Fearless Predictions

Frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to sit down with an Electoral College calculator and come up with a state by state prediction of the presidential contest, although I would dare guess in a general way that Kerry will win 49-47.5 in the popular vote, followed by Badnarik, Cobb and Nader in that order, and that he will pick up 290 or more EVs (depending on Florida). I do feel comfortable ranking, in order of probability, the various possible pickups and other success stories for the Democratic Party in Colorado this Tuesday:

1. Ken Salazar wins the US Senate race. Ken has done basically what people expected him to do -- hit the state tirelessly, fundraise well, and never get knocked off balance by attacks. Pete Coors has surprised in being a better candidate than expected, but he failed to overwhelm Salazar with money and his campaign can't seem to decide whether they should portray him as a Bush clone or as an independent. I have a hard time imagining many undecideds are going to think at the last minute that the beer millionaire is the guy who is going to represent them best. Could be a landslide for Ken.

2. John Salazar wins CO-3. I did have this as the most likely, but a multimillion dollar race-baiting negative campaign from Greg Walcher has put this one back into the nailbiter category. If John Salazar loses, the Democrats probably won't run another Latino in this district for a generation.

3. Democrats retake State Senate. This has been the true sleeper story of this election cycle. This years' effort by the Democrats is even better than their 2000 effort, which was really a harbinger of the resurgence we've seen this year. Excellent candidates, lots of funding, and a populace disgusted with the Owens economy -- the only negative is that the Democrats have more seats to defend this year.

4. Kerry wins Colorado's nine electoral votes. Coloradans are burned out on Texans who run as moderates, govern from the far right wing, and drive the economy into the ditch. Ignore the PostNews' polls, which don't take into account the massive voter participation we have already seen during the early voting period.

5. Dave Thomas wins CO-7. The national party precipitously pulled the plug on Thomas a long time ago, and Bob Beauprez has proven himself to be a shameless negative campaigner -- no charge is too misleading to be made, and the actual issues a Representative would have to face have made no appearance in this campaign. In other words, Beauprez has done everything he has to do to win, but this is still not a solid Republican district by any stretch of the imagination and Thomas might ride his large GOTV operation and Kerry and Salazar's coattails to victory.

6. Joanna Conti wins CO-6. I explained how this could happen in this post. If you live in Conti Country, you might get a GOTV call from me today! (I apologize in advance if I interrupt your watching of the Bronco game.)

7. Democrats retake State House. OK, now we are in the realm of the pretty darned unlikely. But in a Kerry/Salazar landslide, it could happen.

8. Stan Matsunaka wins CO-4. I am a big Stan fan, but once Musgrave got in there she became the fundraising machine that Tom Tancredo never was. Her negatives are high enough that the national Republicans have been throwing money into this race (which on one level is kind of a victory), but at the same time I hear Musgrave has been using the threat of the pro-gay blogger boogeymen to raise even more millions and then dole it out to other anti-gay candidates. This makes the list because it is somewhat within the realm of possibility that Stan could pull it out -- I hear there were long lines to early vote in Larimer County and I doubt it was the fear of gay marriage that got, say, Colorado State University students to the polls. I will be very pleasantly surprised if Musgrave gets the boot.

On the nonpartisan side, I am very pleased that Fastracks (Measure 4A) looks headed for passage. Even if this election turns out badly on the Democratic partisan side, I think getting our transit system complete is something that will tremendously improve the quality of life in Denver and the entire Front Range for generations to come, and we ought not to wait until the traffic and air quality situation is an absolute disaster to get moving on it, the way they waited in Los Angeles.

Comments

[Ilana]

What do you think about the state ballot questions? My predictions are that 34 will lose (the homebuilder liability), 35 will win (tobacco tax), 36 will lose (electoral vote split) and 37 will be defeated, unfortunately (alternative energy).

The Walcher campaign and the local Republicans have really slammed John Salazar with all sorts of inaccurate and innuendo-laden garbage lately. He's still heavily favored here in Durango but I don't know about the rest of the 3rd CD.

[Colorado Luis]

I think those predictions are right on, Ilana.

[Blue the Wild Dog]

If we win all four of those House races, I think it would be due to massive Dem turnout (and middling Repub turnout), and if that's any indicator nationally, Kerry will do a lot better than what you predict.

[Jake]

While I agree with the most of the non-congressional predictions, I find it hard to nod my head emphatically while reading the predictions for the 4th and 6th. While I can't stand either Tancredo or Musgrave, my reading of the numbers is that both of them will have a cakewalk. (Too bad for Stan, too... I like the guy, both politically and personally, but he's got a massively uphill battle to knock Marilyn off her seat.) And between the two, I'd much rather see Musgrave get the boot, but I still give Stan 15-1 odds of pulling her down. Conti, while I'm not too familiar with recent developments, (other than what you've given us, Luis) gets in at 18-1.

Here in the 7th, however, it's still a tossup. I have both Beaupres and Thomas at 6-5 and pick'em. This district, already polarized from the outset, has actually gotten closer and the odds of another recount NOT being needed are at least 25-1.

Out in the 3rd, it's another tight one, but with the negatives piling up for the GOoPer side, I'd have to give Salazar 3-1 odds of pulling it off thanks to the undecideds breaking his way.

The Senate? Ken sends Pete home to cry in his beer. Odds: 2-1 Salazar.

State House: I'm looking at an even bigger advantage for the Republicans here. There's not going to be enough of a coattail effect to bring them in line this year, but perhaps the Dems can build a move for 2006. Odds: 4-1.

State Senate: Republicans will retain the south side of the Capitol building, with one or two suprise races still in the showing. Odds: 3-2.

FastTracks: This will pass, but it won't be a blowout. Odds of 4-3 passage and 30-1 for over a 10 point spread.

SCFD: Easy passage for this one... People in this area will vote for just about anything that has the word culture attached to it. Probably a subconscious refusal of the whole Cowtown image of yesteryear. Odds: 6-5.

34: This will fall like the houses that inspired it, but only by an 8-point spread. Odds of 4-1 that this issue will pop up again a few years from now.

35: I guess I'm going to have to pay more for my nicotine habit next year... Odds: 3-1.

36: Don't make me laugh. Odds: 125-1 for passage.

37: Because most people will automatically vote no on anything they haven't heard of, and seeing as how I haven't even gotten any mailers on this (unlike everything else on the planet), this will go down in flames by 20 points. Odds for passage: 75-1.

And for the Presidential vote, and I'll hate myself in the morning for saying this, I have Bush winning the state by 47% to 46%. And yes, I'll hate myself even more if it happens that way. Odds: 3-1 Bush.

Nationally, however, things are looking rosy. 10-1 that the Democrats will have net seats of +1 in the Senate, 5-1 for net seats of +4 in the House, and 2-1 that Kerry wins the EC with 282.

Oh, and the odds that I've had way too much candy, caffiene and politics for 5 o'clock in the morning? 10000-1 against. So sorry for the long comment.

[J]

ONE PERSON'S TAKE ON BOTTOM LINING THE ELECTION:

This election is a referendum on Bush. If he’s bad, then it’s time to give the new guy Kerry a chance. If not, then let Bush have four more years.

KEY AREAS OF BUSH RECORD ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10

BUSH RECORD ON TERRORISM – 2 OUT OF 10

* BIN LADEN ON THE LOOSE. Why the heck has public enemy number one still not been caught after over three years since 9/11/2001??? The reason is Bush took his eye off the ball and invaded Iraq before finishing the job of catching bin Laden. To the point, by March 13, 2002 Bush said, according to an official White House transcript "I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.” Now the President says he wants bin Laden dead or alive. This is a huge FLIP FLOP on one of the most important issues facing our country.

* TERRORISM ON THE RISE. Never before have so many US and foreign troops and citizens died from terrorist attacks in Iraq and elsewhere. And the numbers are increasing. Bush hasn’t focused our military resources in the relentless push that is needed to completely dismantle al Qaeda. Neither has Bush adequately funded the Homeland Security Office, which lets 95% of shipping containers come into the US uninspected. As a consequence, now the President admits it’s not a matter of if the next terrorist attack will occur against the US, but when. BOTTOM LINE: BAD JOB FOR BUSH.

BUSH RECORD ON IRAQ – 1 OUT OF 10

* IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE. The reason Bush rushed us into war – that Iraq supposedly has weapons of mass destruction – was all wrong. Major major major mistake. For that kind of mistake, the buck has got to stop with the President.

* IRAQ IS A MESS THAT IS NOT BEING CLEANED UP. Iraqis can’t travel safely in their own streets. Iraqis avoid being near foreigners because of the risk of attack. Whole sections of Iraq are lawless war zones. Terrorism is increasing each month. Infrastructure is still in shambles. Why is the Iraq situation declining from bad to worse? The reason is we never had a decent plan to secure the peace in that country. Another bad mistake.

* WE TORTURED INNOCENT IRAQIS. We disgraced ourselves. Bush says we are bringing Democracy to Iraq. Then we round up innocent people without adequate proof of wrongdoing, nearly all of whom have since been released, and subject them to bizarre torture aimed at violating their deepest religious mores. Sadly, this is not surprising since Bush has said we are not following the Geneva Convention, which protects our troops and citizens from outrageous conduct such as beheadings. Instead, in doublespeak, Bush’s administration said we are following “the principles of” the Geneva Convention. Even more shocking, no senior administration official such as Rumsfeld has been shown the door.

* DID WE INVADE THE RIGHT COUNTRY? At the same time we were invading Iraq, North Korea already had nuclear weapons and was building more. Iran was busily obtaining nuclear weapons. Lot’s of people are asking if we invaded the right country. Was Iraq really that urgent? Should we have gone into Iran or North Korea? Or nowhere! BOTTOM LINE: BAD CHOICES, BAD JOB FOR BUSH.

BUSH RECORD ON THE ECONOMY: 3 OUT OF 10

* THE TAX CUT FAILED. Nice tax cut for the rich but it didn’t much help the rest of middle America, who lost a lot of jobs and faced skyrocketing costs of living in health care, education and fuel costs. For the first time since Herbert Hoover’s administration, we lost more jobs than we created. Net net by all accounts more than a million jobs are gone over the past four years. Even over the past several months during the so-called “recovery”, job growth can’t keep up with population growth. Government deficits are out of control and we will be paying for them for years to come.

* TOO MANY AMERICANS ARE STRUGGLING. How are Americans getting by with skyrocketing health care, education and fuel costs? Not with much help from the government. Tax cuts of only a few hundred dollars a year for middle income Americans can’t make up for the squeeze from these costs. There’s no direct help in the fuel area and limited help in the education area. The federal drug program is limited to seniors and is very hard to understand. This is really a drop in the bucket compared to Bush’s failure to make good on his promise to let everyone buy drugs from Canada. The President’s broken promise demonstrates that he holds the interests of big drug companies above those of the public. Prescription drugs sold in Canada are largely the same pills sold here. Whole communities have been forced to break the law by sponsoring bus trips to Canada to avoid their elderly and sick from becoming impoverished from the astronomical cost of drugs in the US.

BUSH ON SOCIAL ISSUES: 5 OUT OF 10

* THE PRESIDENT HAS HELD THE LINE BUT IS DIVISIVE. Social issues are what is keeping the President afloat. The country is divided down the middle on social issues. There are reasonable arguments as well as misinformation on both sides of the aisle. It’s a shame Bush couldn’t build more unity, but you can’t blame him entirely for people being put off by his folksy swagger persona.

* OUT OF TOUCH ON STEM CELL RESEARCH. In a recent Annenberg poll in August, 64% favored and 28% disfavored use of embryos to conduct stem cell research. In the abortion debate, it’s a real live fetus lost on the one hand versus no health benefit for the mother. The stem cell debate balances a tiny embryo against health gains for millions of sick people. Bush says he is permitting stem cell research, but according to stem cell researchers, he really isn’t. There are only a few old and sick cell lines that can be used. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of embryos are frozen only to be ultimately discarded because it’s against the law to use them for stem cell research. If Bush gets elected, cures from stem cell research for millions of sick people are at least four more years away, and the US could lose the edge in this promising and potentially profitable field of research.

BOTTOM LINE: Bush’s record (average of 3.7 out of 10) is weak. Time to give the new guy a chance. Kerry proved himself capable and Bush’s match during the debates. Many of the people hollering about Kerry should remember all the similar hollering about Clinton, who turned out to do a pretty good job for America. No big wars on Clinton’s watch. A great economy. At least four terrorist attacks averted by the Clinton administration through hard work leading up to the turn of the millennium, whereas the Bush administration ignored similar signs leading up to 9/11. Maybe that’s why bin Laden was so surprised that 9/11 exceeded all his expectations in running flawlessly.

Republicans will try to blow off this post as "talking points" or the like, but the content is factual. We haven't caught bin Laden yet and its been over three years since 9/11. Iraq is a mess. The economy is still losing jobs. Bush isn’t doing reasonable/obvious things to help people, like legalizing drugs from Canada, because of big business interests. Bush is playing a game on stem cell research by appearing to support it while in reality crippling it. Vote carefully.