Swing State Project

PPP (pdf) (12/11-13, likely voters, 11/9-11 in parentheses):

Elaine Marshall (D): 37 (34)

Richard Burr (R-inc): 42 (45)

Undecided: 21 (21)

Kenneth Lewis (D): 37 (32)

Richard Burr (R-inc): 43 (45)

Undecided: 21 (23)

Cal Cunningham (D): 36 (31)

Richard Burr (R-inc): 45 (44)

Undecided: 20 (25)

Generic Democrat (D): 41 (40)

Richard Burr (R-inc): 42 (44)

Undecided: 17 (16)

(MoE: ±4.0%)

Civitas (12/1-3, likely voters, 10/20-21 in parentheses):

Elaine Marshall (D): 32 (33)

Richard Burr (R-inc): 40 (43)

Undecided: 21 (24)

Generic Democrat (D): 40 (NA)

Generic Republican (R): 39 (NA)

Undecided: 21 (NA)

(MoE: ±4.0%)

The new numbers in the North Carolina Senate race, I’m surprised to say, don’t look half bad. While Richard Burr was looking like his lot had been improving in recent months, today’s PPP poll shows Burr leading his best-known Democratic opponent, SoS Elaine Marshall, by only 5 points, and the elusive “Generic Democrat” by only 1. In fact, I’d be inclined to think that PPP got a lucky bounce with a favorable sample here, if we didn’t have separate confirmation from Civitas with similar numbers. They find Marshall a little further back, but with a similar positive trend, and they find a 1-point gap in favor of Generic D over Generic R in their first attempt at a generic ballot.

So is there an easing in the anti-Democratic sentiment here, perhaps as we start to show tangible signs of economic rebound? I wouldn’t generalize that, based on how little the same sample likes Kay Hagan (36/44 approvals) or Bev Perdue (a dire 27/53). Instead, I think we’re seeing an electorate so surly they hate all incumbents, regardless of their stripes: Burr’s not much better, at 35/37 (at least he can take some comfort in that he’s gotten 70% of the electorate to know who he is). Elaine Marshall’s the only person they’ve tested who’s in the net positives, at 19/12 — and that low name rec points to room to grow.

RaceTracker Wiki: NC-Sen

We’ve been patiently waiting for the New York State Board of Elections to certify the results of the NY-23 special election so that we could name the winners of our 2009 predictions contest. Well, the numbers are finally in, so here we are! But first, thanks as always to everyone who participated. We received 110 valid entries, which is about as many as we had in 2008. Not bad for an off-year election!

If you are listed as a winner, send me an email and I will send you a super-delicious Green’s babka posthaste. Without further ado:

Congratulations to all the winners! If you’d like to find out how you did, please click here. The average score was 29. KainIIIC, Tiger in Blue Denver, and overall winner Zeitgeist9000 nailed NY-23 exactly (average error: 7). No one got NJ-Gov on the nose, though GoodWellOK and third-place finisher pinhickwv were off by just one point (average error: 9). Six folks got VA-Gov (second-place finisher andyroo312, brownsox, gabjoh, GOPVOTER, PropJoe & Zeitgeist9000, once again), while seven got ME-Init (bennytoothpick, David Kowalski, DGM

GoodWellOK, Lois, Mark & stevenaxelrod). (Average errors were 5 and 7, respectively.) Also, only one person correctly picked the victors of all four races. NJCentrist rightly named Owens, Christie, McDonnell and “Yes” as the winners of the four big 2009 races. Nice going!

In any event, props once again to our winners, and thanks once more to all who participated. If you didn’t win this time, have no fear – one thing I can predict is that there will be more babka in the very near future!

Speculation about outgoing NYC Comptroller Bill Thompson’s future has been all over the place. Rumors include a run for state comptroller, a run for Charlie Rangel’s House seat, a second run for mayor in 2013, or a primary challenge to appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. That last possibility is the subject of two new polls, which offer widely differeing results.

Quinnipiac (12/7-13, registered voters, no trendlines):

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 28

Bill Thompson (D): 41

Other: 1

Undecided: 28

(MoE: ±3.7%)

As you might expect, Thompson cleans up among black voters, 65-11. Interestingly, he also leads among women, 39-28. Gillibrand gets good favorables among Democrats (34-7), but Thompson, probably by virtue of his recent mayoral campaign, is even better known among members of his own party (45-6). In the state as a whole, both Dems have pretty low name rec, with Gillibrand at just 26-15 faves and Thompson at 25-10. (This almost certainly explains why both are shown losing to non-candidate Rudy Giuliani – Gillibrand is down 50-40, and Thompson is down 52-36.)

Siena (PDF) (12/6-9, registered voters, no trendlines):

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-inc): 32

Bill Thompson (D): 23

Harold Ford (D): 7

Jonathan Tasini (D): 3

Undecided: 35

(MoE: ±5.5%)

Somewhat hilariously, Siena tested Harold Ford (yeah, that Harold Ford) – hopefully this is the last we’ll hear of that nonsense. In any event, while the Dem head-to-head margins diverge considerably, both pollsters show Gillibrand with similar levels of support. Also, some of the favorables (PDF) don’t look too different. Gillibrand is 31-22 overall and 35-18 among Dems, while Thompson is at 25-17 and 32-16 (that last number differs the most). Gillibrand nets similar numbers against Rudy (49-42), but edges Pataki (46-43), while Thompson loses 56-34 and 49-36, respectively.

So it’s hard to say what exactly is going on here. Polling folks with such low name recognition can be tricky. What’s more, neither Siena nor Quinnipiac divulges their sample composition (come on, guys), so we can’t judge who best has their finger on the pulse of the state. I’ll also note that Siena had a smaller sample than Q – exactly how small, I’m not sure, because they didn’t reveal their Dem-only sample size. But Quinnipiac tested more Dems (719) than Siena’s entire sample (665). (UPDATE: Siena’s Dem sample size was 315.) Anyhow, this may all be moot if Thompson doesn’t take the plunge, but food for thought nonetheless.

And we’re here to serve it up – or hide it in the dryer. Rasmussen (12/15, likely voters, 10/19 in parens):

Charlie Crist (R): 43 (49)

Marco Rubio (R): 43 (35)

Some other: (5) (4)

Not sure: 9 (12)

(MoE: ±5%)

It’s a tie game. Maybe this explains why Charlie Crist didn’t celebrate his first anniversary with his wife – the campaign is clearly demanding too much from him.

Not so fast, said the DCCC to the doomsayers:

At least 2 members who have been targets of an orchestrated GOP effort to goad them into retiring have told DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen they will run again over the past day. Spokespeople for Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Tim Holden (D-PA) say the incumbents will seek another term. …

Meanwhile, other potentially vulnerable incumbents have also assured the DCCC they are staying put. Reps. Ben Chandler (D-KY), Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Chet Edwards (D-TX) all told Dem leaders they would seek additional terms. A spokesperson for Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN) later said he will run for re-election as well.

Reid Wilson, who has done yeoman work tracking down retirement rumors, also reports that his sources say they expect Rick Boucher (VA-09) to run again. The GOP’s gung-ho attempts to goad various red-seat Dems into retirement may be having the opposite effect, if it’s pushing Dems to circle the wagons (and getting some competitive juices flowing again). In any event, this is some good pushback by Chris Van Hollen and the D-Trip.

Of course, there are still plenty of other names to be concerned about – our open seat watch still has several Democratic names on it, and several more have been the subject of recent rumors. I’m hoping, though, that some wobbly members of our caucus will take some cues from an old warhorse like Skelton and say to themselves, “If he can do it once more, then so can I.”

UPDATE: Maybe my theory is right:

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) even publicly announced he’s definitely running again, and bashed Republicans for spreading rumors that he was thinking of stepping down.

“I don’t know why anyone would give credibility to these Republican rumors. I’m running for re-election and anyone who knows me knows that what I’m doing now is what I’ve always done,” Peterson said in a statement. “My paperwork is on file and in February I’ll make an official announcement.”

UPDATE No. 2: I’ve changed the title, in light of the extra information in the Politico piece, which notes that Earl Pomeroy has also told the DCCC he’s running again. (So has Paul Kanjorski, but Obama won his district handily.) Marion Berry is also expected to run again, according to the piece. So that’s seven red-seat yeses and two probablies (Boucher and Berry). Not bad for a day’s work.

• CT-Sen: You know you’re in trouble when the trade publications that cover you start asking what your exit strategy is. CQ has an interesting piece that delves into the how, when, and where of how Chris Dodd might excuse himself from his not-getting-any-better Senate race, and it also asks who might take his place.

• DE-Sen: CQ has another speculative piece about another troublesome seat for Dems: what happens if Beau Biden doesn’t show up for his planned Senate race (he’s been mum so far, although most people expect him to run). The uncomfortable truth is there just isn’t much of a Plan B there, but options could include New Castle County Exec Chris Coons, or elbow-twisting Ted Kaufman to actually stand for re-election.

• CO-Gov: Considering how deep a hole Michael Bennet was in vis-a-vis Jane Norton, it shouldn’t be a surprise that Rasmussen’s gubernatorial numbers from last week’s Colorado sample aren’t very appetizing either. Republican ex-Rep. Scott McInnis leads incumbent Dem Bill Ritter 48-40, despite Ritter having 50% approval. (The thing is, he also has 50% disapproval. Rasmussen still managed to find 1% of all likely voters who don’t know. Which, of course, adds up to 101%.)

• HI-01: Rep. Neil Abercrombie is saying he’ll resign in a matter of weeks, not months. He still wouldn’t give a specific date, citing the uncertainty of timing of major votes coming up in the short term (not just health care reform, but also the locally-important Native Hawaiian recognition act).

• IA-03: Another Republican is getting into the field against Rep. Leonard Boswell, who’s never quite gotten secure in this swing district. Retired architect Mark Rees will join state Sen. Brad Zaun and former wrestling coach Jim Gibbons in the GOP primary; Rees seems to be striking a lot of moderate notes, in contrast to the rest of the field.

• IL-10: With state Rep. Julie Hamos having gotten the AFSCME’s endorsement yesterday, her Democratic primary opponent, Dan Seals, got his own big labor endorsement today, from the Illinois Federation of Teachers.

• MS-01: Despite having a painstakingly-cleared field for him, state Sen. Alan Nunnelee is still getting a primary challenge, apparently from the anti-establishment right. Henry Ross, the former mayor of Eupora, made his campaign official. Eupora, however, is tiny, and nowhere near the Memphis suburbs; remember that Tupelo-vs.-the-burbs was the main geographical fissure in the hotly contested and destructive GOP primary last year that paved the way for Democratic Rep. Travis Childers to win.

• NJ-03: Here’s another place where the Republican establishment got hosed by a primary-gone-bad last year, and where they’d like to avoid one next year: New Jersey’s 3rd. This is one where the county party chairs have a lot of sway, and candidates aren’t likely to run without county-level backing. Burlington County’s chair William Layton is already backing NFL player Jon Runyan, so the real question is what happens in Ocean County. Other possible GOP candidates include Toms River councilman Maurice Hill, assistant US Attorney David Leibowitz, Assemblyman Scott Rudder, and state Sen. Chris Connors.

• NY-19: Another report looks at the discontent brewing in the 19th, where Assemblyman Greg Ball bailed out, leaving wealthy moderate ophthalmologist Nan Hayworth in command of the GOP field. Much of the discontent seems to be less teabagger agita and more about a personal dispute between the Orange Co. GOP chair and Hayworth’s campaign advisor, but there are also concerns that Hayworth’s country-club positioning won’t work well in the blue-collar counties further upstream from her Westchester County base. Alternative challengers being floated include Tuxedo Park former mayor David McFadden and Wall Street guy Neil DiCarlo, as well as state Sen. Vincent Leibell, who may be unethused about running a GOP primary to hold his Senate seat against Ball and looking for something else to do.

• TN-06: The newly-open 6th may not be as much of a lost cause as everyone thinks; despite its dwindling presidential numbers, Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen won the district in both 2002 (with 52%) and 2006 (with 67%). The article also names some other Republicans who might show up for the race, besides state Sen. Jim Tracy and former Rutherford Co. GOP chair Lou Ann Zelenik (both already in): businessman Kerry Roberts, state Sen. Diane Black, Army Reserve Maj. Gen. Dave Evans, and real estate agent Gary Mann. One other Dem not previously mentioned is former state Sen. Jo Ann Graves.

• TX-17: Although they didn’t get the state Senator they wanted, Republicans seem pleased to have lined up a rich guy who can pay his own way against Rep. Chet Edwards: businessman Bill Flores. Flores has also made a name as a big contributor to his alma mater Texas A&M, a big presence in the district. 2008 loser Rob Curnock also remains in the GOP field.

• WA-03: Lots happening in the 3rd. One official entry is no surprise, given what we’d already heard this week: young Republican state Rep. Jaime Herrera is in. On the Dem side, as I expected, state Sen. Craig Pridemore is telling people he’s in, although hasn’t formalized anything. (H/t conspiracy.) Pridemore, who’s from central Vancouver, is probably one or two clicks to the left of state Rep. Deb Wallace (who’s already running), as befits his safer district; in recent years, he’d been the recipient of lots of arm-twisting from local activists eager to find someone to primary the increasingly uncooperative Brian Baird. Speaking of local activists, someone named Maria Rodriguez-Salazar also plans to run; she sounds like she’s on the moderate side of the Dem equation, though. Finally, for the GOPers, there have been persistent rumors that conservative radio talk show host Lars Larson is interested, although he may have debunked that.

• WV-01: Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan is already facing state Sen. Clark Barnes (whose district has little overlap with the 1st), but that’s not stopping other GOP entrants: today, it’s Mac Warner, a lawyer and former West Point grad.

• DCCC: The DCCC is playing some offense against vulnerable GOP House members, with radio spots in five districts: Charlie Dent, Dan Lungren, Mary Bono Mack, Lee Terry, and Joe Wilson. The ad attacks the GOPers for voting for TARP last year but then voting against financial services reform now. The DCCC is being coy about the actual cost of the ad buy, though, suggesting it’s more about media coverage of the ads than the actual eyeballs.

• House: Bob Benenson has a lengthy piece looking at House retirements, finding that the pace really isn’t that much different from previous years, and talking to a variety of Dems who can’t decide whether or not it’s time to panic. The article suggests a few other possible retirees, some of whom shouldn’t be seen as a surprise (John Spratt, Ike Skelton) and a few more that seem pretty improbable (Baron Hill?).

• NRSC: The NRSC is doing what is can to shield its hand-picked establishment candidates from the wrath of the teabaggers, often by denying their transparent efforts to help them fundraise. Here’s one more example of how the NRSC isn’t doing so well at hiding those ties, though: they’ve set up joint fundraising accounts for some of their faves, including Kelly Ayotte, Trey Grayson, Carly Fiorina, and Sue Lowden, which is sure to fan more teabagger flames.

• AK-Legislature: Alaska’s tiny legislature (20 Senators and 40 Reps.) is looking to grow (to 24 and 48), hopefully before the next redistricting. As you can imagine, the small number of seats leaves many districts extremely large, geographically, and also stitching together many disparate communities of interest.

• Redistricting: I know everyone here likes to play redistricting on their computers, but for Californians, here’s an actual chance to get your hands on the wheel! California’s new redistricting commission is soliciting applications from members of the public to become members. Anyone who has worked for a politician or been on a party’s central committee is excluded, but there are seats for 5 Democrats and 4 “others” (including decline to state), so there are lots of slots that need progressives to fill them.

• Polltopia: PPP wants your input yet again. Where to next? Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, or Massachusetts? (Although it looks like the poll has already been overwhelmingly freeped in favor of Kentucky by Rand Paul supporters…)

Public Policy Polling (pdf) (12/10-13, registered voters):

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-inc): 46

Chris Nelson (R): 39

Undecided: 15

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-inc): 52

Blake Curd (R): 31

Undecided: 17

(MoE: ±3.7%)

PPP gave us our choice last week of which Dem-held sleeper race to pick, and South Dakota’s at-large seat was a good one to pick, as it’s emblematic of where House Dems are right now. Herseth Sandlin is personally popular (with 49/38 approvals) and, as a leader among the Blue Dogs, a good fit for her Republican-leaning district and not someone who’d leap to mind as among the most vulnerable. Still, as with many red-district House members, she’s suffering from association with the larger party (Barack Obama’s approval is 41/52, and approval of the House’s HCR bill is 25/59), and facing a stronger recruit than usual, in the form of outgoing Republican Secretary of State Chris Nelson.

The result is Herseth Sandlin up by a tolerable margin against Nelson, 46-39, although she’s below the 50% safety zone and Nelson is strangely unknown for a statewide official (29/12 favorables, with 59% unknown), giving him a lot of room for growth. She wins with little effort, though, against Sioux Falls-area state Rep. Blake Curd, who has only 6/13 favorables. I’m not sure what angle Curd has for getting out of the primary, though (other than self-financing, perhaps; Curd is a surgeon by day). In the end, given her personal popularity, Herseth Sandlin still has to be favored here, but this poll certainly indicates that further erosion in standing among national Dems could further harm her chances too.

RaceTracker Wiki: SD-AL

Fellow progressives, my name is John Marty; I am entering my 24th year in the Minnesota Senate, where I have fought for social and economic justice since day one.

In the Senate, I’ve championed LGBT rights (I am chief author of marriage equality legislation), I’ve fought for government ethics reform, I’ve designed and authored single-payer healthcare (www.mnhealthplan.org), I’ve taken on powerful interest groups to protect our environment, and I’ve championed legislation to get living wage jobs and move our economy forward. We now have over 70 co-authors on my single payer legislation — over a third of the legislature!

I am a Democratic candidate for Governor in 2010 running on true progressive principles, like Senator Paul Wellstone, principles that I hold with deep conviction. In 1994, I was the DFL nominee for governor, but like many other progressives running that year, the Gingrich Revolution and his “Contract ON America.” made our attempts unsuccessful.”

Never wavering from my progressive principles, we’ve established viability with a team of supporters focused on reclaiming the governorship. With our election, we can have a national impact across this country.

Imagine a governor with the courage to break the insurance industry’s grip on our health care system, passing single payer. Imagine making healthcare a right, not a privilege.

Just imagine what the national implications would be! Imagine the precedent we would set for Democratic Party candidates throughout this country to have a genuine, principled progressive as governor of a state.

Imagine a governor who puts LGBT marriage equality, ethics reform, living wages for workers, and environmental protection, front and center on the state’s agenda.

Over next several months, I will reach out here and on other blogs across the country to keep you updated about our campaign. Please take a minute to read this recent column I wrote about the need for political courage. Feel free to share it with friends.

Thank you and I look forward to reading your comments below.

Sincerely,

John

www.johnmarty.org

The Courage of our Convictions

By Sen. John Marty

   If 21st Century Progressives led the 19th Century Abolition Movement, we’d still have slavery, but we’d have limited it to 40 hour work weeks, and we’d be so proud of the progress we’d made.

   In earlier eras of U.S. history, progressives believed they could fight injustice and move society forward, and they did so. Today however, many progressives have lost faith in their ability to affect significant change. Many are content simply to tinker with problems, whether the issue is getting living wages for work, ending poverty, or removing toxins from our food supply.

   For example, consider universal health care. All progressives claim to support this, but many aren’t willing to fight for it — not because they believe it’s bad policy, but because they believe it is “politically unrealistic.” When our proposed Minnesota Health Plan is offered as a way to deliver universal health care, some dismiss it as legislation that can’t happen for decades. They talk about universal health care but offer and support proposals that are mere band-aids.

   It is instructive to look back to the past. Despite the reality that men were the only ones who held office and the only ones who could vote, suffragettes fought and won the seemingly impossible goal of gaining the right to vote. In the 1960’s civil rights activists believed they could get rid of segregation laws and get equal rights under the law. When told they were expecting change to occur too rapidly, Martin Luther King wrote a book explaining, “Why We Can’t Wait.”

   Today, however, regardless of the speed of other changes in society, many progressives have lost hope. For them, such a book would now be titled, “Why We Need to be Pragmatic and Accept Token Change.”

   This timidity can be explained by decades of defeat at the hands of right wing politicians like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, which caused many progressives to retreat from a “Politics of Principle” to a supposed “Politics of Pragmatism” that is not only lacking in courage, but also has been highly ineffective.

   Under the politics of principle, the progressive movement would fight for the goal, using pragmatic politics only to figure out how to promote the message.

   But with the current politics of misguided pragmatism, some progressives calculate what is politically acceptable, and then determine what they will stand for. For example, using this “pragmatism,” President Obama decided to push for health insurance for more instead of health care for all .

   One cannot totally fault the President for failing to push for comprehensive reform. He shied away from principle-based reform because he knows that members of Congress working on health reform take big campaign contributions from the health insurance lobby and other powerful interests. He knows that they are afraid of nasty campaign attacks and believe they need the big money to win reelection.

   “Pragmatically,” Democrats in Washington are pushing for “universal” health care that isn’t universal. They are pushing for reforms that cost more, not less, and policies that focus more on their sense of pragmatism than on real public health and prevention.

   It’s time for progressives to have the courage of our convictions. If we claim to believe in universal health care, we need to fight for it. The MN Health Plan — which covers everyone for all their medical needs, and costs less than we are spending now — is on the table. Those who are not willing to take on the powerful insurance lobby, ought to be honest and admit that reelection and other priorities matter more.

   Refusing to fight for it because it is “not politically realistic” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, dismissing it as something that will take decades to pass means leaving the problem to the next generation.

   Whether the issue is living wages for workers, environmental protection, or LGBT equality, many progressives have lost courage. They fight to raise the minimum wage by fifty cents for every dollar that inflation takes away. Even in victory, we accomplish little.

   It is time to move beyond fear and stand up for the principles we say we believe in. Minnesotans deserve nothing less.

Three conservative Republicans have already announced plans to run against Representative Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third Congressional district, and today retired architect Mark Rees of West Des Moines threw his hat in the ring too.  

William Petroski reports for the Des Moines Register:

Rees said he isn’t criticizing Democratic President Barack Obama or individual members of Congress.

“It’s not that I support what is and has been happening in Washington because I don’t any more than my fellow candidates,” Rees said in prepared remarks. “But it serves no legitimate purpose to craft politically motivated, emotionally driven statements laced with selected statistics promoting and promising unrealistic, unachievable results.” […]

Rees said he supports a federal balanced budget amendment, expanded job creation tax credits, capital investment tax credits for new equipment and facilities expansion and developing market import loan programs. He favors stronger border security, but wants to provide immigrants with a path to citizenship.

In addition, Rees said he wants to protect marriage between a man and a woman, but also believes in civil unions. He also favors cost-effective efforts to cap carbon emissions, but he does not support programs to allow pollution credits to be traded or purchased by any entity other than the government.

He said he supports expanding alternative energy programs through investment tax credit programs and a progressive tax structure that includes a vanishing long-term capital gains tax, a tiered short-term capital gains tax, a specialized market trading surtax, and a targeted short-sales capital gains tax.

West Des Moines is the largest suburb of Des Moines and one of the larger cities in IA-03, but many of the newest and wealthiest neighborhoods in West Des Moines lie in Dallas County, which is part of IA-04.

I have no idea whether Rees can self-fund or raise enough money to run a credible campaign during the primary. Dave Funk, Jim Gibbons and Brad Zaun will be competing to see who’s the most conservative, so it’s conceivable that a moderate could sneak through next June with a strong showing in the Des Moines suburbs.

If any of the other candidates drop out before then, though, I would put extremely long odds on GOP primary voters selecting someone who believes in civil unions for same-sex couples or a path to citizenship for immigrants who came to this country illegally.

Zaun doesn’t have any issue information on his website yet. Funk covers all the wingnut bases here. Gibbons recently announced one of the more idiotic tax proposals I’ve heard in a long time.

TUESDAY UPDATE: According to The Iowa Republican blog, Pat Bertroche is campaigning for this seat but has not filed paperwork with the FEC yet. So that would make five candidates if Bertroche goes forward.

(Cross-posted on the Swing State Project and the Daily Kos)

I apologize that this is a short diary (I am on my way to beautiful Oregon to spend the holidays with my family), but I just read this opinion piece by the Denver Post’s Fred Brown, and there are some very interesting statistics in the piece regarding recent voting registration patterns in the state of Colorado.  Here’s a link via ColoradoPols.com

http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

or this link to the article itself:

http://www.denverpost.com/opin…

From the article:

“Despite their president’s many problems, despite the angry town hall meetings, the poisonous partisanship in Congress, the Tea Party movement and the “birther” billboards, Democrats continue to gain numbers in Colorado.

Since August, in fact – the month of those town hall near-riots – Colorado Democrats have managed to gain slightly each month. There are currently about 10,000 more of them than Republicans…

Voter registration figures for November were released last week by the Colorado Secretary of State’s office …

Long range, the Democrats have some reason to be more optimistic. At the November 2006 elections, Republicans outnumbered Democrats in Colorado by more than 165,000 registered voters. By Election Day in November 2008, that margin had slipped to just 9,000 more Republicans than Democrats.

And today – in fact, for the past several months – Democrats have turned that around. They are now ahead of Republicans by between 9,000 and 10,000 registered voters, a trend that has shown tiny increases in the spread beginning in August….”

Obviously, Colorado will be a very important state for us in the years ahead. Together with New Mexico and Nevada (and possibly Arizona and even Texas in the future) it may provide us with an important electoral college edge in future Presidential elections.  It’s encouraging to see numbers like the ones quoted in the article above — especially in this “time of the teabaggers.”