Aug 11 2010

CO Senate: Dem “Winner” Loses To Both GOP Contenders

Published by at 2:31 pm under 2010 Elections,All General Discussions

Addendum below!

Who will get the most votes in November?

The party that gets the most voters to the polls. And if Colorado’s US Senate Primary is any indicator then the GOP is going to really be cruising to a crushing landslide in 2010. That’s because the Democrat primary winner took fewer votes than the GOP loser did!

Democrats and their liberal media lap dogs are celebrating Michael Bennet’s win yesterday as good news for the fall. Of course, as with most things on the left, this is wishful and premature fantasy. Bennet garnerd 183,521 votes. The GOP loser Jane Norton took in 197,143!

The two Democrat contenders combined were able to gather up a total of 338,537 votes.

The two GOP contenders were able to rack up 407,110 votes!

Which means the GOP won the primary voter turn-out battle 55% to 45%. You can run polls all day long, but the fact is voter intensity is what counts, and this year voter intensity is on the side of the GOP. And this is a summer time primary for goodness sake! Wait until the masses decide its time to register a message to DC.

Addendum: Reader Frogg1 notes that some in the media, specifically the Politico, are happily whistling past the grave on this Colorado primary. More to the point, they are claiming the vote was not anti-incumbent!

Republicans, meanwhile, were left with several new reasons to wonder whether all the favorable national trends showing in the polls are enough to overcome local candidates who are inspiring little confidence about their readiness for the general election 12 weeks from now.

The Colorado results, combined with Tuesday’s returns in Connecticut, Georgia and Minnesota and other recent primaries, suggest it may be time to scrutinize a treasured 2010 story line — about an angry electorate, determined to punish insiders and professional pols of all stripes, rushing to embrace ideological insurgents.

The fact is the GOP winner also won the most votes of any candidate, and he was tied to the Tea Party (those insurgents’ from middle America), as well as being a prosecutor (not a politician – yet). The two democrats were incumbents of one stripe or another. Bennet was the short term, recently named senate incumbent and Romanoff was a former state House Speaker. The GOP challenger Jane Norton is the Lt. Governor of CO. How could any one with two IQ points to rub together conclude there is no anti-pol message in this election when the Dems lost the turnout battle by a huge margin and the Tea Party, non-politician got the most votes overall and won the GOP nomination?

Whistling past the graveyard.

10 responses so far

10 Responses to “CO Senate: Dem “Winner” Loses To Both GOP Contenders”

  1. garrettc says:

    Very liberal Boulder County shows 92776 D, 44708, R and 81700 Unaffliated with <1500 others. The GOP contenders were able to exceed votes by the Democrat voters by a substantial margin. In November, the very large block of Independants come into play. If Buck takes 50% of the Indies, it is still a win. If, as projected, he takes 60% of the Indies, it is a wipe-out.

  2. garrettc says:

    Similarly in congressional District 2, there are 138,086 D, 93,991 R and 123,434 unaffliated. Same conclusion.

  3. kathie says:

    The talking heads are trying to make the best of a not so good situation for Obama. I can’t ever remember that they tried to smooth the waters for Bush. Gees I hate the MSM. Anyway, if Boulder and Colorado in general is any indication, Obama is in for a drumming. I just couldn’t be happier! Some good news on the horizon.

  4. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Free To Prosper, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: CO Senate: Dem "Winner" Loses To Both GOP Contenders http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/13921 [...]

  5. Frogg1 says:

    I’m so glad to see your analysis, AJ, because articles like the one in Politico take another angle:

    Primary night yields good news for President Obama and Democrats
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40941.html

    It’s like a world upside down. None of the statistics you highlight were even mentioned for consideration. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize those turnout numbers meant something (and probably something big).

    I also have my own theory on why a lot of incumbents are winning the primary elections. And, it sure isn’t the assumption taken by Politico that all this anger and upset over incumbents is probably only on the Republican side (tea party). All one has to do is look at the polls over the specific issues coming out every day to see our current government is making decisions that 70% passionately disagree with…..over and over and over again. My explanation for incumbents winning their primaries is that Democrats (base) are re-electing the Washington establishment because they like what they are doing ……and, Republicans (base) are re-electing many incumbents because the candidates seem to have acknowledged that they know they let the people down when they controlled Congress, learned their lesson, and have been pushing against the Obama agenda with much energy and conviction since then. Republicans seem to be purging the candidates that went too far; yet are willing to give many of them a second chance to make it right. It should also be noted that the Dems have more incumbents running since they have such a high majority in the House. So, it is self explanatory why Republicans are electing “new people”.

    So, the Politico article can paint a rosy picture for the Democrats; but, the proof will be in the pudding on Nov 2nd. Americans will vote for the status quo and keep going in the direction Obama/Pelosi/Reid are pulling us in ……or, we’ll have the birth of a revolution.

  6. AJStrata says:

    Frogg,

    About that incumbent nonsense. Bennet was not really an incumbent – he was selected to fill the seat last year. And his opponent was an incumbent congress-critter.

    The one with the most votes: the Tea Party candidate.

    Doh!

    Politico is just kidding itself

  7. MarkN says:

    Now we know that Politico is in the tank for the Democrats and Obama. I got a chuckle from this article because that is the first thing I did when I looked at Politico’s CO Senate results. Being a CPA I did an off the top of my head calculation. Result 55% – 45%. I’m not sure if I should be worried about that or just chalk it up to great minds think alike.

    My first question: is CO a closed or open primary. Then I thought that is immaterial because we have a hotly contested race on both sides. Even if it is an open primary how many non-partisans would turn out anyway? I need to do some historical research on the 2006 turnout and the 2002 turnout to confirm whether the Republican turnout was extraordinary.

    BTW, the CT Republican turnout was larger than the Democrats and larger than normal. The independents will be key to Nov 2nd in CT.

  8. This was an observation over on redstate.com you need to think about AJ.

    We are in the middle of a new Great Depression, at least in terms of American rural income.

    I remember what the much deeper for rural areas recession of 1982 meant for Pres. Ronald Reagan and the then Republican Senate.

    I wonder if Pelosi or Reid do?

    See:

    http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/08/12/scott-walker-would-be-bad-news-for-russ-feingold/

    ——————————————————————————–

    …Farm income was $87 billion in 2008. That was a record year so maybe Bush did something right.

    In 2009 it was $58 (billion) or roughly a 1/3 cut in income. This year its projected to be $64 billion or a 1/4 decline from its peak in 2008.

    Think Dairy in Wisconsin-Corn in Iowa/Illinois/Missouri. A great deal of this decline in income is recession related but the browning of California farm lands hurts too. I know for DC & for New York media types this (is) flyover stuff.

    Rural American, however, is facing a 1/3 cut in income.

    So when you look at a state like Wisconsin & Missouri look at all the gaps between the big cities or even medium cities. Those folks are earning a lot less and they vote in big time numbers.

    Yes it impacts Wisconsin and Missouri but also Ohio plus many other states.

    The flight of the rural midwestern farming communities to the GOP could be the story of the 2010 election.