A Jayhawk buddy of mine who lives in Houston sent me this article regarding the senate race in Colorado. I thought you'd appreciate his take on the races in Colorado and Kansas.
2014 Campaign Crib Notes
Senate Update: A Troubling Trend For Democrats In Colorado
7:49 PMSep 25 By Nate Silver
U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado, waits for his turn to speak during a news conference at a Mexican restaurant in Aurora, Colorado, on Wednesday.
U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado, waits for his turn to speak during a news conference at a Mexican restaurant in Aurora, Colorado, on Wednesday.
Brennan Linsley / AP
The battle for Senate control has been close all year, but also remarkably consistent. Way back in March, we described Republicans as slight favorites to pick up the chamber. And since FiveThirtyEight officially launched its forecast model this month, Republicans have had between a 53 and a 65 percent chance of winning the Senate. Our most recent update, as of Thursday evening, is close to the middle of that range, putting Republicans' takeover chances at about 58 percent.
SENATEUPDATE There's no guarantee things will remain this way. At just about this time two years ago, Democrats broke open what had been a stalemate in the battle for Senate control. The FiveThirtyEight forecast had the race almost even at the beginning of September 2012, but had Democrats as an 80 percent favorite by the end of that month.
This year, however, has been characterized by what Charlie Cook calls "head fakes." Just 10 days ago, Democrats had been benefiting from a string of good polls in Colorado. Since then, the Democratic incumbent in Colorado, Sen. Mark Udall, has seen his situation worsen, with the past five polls showing a lead for Republican Cory Gardner instead.
The chart below tracks polls of Colorado's Senate race since June 1. It lists both the margin as originally provided in the poll, and the margin the FiveThirtyEight model uses after the various adjustments it applies. A few of the earlier polls were of registered voters, rather than likely voters, so the model adjusts those toward the Republican, Gardner. On the other hand, some of the more recent polls have had a Republican-leaning "house effect," so the model adjusts those toward Udall.
silver_CO_sen_update
Even with these adjustments, the trend isn't favorable for Udall. All five polls between Aug. 26 and Sept. 11 had him ahead. All five since have shown him behind.
Could this just be a coincidence? Absolutely. If you're tracking dozens of races for months at a time, you're going to find a few weird patterns like these - and sometimes they're just statistical noise. The FiveThirtyEight forecast still sees the race as very close. Gardner is only a 56 percent favorite, in part because the model places a fair amount of weight on the earlier polls.
In this case, however, there's a credible hypothesis to explain the trend toward Gardner. Whereas a few weeks ago, Udall had a heavy advertising advantage in Colorado, more recent ad placements have been almost even, according to data from Echelon Insights, a Republican analytics and consulting firm. Advertising blasts can sometimes produce temporary bounces in the polls; perhaps Udall had one a few weeks ago.
The troublesome implication for Udall is that race may slightly favor Gardner when ad spending is even.
The silver lining for Udall is that perhaps he'll be able to regain an advertising advantage when it matters most, in the closing days of the campaign. As of June 30, Udall had $5.7 million in cash on hand compared to Gardner's $3.4 million, according to the Federal Election Commission.
But those figures are somewhat out of date; the FEC will release new ones next month. Which candidate raised more money in the third fiscal quarter? Which one had a higher burn rate? Which one will be helped more by outside groups? Which one is doing a better job of buying the right ad placements?
These aren't sexy questions, but they're important for understanding the movement in the polls - and they may determine who controls the Senate next year.
NATESILVER2_LIGHT
Me: I don't understand how a democrat can't win a liberal state.
You are right. Colorado is not a red state, but it ain't a blue one either. It is a solidly purple state. Yes, there are liberal hippies in Boulder, Denver, and Aspen (and hardcore working class liberal areas like Pueblo and Durango) but eastern Colorado and the Western slope are solid red areas. Colorado Springs is the home the Air Force Academy, Fort Carson Army Base, and the Christian Coalition (Charles Dobson). Fort Collins and the other front range suburbs of Denver and CO Springs are solidly red.
The red areas are in balance with the blue areas. Colorado bounces back and forth from blue streaks to red streaks. They happen to be in red streak because the liberals who control the legislature right now went overboard and passed gun control measures. The gun control thing was the straw that broke the camels back and it awoke the sleeping red areas that were basically sleeping through Democrat/liberal/hippie leadership. The red areas were happy as long the hippies and other liberals were passing marijuana legislation. But got off their ass when the gun control BS hit.
That's my take on Colorado.
In Kansas, there is a liberal Democrat pretending to be an independent running against a tired old man, who happens to be an establishment Republican who doesn't even have a home in Kansas and who has lost touch with the state.
I think the liberal Democrat Orman is going to fool people all the way through election day because Roberts is incompetent and worn out.
If I lived in Kansas again I would vote for Roberts but I sure as hell would hold my nose because he has done one lousy ass job. He should announced his retirement and let a younger Tea Party type Republican get the nomination and I don't think we would be looking at the first liberal Democrat U.S. Senator from Kansas since 1932, FDR's first term in office.
2014 Campaign Crib Notes
Senate Update: A Troubling Trend For Democrats In Colorado
7:49 PMSep 25 By Nate Silver
U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado, waits for his turn to speak during a news conference at a Mexican restaurant in Aurora, Colorado, on Wednesday.
U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado, waits for his turn to speak during a news conference at a Mexican restaurant in Aurora, Colorado, on Wednesday.
Brennan Linsley / AP
The battle for Senate control has been close all year, but also remarkably consistent. Way back in March, we described Republicans as slight favorites to pick up the chamber. And since FiveThirtyEight officially launched its forecast model this month, Republicans have had between a 53 and a 65 percent chance of winning the Senate. Our most recent update, as of Thursday evening, is close to the middle of that range, putting Republicans' takeover chances at about 58 percent.
SENATEUPDATE There's no guarantee things will remain this way. At just about this time two years ago, Democrats broke open what had been a stalemate in the battle for Senate control. The FiveThirtyEight forecast had the race almost even at the beginning of September 2012, but had Democrats as an 80 percent favorite by the end of that month.
This year, however, has been characterized by what Charlie Cook calls "head fakes." Just 10 days ago, Democrats had been benefiting from a string of good polls in Colorado. Since then, the Democratic incumbent in Colorado, Sen. Mark Udall, has seen his situation worsen, with the past five polls showing a lead for Republican Cory Gardner instead.
The chart below tracks polls of Colorado's Senate race since June 1. It lists both the margin as originally provided in the poll, and the margin the FiveThirtyEight model uses after the various adjustments it applies. A few of the earlier polls were of registered voters, rather than likely voters, so the model adjusts those toward the Republican, Gardner. On the other hand, some of the more recent polls have had a Republican-leaning "house effect," so the model adjusts those toward Udall.
silver_CO_sen_update
Even with these adjustments, the trend isn't favorable for Udall. All five polls between Aug. 26 and Sept. 11 had him ahead. All five since have shown him behind.
Could this just be a coincidence? Absolutely. If you're tracking dozens of races for months at a time, you're going to find a few weird patterns like these - and sometimes they're just statistical noise. The FiveThirtyEight forecast still sees the race as very close. Gardner is only a 56 percent favorite, in part because the model places a fair amount of weight on the earlier polls.
In this case, however, there's a credible hypothesis to explain the trend toward Gardner. Whereas a few weeks ago, Udall had a heavy advertising advantage in Colorado, more recent ad placements have been almost even, according to data from Echelon Insights, a Republican analytics and consulting firm. Advertising blasts can sometimes produce temporary bounces in the polls; perhaps Udall had one a few weeks ago.
The troublesome implication for Udall is that race may slightly favor Gardner when ad spending is even.
The silver lining for Udall is that perhaps he'll be able to regain an advertising advantage when it matters most, in the closing days of the campaign. As of June 30, Udall had $5.7 million in cash on hand compared to Gardner's $3.4 million, according to the Federal Election Commission.
But those figures are somewhat out of date; the FEC will release new ones next month. Which candidate raised more money in the third fiscal quarter? Which one had a higher burn rate? Which one will be helped more by outside groups? Which one is doing a better job of buying the right ad placements?
These aren't sexy questions, but they're important for understanding the movement in the polls - and they may determine who controls the Senate next year.
NATESILVER2_LIGHT
Me: I don't understand how a democrat can't win a liberal state.
You are right. Colorado is not a red state, but it ain't a blue one either. It is a solidly purple state. Yes, there are liberal hippies in Boulder, Denver, and Aspen (and hardcore working class liberal areas like Pueblo and Durango) but eastern Colorado and the Western slope are solid red areas. Colorado Springs is the home the Air Force Academy, Fort Carson Army Base, and the Christian Coalition (Charles Dobson). Fort Collins and the other front range suburbs of Denver and CO Springs are solidly red.
The red areas are in balance with the blue areas. Colorado bounces back and forth from blue streaks to red streaks. They happen to be in red streak because the liberals who control the legislature right now went overboard and passed gun control measures. The gun control thing was the straw that broke the camels back and it awoke the sleeping red areas that were basically sleeping through Democrat/liberal/hippie leadership. The red areas were happy as long the hippies and other liberals were passing marijuana legislation. But got off their ass when the gun control BS hit.
That's my take on Colorado.
In Kansas, there is a liberal Democrat pretending to be an independent running against a tired old man, who happens to be an establishment Republican who doesn't even have a home in Kansas and who has lost touch with the state.
I think the liberal Democrat Orman is going to fool people all the way through election day because Roberts is incompetent and worn out.
If I lived in Kansas again I would vote for Roberts but I sure as hell would hold my nose because he has done one lousy ass job. He should announced his retirement and let a younger Tea Party type Republican get the nomination and I don't think we would be looking at the first liberal Democrat U.S. Senator from Kansas since 1932, FDR's first term in office.
