Recall Elections Of Six Republicans Go Forward In Wisconsin

Public sector union supporters have successfully gathered enough signatures to force six Wisconsin legislators to face recall elections triggered by the controversial effort of Wisconsin legislators to deny public employees unions in the state collective bargaining rights. Notably, form a political perspective, Republicans has not made eliminating meaningful public sector unions a major point in their 2010 campaign effort which had focused on budget cutting measures, so it isn't unreasonable to expect that independents and Republicans who have some sympathy with the cause of public sector union workers or aren't happy with the fact that Republicans have pushed such a controversial issue in a way that created a media circus could vote to recall Republican state legislators whom they voted for last November.

A state judge in Wisconsin has also ruled that the public employee union law was passed in violation of the state's open meetings law and hence is void.

Thus, while Republicans won the battle to bust public sector unions in Wisconsin, they risk losing the war if voters use the recall elections to hand control of the state legislature, which Republicans won in November's election, back to Democrats. Another fight brought to the voters that was colored by the union busting legislation was, an electoral fight between a conservative and liberal candidate for the state supreme court that had previously been a non-issue that almost assured the incumbent conservative judge's re-election was won by the incumbent by only by a nose after a recount. The recall fights, however, are more directly related to the union busting legislation which they personally voted to enact.

The amount of grass roots support for a recall necessary to get one on the ballot in Wisconsin is suggestive of the amount of political energy and momentum that recall supporters have in this fight:

At no time in U.S. history have attempts been made to recall so many legislators at the same time over the same issue. To recall a senator in Wisconsin, recall organizers had to gather signatures from voters in each district equivalent to 25% of the number of people who voted for governor in November. That meant staff for the board had to review more than 18,000 signatures for each recall attempt.

Keep in mind that these signatures are being gathered in state legislative districts that elected Republicans within the last year, not safe Democratic seats. Also, the level of organization and political intensity displayed by union supporters against Republicans now may decisively influence Wisconsin's vote in the 2012 Presidential elections in favor of Democrats. The union busting move of Wisconsin's Republican leadership has activated vast numbers of otherwise apathetic or only slightly active union members and union supporters in the state, turning them into a political force to be reckoned with, regardless of the outcome of these particular recall efforts. And, if many of the recall elections are successful, it would also pop the balloon of any mandate in popular opinion that Republicans could have claimed based upon their 2010 electoral sweep, only about a year before the next state legislative and Presidential election. Voters, campaign contributors and political campaign volunteers don't like political losers; they want to vote for someone who can win and may lose faith when a candidate's prospects seem diminished.

The Wisconsin legislation inspired copycat efforts in a number of other states, some successful, that face a less imminent threat of being overturned after the fact than the Wisconsin legislation.

Wisconsin and 2012

Democratic partisans are fond of saying that anti-immigrant measures advanced by Republicans are good for Democrats because they alienate a large Latino population that would otherwise be inclined to vote Republican (see e.g. "Even More Opportunities for GOP Latino Alienation").

The Republican anti-union showdown with public employees unions playing out at the moment in Wisconsin (and the Denver Post's AP story advises me in other states across the country like Ohio, Tennessee, Indiana, Nevada and Florida) may have a similar effect.

One of the crucial sources of the big Tea Party wins in 2010 was union member ambivalence about voting for Democrats. While Democrats have near unanimous support from the leadership of organized labor, union members themselves barely favored Democrats more often than Republicans in 2010 election in many key races.

But, the current multi-state Republican jihad against labor unions, whether or not it is successful, may change that in 2012. By reminding the public that the Republican brand hates unions and favors making deep spending budget cuts substantially on the back of union member compensation, the Tea Party union members of 2010 may return to the Democratic fold in 2012.

Half of union members in the United States are public employees who are directly affected by the stance Republicans have taken in Wisconsin, and the other half don't have to be particularly prescient to see Republican attacks on public sector unions translating into attacks on their economic interests should Republicans gain control of the federal government as well.

Hungry Kids Not Fair Game, Who Knew?

Hungry Colorado Kids Make Poor Political Targets

Republican State Representatives Cheri Gerou of Evergreen and Jon Becker of Fort Morgan, two of the three Republicans in the Colorado General Assembly's Joint Budget Committee, have thought better of their decision to follow the mean spirited lead of Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, who really does think that hungry poor kids should be denied free school breakfasts.

Apparently, Gerou and Becker lacked the common sense on their own to know that picking on hungry little children who benefit from the free breakfast program should not suffer because an anonymous state bureaucrat made an accounting error that left the program overbudget. But, they did have the political sense to realize that almost everyone else in the State of Colorado, even in conservative strongholds like Grand Junction, Colorado did realize this point and retreated from their hardline stance.

The Gessler Drama

Newly sworn in Secretary of State Scott Gessler, meanwhile, who outrageously announced last week that he is can't survive on the pay of the office he campaigned to win and secured, and wants to work part-time at his old election law firm, despite the obvious conflicts of interest and appearance of impropriety this creates, hasn't backed down, despite strong editorials from both the Denver Post's right wing editorial board and its token liberal commentator today, explaining just how off base he is for trying to do so. The fact that he can't see why this is a problem is itself troubling.

Equally amusing is his fall back position. He has know made clear that he will look to the Attorney General's office for ethical guidance on the issue. And, who in the Attorney General's office has been appointed to handle that task? Bernie Buescher, the Democrat whom he defeated for the Secretary of State post this past November. It has been a long time since Bernie Buescher actively practiced law, but his four years of experience as Colorado's Secretary of State, many years representing a conservative Grand Junction district as a Democrat in the State House, and abundant common sense, make him well qualified for the task.

Equally disturbing, Gessler claims to have raise the part-time job issue during the campaign, even though no one anywhere can be produced to say that he actually did. Making shit up is a standard part of the Republcan play book, but this blantant instance of it by Gessler is particularly galling, because everyone who is listening knows that it isn't true.

The Denver Post, to give it credit, endorsed Buescher, who was clearly the better man, and to anyone familiar with the two candidates, the choice was clear. But, of course, most people know little about candidates for the Secretary of State's post, which only involves real power when close call election issues come up, and voted based on party labels rather than individual qualifications in a year when Red rather than Blue was the hot political color.

What Next?

It took less than two weeks for the new Republican majority in the state house, and the new Republican Secretary of State to thoroughly embarass themselves by taking stances that even died in wool conservatives can't stomach. Walker Stapleton, our new Republican State Treasurer, hasn't made a miscue yet, but still has plenty of time to allow voters to regret their choices last November.

So Much For A Less Violent American Politics?

I recently made a couple of posts on the relative non-violence of American politics and labor relations compared to the European (and to some extent world) alternative.

Then, there was the attempted assassination of a Democratic Congresswoman in Arizona this weekend that resulted in the death of the chief judge of Arizona's federal trial court and five others, in addition to a dozen plus other gunshot wounds. The event was cited by many as a symptom of the violent political rhetoric by the Tea Party movement (including Sarah Palin, in particular) in the 2010 election. We a little of that climate in Colorado, but it was probably more intense in Arizona. The Congresswoman who was shot suffered a bullet shot through the brain and miraculously lives at the moment, but there is no telling if she will be able to continue to carry out the duties of her office, and certainly, her life will never be the same again.

I wasn't specifically contradicted by this event; I've never argued that there is never political violence in the United States, just that it is comparatively rare. But, was I fundamentally wrong? Is this a case of American politics turning a corner in the wrong direction after a low point that my post captured? Or, is this simply one more mass murder by a mentally ill person whose political character is really no more relevant than any other of these periodic mass murder outbursts?

We really won't know until time tells us if this was a freak event or the start of a trend. The arrest of a man for threatening U.S. Senator Michael Bennet isn't encouraging, of course, and this incident does remind us the outgoing Governor Ritter survived an assassination attempt by a mentally ill young man during his four year term of office. It also casts a different light on the act of animal rights terrorism involved in the burning down of the Sheepskin factory in Glendale, Colorado, a stone's throw from my office.

The fact that the killer was off his rocker (although quite possibly still legally culpable for his crime) doesn't necessarily mean that the political climate wasn't a factor. Extreme acts are committed by extreme people. Even in street gangs, the people who actually kill other people in gang crimes are not typical of the average street gang member from a mental health perspective. But, the fact that this most recent shooting does not appear to have involved an organized conspiracy, at least, is encouraging. Others may not have been attuned enough to the risk to take some sort of action before he struck, but they might be now and certainly the people who might have had a clue that the killer was dangerous but failed to stop him, had no desire to further his murderous plans.

(As an aside, while there is little doubt that the attempted murder of a Congresswoman took place here, the federal death penalty for murder of a federal official required an actual death, and it isn't clear whether or not one can be guilty of that crime if one did not know that one of the bystanders killed was a federal judge, or if the doctrine of transferred intent (i.e. that an intent to kill one federal official suffices to show intent even if a different federal official ends up being the one who dies) applies to that offense. Arizona's death penalty surely applies to this case at any rate.)

The man who committed the crime was caught and he will probably never be in a position to threaten anyone else ever again. The politicians and spinmeisters have been chastened, for a little while at least, about the perils of engaging in violent rhetoric, politically even if there is no causal link to this event. There is little one can do to prevent a single deranged individual from sometime, somewhere doing something horrible. But, if the causes are larger, there is something that can be done.

Gun control will be debated, and it just might just happen that some tangentially related legislation to limit the access of mentally ill people with criminal records (as the perpetrator apparently had) might advance just a little, or it might not. The bill most on point will probably be rechristened with the name of Gabrielle Giffords, who was the target of the attack (a la the Brady Bill).

In isolation, events like these are tragedies, but don't change the larger course of our lives. But, when they impact the rarified world of our modest community of high elected officials and judges, the potential for an event like this to change who choses to participate in politics and how they choose to do so is real. The fear that a comment will draw a violent attack from a crazy person can change how politicians act, mostly for the worse. This is particularly true when the deadly violent crazies who are our domestic terrorists seem to have a conservative partisan bias.

Good Riddance 2010

As the year of record unemployment and a stagnant economy comes to a close, it is fifty degrees colder here in Denver than it is in Buffalo, New York. In Colorado Springs, fireworks had to be cancelled because it was 25 degrees below on Pike's Peak with 70 mile an hour winds. People lost homes to foreclosures and fires. Low interest rates are irrelvant because no one seems to be lending. The crazy people have taken the reins in Colorado's House of Representatives and the United States House of Representatives.

Maybe we'll do better in 2011.

Make It Official

The Tea Party faction is the reason that the Republican party made as much progress as it did in the 2010 midterm elections at both the state and federal levels. Their candidates are putting their stamp on the GOP at the legislative party level.

It would be an opportune time for Republicans to officially change their party's name. After all, this is no longer the party of Lincoln. The strongholds of the modern Republican party are overwhelmingly places that shunned the GOP for a century because it was the party of the North in the Civil War and Reconstruction. They are the direct political descendants of the Dixiecrats and the segregationists. A significant share of Republicans still think secession is a good idea, and many would like to repeal all or most of the Civil Rights Act. The Republican party was invented as a party in favor of a strong federal government, yet the modern Republican party is the party of state's rights. Lincoln and other early Republicans were in favor of constitutionally questionable taxes.

Why should Republicans continue to carry all that historical baggage that causes them such cognitive dissonance? Why not admit that there is nothing "Grand Old" about their party and that they have nothing whatsoever in common with the pro-tax, anti-states rights, socially liberal, culturally Yankee party that the Republicans were for their first couple of generations? Why not cast that all aside and replace it with the mantle of the Tea Party.

This would leave the people who put them in power, who happen to care a lot about symbolism, tickled pink. And, rebranding every once and a while is often a good thing for just about any organization. It would also be more honest, and crazy as it seems, a little honesty in politics, even once in a while, is appreciated by just about everyone. So, make it official. For 2011, the major political party that is not the Democratic party in the United States should cast aside the "Republican" and "GOP" names and become the "Tea Party".

Then, maybe the Democrats could follow suit and rename itself, honestly and in a way that reclaims a label that many in the base would like to rehabilitate, the "Liberal Party."

Colorado Redistricting Mildly Favors GOP

Graphic via Wikipedia

The big event of the 2011 legislative session in Colorado will be the redistricting of its seats in Congress, the state senate, and the state house (CU Regent and State Board of Education seats are derivative of those for Congress).

The Process

A deal on Congressional redistricting will require the agreement of the probably Republican controlled state house (the split is 33-32 and one GOP seat of the 33 is still technically in play), and a Democratic party controlled state senate. This leaves the Democrats and Republicans on equal footing.

The state legislative seats are redrawn by an eleven member reappoprtionment commission (Article V, Section 48, Colorado Constitution) subject to some rather specific guidelines (Article V, Sections 45, 46, and 47). Democratics and Republicans get one seat each from the state house and state senate (major party status in the last election isn't relevant to this determination), Governor Hickenlooper gets three appointments, and Chief Justice of the Colorado Surpeme Court Michael Bender gets four appointments. No more than six members can be member of the same political prty, and there are also geographical diversity requirements and a limit of four members who are state legislators. The Colorado Supreme Court then pre-approves the constitutionality of the map. Realistically, Democrats will have six rather than five seats, and the judicial appointees will not be political extremists, so this favors Democrats over Republicans, but only mildly.

The Change In Population

Basically, neither party has a truly decisive advantage in the process this time around. And, this gives particular importance to the changes in population that have taken place in the last decade. Simply put, there has been more population growth in counties that leaned Republican in 2010 than there has been counties that leaned Democratic in 2010. The population numbers below are from 2000 to 2009, but will be very close to the 2010 census figures.

Intensity of partisan support, I measure using the relative Bennet-Buck vote, since this race was very nearly a tie, and hence roughly captures the current political divide betwen the two political parties and is appropriate to use as an index of partisan strength in each county.

While counties that favored Democrats grew more than counties that favored Republicans, population growth was weak in counties that intensely favor Democrats, while population growth was strong in counties that intensely favor Republicans.

Counties that supported Republican Ken Buck in 2010 gained 339,644 people, and adjusted for partisan intensity that is an expected gain of 85,282 votes relative to 2000. Counties that supported Democratic Michael Bennet in 2010 gains 344,660 people, and adjusted for partisan intensity that is an expected gain of 44,987 votes relative to 2000.

Thus, counties that supported Bennet accounted for 50.4% of population growth in Colorado, but counties that supported Buck supported him almost twice as intensely as counties that supported Bennet. So, new state legislative seats in Republican areas are more likely to go to Republicans since Republican advantages are decisive in those areas, than state legislative seats in Democratic areas which will probably be split more evenly betwen the parties because they are more competitive districts.

The redistricting effect in favor of Republicans will be equivalent to something on order of a two percentage point shift in the popular vote effect for the GOP in existing state legislative districts, which would have given both houses of the Colorado General Assembly to Republicans in this year's election.

Politically, first Denver ring suburbs that used to be considered Republican territory, like Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield and Jefferson counties have swung towards Democrats and become narrowly Democratic leaning, which has muted the impact of significant population growth in these counties on the political balance in the state. Slight swings in partisan support in these suburbs make or break any candidate for statewide office, and these suburbs are likely to be home to most of the swing districts when redistricting is complete in 2012.

Congressional Redistricting Strategy

In Congressional redistricting, it is almost impossible to draw seven districts in Colorado without creating at least two safe Democratic districts (basically Denver-Boulder, which currently are in CO-1 and CO-2) and at least two safe Republican Districts (basically Highlands Ranch to Colorado Springs, which currently are in CO-5 and CO-6).

Colorado currently has three districts that could be competitive: CO-3 (Pueblo, the San Luis Valley and the Western Slope) and CO-4 (the rural front range and Fort Collins) were seats that had been held by Blue Dog Democrats prior to this year's election and are now held by Republicans. CO-7 is a district of first ring suburbs to the North of Denver that was originally held by Republican Bob Beauprez and now is held by Democrat Ed Perlmutter.

The most favorable arrangement for the Democrats that I've been able to envision that doesn't require a truly extraordinary Blue Dog Democrat like Ken Salazar to hold, would have four leans Democratic Districts: one district with West Denver and most of Jefferson County, one district with East Denver and Aurora, one district with Boulder, Broomfield, Western Adams County and part of Fort Collins, and one district with Pueblo, the San Luis Valley, some of Jefferson County and most of the mountain resort counties. This would leave Republicans with one district centered in Colorado Springs, one centered in Douglas County and Eastern Adams and Arapahoe Counties, and one with the rest of Fort Collins, Greeley and the rest of rural Colorado.

Realistically, with Republicans at the bargaining table and both parties interested in incumbent protection, a Congressional redistricting plan the protects the three incumbent Democrats (CO-1, CO-2 and CO-7) and protects the incumbent Republicans in CO-5 and CO-6, seems very likely, so the tricky part will be how to draw districts in the rural part of the state covered by CO-3 and CO-4 and held by freshman Republicans right now.

Republicans will probably try to make both districts roughly equally safe for the freshmen Republicans in those seats.

Democrats would probably be best advised to try to sacrifice one of those seats (probably CO-4) making it more safe for Republicans by removing some of Fort Collins from the district, while trying to make the other (probably CO-3) more competitive with a candidate like John Salazar or Ken Salazar in mind to contest it. Democrats would probably do that by trying to increase the share of resort counties in CO-3 and decreasing the share of Larimer County in CO-4, while increasing CO-4's share of rural Colorado.

Intraparty and Bipartisan Impact

For the Democratic Party, about 85% of its gains from population growth are from metro Denver, with much of the rest in resort communities and Pueblo. Democratic counties in the San Luis Valley are growing less politically important to Democrats. The Democratic party is increasingly a party of higher population density urban areas.

For the Republican party, about 84% of its gains from population growth are from greater Colorado Springs to Highlands Ranch, and from North of Denver in the vicinity of Greeley. Most of the rest of its growth was in the North-South corridor on the Western Slope from Delta to Grand Junction. Agricultural counties on the Front Range are becoming less politically important to Republicans. The Republican party is increasingly a party of exurbs and small to medium sized cities.

The 2010 census in Colorado has produced a bipartisan shift of power away from rural areas and towards cities and suburbs.

The Data

The raw data is below:

The counties that favored Republicans (in percentages and raw numbers of population growth, Bennet lead in percentage points, intensity adjusted impact):

1. Douglas +64% (+112,459) -25 (-30,615)
2. Weld +41% (+73,823) -21 (-15,503)
3. Mesa +26% (+29,838) -28 (-8,227)
4. Montrose +24% (+7,980) -43 (-3,431)
5. Elbert +17% (+3,415) -52 (-1,776)
6. El Paso +17% (+87,613) -27 (-23,656)
7. Park +15% (+2,239) -11 (-236)
8. Custer +14% (+497) -44 (-219)
9. Delta +13% (+3,488) -32 (-1116)
10. Rio Blanco +9% (+548) -10 (-55)
11. Montezuma +7% (+1,538) -29 (-446)
12. Moffat +6% (+796)
12. Chaffee +6% (+914) -2 (-18)
13. Teller +6% (+1,130) -33 (-373)
14. Dolores +5% (+96) -26 (-25)
15. Kit Carson +5% (+391) -43 (-168)
16. Fremont +4% (+1,670) -26 (-334)
17. Morgan +3% (+679) -24 (-163)
18. Logan + 1% (+268) -28 (-75)
19. Phillips 0% (-8) -37 (+3)
20. Yuma -1% (-107) -42 (+45)
21. Washington -10% (-506) -52 (+263)
22. Prowers -10% (-1,501) -30 (+450)
23. Lincoln -15% (-918) -43 (+395)
24. Baca -18% (-794) -44 (+349)
25. Cheyenne -22% (-485) -55 (+267)
26. Kiowa -24% (-384) -46 (+177)

Total Gain in GOP counties: 324,679
Total Gain in GOP counties adjusted for intensity of GOP support: 84,465

Counties that supported Hickenlooper but not Bennet:

1. Garfield +29% (+12,507) -3 (-375)
2. Archuleta +26% (+2,532) -20 (-506)
3. Crowley +16% (+885) -16 (-142)
4. Grand +12% (+1,469) -8 (-118)
5. Mineral +10% (+81) -4 (-3)
6. Bent +9% (+562) -10 (-56)
7. Hinsdale +4% (+31)
8. Rio Grande -7% (-832) -10 (+83)
9. Otero -8% (-1,641) -10 (+164)
10. Jackson -13% (-208) -29 (+60)
11. Sedgewick -15% (-421) -18 (+75)

Total Gain in Mixed Counties: 14,965
Total Gain in mixed counties adjusted for intensity of GOP support: 818

Total Gain in Buck counties: 339,644
Total Gain in Buck counties adjusted for intensity of GOP support: 85,282

The counties that favored Democrats:

1. Broomfield +43% (+16,797) +2 (+336)
2. Eagle +29% (+11,994) +10 (+1199)
3. Ouray +23% (+860) +5 (+43)
4. Adams +21% (+77,137) +7 (+5400)
5. Saguache +20% (+1,180) +21 (+248)
6. Routt +19% (+3,779) +18 (+680)
7. Larimer +19% (+46,888) +1 (+469)
8. Gilpen +18% (+857) +6 (+51)
9. La Plata +17% (+7,523) +4 (+301)
10. Arapahoe +16% (+77,393) +3 (+2,322)
11. Summit +16% (+3,691) +23 (+849)
12. San Miguel +15% (+964) +43 (+415)
13. Pueblo +11% (+15,752) +12 (+1,890)
14. Denver +10% (+55,709) +46 (+25,626)
15. Gunnison +10% (+1,394) +13 (+181)
16. Pitkin +8% (+1,171) +42 (+492)
17. Las Animas +5% (+813) +10 (+81)
18. Boulder +4% (+12,194) +37 (+4,512)
19. Alamosa +3% (+458) +14 (+64)
20. Lake +3% (+234) +19 (+44)
21. Jefferson +2% (+9,866) +2 (+197)
22. San Juan -1% (-3) +12 (0)
23. Huerfano -4% (-304) +12 (-36)
24. Clear Creek -7% (-616) +11 (-68)
25. Conejos -7% (-556) +14 (-78)
26. Costilla -14% (-515) +45 (-231)

Total Gain in Democratic Counties: 344,660
Total Gain in Democratic counties adjusted for intensity of Democratic support: 44,987

Counties Ranked By Raw Population Growth adjusted For Intensity of Dem Support

1. Douglas -30,615
2. El Paso -23,656
3. Weld -15,503
4. Mesa -8,227
5. Montrose -3,431
6. Elbert -1,776
7. Delta -1,116
8. Archuleta -506
9. Montezuma -446
10. Garfield -375
11. Teller -373
12. Fremont -334
13. Park -236
14. Costilla -231
14. Custer -219
15. Kit Carson -168
16. Morgan -163
17. Crowley -142
18. Grand -118
19. Conejos -78
20. Logan -75
21. Clear Creek -68
22. Bent -56
23. Rio Blanco -55
24. Huerfano -36
25. Dolores -25
26. Chaffee -18
27. Mineral -3
28. San Juan 0
29. Moffat (omitted, no material effect on overall result)
30. Hinsdale (omitted, no material effect on overall result)
31. Phillips +3
32. Ouray +43
33. Lake +44
34. Yuma +45
35. Gilpen +51
36. Jackson +60
37. Alamosa +64
38. Sedgewick +75
39. Las Animas +81
40. Rio Grande +83
41. Otero +164
42. Kiowa +177
43. Gunnison +181
44. Jefferson +197
45. Saguache +248
46. Washington +263
47. Cheyenne +267
48. La Plata +301
49. Broomfield +336
50. Baca +349
51. Lincoln +395
52. San Miguel +415
53. Prowers +450
54. Larimer +469
55. Pitkin +492
56. Routt +680
57. Summit +849
58. Eagle +1,199
59. Pueblo +1,890
60. Arapahoe +2,322
61. Boulder +4,512
62. Adams +5,400
63. Denver +25,626

Politically Competitive Colorado Counties (Less Then Ten Point Gap) By Bennet Win Margin In Percentage Points, ranked by 2009 population (in parenthesis).

1. Arapahoe +3 (571,598)
2. Jefferson +2 (545,848)
3. Adams +7 (442,971)
4. Larimer +1 (299,284)
5. Broomfield +2 (55,861)
6. Garfield -3 (57,646)
7. La Plata +4 (51,664)
8. Chaffee -2 (17,322)
9. Grand -8 (14,622)
10. Gilpen +6 (5,604)
11. Ouray +5 (4,711)

Disclaimer - 2010 election results not offical, some data is from early returns.

Gender Gap Specific To Colorado?

I've written before at this blog about the GOP gender gap in Colorado. So, I was surprised to see in a Tribune report of November 5, 2010 on exit polling that this may have not mirrored national trends.

According to the story in the Denver Post that day:

The Democratic erosion was perhaps most accentuated by the flight of women, who were among the party's most enthusiastic supports in 2006 and 2008. According to exit-poll data, women essentially split their votes evenly between Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday. The last time this happened was in 2002.

White women, in particular, defected from Democrats, given their votes to Republicans by an 18-point margin. Similarly, 57 percent of married women voted for Republicans, while unmarried women - a more liberal group - turned out in smaller numbers than in 2008.

In contrast, in Colorado, women overall favored Democrats about 56%-44% in the U.S. Senate race, perhaps in part because Ken Buck was such a misogynist, and Tom Tancredo was also not a figure that Colorado women could embrace. In the 4th Congressional District, meanwhile, Republicans ran a man against an incumbent moderate Democrat who was a woman, and in the State Treasurer's race (the closest of the downticket statewide races) the Republicans also ran a man against an incumbent woman.

This may help explain why the Tea Party wave of Republican support wasn't nearly as strong in Colorado as it was in other states.

2010 Predictions Scorecard

Unlike most prophets, I admit when I've made mistakes and actively review the accuracy of my past predictions. 2010 was a worse than usual year for my prediction accuracy. I made my predictions on September 21 (not long after the primary results and issues to appear on the ballot were clear):

I. National Federal Election Results

1. The Democrats will retain control of the U.S. House, but will have a thinner majority.

Wrong by about 21 seats.

2. There will be fewer Blue Dog Democrats in the U.S. House, but they will remain politically important.

More than half of the Blue Dogs are gone. Their political importance isn't yet clear.

3. The Democrats will retain control of the U.S. Senate, but will have a thinner majority.

Right.

4. There will be fewer conservative Democrats in the U.S. Senate, but those that remain will remain politically important.

Right.

5. The Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate will have fewer moderates, and more members, and will filibuster Democratic legislation more often as a result.

There are fewer moderates. We'll see how many filibusters result.

6. Tea Party candidates for federal legislative offices will underperform their current polling in the actual November election.

Rasmussen consistently favored Republicans in its polling. In the Nevada Senate race, the Colorado U.S. Senate race and the Colorado Governor's race the Tea Party candidates underperformed their polling. The R&D Department will have to look into whether this was a consistent national trend.

II. Colorado Results In Federal Races

1. Incumbent Democrat John Salazar will easily defeat Republican challengerr Scott Tipton in Colorado's 3rd Congressional District, contrary to dubious classifications of the race as a toss up by the New York Times and 528.

Wrong.

2. Incumbent Democrat Ed Perlmutter will easily defeat Republican challenger Ryan Frazier in Colorado's 7th Congressional District. The New York Times and 528 have greatly overrated Frazier's odds of success.

Right.

3. Incumbent members of Congress will be re-elected in Colorado's 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th Congressional Districts. The margin of victory will be smaller than last year in the 1st and 2nd CDs and larger than last year in the 5th and 6th CDs.

Correct outcomes. The R&D Department will have to check on the margins of victory.

4. The U.S. Senate race in Colorado, the contest between Democrat Michael Bennet and Ken Buck is close, but Bennet has a somewhat better than 50-50 chance of winning by a narrow margin.

Right.

5. Incumbent Democrat Betsy Markey and Republican challenger Cory Gardner in Colorado's 4th Congressional district are in a toss up race. The most likely result in my view is that she will be re-elected with less than 50% of the votes cast with a conservative third party candidate depriving Cory Gardner of a win in this race.

Wrong.

III. State Elected Offices In Colorado

1. Democrats will control the state house and state senate in Colorado, but will lose some seats in each house of the Colorado General Assembly.

The Democrats kept control of the state senate and lost some seats in each house of the Colorado General Assembly. But, they appear to have lost control of the state house by a single seat by a matter of a couple hundred votes, with some vote continuing continuing as I write this post.

2. Every Democratic candidate for the Colorado General Assembly in Denver will win.

Right.

3. John Hickenlooper will be our next Governor in Colorado, easily defeating Tom Tancredo and Dan Maes. Tom Tancredo will probably get more votes than Dan Maes.

Right.

4. Incumbent Colorado State Treasurer Democrat Cary Kennedy, incumbent Colorado Secretary of State Democrat Bernie Buescher, incumbent Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, and incumbent Republican Steve Bosley in the CU Regent at Large Race, are all somewhat more likely to win than their challengers in races that are volatile because they will receive only a few pivotal moments of public attention.

The two Republican incumbents won. The two Democratic incumbents lost.

5. Republican Sue Sharkey will defeat Democrat Robert Bishop-Cotner in the CU-Regent race in CD-4 in Colorado. (Michael Carrigan who is unopposed in CD-1 in his run as an incumbent for CU-Regent will, of course, be re-elected.)

Right.

6. As a consequence of my predictions in the CU Regent at Large and CD-4 race for CU-Regent, Republicans will retain 5-4 control of the CU-Regents.

Right.

7. Republicans will retain 4-3 control of the Colorado State Board of Education with no seats changing political party control. The seats in CD-2, CD-5 and CD-6 are uncontested (at least by any major party candidate) in the general election.

Right.

8. Republican turnout in Colorado (on a percentage basis of the total voting electorate) will be lower than predicted by many polls to date.

I was wrong. The polls were about right on turnout. Note that this assumption explains many of my other missed predictions.

9. Democrats will control the redistricting process based on the 2010 census, which will give Democrats an edge in the 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections for the State House, State Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. Colorado will have seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives as a result of the 2010 Census.

Wrong.

IV. Colorado and Denver Ballot Issues

1. The ballot measure to create an Extraterrestrial Commission in Denver will be defeated. Even my kids and nerds interested in the possibility of extraterrestrial life oppose it.

Right.

2. Ballot issues 60, 61, 101 will be soundly defeated. These limit the ability of state and local governments in Colorado to borrow money and greatly reduce taxes. Floyd Ciruli's pollling shows that ballot issue 60 is already opposed by more voters than those that favor it, that issue 61 is favored by only slightly more than those that opposed it with 36% supporting it, and that issue 101 is favored by 51% with a large margin in favor, but bipartisan opposition and a long term trend for ballot issues to lose support over time will sink all three measures.

Right.

3. Ballot issue 62 (personhood) will be soundly defeated in Colorado, just as an almost identical ballot issue was in 2008.

Right.

4. Ballot issue 63, John Caldera's anti-health care initiative in Colorado, will fail.

Right.

5. Colorado Referrendum P moving bingo regulation to a different government department will pass. Simple house keeping amendments usually pass.

Wrong.

6. Colorado Referrendum Q (relocation of the capital in a disaster) will narrowly pass.

Right. Well, actually, it passed not so narrowly.

7. Colorado Referrendum R (property tax break for grazing leases and other low value leaseholds) will pass.

Wrong.

8. Colorado ballot issue 102, that will end personal recognizance bonds in many cases, will narrowly fail.

Right. Well, actually, it failed in a big way.

V. Colorado's Judicial Retention Elections

1. All appellate judges in Colorado will be retained in their retention elections, despite the efforts of Clear The Bench Colorado.

Right.

2. All trial court judges in Colorado recommended for retention (all but two of them).

Wrong (and less than articulate). Two retention recommended judges were not retained in Larimer County.

3. Denver County Judge Honorable Mary A. Celeste will be retained despite a "NO OPINION" rating from the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation.

Right.

4. 10th Judicial District Judge Honorable Jill S. Mattoon (Pueblo County) will not be retained, by a narrow margin, after having received a "DO NOT RETAIN" rating from the Colorado Office of Judicial Performance Evaluation.

Wrong.

VI. Miscellaneous

1. California Proposition 19, legalizing marijuana in California and taxing it, will pass. The federal government will by prosecutorial policy or Congressional action honor the wishes of California citizens in a way that does not provide complete certainty to marijuana users and dealers, in a turning point in the war on drugs that shifts public opinion on the issue.

Wrong.

2. There will be more Republican Governors after the election than there were before the election (currently there are 26 Democrats, 23 Republicans and 1 independent).

Right.

A New Welfare Program For Wealthy Suburbanites?

Douglas County, Colorado, which has second ring suburbs of Denver and Colorado Springs, is one of the most intensely Republican and one of the most affluent counties in Colorado. Tea Party candidates and Republicans did well there.

Republican Ken Buck bested Democrat Michael Bennet 68,507 to 40,123 in the U.S. Senate race in Douglas County. Republican Mike Coffman bested Democrat John Flerlage in the 6th Congressional District race in the county by 78,800 to 28,907. In the Colorado Governor's race 55,061 people in Douglas County backed American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancerdo, 12,530 backed Republican Dan Maes, and 45,947 backed Democrat John Hickenlooper. Down ticket state races favored Republicans over Democrats by roughly 2-1 margins, and they elected Republicans by similar margins in a state senate race and two contested state representative races (one state representative race had an uncontested Republican) and in every race for elected county office. Judicial retention election outcomes for the three Colorado Supreme Court justices targeted by "Clear the Bench" were just barely over 50% in favor of retaining the judges. Douglas County strongly favored Anti-Health Care Reform Amendment 63, which they backed 60,920 to 48,244.

The Douglas County School Board was elected with a slate of candidates organized by the local Republican party last year to oppose a teacher's union backed slate of candidates.

These are the people who have been arguing loudly for less government spending, and less government involvement in health care. They have strongly supported TABOR.

So, it comes as something of a surprise to see that two days after the 2010 election, the Douglas County School Board is proposing to create new entitlement program for county residents who send their children to private schools (99.3% religious) using state funds.

The Douglas County School District is examining starting a voucher program to give students state money to attend private or religious schools.

The school board this summer hired a Colorado Springs lawyer to develop a plan for a voucher system that would give parents 75 percent of state per-pupil funds to attend "nonpublic schools," which could include religious schools.

No other Colorado school district has a voucher program.

Right now, parents who want to send their children to private schools in Colorado have to do so with their own funds. Some school districts have relatively autonomous "charter schools" but those are still public schools.

The district paid Eric Hall, a Colorado Springs lawyer who was involved in the creation of the 2003 statewide voucher program, $8,165 to develop a draft voucher plan. The district also paid Hall a $5,000 retainer. . . . The district would create an office to administer the program, beginning in the 2011-12 school year.

Under the plan, any student who decided to attend a Douglas County private school would take with them 75 percent of the per-pupil funding the district receives from the state. The district receives $6,545 per student.

Private-school students using the vouchers would have to take statewide assessments or equivalent tests, and schools would have to track student academic growth.

The program would give 35 percent of per-pupil funding to students in kindergarten. Districts receive only partial funding for kindergarten.

Thus, this would program would hand $4,909 per student to almost every student attending the following schools in grades 1-12 (I exclude kindergarten and pre-K numbers from each school), and possibly some that I've missed (although the U.S. Department of Education identified only six private schools with post-kindergarten instruction).

1. Englewood, Jim Elliot Schools, 119 students, grades 6-12 ("Emphasizing a servant's heart and a missions mind, we are a different kind of Christian school." Non-denominational) Tuition $6,795, 4% receive financial aid on average $950.
2. Parker, Lutheran High School Rockies (Missouri Synod), 139 students, grades 9-12
3. Franktown, Brookstone Christian Academy, 19 students, grades 1-8
4. Franktown, Castlewood Christian School, 37 students, 1-9 ("Kindergarten-8th grade tuition is $325 for non Adventist members and $300 for SDA member." This may be per month.)
5. Franktown, Trinity Lutheran School (Missouri Synod), 72 students, 1-8
6. Highlands Ranch, Cherry Hills Christian School, 630 students, 1-8 (Tuition is "1-5: $6534 per year 6-8: $7369 per year")
7. Highlands Ranch, Highlands Ranch Christian School, 250 students, 1-8
8. Parker, Ave Maria Catholic School, 323 students, 1-8 Tuition is $4,995, 7% receive financial aid, on average $1,000.
9. Parker, Parker Montessori Educational Institute, 13 students, grades 1-3
10. Parker, Southeast Christian School, 219 students, 1-8

In all, there are 1,821 students in those schools in grades 1-8 now, with no state subsidy, and it is fair to assume there won't be significantly more in the near term with a voucher program, since schools can't easily expand in response to a possibly temporary government subsidy. Of those students, 99.3% are religious schools (all but 13 of those students).

The impact of the kindergarten voucher is harder to evaluate because there are far more private kindergarten programs and because the amount of the voucher isn't entirely clear.

Thus, Douglas County basically makes to draw an additional $8.9 million dollars and more of money from limited state level education funds beyond what it receives now for its public schools, in order to help affluent suburbanites in a county known for the quality of its public school system (it is "one of Colorado's wealthiest and highest performing" districts) who already attend religious private schools get a government entitlement. Only 8.37% of its 58,407 students receive free or reduced lunches (less than any school district in the state but Aspen, where the percentage is 6%), and it is fair to guess that few of those students would be attending private schools even with a voucher to pay part of the tuition cost.

Apparently, a government takeover of private education is not nearly so problematic as similar tax subsidies under President Obama's health care reform plan to help people purchase private health insurance (which, in a nutshell, is what "Obamacare" amounts to for the average person).

Meanwhile, non-private schools aren't doing so well in the county:

The Douglas County School District cut $36 million out of its budget for this school year, eliminating 264 jobs, 168 of which were teaching positions. The district also began charging students to take the bus and increased other fees.

Post-Election Reflections

Conservative Democrats bore the brunt of the losses yesterday in the Congressional races, with more than half of the Blue Dog seats ending up in GOP hands. Both seats lost in Colorado were Blue Dog seats.

As usual in midterm elections, a Democratic party failure to get its base to the polls was a key factor in its defeat.

The American political system is getting closer and closer to the model in which there are two very ideologically pure and almost equally represented political parties, the Democrats on the left, the Republicans on the right, representing districts that share their views. The number of conservative Democrats still left, and the number of liberal districts held by Republicans at the end of this election are similar.

In the U.S. Senate, despite losing many of moderates on both sides of the aisle in this election, the Democrats have more conservatives than the Republicans have moderates right now. This has the unfortunate implication that the Democrats in the Senate may be more likely to cave in on the issues that matter to them in negotiations than the Republicans.

Down at the grass roots, one of the most striking features of the 2010 election was the extreme gender bias and generation gap in voting behavior. Men really liked Republicans this cycle, while women really liked Democrats. Older people preferred Republicans, while younger people preferred Democrats. Exit polls showed male voters in the Governor's race with 44% favoring Hickenlooper, 12% Maes and 41% Tancredo, while women broke out 57% for Hickenlooper, 12% for Maes and 30% for Tancredo. In the Senate race, 44% of men backed Bennet and 54% backed Buck, while 56% of women backed Bennet and 40% backed Buck.

The nature of the gender bias doesn't make a lot of sense from a strictly rational policy perspective. The young surely have more to lose from big government budget deficits than the old, and the single biggest talking point of Tea Party Republicans this year was concern about the deficit. Also, the old have little reason from self-interest to support a political movement that wants to weaken Social Security and Medicare, positions about which Tea Party movement leaders were praticularly frank.

There likewise isn't a lot of reason to believe that women who are likely to vote have economic interests that are that different from men who are likely to vote. Often they are together in the same households.

The blatant misogyny of candidates like Ken Buck who carried the Tea Party banner, and general boorishness and conservative social values of both Dan Maes and Tom Tancredo in Colorado, which is typical of the movement as a whole, probably explains the differences in political outlook better. It is easy to see how this would push women away from the Republican party and Tea Party movement. A gross lack of compassion as a value held by the right in this election was also surely a factor.

It is a little harder to see, however, what the attaction of the movement is to men, and what Democrats could do to bring more men into the fold without alienating the women in its base.

Another striking aspect of this elections was the intensity with which places that disliked Democrats did so. Sixty-five percent of the people in Colorado live in counties where the leading candidates in the top of the ticket races were both Bennet and Hickenlooper, despite the fact that Bennet won less than half of the popular vote and defeated Buck by a fraction of a percentage point. Yet, their margin of support in favor of Bennet was matched by the strong opposition to Bennet in the counties with thirty-two percent of the people in Colorado in counties that opposed both Bennet and Mayor Hickenlooper. (Counties that supported Hickenlooper but opposed Bennet have just three percent of Colorado's population).

Counties that supported Republicans did so twice as intensely as those who supported Democrats. Of course, its really even more striking than that. A few areas of intense support for Democrats (Boulder and Denver, for example), balance out a few areas of intense support for Republicans (Douglas County and Colorado Springs, for example), with the first ring suburbs that contain the swing voters being decidely more lukewarm about both parties.

The historical urban-rural divide remains but the dividing line has extended from central cities to first ring suburbs, resort towns and rural areas with large Hispanic communities as well. Both Hickenlooper and Bennet won not only Denver and Boulder, but all of the first ring suburban counties around Denver and Boulder, all of the resort communities, and the better share of the San Luis Valley and Pueblo. Republican support was overhwelmingly rural, non-resort (an attitude that is still a part of Grand Junction, despite its metropolitan area status), exurban, or coming from the Colorado Springs area with its ties to religious conservatism, the defense industry, and the correctional system.

Colorado's most electorally successful politicians, like Ken Salazar and Governor Ritter, have conveyed a sense of connection with Colorado's rural way of life. Salazar played up his background in a farm community. Ritter shot long campaign ads featuring him driving across the plains in a pickup truck recounting his days as a pipe fitter.

There are policy disconnects in the geographic breakdown as well. Farm communities, that are more dependent upon immigrant labor than almost any other part of our economy, backed a candidate for Governor who has made a career of opposition to immigration. The farm communities are also an odd place for outrage over the state of the economy, because while most of the economy is in a horrible state, the farm economy of the United States is as prosperous as it has been for many years. Farm product prices are high. Crops yields have been reasonbly good. Farmers are having trouble finding workers, not experiencing intense unemployment. Colorado Springs, likewise, isn't particularly notable for its economic slump. Its core industries have not been lagging, and the city is in a growth phase.

A final piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that this election was a primal scream from the conservative base that was ideological and emotional, rather than based on policy, is that the Tea Party policies just didn't make any sense. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that you can't cut the deficit without raising taxes or cutting any of the main programs that account for government spending like defense, as Republicans promised in their "Contract With American" that was widely panned by policy wonks of both liberal and conservative persausions.

Democrats have a very hard time recognizing that elections are not just about which policy positions you prefer, and governing from elected office is not just about implementing the right policies. The public, and particularly unaffiliated voters who swing elections, want people they trust emotionally, and are remarkably oblivious to either the policy positions of candidates or the content of the policies that they implement in Washington or the state house.

The politically powerful part of the Republican narrative of the financial crisis was about bailouts as morally irresponible, not a empirically based discussion of whether they worked or whether they were effective.

In the same way, the debate about the death penalty is not really about whether the death penalty actually prevents crime, or whether it is cost effective, it is about securing retribution and just deserts for people who have done back things. Death penalty supporters don't want the establishment of our society charged with enforcing its moral commandments as expressed in criminal laws to come across as wimps. They want avenging angels, not expert criminology, even if expert criminology actuall works better.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats really do have a policy agenda with substance that has a reasonable chance of actually working. But, they have not sufficiently developed the narrative that frames that agenda in terms of moral values.

For example, despite the fact that Democrats put together a health care plan that would both provide access to health care for tens of millions of Americans, and do that in a way that would minimally involve government in either paying for or providing health care, the Republicans managed to turn health care issue into a debate about fear of bureaucracy and socialism and government scope, rather than about the moral imperative to provide health care for all that drove the legislation and the decidely non-socialist structure of the program. They did the right thing but they failed to communicate what they had done to the American people.

If Democrats want to do better, we need to get better at telling stories and connecting emotionally, and stop worrying so much about the details about how to get there that they teach in graduate school.

Dems Keep State Senate, GOP Wins State House

With the dust settled from the early Colorado election outcomes, it appears that the state house in Colorado has gone from 37 Democrats, 27 Republicans and one ex-Democrat to 32 Democrats and 33 Republicans.

In the state senate, the partisan divide has gone from 21 Democrats and 14 Republicans to 20 Democrats and 15 Republicans, with a real possiblity that one of the Democratic seats flip to the Republicans in a recount.

Republicans needed to win four Senate seats to reclaim the majority they lost in 2004, but so far have picked up just one, with state Rep. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango, beating Sen. Bruce Whitehead, D-Hesperus.

Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, held on to his seat, beating Republican Owen Hill by 252 votes.

In an open Senate seat in Jefferson County, former state Rep. Cheri Jahn defeated Republican Johh Odom.

And in a multi-county seat stretching from the western suburbs to mountain towns, Democrat Jeanne Nicholson was up by six votes over Republican Tim Leonard, according to a tweet from Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora.

In the House, Republicans succeeded in their quest to win six seats to win the majority.

They knocked off five incumbents: Debbie Benefield and Sara Gagliardi of Arvada, Dennis Apuan of Colorado Springs, Joe Rice of Littleton and Dianne Primavera of Broomfield.

The GOP picked up an open seat in Pueblo West with Keith Swerdferger winning the post now hold by Rep. Buffie McFadyen, a Democrat who is term limited.

Still unknown is the outcome in House District 61, where Rep. Kathleen Curry had switched her voter registration from Democrat to unaffiliated and had to wage a write-in campaign.

From here.

The Denver Post story on the race didn't resolve the outcome of House District 61, but it appears to have gone to the Democrat. In the House District 61 race, Republican Luke Korkowski of Mt. Crested Butte and Democrat Roger Wilson of Missouri Heights near Glenwood Springs faced each other in the five county district, with incumbent Rep. Kathleen Curry running as an independent write in candidate. She had been part of the Democratic caucus, but left the party last year in a move that limited her access to the ballot as a partisan candidate.

The unofficial final results from Garfield, Eagle, Pitkin, Hinsdale and Gunnison counties showed Wilson, the Democrat, leading Korkowski, the Republican, by 8,477 to 8,159 votes, with 5,349 write-in votes cast (plus an additional unknown number of write-in votes in Gunnison County), presumably almost all for Curry. To win, she would have needed to get more write-in votes in her home county of Gunnison than the other two candidates combined secured in Gunnison County, whcih is highly unlikely. So, House District 61 will probably go to Democrat Roger Wilson of Missouri Heights.

The loss of control of the state house is huge, forcing Democrats who will control the state senate and Governor's office into a position similiar to Democrats at the federal level, and denying them unfettered control over the redistricting process, unless they could persaude one of the newly elected Republicans in the state house to change parties.

Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat is now Governor-Elect, together with his Lieutenant Governor Joe Garcia. But Republican Scott Gessler won the race to be Colorado Secretary of State, Republican Walker Stapleton won the race to be Colorado State Treasurer, and Republican John Suthers retained his position as Colorado Attorney General.

Republicans retained control of the state board of education and the CU-Regents by one vote margins. All appellate judges facing retention elections were retained.

In federal races in Colorado, Democratic U.S. Senator Michael Bennet narrowly held onto his seat, but incumbent Democrats Bestsy Markey in the 4th Congressional District and John Salazar in the 3rd Congressional District were defeated by Republicans Cory Gardner and Scott Tipton respectively.

Early Colorado Election Results V

Bennet (D) has taken healthy lead over Buck (R) in U.S. Senate race, which is very close.

Hickenlooper and Garcia (D) easily won the race for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, but the GOP will probably not be demoted to minor party status as GOP candidate Maes appears to have captured 10% of the vote in the race. But, the American Constitution Party appears to have been upgraded to major party status by achieving more than 10% of the vote in the Governor's race despite not winning a single race in the entire state.

Turnout so far has been 1,627,284 voters, plus a modest number of undervotes and overvotes (about 23,000). This brings total turnout to slightly more than the 2006 midterm elections in absolute numbers of votes, but is low considering that more was at stake in this election than four years ago, and the population growth in Colorado in the last four years. A few more ballots have yet to be counted, so the final turnout total could be a little higher.

To recap other key Colorado races, Republicans appeared to have captured previously Democratically held Secretary of State and State Treasurer posts, and to have defeated incumbent Blue Dog Democrats in Colorado's 3rd and 4th Congressional Districts. The partisan balance of power remained the same on the State Board of Education and CU Regents, and the states other five Congressional Districts.

In the state senate, it appears that Republicans picked up two seats; they needed four to win control of the state senate. In the state house, it appears that Republicans needed to pick up six seats to gain control of the state house. There are six very close races, but the Republicans need to win every one of six very close races to accomplish that, which is less likely than not to happen. If Democrats keep control both houses of the Colorado General Assembly, then they control the redistricting process for the next decade based on the 2010 census.

All of the ballot issues but one were defeated. The one that passed allows the state capital to be relocated during a disaster and was referred by the legislature. Most, if not all, ballot measures over whether medical marijuana dispensaries should be allowed in local communities were defeated.

Early Colorado Results IV

At almost 2 a.m., Bennet has closed to less than 500 votes behind Buck and the uncounted voters are almost all in counties that favor Bennet.

With 51 Senate seats already in the hands of Democrats, Bennet would make 52. The Washington State seat which also looks likely to go blue would make 53. Alaska is undecided, but that race isn't going to be won by a Democrat. The plus of a 53 number is that it allows Lieberman and one other Democrat (or Bernie Sanders) to defect and still leave the Democrats with a majority without needing to call in the Vice President.

Cary Kennedy's run for State Treasurer has a glimmer of hope for the same reason, but has far more votes to make up in the last round of counting than Bennet.

It still looks like Democrats will hold the state senate and state house with reduced majorities.

Turnout so far is about 1.5 million. It now looks like there is a real chance that turnout will at least surpass the 1.6 million of 2006.

Prop 19 Defeated

California voters rejected Proposition 19 which would have legalized marijuana. The measure got about 45% of the vote in California.

Early Colorado Results III

Dems are trailing in a close U.S. Senate race, are trailing or very close all of the down ticket statewide races, and trailing badly in CO-3 (Salazar (D) v. Tipton (R)).

John Morse and Cheri Jahn, two Democrats is swing districts in the state senate are leading, making a GOP takeover of the state senate unlikely. I don't see more than about three potential GOP pickups in the state house races, so there is unlikely to be a change of control in the state house either.

This means that Democrats will probably control the Congressional redistricting process based on the 2010 census. They will likely go into that process with just three House Seats. If they do, my instinct is that they will try to redistrict with an eye towards creating four more winnable seats, rather than five harder to win seats.

The only state ballot measure to pass will be the emergency relocation of the state capital amendment. State voters wouldn't even back tax breaks in cases where it costs more to collect the tax than the taxes produce in revenues.

Turnout is looking like it will be below the 1.6 million votes cast in 2006, despite some close hard fought elections in this midterm, something that is always bad for Democrats. This may support the empirical evidence that mail-in ballots and early balloting actually decrease turnout, despite making it easier to vote.

Governor Ritter released his predictably painful (especially for higher education) budget for the 2011 General Assembly to consider. One shoe that has yet to drop is whether he will make any pardons as a lame duck.

Credit where credit is due. Fox News has the best election result layout this year in Colorado. The usually good 9News website lacked any county level information this year and had very odd statistics on turnout, with some jurisdictions have more than 100% of precincts reporting and others having near complete results with just one out of seventy-eight precincts, for example. It was also hard to access information without a lot of clicks.

Early Colorado Results II

* Cory Gardner (R) declared winner over Betsy Markey (D) in CO-4.

* SOS race now neck and neck. AG race shows widening Suthers (R) lead. Treasurer's race close.

* Bennet holding onto decent lead in U.S. Senate races. About 4% of conservatives are voting third party rather than voting for Buck. Bennet reputedly leads in bellwether Larimer and Jefferson Counties.

* John Salazar (D) is trailing Scott Tipton (R) in CO-3. But, race not being called yet by media.

* Bingo authority and property tax relief state referred ballot issues leaning towards defeat. State referred measure creating authority to move state capital out of Denver in a disaster leading.

Early Colorado Results

* Perlmutter (D) (CO-7) wins easily. Safe races in CO-1 (D), CO-2 (D), CO-5 (R), and CO-6 (R) turn out as expected.

* There are no upsets in any of the three State School Board district races, and two CU Regent At Large Races, all of which keep their party affiliation. The CU Regent At Large race is still close.

* Bernie Buescher (D) (CO SOS) wins on strength of 15% of voters favoring American Constitution Party candidate. The Colorado Treasurer and Colorado AG races are still close.

* All Appellate Judges are being retained despite Clear the Bench efforts to the contrary.

* Hickenlooper looks almost sure to win due to a split ticket with Tancredo on the American Constitution Party, probably reducing the GOP nominee Maes to less than 10% making it a minor party.

* All numbered state ballot issues (60, 61, 62, 63, 101 and 102) are heading to defeat. None were surprises except 102 (bail bonds) which there was no polling on, but it is going down to defeat by a 2-1 margin.

* Almost all local ballot issues on permitting medical marijuana dispensaries in a locality are coming out anti-marijuana.

Pre-Election Recap

Where were we when we started before the election, for those of you who weren't paying attention:

U.S.

President Obama (D)
Vice Presidnet Biden (D) (casts tie vote in Senate)

House: 255 D, 178 R (218 seats is a majority)
All 435 seats up for re-election

Senate: 57 D +2 Dem leaning Independents, 41 R (51 is majority, 60 is filibuster proof)
One-third of seats are up for re-election

Colorado

Governor Ritter (D)
Lt. Governor O'Brian (D)
Secretary of State Buescher (D)
State Treasurer Kennedy (D)
Attorney General Suthers (R)
All of the above seats are up for re-election

State House 37 D, 27 R, 1 ex-Democrat
All state house seats are up for re-election

State Senate 21 D, 14 R
Half of state senate seats are up for re-election

CU Regents 5 R, 4 D
State Board of Education 4 R, 3 D
About half of state education positions are up for re-election

Dems Sweep Denver; ET not Welcome

Denver's first set of results from 7 p.m., representing about half the vote, at least, shows Democrats sweeping the first Congressional District, the first CD district for the CU-Regents race, and all of the State Senate and State House races in the City and County, by safe margins.

Judge Celeste, who received a "no opinion" rating from the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission will be retained, as will all other Denver judges.

Denver Ballot Issue 300, asking voters to create an extra-terrestrial commission was defeated by an 85-15 margins.

RTD District C will be won by Angie Malpiede in an all write in election.

The non-partisan RTD District B is too close to call.