By Jim Spencer
SpencerSpeaks.com
January 14, 2008
The Republican advantage in registered voters in Colorado is disintegrating, according to numbers compiled by Colorado Public Radio. The trend seems to favor moderate Democrats in statewide races and could affect the 2008 U.S. presidential election.
Numbers assembled by Dan Meyers, the editor of KCFR’s Public Insight Network and a producer and host of the show Colorado Matters, reveal that between December 2003 and December 2007, the margin of registered Republicans over registered Democrats shrank by 57,430. In the same period, the margin of registered Republicans over registered unaffiliated voters shrank by a whopping 123,375.
Republicans still enjoy a lead over Democratic and unaffiliated voters, Meyers said. But the GOP is currently registering new voters at a much slower rate than either of its rivals.
In the last four months of 2007, said Meyers, “Democrats are adding new voters at almost twice the rate of Republicans. And unaffiliateds are adding new voters at almost three times the rate of Republicans.â€
KCFR began airing news reports about the findings Monday.
Meyers started looking into voting data after anecdotal information from Colorado Public Radio’s Public Insight Network suggested political dissatisfaction. The Public Insight Network solicits reactions from regular people on all kinds of issues, but it is voluntary and not statistically valid.
“What we saw from the Public Insight Network was dissatisfaction on the part of some with the leading political parties,†Meyers said. “The Public Insight Network is not a scientific survey. It made me curious.â€
The voter registration numbers Meyers crunched came from the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. The startling increases in new Democratic and unaffiliated registrations came from three sources, Meyers said. They came from Coloradans who just reached voting age or registered for the first time; they came from out-of-state voters who moved to Colorado; or they came from people switching parties. There is no statewide breakdown for how many people fell into each category, Meyers said.
Still, the number of registered Republicans in the state actually shrank from 1,044,027 in December 2005, said Meyers, to 1,008,541 in December 2007, a loss of 35,486 voters.
Unaffiliated registrants, meanwhile, increased from 961,018 in December 2005 to 994,575 in December 2007, an increase of 33,557. Registered Democrats, by comparison, only increased from 871,027 in 2005 to 875,650 in 2007.
However new Democratic and unaffiliated voters arrived, the numbers spell continued bad news for Republicans. Democrats still have the fewest registered voters in the three main voter categories – Republican, Democrat and unaffiliated – yet Democratic candidates won the 2004 U.S. Senate race and the 2006 governor’s race. The Dems also took over control of both houses of the General Assembly in 2004.
With the U.S. presidency and an open U.S. Senate seat on the line in 2008, the Democrats seem well-positioned, based on the registration numbers. Dems and unaffiliateds registering at two and three times the rate of Republicans is especially problematic for the GOP.
But the numbers show something else. Democrats are most likely to win if they stick to the strategy adopted by Democratic U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar and Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter. That strategy can be summed up in a single word:
Moderation.
Salazar and Ritter have enraged some of their party’s base with their moderate positions on issues. The Democratic presidential nominee will need that same image of moderation to have a chance to win Colorado as the national Democratic party hopes to do for the first time in more than a decade.
For the same reason, Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall must battle every attempt to brand him “a Boulder liberal.â€
On the other hand, the voter registration numbers bode even worse for Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, a doctrinaire right-winger.
Based on the numbers Meyers crunched, it looks like satisfying either major party’s base may not be as critical as running to the middle from the start.
While it seems to be moving toward Blue State status, Colorado remains defiantly purple.
Nobody from either major party wins a statewide race in Colorado without pulling in a major number of unaffiliated voters.
There are nearly 90,000 more of those unaffiliated voters today than there were in 2003. And they are still very fickle.
Copyright 2008 by Jim Spencer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
9 users commented in " Voter Registrations Bode Badly for GOP "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackJim,
By saying “running to the middle”, do you mean lie about their intentions? Then when they get elected declare a “mandate” to do whatever that they want? Different from what they ran on? If they remain true to their intentions, to remain moderate after election, will you then write columns (forgetting about what you just said here about the middle of the road folks being key in the vote) discussing how these Democrats are betraying the people who you will then say voted them in, the liberal? I imagine so.
If we can keep this quiet, Jim, it just might work…
You are exactly right about how some candidates are trying to stay in the middle and in some cases, out of anything controversial.
Salazar has done a good job of that. When elected, I believe some supporters thought he would represent their liberal viewpoint. Lefty Salazar quickly dropped the “Lefty” part.
Instead we find Salazar voting on each issue not based on some liberal philosophy. However, will we see him go a little more conservative based on the GOP and independent voter registrations?
On the issue of immigration, we have seen at least “one liberal Democrat from Boulder” co-sponsoring a piece of legislation that Tancredo is also supporting. That doesn’t sound like seeking a moderate position to me. More like listening for which way the wind is blowing on immigration.
In the end, the politicians will say what the voters want to hear. And so when they go to Washington, we have no idea where they will end up on issues.
So vote, but when you do, don’t expect your candidate to believe what you believe…it will only depend on which way the wind is blowing and who has the edge on registrations and possible voters.
Quiet or not, I certainly hope this trend continues. I’m not from Boulder, but I’d very much like to have a “Boulder Liberal” in the Senate from Colorado. However, I’m well aware that that won’t happen given Colorado’s fear of substantial shaking-up of the status quo. That being the case, if a candidate has to “run to the middle” to get elected, so be it. And that’s true to some degree even if the candidate is a Republican. If the growth in “moderate” votes means that lunatic right-wing agendas can no longer be pursued with the enthusiasm of previous years, hallelujah!
Well said, all around! We all know candidates run to the middle to get elected, and then vote their conscience. Look at Hillary; now she’s taking heat for it. Look at “rightie” Salazar! I can’t count on two hands the number of times I’ve written to condemn him for his vote on a variety of things including letting gun makers off the hook and for the war. He’s the one who introduced and promoted “his good friend” Gonzo, and his OTHER “good friend” is another rightie, Lieberman, who he wants to be like Salazar is the biggest disappointment as a Dem, and should be replaced, but I don’t buy into this “run to the middle” AFTER getting elected. Vote the people’s agenda who got you elected. If the state wants a more middle of the ground response, vote that way. I believe Colorado wants out of this war and to stop funding it - can someone tell Salazar to vote what the state wants and not his national security fears?
It’s not surprising that the newly unaffiliated GOPS have become disillusioned with their party. What took them so long?
But the Democrats, when given a mandate in 06 only half-tried to complete their mandate of ending the war and sided WITH the president on immigration issues. There is disillusionment all around. A lot of these independents belong to the vanishing middle class and I’d guess the next election will hinge on what these independents do.
To quote a song: “Left or right, right or left, man it’s all the same”
Is a Boulder liberal worse that a Colorado Springs conservative crazy, such as Douglas Bruce?
The moderates will decide the presidential election which is why Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee will be losing candidates.Both are polarizing candidates.
In my view, the decrease in Colorado citizens registering with the GOP is a reflection of dissatisfaction with the President and his administration. As Wildflower states, why has it taken so long, and what does it say for the 30% of the people that think the President is going a great job.
Wildflower,
That’s the point here. The Democrats did not really have a mandate. As Jim points out here, 1/3 of the voters in Colorado (and I suspect the country as a whole too) are independent. There is not mandate to do anything that accomodates either fringe element, left or right. Which is good. Both parties desire candidates that are electable by appealing to the middle of the road guy that is just trying to pay his bills.
Because people are inherently narcissistic, they believe that their point of view is the only one where “the people have spoken”. We hear that a lot here. If the people had REALLY “spoken”, some of the issues that we hear constantly about on Jim’s site would already be passed.
The only way that we are going to advance in this society is if we all come together and compromise for the common good. Name calling and bitter finger pointing only perpetuates a cycle of “do nothingness”.
What’s the difference between what is now called a “moderate” Democrat and what used to be called a “moderate” Republican? Many of us, myself included, will continue to be unrepresented in this “democracy.” There is no one left in the presidential race for me to support who has a ghost of a chance for winning. It is long past time to abolish the two party system and the Electoral College. Global corporations, especially those that manufacture weapons, will continue to run everything no matter who wins.
Not long ago, polls showed that 70% of the public opposed the war in Iraq. Whoever wins this election is guaranteed to continue the war for at least four more years. How is that democratic?
Democracy does not work in this country whether you participate or not.
Watching the debate tonight it occurred to me that John Edwards is the exception to running to the middle. He is running to the left. Unfortunately, his voting record and recent employment history does not reflect those values..
Voted for nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain..”made a mistake”
Voted for the bankruptcy bill..”made a mistake”
Voted for the war in Iraq..”made a mistake”
He keeps on railing on Obama and Hillary about accepting money from the pharmaceutical industry, but doesn’t mention that the hedgefund (Fortress, an offshore corporation that is a tax haven for the wealthy) that he was employed part time (earning $500k) donated $150,000 collectively to his campaign. Included the maximum amount from a secretary. For those who don’t know, hedgefunds are the vehicles by which ’subprime’ mortgage loans were (are) bought and sold. Butter doesn’t melt in his mouth..Two America’s indeed!!!
This debate was a total waste of time..Dennis Kucinich would have at least kept them honest, but was excluded.. I am sure that the candidates are glad (or perhaps had something to do with it) that the thorn in their side is gone..
I might add that Obama at least does not appear to speak with a “forked tongue” as much as Hillary and Edwards.
These candidates have nothing to offer, except b.s.