall elections in September and now Amendment 66--a third might be the flub on the execution of Nathan Dunlap) would be accurate, but whether that will hold true a whole YEAR from now is yet to be seen.  Unfortunately, voters have really short memories, and if Hickenlooper can pull it together this year coupled with a long, likely nasty Republican Primary for Governor, and that could potentially spell success for him in his election.  Remember, since 2004, no Republican has won statewide office after a nasty primary.  It may be more a factor of "us" and less a referendum on Hickenlooper, unfortunately.

What conservatives and liberty lovers must do is capitalize on our success: clearly pro-gun, anti-tax, and pro-education reform messages are winning messages!

The legislative session should be very interesting.  Election years often bring a tamer legislative agenda, and after this year's cocky liberal ram-rodding, it will be very fascinating to watch what happens next.

Opinion: Myths and Reality about the Colorado Recall Elections

There has been a lot of misinformation promulgated by far too many Establishment Republicans (and parroted by sheeple who haven't bothered to do their research) in this recall election.  We already have to fight Democrats--it's even more frustrating we have to keep fighting the false statements on our own side as well.  Here are several of those myths--debunked.

MYTH #1: "Owen Hill lost Senate District 11 in 2010 by 360 votes because of the Libertarian; therefore without a Libertarian in the race we are guaranteed a victory!"

Facts:

1. This is NOT the same district as it was in 2010.  In 2010, Senate District 11 was a fairly evenly matched district that had been held by a Republican until Senator Morse's first win in 2006.  On 1 November 2010, the registration numbers looked drastically different than they do as of the latest numbers from the Secretary of State (1 August 2013).  See the first set of charts below for a comparison.  Please pay attention to the Active Voters % --  that is the most telling voter registration statistic, especially now because there will be no mail ballots this election.  Yes, SD11 picked up total Republican voters--but you'll notice they also picked up total voters overall, and Senate District 11 now has one of the largest contingents of Unaffiliated voters in the state.
2. Not only have the voter registration numbers changed, the district performance numbers have changed, too.  Senate District 11 went from "leans Democrat" in 2010 (which, in my estimation, was a significant understatement based on the numbers) to pretty solidly Democrat now because of reapportionment.  The district performance went from D+1 in 2010 to D+6 in 2013.  See the second set of charts below for the reapportionment district average performance (for statewide races), and keep this in mind: 2010 was a wave Republican year, so that is likely a high-water mark for Republican performance.  It is unlikely, unless we see similar circumstances once again, to ever see that kind of Republican performance again until at least reapportionment in 2021.  And, you'll notice, even in that wave Republican year, both districts' reapportionment numbers underperformed the state GOP average and significantly outperformed the state Democrat average.

REALITY: Basing any assessment of Senate District 11's performance now, in 2013, on the old district's numbers doesn't prove any point other than that you are ignorant of the reapportionment process and it's ramifications.  They simply aren't comparable as they are not the same district.

Voter Registration Charts for Senate District 3:

As of 1 November 2010:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	32,483	49.27%	11,079	43,562	46.52%
Republican	16,345	24.79%	5,568	21,913	23.4%
Unaffiliated	16,790	25.47%	10,907	27,697	29.58%
Total	65,930		27,706	93,636

As of 1 August 2013:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	38,327	46.83%	5,685	44,012	45.36%
Republican	19,081	23.31%	3,202	22,283	22.97%
Unaffiliated	23,798	29.08%	6,168	29,966	30.88%
Total	81,846		15,184	97,030

Voter Registration Charts for Senate District 11:

As of 1 November 2010:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	16,186	33.99%	5,968	22,154	33%
Republican	15,160	31.83%	3,798	18,958	28.24%
Unaffiliated	15,845	33.27%	9,502	25,347	37.76%
Total	47,623		19,502	67,125

As of 1 August 2013:

	Active Voters	Active %	Inactive Voters	Total	Total %
Democrat	23,257	33.7%	4,524	27,781	33.29%
Republican	18,097	26.22%	2,902	20,999	25.17%
Unaffiliated	26,447	38.32%	6,752	33,199	39.79%
Total	69,016		14,427	83,443

Reapportionment District Performance Averages vs. State Averages in 2010 and 2012:

	Reapportionment Average	2010 Statewide Average	2012 Statewide Average	Difference 2010	Difference 2012
SD3 DEM	58.22%	44.39%	47.15%	+13.83	+11.07
SD3 REP	40.2%	52.58%	46.76%	-12.38	-6.56
SD11 DEM	53.1%	44.39%	47.15%	+8.71	+5.95
SD11 REP	44.5%	52.58%	46.76%	-8.08	-2.26

MYTH #2: "If a Republican wins now, we only have to win one seat in 2014 to have the majority in the State Senate!"

Facts:

1. While technically true if you do the math, this makes the (I think bad) assumption that we hold those two seats in 2014.
2. What is far more likely is that we lose Senate Districts 3 and 11, but gain Senate Districts 5, 16, and at least one of 20, 22, or 24.  Any three of those five and we have the majority.  All five of those seats have a much better chance of a Republican winning than either Senate District 3 or 11.  I'll discuss those districts more in-depth in a later post.

REALITY: Even if a Republican takes these two districts in 2013, there is no guarantee the seats are retained, and I think there's a great likelihood they will be lost in the 2014 General Election.

MYTH #3: "Those meddling Libertarians!  Their lawsuit to make the State of Colorado follow their own Constitution will derail the recall election!"

Facts:

1. Most of the arguments about why this lawsuit was a good thing have already been laid out: in my post earlier on the subject, by this great analysis, and in an excellent article today from Media Trackers.  Please read those so I don't have to repeat myself or redo the work of others who have summed it up so well.  The key takeaway, if you don't want to spend the time reading them, is that this lawsuit not just about ballot access, but just as much about eliminating mail-in ballots from this election
2. Lazy, low-information voters who otherwise wouldn't get off their duffs and vote can't sit in the convenience of their homes and not having mail-in ballots gives the recall proponents a significant advantage.  Incumbents have a much easier time winning with low-information voters.
3. Without mail-in ballots, it is much harder to cheat in elections.  Worse than uninformed voters, mail=in ballots lend themselves to fraud, such as voters being coerced or otherwise threatened by union thugs, or having their ballots filled out for them.  

What still amazes me is that Republicans are upset about this lawsuit.  In fact, Republican Party Chairman Ryan Call put out a press release parroting the same talking points as John Morse!  That is all shades of screwed up, and should be a wake up call to Republicans everywhere.

REALITY: This is proof positive that Republican apparatchiks no longer care for the Constitution, but push whatever they think will create "victory" (meaning money in their pockets) for them.  No wonder they have been consistently losing in this state since 2004.  Moreover, surprise, surprise--it not only didn't "derail the recall", it actually gave the recall a fighting chance by removing mail-in ballots from the equation.  How about them apples?

MYTH #4: "Those meddling Libertarians!  So they didn't derail the recall, but they did disenfranchise military voters!"

Facts:

1. You know what... I'll just let Secretary of State Scott Gessler do the talking for me here.  You can find his whole release at this link.

"As someone who served overseas in the Army and consequently missed an election myself, I’m particularly concerned about our military and overseas voters who want to cast ballots. Currently, El Paso County has 645 and Pueblo has 287.

Colorado is ready to serve them.

Last year I deployed a statewide electronic mail ballot delivery system for military and overseas voters. It worked extremely well, contributing to a 65% jump in turnout, even while most states saw a drop.

That system is already at work in the recall elections. The large majority of our military and overseas voters have already signed up for electronic ballot delivery. They have already received ballots. If more candidates qualify, we will work with El Paso and Pueblo to get them new ballots quickly, through electronic ballots, fax, and expedited mail. Forward deployed service members can even radio their votes to their commanders, and we can accept those ballots eight days after the election. Finally, we’ll take additional steps, if necessary." (emphasis added)

REALITY: As Secretary Gessler points out, there are other, better ways of reaching military voters--with electronic ballots (something for which he won an award for in 2012).  No one is disenfranchised, and, in fact, it is now more likely these service men and women will have their vote count, since there was no guarantee they would recieve their mail ballots in time, even though they were sent 30 days in advance (already a violation of UOCAVA standards).  You can also look at the comments on Clear The Bench Colorado's coverage for more on military voting.

MYTH #5: "Those meddling Libertarians!  Maybe they didn't derail the recall or disenfranchise military voters, but with a Libertarian on the ballot, they'll split the vote and ensure Morse stays in office!"

Facts:

1. As of right now, no Democrat has declared in Senate District 11, and no Libertarian has declared in Senate District 3.
2. The recall vote is a two part process: first, a yes or no vote on the recall, and then if yes, a vote on the replacement candidate.

REALITY: If there is no Democrat on the ballot in SD11, it would be impossible to "split the vote".  In fact, the more peole you can turn out to vote "yes" on the recall, the greater the likelihood of success.  

Let me repeat that, since it is the most commonly promulgated lie I've heard this entire recall election process: a Libertarian on the ballot not only doesn't split the vote, it actually makes it more likely that Morse gets recalled.

Update: typo in one of my charts fixed--thanks to Kevin J. for the catch!

Parts 2 and 3: Political Parties and election tools

I started this post back after the 2012 election, and worked on it again some more last March.  It fits well into what I wanted as parts 2 and 3 of my series, and I didn't feel like I could chop it up.  So here it is.

I've been in politics far too long for my age.  If you'd like to read about how I got here, check out the "About Me" page.  The short of it is this: my mom has said time and again that she knew I'd be in politics since I was very young.  I was lucky enough to be homeschooled so my education could be geared towards that end.  I volunteered for the Republican Party for the first time in 1998, as a 9 year old, and it's been all downhill since.  I spent my high school years as a volunteer at the Colorado State Capitol.  I've volunteer far too many hours doing many things, particularly walking more precincts than my feet care to remember for more candidates than I could list.  And, as if that wasn't bad enough, I got into the management and consulting side of politics.  In other words, over the past 15 years, I've done more in politics than most people do in their entire lives.

Politics is frustrating, annoying, disheartening, disappointing, and down-right obnoxious most of the time, but somehow the masochist in me keeps coming back for more.  It's made me incredibly jaded, which is a sad thing to say for a 24-year-old, but it's true.  I'm a pessimist by nature, and have become increasingly cynical, which doesn't help much.  It does help me, however, to be much more realistic than the starry-eyed folks I often come across in politics on every side of the political spectrum--those kinds of folks annoy me more than anyone else in politics.

I've always been a Republican.  My parents were always Republicans.  My great-grandmother's grandfather was a Republican President of the United States (Benjamin Harrison).  This Party runs through my blood, very literally.  I haven't always been the "type" of Republican I am today, that's been quite a journey in and of itself, but this Party has always been my home.  Politics in general, and the GOP in specific, have also allowed me to meet most of my dearest friends... and my husband.  And, while I have yet to find someone I agree with 100%, I've found many allies and like-minded individuals along the way, so it isn't all bad.  I've had victories and losses, and learned much more by doing than I ever would have in a classroom.  Politics, strategy, and sometimes even my political philosophy, is an ever-evolving beast (the latter often because I've come to a better understanding of an issue rather than my mind actually changing about it, though)--but it's always been based on one thing for me: core principles.

Limited, Constitutional government.  
Free markets.  
The rule of law.  
Personal responsibility.  
NO EXCEPTIONS.

If I can agree with you on those issues, we can be political allies.  If I can't agree with you on them, we might still be able to be friends, but I don't compromise on those issues--and that hasn't ever changed, nor do I see that as being likely to happen in the future.  I believe there is, theoretically, room in the Republican Party for people who disagree on a whole slew of issues, so long as they can agree on what makes us all Republicans.

Except...

That no longer seems to be the case.  Those in power in the Republican Party keep pushing us closer and closer to the "middle"--or more specifically, closer and closer towards big government--and many have become out and out Progressives.  That is simply not acceptable.  We haven't had a truly limited government Presidential nominee in my lifetime.  Even Reagan, the paragon of "conservativism," wasn't totally limited government.

I'm all about a big tent, but without a foundation, that tent will just flap around in the wind.  And we wonder why we continue to lose in Colorado--something we've been doing badly since 2004.  It's not the message, it's how we message it.  It's not needing to catch up with the Democrats and their strategy, technology, etc. (we're 10 years behind them on that as it is, and yet we still use 30+ year-old campaign strategies), it's needing to surpass them.  It's not that we should move more to the "middle", it's that we should rebuild the trust in our brand that has been so thoroughly tarnish, people are leaving the Republican Party in droves--not because it isn't center enough, but because it isn't limited government enough.

At this point, I'm fairly sure my opinion of what's going on (and has gone on) in Colorado is no big secret.  Nor is it a big secret that the "elite" in power and I don't get along at all.  I can't imagine why, since I like winning and they seem to like losing... over and over and over and over...

And that's just it--the bottom line.  They keep losing.  Some of us on the ground--the ones they despise--have started winning.  We beat their "moderate" candidates in primaries.  We have been, slowly but surely, taking over spots of leadership in the Party.  But they don't want us in the Party.  Many have told us as much.  Sure, they try to look welcoming and preach far and wide about being so open to everyone, but anyone in the Republican Party who is not in lock-step with the Karl Rove types knows just how "welcoming" they are--and what they do to you if you don't agree with them.  Case in point.

It is beyond my ability to comprehend that those at the top still haven't figured out why they are losing, either.  Could it possibly be that they keep doing the same thing over and over?  That people keep leaving the Party as it moves more and more towards big government?  That their candidates suck?  They truly can't be that stupid... can they?  Worse yet, some people are so blinded by "power" and "access" that they continue to elect these buffoons to "lead" us into another electoral disaster--which makes them equally culpable in those future losses.

We can't afford that anymore.  By we, I mean WE THE PEOPLE.  Parties are simply tools.  There are many tools in the political arsenal.  I am, by no means, under any illusions that any third party is a viable option right now--let's be honest, the numbers just aren't there.  But I'm also tired of being taken for granted, kicked in the teeth, and ignored by a Party that is supposed to represent ME.

I haven't left the Republican Party (yet), but the Republican Party has left me--and I'm not the only one they've left, either.

I've been saying for quite some time that the results of 2012 would determine my affiliation in some form or another with the Colorado Republican Party.  The State Party Chairman's election back in March was an extension of that, and just proved once again that the Republican Party, especially in Colorado, is not only the Party of Stupid, but the Party of Insanity (per Einstein's definition).

While I make up my mind about future Party affiliation (the new deadline being 2014, proving once again I'm just a sucker for punishment), let me be perfectly clear about one thing: the GOP does not have my "loyalty".  Party does not trump principle.  My vote must be earned, and trust must be rebuilt.  Right now, the Republican Party is nothing more than a tool to elect limited government candidates when we can get them through the process.  It could be much more.  It should be much more.  But it won't be anything but that until there is a paradigm shift in leadership and attitude.

Everyone in the Colorado State Republican Party leadership is part of the problem, and the majority of the State Central Committee who put those people (two of the three back there, one is new) in power are entirely culpable for the results of the 2014 election--for every single loss we suffer.

Any win a Republican in Colorado might have will be entirely in spite of the Party, not because of it.  We can't take a losing strategy, dress it up in lace and pink bows, and expect it to be anything other than a hideous monstrosity that will also continue to drum up more of the same--sustained losses in this state.  I've seen absolutely no indication that this Party, under the leadership of a loser, Ryan Call, will go in any other direction than continued losses across the board.

We have other tools in our arsenal to advance liberty and limited government ideals besides just the Republican Party.  We need to start making better use of those, because continuing to rely on the Colorado Republican Party is naïve at absolute best, and, as far as I'm concerned, just plain stupid and insane.  The Party can't help us anymore, it's simply one of the many tools (and essentially only there now for ballot access).