Smarter Politics

In this episode we discuss the business of conducting polls in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic before reviewing some recent polls on President Trump’s handling of the crisis. We then discuss the government response at both the federal and state level, covering everything from the stimulus package being debated in Congress to local stay-at-home orders here in Colorado. Segment 1: To Poll or Not to Poll? In a typical election year, our political and government clients would be planning on fielding surveys to plan for November. This is not shaping up to be a typical election year. So what are the drawbacks to polling during the coronavirus pandemic? At what point is just regular old issue or campaign polling ok? Are there any actual benefits for the polling industry? Segment 2: A Review of Recent Polling A new round of recent polls show a bump for President Trump’s job approval, whether the question is general or specifically related to his response to COVID-19. Gallup shows a bump even among Democrats and Independents. In a Monmouth poll, 50% of respondents think the president is doing a good job, though that lags behind “your state’s governor” at 72% and health agencies in the federal government at 65%. Still, the truth is that it’s probably too soon to make any judgments about how the crisis will affect the President’s reelection chances. Boston College political scientist David A. Hopkins has a good blog post explaining why. Segment 3: Stimulus Package The Senate has finally passed a $2 trillion stimulus package to deal with the crisis. Vox has a breakdown of what’s included in the package. It includes a $500 billion loan program for businesses, increased unemployment insurance, $150 billion into the health care system, $150 billion to state and local governments, direct payments of $1,200 per adult and $500 per child for households making below $75,000 (individual) or $150,000 (couple), and another $367 billion for small business loans. The package will now be voted on by the House on Friday morning, though already at least one Republican is threatening to hold up the vote. What do you make of the politics of the stimulus package? Conservatives are attacking Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats for playing politics during the crisis, holding up the stimulus package and attempting to jam in a Democratic wish list while Democrats criticized Republicans for proposing less money for poor households and holding up the bill over unemployment insurance. Segment 4: Political Storylines Now let’s look at a few other political storylines stemming from the crisis. One argument that Democrats are advancing is that President Trump was slow to grasp the severity of the crisis, and in doing so misled the American people and heightened the risk. That’s the case being made by Priorities USA Action, one of the main Democratic super PACs, in a new ad running in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida. Will this argument be effective come November? President Trump and other Republicans are also starting to pivot toward advocating a quicker return to normalcy, with Trump saying on Tuesday that he would “love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter.” This is in line with an emerging argument from Republicans that continued damage to the economy will be worse than deaths from the coronavirus, with Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick going so far as to say that he would be willing to risk his health for the good of the country’s economic future. Because this line of thinking is directly in contrast to the advice of public health experts, it will likely only add fuel to the fire of Democratic attacks like the Priorities USA ad. However effective these partisan attacks end up being in this November’s elections, COVID-19 may fundamentally alter our politics for years to come. David Siders explains the shift in Politico. To sum it up, the era of big government may be back for good. Is that case? Segment 5: The Colorado Response Let’s end by discussing the response close to home here in Colorado. Governor Polis had resisted pressure to issue a statewide shelter-in-place or stay-at-home order, in keeping with his preference for local control over statewide mandates. This had earned the governor praise from across the political spectrum. However, as more and more local government issued stay-at-home orders, the Governor finally issued the statewide order this morning. Who’s right? What is the appropriate response?

Today we are going to discuss one of the politics of gun control. We will discuss the current state and federal gun control laws, some new gun control proposals coming from the Democratic candidates for President, and the ever-changing gun control positions of President Trump. We also discuss how Republican candidates and incumbents could communicate their more effectively.  Segment 1: David, Courtney and Ryan’s Backgrounds Segment 2: Current Rules and Regulations 1994 – Federal Background Check Requirement Requires all licensed gun sellers to perform a background check on a purchaser at the time of sale. Unlicensed sellers do not have to run a background check at this time. 22% of US gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background check. According to Giffords Law Center to prevent gun violence. State Laws- 22 states require some sort of background check/permit laws 12 States with Universal background checks- Background checks for ALL sales and TRANSFERS on all classes of firearms, no matter if licensed or unlicensed.  CA, CO, CT, DE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA and (DC) Two states require background checks for handguns only, but not long guns like rifles or shotguns. MD, PA Three states require a permit to purchase any firearm issued after a background check.  HI, IL, MA Only one state requires a permit and unlicensed sellers to conduct the transaction through a licensed dealer.  NJ Four states require a permit for HANDGUNS only, you do not have to get one for long guns.  IA, MI, NE, NC What Background Checks Look for and Stop People From Purchasing a Gun Convicted of a crime that carried a sentence of more than one year, or a misdemeanor that carried a sentence of over two years Are a fugitive (i.e. there's a felony or misdemeanor warrant for your arrest) Are a drug addict Are diagnosed mentally ill, which can include being involuntarily committed, found not guilty by reason of insanity, or found unfit to stand trial Reside in the US illegally Are dishonorably discharged from the military Had a restraining ordered issued against you (i.e. found guilty of harassing, stalking, or threatening a partner or the child of your partner) Were convicted of domestic violence (i.e. convicted of using or threatening to use a deadly weapon against a spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, etc.) Have renounced your US citizenship Current Legislation in Congress: H.R. 8 – To require a background check on every and all firearm sales. H.R. 1112 – Would also extend background checks, but also extend the waiting period for delivery of guns. …and this would do the same in closing that private sale loophole but also extend the waiting period for the delivery of guns when the FBI is having trouble conducting a background check. Under current law, that gun has to be delivered within 72 hours. The proposal that passed the House would extend that to 10 days. Both bills have passed the House, but Senator McConnell has not brought them to the Senate floor. Segment 3: Where do the Democratic Presidential Candidates Stand on Gun Control? What Candidates are going the furthest? Beto O’Rourke – Mandatory Buyback Program on Assault Rifles Cory Booker – Gun Licensing as a Solution Applicants would submit fingerprints, provide basic background info, provide documentation they completed a gun safety course. Limiting individual purchases of firearms to one per month, placing ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Voluntary buyback program- Buttigieg, Bullock, Castro, O’Rourke, Ryan and Yang Harris would take executive action to pass universal background checks and assault rifle bans. Biden - starting with universal background checks and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Plans to defeat NRA. Warren – Too moderate on guns, in a democratic primary sense of course? The New York Times asked almost all Democratic Primary candidates (excluding Biden) the question “In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?” Check out their answers here. Should they be more aggressive? In an article on Vox.com, German Lopez discusses why Democrats have not made progress on gun control and how there should be a Medicare-for-all type deal ending gun violence. The article is called, “Democrats have been discussing the same ideas on guns for 25 years. It’s time to change that.” Segment 4: Current Polling on Gun Control August 2019 CNN Poll – 1001n – National Sample G1. Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws? 60% Total Favor (41% Strongly) – 35% Total Oppose (21% Strongly Oppose) July 2019 CNN Poll – 1000n – National Sample “Please tell me whether you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose each of the following gun polices: Allowing (a family member/the police) to seek a court order to temporarily take away guns if they feel a gun owner may harm themselves or others.” 77% support family 70% support police  Republican Main Street Partnership Survey of Suburban Women – 530n – 200 interviews in 5 CD’s COCD06, KSCD03, NCCD09, PACD01, VACD10 72 percent said they think gun laws should be stricter, compared to four percent who said they should be less strict and 23 percent who said they should be kept as they are now. 55 percent said they think stricter gun laws would help prevent gun violence. 90 percent support requiring universal background checks for gun purchases at gun shows or other private sales, which would require all gun owners to file with a national firearms registry. 88 percent said they would support requiring a 48-hour waiting period between the purchase of a firearm and when the buyer can take possession of that gun. 84 percent back a national red flag law that would permit law enforcement to temporarily retain firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. 76 percent said they would ban the purchase and use of semi-automatic assault-style weapons like the AK-47 and the AR-15. 72 percent would support banning the sale and possession of high-capacity or extended ammunition magazines, which allow guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before needing to be reloaded. Segment 5: Colorado Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Statistics The following information is from an article from Colorado Public Radio called “What the Numbers Tell Us About Guns In Colorado” by Ben Markus (March 2018) Colorado gun sales have increased substantially since President Obama became President in 2008. 26% increase in 2008 compared to 2% average annual increase in sales during President George W Bush two terms in office. Sales also increased after the high-profile mass shootings. After the Aurora theater shooting and Sandy Hook for example. Between 2011 and 2013, guns sales in CO rose 59%. Gun sales decreased by only 5% when Trump took office. In 2017, there were 360,468 guns purchased in CO. Since 2001, Coloradans have purchased 4 million guns. Handguns account for 58% of the purchases. Motivator is self-defense. There have been 379,732 concealed carry permit applications in the last 10 years. 63,904 total permits in 2018 (From CBI Instacheck Unit) 27,421 from Jan to June of 2019 (From CBI Instacheck Unit) In 2017, 77% of Colorado’s 749 gun deaths were suicide. The following information is from an article from the Colorado Sun called “Colorado’s 20,669 gun deaths since 1980, explained in five charts” (May 2019) In 2018, 885 people died by firearm in CO 20,669 gun deaths since 1980 in CO 15255 (74%) by suicide 4406 (21%) by homicide 566 (3%) Other 442 (2%) Unintentional/Accident Segment 6: Solutions to Random Gun Violence What are solutions that work? Will there be a fix? If there isn’t a 100% solution, what can we do? What’s the cause? Social Media NRA Video Games Lack of Communication Mental Health  

In this episode, our latest survey of Colorado voters on TABOR and Proposition CC, where things stand right now and what it means for this year and beyond. Segment 1: Proposition CC? Let’s start by discussing Proposition CC, before getting into TABOR more generally. As a reminder, here is the text of Proposition CC. The Colorado Sun had a helpful breakdown of the arguments in support of CC back in April, and here is a breakdown of arguments against CC from Mike Krause at Complete Colorado. Right now, support for Prop CC is at 54%, driven by solid support among Democrats (72%) and Unaffiliated voters (60%). Republican voters not surprisingly are far less enthusiastic at 32%. What does it mean over the next few months as each side makes their case? Segment 2: Key Takeaways on TABOR? We first asked respondents how familiar they are with the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, also known as the TABOR Amendment in Colorado’s constitution. 59% are at least somewhat familiar, though only 20% are very familiar. Another 22% are not too familiar with TABOR, and 16% are not familiar at all. Among those who are very, somewhat or not too familiar, 46% have a favorable impression of TABOR while 36% have an unfavorable opinion and 18% don’t have an opinion. This question splits dramatically across party lines as 60% of Republicans have a favorable impression while only 32% of Democrats have a favorable impression. A near majority of Unaffiliated voters, 47%, also have a favorable impression. What jumps out in the data here? We also asked about the two main components of TABOR, and found that requiring voter approval for tax increases is a significantly more popular aspect than requiring the state to refund excess revenue to taxpayers. In fact, 47% would support a statewide “de-Brucing” ballot measure even without providing respondents a specific reason or purpose, while 39% would oppose it and 13% are undecided. Still, voters have little appetite for a full repeal of TABOR. When asked about a hypothetical measure to repeal TABOR on the 2020 ballot, only 36% would support repeal, 48% would oppose it and 16% are undecided. In general, where does the TABOR debate go from here? Segment 3: Petition Gathering in Colorado A quick topic for our Colorado listeners: Last week a judge ruled that Kennedy Enterprises must return the $235,000 they were paid by Walker Stapleton’s campaign during last year’s Republican Primary. It’s just another news story that highlights the potential pitfalls involved for candidates seeking to gain ballot access through the petition process. Doug Robinson, one of Stapleton’s opponents in the primary, follows up with an op-ed in the Colorado Sun calling for reform that removes the profit motive from signature gathering. What’s the right solution here? Segment 4: Governor Hickenlooper and the U.S. Senate Race Last, a mix of national (for now) and local politics…On the heels of a new survey purporting to show a substantial lead for former Gov. Hickenlooper were he to jump into the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senate, what is his next move, and just how much would he shake up the race to unseat Senator Gardner? Segment 5: Wrap Up We’ll continue watching the Democratic Presidential race, and will be back with another podcast in two weeks. Thanks for listening, please subscribe and give us a good rating!  

In this episode, we discuss last week’s second round of the Democratic Presidential Debates. How were they different from the first round? Who did well? Who did poorly? Who has a lot more work to do? Have the tiers moved, and is there anyone new that could actually win the Democratic nomination? Segment 1: What Issues Were Discussed and Not Discussed? Healthcare, Medicare for All, the Public Option, Private Insurance Immigration, De-Criminalizing the Border, Seeking Asylum vs. Breaking the law Gun Violence/Criminal Justice/Prison Reform/Police Reform/Law and Order/Rehabilitation The Racial Divide in the US/Trump’s Rhetoric Climate Change/Climate Crisis Tariffs, Trade Policy, NAFTA 2.0 Winning Michigan and the Midwest Student Loan Debt Wage Growth, Pay Inequality, Taxes on the Wealthy Foreign Policy, Afghanistan, Iran Nuclear Agreement, North Korea, Policing the World Impeaching Trump, Obstruction of Justice, Mueller Report Segment 2: How Was the Mood Different from the Miami Debates? Bernie, Warren, strong liberal policies being defended Joe Biden referencing his accomplishments with Obama Political strategy and fears of Republican attacks discussed in open Was 3 hours long vs. 2 hours in Miami, more time Segment 3: Who Won the Debates? Night 1 – Warren/Sanders vs. The rest Night 2 – New vs. Obama Segment 4: Who “Lost”? Dave – Courtney – Ryan - Segment 5: Who’s Making the Next Round and What’s Next? As of now, there are eight candidates that are eligible for the next debates in Houston on September 12th and 13th hosted by ABC News. Requirements for September Debates: Polling: Receive 2% support or higher in four different polls between June 28th and August 28th. Polls can be conducted nationally or in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and/or Nevada. Donors: Need support of at least 130,000 unique donors, including 400 unique donors per state in at least 20 states. Current eligible candidates: Joe Biden Cory Booker Pete Buttigieg Kamala Harris Amy Klobuchar Beto O’Rourke Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Close, but not there yet: Andrew Yang – Has donors, 2% on 3 of 4 polls. Julian Castro – Has donors, 2% on 3 of 4 polls. Tulsi Gabbard – Has donors, 2% on 1 of 4 polls. Tom Steyer – No on donors, 2% on 2 of 4 polls John Hickenlooper – No on donors, 2% on 1 of 4 polls All other candidates haven’t reached above 2% in any qualifying polls. If a candidate does not qualify for the September debates, what should they do next? Segment 6: Is There Any Real Daylight Between the Candidates on Policy? Obviously, there were a ton of issues covered over the two nights…What stood out to you? Anything different than the last round of debates? Again, Vox has a good breakdown from the left of who won/lost. Did these debates change your perception of which candidates could defeat President Trump next November? Segment 7: Looking Ahead to the 2020 Election Calendar The Iowa Caucuses will take place on Monday, February 3rd, followed by the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday the 11th. The Nevada Caucuses take place on Saturday February 22nd, and the South Carolina Primary on Saturday the 29th. Super Tuesday, when Colorado will vote along with a significant portion of the country – including California and Texas – is Tuesday, March 3rd. Segment 8: Wrap Up We have a survey regarding TABOR coming out soon. Gun control likely to lead as a top issue after El Paso, Dayton and Gilroy shootings Thanks for listening, please give us a good rating,  

In this episode, we discuss our Colorado 2020 General Election Survey that we released this week. Where does President Trump stand going into 2020? Governor Polis’ Approval and potential recall? Was there overreach during the 2019 legislative question? Colorado 2020 General Election Survey Methodology 500n – 250 online and 250 phone interviews Why online? Does it make a difference? Survey Demographics How we came to our final turnout forecast? Unaffiliated voters at 36% 18-34 at 27% How Republicans will be lower at the expense of unaffiliated voters. The Findings Voter Intensity Democratic voters have a slight edge in voter intensity heading into the 2020 elections, though Republicans and unaffiliated voters show a high level of interest as well. Biggest story here is unaffiliated voters and comparing them to past survey research. 9 & 10 Dem – 77% Rep – 73% Unaf – 68% Compared to October 8th – 10th, 2018 Magellan General Election Poll Dem – 75% Rep – 67% Unaf – 52% Compared to October 29th – 30th, 2018 Magellan General Election Poll Dem – 80% Rep – 84% Unaf – 72% Voter Mood Right Direction – 44% Wrong Track – 41% Unsure 15% Compared to our NPV Survey in March 2019 Right Direction – 52% (8-point difference) Wrong Track – 41% Unsure 7% Congress Control Democrat Control – 47% Republican Control – 37% Undecided – 16% President Trump Approval and 2020 Election Trump Approval Approve – 39% (24% Strongly Approve) Disapprove – 57% (49% Strongly Disapprove) 2020 Presidential Election Total Dem – 44% (33% Definitely Dem Candidate) Total Trump – 32% (25% Definitely Trump) Other Candidate – 15% Undecided – 9% Governor Polis Approval and Recall Polis Approval Approve – 49% (21% Strongly Approve) Disapprove – 37% (27% Strongly Disapprove) Governor Recall Election Total No, Keep in Office – 47% (34% Definitely Keep in Office) Total Yes, Recall – 38% (27% Definitely Recall) Undecided – 15% Legislature Overreach How we asked the question? Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Governor Polis and the Democratic state legislature overreached during this past legislative session and passed bills that went too far and were out of touch with everyday Coloradans. Total Agree – 45% (28% Strongly Agree) Total Disagree – 40% (19% Strongly Disagree) Further Conclusions and Surprises, Looking Forward Anything surprise you about the results? Any further conclusions or anything to look forward to from these results Next podcast: Next week’s Democrat Debates

In this episode, we discuss last week’s Democratic Debates. Who did well? Who has work to do? What are the tiers, and how many of these candidates could actually win the Democratic nomination? The Democratic Debates: Who “Won”? We’re starting to see some polling numbers that reflect what Democratic voters thought of the debates, and it seems clear that among the more top tier candidates, both Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris did well, while Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders failed to improve their numbers. If true, this certainly changes the dynamic of the race, with Biden and Sanders no longer a clear top two, resulting in a more wide open field. Still, before we get into the substance of the debates, let’s discuss just how wide open the field is. How many of these candidates could actually win the Democratic nomination? Ok, so if it’s clear that Warren and Harris did well, why do you think that is? What stood out about their performances? Who else caught your eye in these first debates? In the HuffPost/YouGov poll, Julian Castro, Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg also did well. Did we see anything from either of those three that suggests an ability to make a leap as a more serious contender? FiveThirtyEight had an interesting breakdown of the debate in five charts. Is There Any Real Daylight Between The Candidates on Policy? Obviously, there were a ton of issues covered over the two nights…What stood out to you? Vox has a good breakdown from the left of who won/lost on policy. Most of the partisan Republicans watching will likely view the real winner of the debates as President Trump, arguing that the policy conversation was far to the left of the average American voter, and that Vice President Biden’s chances of securing the nomination took a hit after performance. Is there truth to that? How much did Vice President Biden really hurt his chances of winning the nomination? Did these debates change your perception of which candidates could defeat President Trump next November? What’s Next? The next debates, which will again feature two nights of ten candidates each, will take place in Detroit on July 30 and 31. For those debates, the qualification thresholds remain the same: Candidates must register at least 1% support in three DNC-approved polls or receive donations from 65,000 people including a minimum of 200 in at least 20 states. One candidate who did not qualify for the first round of debates has already qualified for the second round: Montana Governor Steve Bullock. However, because the DNC has capped the number of candidates on stage at 20, a series of tiebreakers will be used to determine who gets left off the stage. The bar to qualify gets significantly higher for the September debates, with at least 2% support needed in three DNC-approved polls, and 130,000 individual donors. That means that currently the only locks for the fall debates are Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders, and Buttigieg, leaving candidates like Booker and O’Rourke on the bubble. Looking Ahead to the 2020 Calendar The Iowa Caucuses will take place on Monday, February 3rd, followed by the New Hampshire Primary on Tuesday the 11th. Harry Enten at CNN highlights the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire: No one has won a major party nomination since 1972 without coming in the top two in either Iowa or New Hampshire. And a strong showing in both states can turn a wide-open race into a blowout (see: John Kerry in 2004). The Nevada Caucuses take place on Saturday February 22nd, and the South Carolina Primary on Saturday the 29th. Super Tuesday, when Colorado will vote along with a significant portion of the country – including California and Texas – is Tuesday, March 3rd.

Smarter Politics is officially back for Season 2! In this episode, we discuss the extraordinary 2018 election in Colorado, and what it means moving forward to 2019 and 2020. We are glad you are back with us! Re-Introduction What have we been doing? Where has Magellan been? Why was the 2018 General Election Extraordinary? It was extraordinary because never has one political party, been so overwhelmingly rejected at every level of government by the voting electorate. Both Democratic and unaffiliated voters, participated at a level that has never happened before. For the first time ever in a Colorado mid-term election, unaffiliated voter turnout (918,091) and Democratic voter turnout (847,338) was higher than Republican turnout (810,143), and by a significant margin. By percentage of total vote, unaffiliated made up 35%, Democrats made up 33% and Republicans made up 32% of the total vote. As a comparison, in the 2014 mid-term election, Republican voter turnout was 774,923, Democratic voter turnout was 664,532 and unaffiliated voter turnout was 634,296. Comparing the 2018 midterm election to the 2014 midterm election, 502,209 more votes were cast in 2018 verses 2014. Of those 502,209 votes, 57% were registered as unaffiliated, 36% were Democratic and ONLY 7% were Republican. 2018 Voter Turnout Observations Republicans DID turn out to vote with a 3% increase from 2014. 2014=68% 2018=71% Voter enthusiasm was overwhelming among Democratic and unaffiliated voters. Among registered Democratic voters in 2018, 71% turned out to vote compared to just 59% in 2014, a 12-point increase. Unaffiliated voters increased their percentage of voter turnout by 14-points, from 46% in 2014 to 60% in 2018. From January 1 of 2018 to Election Day, 206,289 voters registered in Colorado. Of those that registered, 53% registered as unaffiliated, 27% registered as Democrat and 18% registered as Republican. A net gain of 18,474 Democratic voters to Republican voters. Of the 206,289 voters that registered 60% were 18-34 years old. Post-Election Survey of Unaffiliated Voters The Democrat Party has a net positive image rating among unaffiliated voters. 45% Favorable, 31% Unfavorable The Republican Party has a net negative image rating. 25% Favorable, 53% Unfavorable Donald Trump had a negative impact on all Republican candidates in Colorado, with 34% of unaffiliated voters saying they were less likely to vote for a Republican candidate because of his influence. President Trump’s job approval among unaffiliated voters was/is toxic. 31% Approve, 62% Disapprove (48% Strongly Disapprove) 2018 Governor Race Governor Polis – 53% (1,348,888) vs. Walker Stapleton - 43% (1,080,801) What happened? Why did Colorado Lose the State Senate? District 16 – Senator Neville (Tammy Story) Story - 56%, Neville - 41%, Gilman - 3% (Difference 12,249 votes) State Senate District 16 went from a R+5 district in the 2014 midterm to a D+2 district in 2018. However, unaffiliated turnout increased by 5% going from 33% in 2014 to 38% in 2018. 2014= Dem 31%, Rep 36%, Unaf 33% 2018= Dem 32%, Rep 30%, Unaf 38% (D+1, R-6, U+5) District 20 – Christine Jensen/Jessie Danielson Danielson - 54%, Jensen - 42%, Messick - 4% (Difference 10,872 votes) State Senate District 20 went from a R+4 district in the 2014 midterm to a D+3 district in 2018. Unaffiliated turnout increased by 7% going from 32% in 2014 to 39% in 2018. Those 7 points came directly from Republicans, with Republicans decreasing by 7%. 2014= Dem 32%, Rep 36%, Unaf 32% 2018= Dem 32%, Rep 29%, Unaf 39% (D0, R-7, U+7) District 22 – Tony Sanchez/Brittany Pettersen Pettersen - 58%, Sanchez - 42% (Difference 11,993 votes) State Senate District 22 went from a R+2 district in the 2014 midterm to a D+5 district in 2018. Just like in SD16, unaffiliated turnout increased by 5% going from 32% in 2014 to 37% in 2018. 2014= Dem 33%, Rep 35%, Unaf 32% 2018= Dem 34%, Rep 29%, Unaf 37% (D+1, R-6, U+5) District 24 – Senator Beth Martinez Humenik/Faith Winter Winter - 52%, Martinez Humenik - 40%, Matkowsky - 5%, Osborn – 3% (Difference 8,510 votes) State Senate District 24 went from being an even district in the 2014 midterm to a D+6 district in 2018. Unaffiliated turnout increased by 4% going from 34% in 2014 to 38% in 2018. 2014= Dem 33%, Rep 33%, Unaf 34% 2018= Dem 34%, Rep 28%, Unaf 38% (D+1, R-5, U+4) Looking Ahead to the 2019 General Election and Beyond Will turnout in an odd-year election have an increase in Democratic and unaffiliated voters? There will most likely be something on the ballot that intends to weaken TABOR in 2019, knowing the turnout demographics and the results of 2018, what do you think will happen with TABOR? Leading into next week, with the democrats having full control, was there an overreach in legislation from the state legislature this year?  

In this episode, we examine the results of Tuesday’s elections in Virginia and around the country and explore how they may impact the 2018 midterms. We also dig into the results for local races here in Colorado. Virginia Election Results On Tuesday night, Democrats finally got the post-Trump wins they’ve been waiting for, in Virginia and around the country. As reporter Gabriel Debenedetti notes for Politico: “Democratic leaders reset their expectations for the 2018 midterms. They’re now expecting a fundraising and candidate recruitment surge, powered by grassroots fury at the Trump administration.” Whether that surge materializes around the country remains to be seen. Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist has 5 Takeaways on Virginia’s Election Sweep for Democrats, pointing to the stark difference between Gillespie’s performance this year – 9 point loss – and his 2014 Senate race where he lost by less than a percentage point to Mark Warner. There are a few plausible explanations, but the simple fact is that it was a crushing loss for Gillespie. Still, Hillary Clinton did win Virginia in 2016, and so the top of the ticket isn’t the best place to see what’s been described as a Democratic “tsunami”. The real groundbreaking developments were in the Virginia House of Delegates, where Democrats turned a 66-34 Republican advantage into a tight battle for control that will come down to recounts. They were able to make such huge gains by focusing particularly on Northern Virginia districts where Hillary Clinton won last year. Of the 20 State House seats that saw significant changes from their 2015 results, 12 are located in Northern Virginia, and Democrats were able to flip 9 of them while putting one normally closely contested district comfortably out of reach. They also made gains in the Richmond suburbs (3 seats), Virginia Beach (2 seats), and one high profile race in the Blacksburg area. [We’ll post a spreadsheet breaking down results in these 20 seats along with our show notes]. This success didn’t happen overnight, and comes as the result of Democrats finally focusing on down ballot races in Virginia in a manner that they hope to replicate across the country during next year’s midterms. What does it mean for Republicans? Virginia Republican Party Chairman John Whitbeck acknowledged that was a “terrible night”: “Virginia has changed and is changing…68 percent of voters under the age of 45 voted Democrat. Minority populations continue to climb as a percent of Virginia’s population and…our nominees lost non-white voters 80 percent to 20 percent. If we do not find a way to appeal to these two groups, the results will be grim.” While also blaming the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate: “If no major items are passed in the U.S. Senate over the next year, the 2017 elections will be a preview of 2018 elections”. Colorado Election Results While there were no high profile statewide issues here in Colorado, local races provided plenty of intrigue. The races for Douglas County School Board, which has been in a prolonged court battle after pushing for a school voucher program, provided a resounding message against the conservative slate, as each conservative candidate lost by at least 15 percentage points. It is the latest show of local activism against a divisive school board here in Colorado. Voters in Broomfield passed Question 301, which gives the city more oversight over oil and gas operations, by a comfortable 15-point margin. The campaign attracted nearly $400,000 in outside money, and a battle over the legality of Question 301 is inevitable. Voters throughout El Paso County and in Colorado Springs passed several ballot issues and tax increases for everything from schools and firefighters to widening the I-25 gap and upgrading the stormwater infrastructure in Colorado Springs. As the Colorado Springs Gazette editorial notes: “The results prove taxpayers are confident in the regions’ economic future and are satisfied with political leadership.”  

In this episode, we look at the 2018 U.S. Senate map and discuss current events as they relate to each state. We’ll focus on Steve Bannon’s efforts to recruit candidates to challenge Republican incumbents. 2018 U.S. Senate Map Today we are going to cover 19 states that have an election for the United States Senate. The 2018 elections for the United States Senate is heading up. Politico – Democrats see path to Senate majority in 2018 – where Senator Chris Murphy comments that: “The map feels a little different today than it did a few weeks ago. We might be playing a little more offense. At the same time, we don’t have a lot of bandwidth for offense given the defense we have to play.” At the same time, Senate Republicans are increasingly nervous, and are worried that if they fail to pass tax reform it would lead to further disgust among both donors and voters. Still, NRSC chair Cory Gardner notes that: “We run knowing the majority is on the line. There’s no doubt about it. But the fact is, they have 10 seats in Donald Trump states that we look very good in right now.” And it’s true, the map still heavily favors Republicans. For Democrats to actually take the majority, they would have to defend all 25 of their seats, plus win in Nevada, Arizona, and one of Alabama, Tennessee or Texas. That would be a tall order, but let’s take a look at what’s happening in each individual state to see how realistic their chances are… Alabama – While not technically a 2018 race, there will be a special election in Alabama on December 12, 2017, between Republican Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones. Public polling from JMC Analytics has shown Jones within single-digits. While strange things can happen in special elections, it is very difficult to imagine Doug Jones winning this race. President Trump carried the state by 28 points, and Senator Richard Shelby won by very similar margin last year. Robert Bentley also won by a very similar margin in the 2014 Governor’s race, and Mitt Romney won by 22 points in 2012. Democrats seem to think that Roy Moore is such a weak candidate that he opens up the door to a competitive race. As Tim Kaine notes in the Politico article linked above: “He [Jones] certainly has a dramatically better chance against Roy Moore than he would have had against Luther [Strange]”. Still, very, very much a longshot. Arizona – Arizona will be a high profile state next year, beginning in the Republican Primary. Jeff Flake ensured that with his very public criticism of President Trump, criticism which the President and former advisor Steve Bannon have certainly reacted to. The second major article that we’ll link to this week is from Bloomberg Politics over the weekend: Bannon Plans to Back Challengers to Most GOP Senators Running in 2018. Senator Flake is at or near the top of that list, and Bannon plans to back former state Senator Kelli Ward (who also ran against Senator McCain in 2016) in her primary challenge against him. What makes Arizona different from Alabama is that it could be very much in play in the general election. While President Trump won the state, he did not receive a majority of the vote. Senator McCain received just 54% of the vote last year, a figure very similar to Mitt Romney’s performance in 2012 and Governor Doug Ducey’s performance in 2014. The question is not whether Kelli Ward has a real chance to beat Senator Flake in a primary – JMC Analytics has her beating him by 26 points in an August Republican Primary automated survey – but whether she would lose the general election to Kyrsten Sinema, who Democrats view as a very strong candidate. Florida – Florida will be one of the toughest states for Democrats to defend next year. President Trump won with 49% of the vote last year, while Marco Rubio received 52% of the vote in his Senate Race. Governor Rick Scott won each of his gubernatorial bids in 2010 and 2014 by 48-49%, while Senator Ben Nelson received 55% of the vote in a great Democratic year in 2012 in which President Obama also carried the state with 50% of the vote. The big question in Florida is whether Governor Scott eventually enters the Senate race. A late summer poll showed him tied with Senator Nelson, and Scott’s entry into the race as a candidate who can largely self-fund would free up resources for the GOP to spend in other competitive states. Indiana – Indiana will be an even tougher defend for the Democrats than Florida, as President Trump carried the state by 57% last year and Mitt Romney won with 54% of the vote in 2012. It is widely believed that Senator Joe Donnelly benefited from running against Richard Mourdock in 2012. Mourdock defeated incumbent Senator Richard Lugar in the Republican Primary and drew criticism for comments about pregnancy and rape during the general election campaign. Republican congressmen Luke Messer and Todd Rokita are battling for the Republican nomination, and whether the winner is ultimately able to unseat Donnelly will likely depend on whether he can “nationalize” the race and paint Donnelly as just another vote for the national Democratic Party. Donnelly is about as well suited as a Democrat could be for this red state – he is pro-life, he supported the Keystone XL pipeline and he opposed President Obama’s executive action on immigration. Even given his strengths as a candidate, winning re-election will be a difficult task. Michigan – Another state won by President Trump where Democrats are on defense. However, this is a very different situation from Indiana. President Trump won by just under 11,000 votes, and while Rick Snyder has won the last two gubernatorial elections, there is little precedent for Michigan voters sending Republicans to the U.S. Senate. Since 1978, only Spencer Abraham has won election as a Senator, for one term from 1995 through 2001. Still, President Trump provided a theoretical roadmap for how a Republican can win in Michigan, and over the summer there was some buzz over the potential of Kid Rock challenging Senator Debbie Stabenow. It’s best to take a wait-and-see approach before deciding how realistic Republicans’ chances are here. Mississippi – Mississippi is worth mentioning briefly only because State Senator Chris McDaniel is being encouraged by Steve Bannon to challenge incumbent Senator Roger Wicker. McDaniel challenged incumbent Republican Senator Thad Cochran in 2014. In that Republican primary McDaniel won the primary and then lost in a very close runoff election to Cochran 51% to 49%. A win for McDaniel in the primary would give Bannon and Trump administration another ally in Washington. Missouri – Missouri will be a very difficult state for Democrats to defend. President Trump won with 57% of the vote, and even a rising-star Democratic candidate like Jason Kander came up short last year. And while Senator Claire McCaskill and former Governor Jay Nixon each won easily with 55% of the vote in 2012, McCaskill’s victory may be another instance of good fortune in facing a weaker Republican candidate (the now infamous Todd Akin). In that respect she is similar to Senator Donnelly in Indiana. Senator McCaskill very consciously portrays herself as a moderate Democrat, and she will need to continue to distance herself from the national Democratic party to have a chance at holding her seat. It’s also very much worth mentioning that Republicans now have a candidate, state Attorney General Josh Hawley, who is a serious challenger who may actually be able to straddle the divide between establishment Republicans and the anti-establishment forces led by Bannon. Montana – President Trump received 56% of the vote in Montana, marking this seat as another potentially difficult defend for Democratic Senator Jon Tester. Still, the state does have a history of electing moderate democrats like Governor Steve Bullock and Senator Tester with narrow margins. And Republicans are having some difficulty fielding a top-tier candidate to run against Tester. This is a state where it’s probably best to take a wait-and-see approach to handicapping the race. Nebraska – Worth briefly mentioning because, again, Senator Deb Fischer could draw a primary challenge, and if she were defeated Bannon/Trump would gain an ally in Washington. Nevada – Similar to the situation in Arizona, Senator Dean Heller has sought to distance himself from President Trump, and has therefore drawn criticism from Bannon and from the White House. Public polling in this race is all over the map, but suffice to say that Danny Tarkanian is a serious challenger in the Republican primary. Unlike Arizona, Hillary Clinton won Nevada last year, making Heller the only GOP Senator to face re-election in a state won by Hillary Clinton. His defeating Tarkanian in the primary may be Republicans’ only shot at holding this seat. North Dakota – Similar to Senator Tester in Montana, Senator Heidi Heitkamp represents a state where President Trump won easily last year (63%). That alone makes Senator Heitkamp one of the more vulnerable Democrats in the Senate, and her strategy of working with President Trump is probably a smart one. State Senator Tom Campbell is the only declared Republican candidate, and his ability to self-fund means this will likely be a very expensive campaign by North Dakota standards. Ohio – Ohio is another quintessential battleground where Democrats are on defense. President Trump won with 52% of the vote, President Obama won with 51% of the vote in 2012, and each party holds a Senate seat. Senator Sherrod Brown is up for reelection after a narrow victory (51%) in 2012. The 2018 race will likely be a rematch, with state treasurer Josh Mandel again taking on Brown. Mandel currently has a substantial lead in Republican Primary polling. Senator Brown is gearing up for what should be a very competitive race. Pennsylvania – Senator Bob Casey has taken somewhat of a leading role among Senate Democrats in criticizing President Trump, which is interesting given the president’s narrow victory in Pennsylvania last year. Combine that with the fact that the highest-profile Republican to announce so far is early Trump-supporter Congressman Lou Barletta, and this race could certainly be seen as a referendum on the President in a state that was important to his 2016 victory.    Tennessee – Senator Bob Corker has been very much in the news lately for a public spat with President Trump, and he has announced that he will not run for re-election. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn is widely seen as the frontrunner, and as an unabashed supporter of President Trump she likely will remain the frontrunner. This race now has a similar dynamic to Alabama, with Democrats beginning to entertain the idea of competing for this seat. Still, Democrats have not held either a Senate seat of the Governor’s office in Tennessee since former Governor Phil Bredesen won in 2006 and was term-limited in 2010. It’s a stretch to think Democrats could compete here. Texas – Worth mentioning just because Senator Cruz is the one senator who Bannon has said is exempt from his insurgent campaign to challenge incumbents next year. National Democrats generally love challenger Beto O’Rourke, but while Hillary Clinton lost Texas by the smallest margin of any Democratic nominee since 1996, there’s nothing here to suggest Cruz is vulnerable in November. Utah – Senator Orrin Hatch will draw a primary challenge if he decides to run for reelection. Boyd Matheson, a former chief of state to Senator Mike Lee and the current president of the Sutherland Institute think tank, met with Bannon last week to discuss a run. If Hatch does retire, establishment figures in the state would likely field a different candidate, potentially Mitt Romney. West Virginia – It’s no secret that West Virginia is dramatically trending Republican. Perhaps more than any other senator, Joe Manchin will need to run a campaign independent of the national Democratic Party. As the linked piece from Politico points out, Manchin’s most immediate headache comes from the left: Progressives — including many who repeatedly point to Bernie Sanders’ victory in the Democratic primary there last year — regularly accuse Manchin of being an anti-environment, pro-gun fake Democrat despite his new leadership role in the Senate caucus and his gun control legislation. So long as Manchin is still drawing that kind of criticism from progressives, he may hang on for reelection. Wisconsin – Another state where President Trump won a very, very narrow victory. Senator Tammy Baldwin will face one of several well-funded Republicans vying for the nomination, and again this race will serve as a referendum on Trump’s support in a state that was crucial to his win last year. Wyoming – We’ve saved perhaps the most interesting state for last. In Wyoming, Bannon is encouraging Erik Prince, the founder of the security contractor Blackwater, to run in the primary against Senator John Barrasso. What’s most interesting is that Prince doesn’t currently live in Wyoming, and so if he is ultimately successful at unseating Senator Barrasso it would speak volumes about the power of the anti-incumbent wave in Republican politics.

In this episode we talk all about the art of redistricting, gerrymandering, what it is and why it matters. Segment 1: What is Redistricting? Simply put, redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative districts are drawn. The reason redistricting is necessary is that population growth does not occur equally across states or districts, and so following the completion of the United States Census every ten years, the districts must be “redrawn” to ensure that districts have nearly equal populations. For the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, this means that every ten years, some states lose one or more congressional districts while others gain them. For the last round of redistricting, following the 2010 Census, ten states (IL, IA, LA, MA, MI, MO, NJ, NY, OH and PA) lost at least one district, while eight states (AZ, FL, GA, NV, SC, TX, UT, and WA) gained seats, with Texas gaining four. Looking at projections on who will gain and lose seats after 2020, a lot of the same midwestern states are losing seats, with Texas again a big gainer of 3 seats and other Sun Belt states set to gain as well. For state legislative districts, since each state has a fixed number of districts that does not change, district boundaries are simply redrawn according to where relative population growth occurred within the state. Segment 2: Sounds Important…So Who Draws the Lines? Obviously, even in instances where a state is not gaining or losing seats, the district boundaries will still need to change to reflect the current population of the state. In general, each state has guidelines related to the contiguity and compactness or the districts, and some states consider “communities of interest” and existing political boundaries. The exact process for drawing the lines varies by state, but the most important question is: Who’s in charge? In 37 of the 50 states, the state legislature draws Congressional lines, meaning that is the predominant method by which Congressional districts are drawn. In an additional 4 states (AZ, CA, ID and WA), an independent commission draws the lines, and in Hawaii and New Jersey a politician commission fills that role. For state legislative lines, the state legislature is responsible in 37 states, while independent commissions handle the job in 6 states and politician commissions are responsible in 7 states, including our home state of Colorado. Here in Colorado, the 11-person reapportionment commission consists of one person appointed by each party’s leader in both the house and the senate, plus three members appointed by the governor and four members appointed by the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court (currently, Roy Romer appointee Nancy Rice). Which party holds a majority on these commissions is often determined by who holds the governorship. Practically, this makes control of the state legislature and governor’s mansion critically important to the redistricting process. With full control, a political party is able to draw districts that significantly cement and enhance their power within a state using a process called partisan gerrymandering. As New York Times Magazine staff writer Emily Bazelon notes in a recent article on redistricting, partisan gerrymandering in 17 Republican controlled states (including some states that are traditional red states, like OH, MI, PA and WI) allowed Republicans in 2012 to win 72% of the seats despite winning only 53% of the vote. Similarly, in the 6 states where Democrats had full control, their candidates won only 56% of the vote but won 71% of the seats. Segment 3: That Doesn’t Sound Fair…What about Redistricting Law? Believe it or not, the problem of districts being unfairly apportioned used to be a lot worse. As late as the early 1960’s there was a state assembly district in Vermont that had just 36 people, while the largest district in the state had 35,000. And a rural California state senate district had 14,000 voters compared to Los Angeles’s only state senate district which had more than 6 million voters. Beginning in the early 1960’s the Supreme Court intervened to end these disparities, claiming jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment in Baker v. Carr (1962), and establishing the doctrine of “one person, one vote” for both state legislative and congressional districts. Practically, what this means is that districts have to be roughly equal in population, so that a vote in one district is worth as much as a vote in another. Federal law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, also attempts to limit gerrymandering that is racially discriminatory, stating that: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by state or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” In the context of redistricting, that means that plans can’t be intended to dilute minority votes, and they also can’t cause “retrogression” in minority political opportunity, whether intended or not. Prior to 2013, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act required certain states and jurisdictions to seek preclearance from the Justice Department when redrawing lines, as described here. However, in the case of Shelby v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court struck down the coverage formula that was used to require preclearance, based on the fact that it did not rely upon current data. So while Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was not struck down, most of the jurisdictions that have had to seek preclearance for new redistricting plans in the past no longer have to do so. In an upcoming decision that will have far-reaching implications for how redistricting is done, the Supreme Court will consider in Gill v. Whitford (which centers on Wisconsin’s 2011 redistricting plan) whether partisan gerrymandering (as opposed to racial gerrymandering) violates the constitution. As Bazelon notes in her article, the plaintiffs aren’t asking the Supreme Court to stop gerrymandering entirely – they are simply asking the Court to say that it’s possible for it to go too far. They are also offering a second argument that comes from the 1st Amendment, that partisan gerrymandering “subjects a group of voters or their party to disfavored treatment by reason of their views.”  

In this episode, we examine the behavior and agenda of former White House Senior Advisor Steve Bannon. We discuss his politics, his influence on Donald Trump, and his self-described enemies list. Most importantly, what impact will Steve Bannon have on the thinking of Republican primary voters. Segment 1: Who is Steve Bannon and Why Does He Matter? Steve Bannon is 62 years old and has a very interesting background. He grew up in Virginia, served in the U.S. Navy, graduated from Harvard Business School in 1985, was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs, was a documentary filmmaker and ran the conservative newspaper and website Breitbart News.  Some interesting side notes, he brokered a deal that landed him an ownership stake in blockbuster TV series Seinfeld. He also produced documentaries about the Tea Party called The Battle for America in 2010, and The Undefeated in 2011. In August of 2016 Steve Bannon was introduced as the CEO of Donald Trump’s Presidential Campaign. He was credited for sharpening Donald Trump’s populist message, hammering home fears of open borders, and promote the distrust of Hillary Clinton. After Donald Trump’s surprising victory, Steve Bannon was named senior counselor to the President. As soon as he was sworn in Steve Bannon made it clear how he viewed the world and his job in the White House. At the annual Conservative Political Action Committee conference on February 23rd he outlined the Trump Administration’s agenda as focusing on “national security and sovereignty”, “economic nationalism” and the “deconstruction of the administrative state”.  His description of “deconstruction of the administrative state” is as follows: “If you look at these cabinet appointees, they were selected for a reason and that is the deconstruction. The way the progressive left runs, is if they can’t get it passed, they’re just going to put in some sort of regulation in an agency. That’s all going to be deconstructed and I think that that’s why this regulatory thing is so important.”    Steve Bannon was and still is very critical of journalists and the media, calling it a “running war”. This is no surprise considering Donald Trump’s use of this strategy during the campaign and using the term “fake news”. After being on the job for a week, on January 26th Steve Bannon argued that news organizations had been “humiliated” by the election outcome and repeatedly described the media as the “opposition party” of the administration.  During the interview he referred to himself as “Darth Vader”,His exact words were: “The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” Mr. Bannon said in an interview on Wednesday. “I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the President of the United States.” “The mainstream media has not fired or terminated anyone associated with following our campaign,” Mr. Bannon said. “Look at the Twitter feeds of those people: They were outright activists of the Clinton campaign.” (He did not name specific reporters or editors.) “That’s why you have no power,” he added. “You were humiliated.” “The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.” “You’re the opposition party,” he said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.” Steve Bannon has shown a deep hatred toward people that he called “globalists”. In particular, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and National Economic Council Chairman Gary Cohn.  Bannon’s project centered on opposition to what he derisively called “globalism”: the idea of tearing down borders and linking countries through trade, immigration, and international institutions like NATO and the United Nations. He believed that Brexit and Trump’s rise in particular showed the way for a global uprising of so-called “nationalists” or “populists” against the status quo. He warned of an “invasion” of Europe by Muslims; he emphasized the need for countries that have a “Judeo-Christian” heritage to band together to fight radical Islam. The scale of the threat, Bannon has suggested, is akin to what the West faced in the 1930s. China, in Bannon’s eyes, was also a fundamental threat. He has predicted an outright war between the United States and China — two nuclear-armed powers — in under 10 years. “We’re at economic war with China ... the economic war with China is everything,” he said. “One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it’s going be them if we go down this path.” This apocalyptic vision of global conflict really did drive Bannon’s behavior in Washington.  What were Steve Bannon’s final thoughts at the end of last week as he returned to run Breitbart News? Some media reports that he told associates that he has a “killing machine” in Breitbart News, and that he would be waging  “thermonuclear war” against the “globalists”. How big is the “Bannon” wing of the Republican Party? Harry Enten of fivethirtyeight.com provides an excellent analysis answering this question. David, Ryan and Courtney discuss what this all means for Republican candidates, primary voters and elected officials.  

In this episode we discuss a grab bag of political topics, including the challenges facing the Republican Congress when they return from their August recess, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake’s criticism of President Trump, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice’s switch to the Republican Party and Walker Stapleton’s super-PAC. Segment 1: Congressional Recess • The basis for our first segment on the Congressional recess is a Wall Street Journal article (Congressional Recess, Full Plate Keep the Heat on GOP Lawmakers) from over the weekend. • The article highlights the desire of Congressional Republicans to shift their focus to tax reform over the next four weeks, but notes that as members return home and meet with constituents, they may find it difficult to move on from the contentious legislative fight over healthcare reform. • The problem for Congressional Republicans on healthcare is really twofold. For one, many voters in swing states and districts still support the ACA, and are therefore very critical of attempts to repeal it. At the same time, Republican voters are more likely to blame Congress for gridlock in Washington – including, of course, over healthcare – than they are to blame President Trump. This leaves Republican Congressmen, like Mike Coffman and Cory Gardner here in Colorado, to take the brunt of criticism from both sides. • Complicating the plans for tax reform even further is the fact that Congress is faced with the prospect of a fight over raising the federal debt limit by September 29th and keeping the government funded beyond September 30th – a process that may be made more difficult if conservatives within the Republican Party include controversial items like funding for the border wall. Segment 2: Jeff Flake’s Criticism of President Trump • Senator Jeff Flake’s new book, Conscience of a Conservative, is highly critical of President Trump, claims Republicans are “in denial” about the President and calls on them to rebuke him and return to their principles. • Excerpted here in Politico Flake says of his fellow Republicans: “It was we conservatives who rightly and robustly asserted our constitutional prerogatives as a co-equal branch of government when a Democrat was in the White House but who, despite solemn vows to do the same in the event of a Trump presidency, have maintained an unnerving silence as instability has ensued. To carry on in the spring of 2017 as if what was happening was anything approaching normalcy required a determined suspension of critical faculties. And tremendous power of denial.” • He continues: “Under our Constitution, there simply are not that many people who are in a position to do something about an executive branch in chaos. As the first branch of government (Article I), the Congress was designed expressly to assert itself at just such moments. It is what we talk about when we talk about “checks and balances.” Too often, we observe the unfolding drama along with the rest of the country, passively, all but saying, ‘Someone should do something!’ without seeming to realize that that someone is us. And so, that unnerving silence in the face of an erratic executive branch is an abdication, and those in positions of leadership bear particular responsibility.” • It’s at this point that he recalls former leaders in Congress like Senators Bob Dole, Howard Baker and Richard Lugar, men who were “vigorous partisans, yes, but even more important, principled constitutional conservatives whose primary interest was in governing and making America truly great.” • Senator Flake then proposes three steps for Republicans to take: First, we shouldn’t hesitate to speak out if the president “plays to the base” in ways that damage the Republican Party’s ability to grow and speak to a larger audience. Second, Republicans need to take the long view when it comes to issues like free trade: Populist and protectionist policies might play well in the short term, but they handicap the country in the long term. Third, Republicans need to stand up for institutions and prerogatives, like the Senate filibuster, that have served us well for more than two centuries. • Jeff Flake’s approval rating in a recent poll by Public Policy Polling was 18% approve, 62% disapprove. Segment 3: West Virginia Governor Jim Justice • In other political news from last week, West Virginia Governor Jim Justice switched parties to become a Republican, accompanied at a rally by President Trump. • Justice explained the move by saying: “Like it or not, but the Democrats walked away from me…West Virginia, I can’t help you anymore by being a Democratic governor.” • Justice, a coal mining and agriculture businessman who is the richest man in West Virginia, refused to endorse Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign and won election as a Democrat despite President Trump’s 42-point victory in the state. • Given his past, Justice’s switch to the GOP is unsurprising. What will be more interesting is where the West Virginia Democratic Party goes from here. The two men who ran against Justice in last year’s Democratic Primary, former U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin and former State Senate President Jeff Kessler, were both critical of the state party in the aftermath of Justice’s switch. • Goodwin wrote in a Facebook post: “This should be a huge wakeup call for the current leadership of the West Virginia Democratic Party. Character and integrity matter.” And Kessler was far more pointed in his critique, saying: “I thought Jim was a creation of the Manchin machine, and now he’s turned into Frankenstein” and adding, that Justice was a “Democrat by convenience, not conviction”, who used the party after he was “pursued and coaxed” by party leaders. Segment 4: Walker Stapleton’s Super-PAC • A big political story out of Colorado last week was the reporting on presumptive gubernatorial candidate Walker Stapleton’s “super PAC-style” group that is lining up big donors before his official announcement as a candidate. • So long as Stapleton does not announce, he can help steer donors toward the group, Better Colorado Now, whose purpose according to state filings is: “To oppose Democrat candidates for governor.” • The group is drawing comparisons to Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise super-PAC, and is being heralded as the first major super-PAC on the scene in Colorado.

In this episode, we discuss the latest fundraising totals for the Democrat and Republican candidates for Governor and other down ballot races. Segment #1 Fundraising Totals for Governor In the first segment we discuss how much money candidates raised in the election for Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer and Congressional District 5. Republican Victor Mitchell - $3 million, $2.7 million on hand Republican Doug Robinson - $208,000, personal loan of $57,000 Republican George Brauchler - $183,000, including $12,700 transfer Republican Lew Gaiter – Larimer County Commissioner - $6,270 Republican Steve Barlock – Trump supporter – just announced Democrat Mike Johnston, State Senator, $301,365, first quarter $632,721 Democrat Cary Kennedy, former Treasurer, Deputy Mayor of Denver - $339,680 Democrat Jared Polis, Congressman - $250,000 self-check Democrat Ed Perlmutter, Congressman - $340,000 Attorney General Republican Cynthia Coffman, incumbent - $8,050 Democrat Phil Weiser, former dean of CU Law School, - $355,535 Democrat Brad Levin, - $117,102 Democrat Michael Dougherty, Jefferson County prosecutor - $51,845 Democrat Joe Salazar, Thornton State Rep., - $13,262 Treasurer Republican Justin Everett - $20,348 Republican Brita Horn - $17,655 Democrat Steve Lebsock - $14,014 Colorado CD-05 Primary Republican Doug Lamborn - $73,000, $62,000 in PAC money Republican Owen Hill - $228,000 Republican Darryl Glenn - $150,000 from US Senate Campaign Segment #2 The Trump Administration’s Staff Changes In this segment, we have a short discussion about the departure of Sean Spicer and other pending staff changes at the White House. We also discuss Attorney General Jeff Sessions being under fire from the President. Segment #3 Ellen Singer, Magellan Strategies intern from Georgetown University In the final segment we talk with our intern and what she has learned from working at Magellan Strategies.  

In this episode, continue our discussion with ProgressNow Colorado’s executive director Ian Silverii. We discuss the most competitive State House districts in Colorado for the upcoming 2018 elections. Overview of Battleground State House Districts Following up on our discussion of the Colorado’s battleground Senate Districts podcast, we now take a look at the State House, where Democrats won back three seats that they lost in 2014 and now hold a 37-28 advantage. Republicans need to flip five seats, and so we narrow our discussion to five districts plus a bonus Pueblo County district. House District 3 – Dem Jeff Bridges, 52.5% in 2016 / Kagan 50.7% in 2014 This Arapahoe County district has long been elusive for Republicans. It is culturally and economically diverse, as it includes Cherry Hills Village and Greenwood Village to the east and Englewood and Sheridan to the west. Active registration shows a plurality of unaffiliated voters, 19,149, with 16,965 Democrats and 15,340 Republicans. In 2014, Republican Candice Benge came within 445 votes of defeating incumbent Daniel Kagan in what was a good year for Republicans. In 2016, shifts in turnout and President Trump’s unpopularity in the district led to a more comfortable 2,000 vote victory for Democrat Jeff Bridges, though Republican Katy Brown easily outperformed President Trump within the district. 2014 Results District 3 2016 Results District 3 House District 17 – Dem Tony Exum Sr., 49.4% in 2016 / Roupe, 47.3% in 2014 This El Paso County district seems to change hands every cycle. In 2014, Republican Kit Roupe won this district by 289 votes and then in 2016 Democrat incumbent Tony Exum won it back by 1,832 votes. This district traditionally has very low turnout in midterms. It includes central and southeast Colorado Springs and includes many members of the military. It is also the only majority-minority district in El Paso County, and is one of the smallest districts by registration with only 32,843 active voters. Registration by party is 12,813 unaffiliated voters, 10,608 Democrats and 8,576 Republicans. 2014 Results District 17 2016 Results State Representative - District 17 House District 30, Dem Dafna Michaelson Jenet, 54.1% in 2016, Windholz 50.2% in 2014 In 2016, Democrat Dafna Michaelson Jenet ousted incumbent Republican JoAnn Windholz by 2,500 votes. Registration in this district is 14,865 Democrat, 10,033 Republican and 15,198 unaffiliated. This is one of the three seats won by Republicans in 2014 that was lost in 2016, and so it probably will be viewed as a pick-up opportunity. Whether that is a realistic possibility will depend on just how much turnout reverts to typical midterm levels, as well as on the strength of the Republican candidate. 2014 Results District 30 2016 Results State Representative - District 30 House District 33, Dem Matt Gray, 52.1% in 2016, Primavera 50.1% in 2014 This seat is the best example of a pure toss-up, with voter registration at 18,645 Democrats, 16,394 Republicans and 23,167 unaffiliated voters. What is surprising about this district is incumbent Matt Gray’s win margin in 2016 only being 52.1%. We would have expected it to be higher, considering a favorable environment for Democrats and the fact that Trump was incredibly unpopular in this district (36% of the vote). If Republicans field a strong candidate, this district is in play, despite what will be an unusually favorable midterm environment for Democrats. 2014 Results District 33 2016 Results State Representative - District 33 House District 46, Dem Daneya Esgar, 52.2% in 2014, Unopposed in 2016 Interestingly, Republicans did not field a candidate in this race last year. Still, the fact that President Trump won the district could show that this is a surprising pick-up opportunity for Republicans. With Pueblo as a source of fascination of Colorado politicos after the 2016 election, expect at least some interest in contesting this southwest Pueblo district. Registration in HD 46 is heavily Democratic, with 22,097 registered Democrats compared to 13,384 Republicans and 15,521 unaffiliated voters. 2014 Results District 46 House District 59, Dem Barbara McLachlan, 50.7% in 2016, Rep. J. Paul Brown, 50.2% in 2014 In one of the more closely watched districts over the past two cycles, Rep. Barbara McLachlan narrowly edged out J. Paul Brown in 2016 after Brown’s even narrower victory in 2014. This district will certainly be one to watch next year. Active registration is at 18,993 unaffiliated voters, 18,843 Republicans and 16,943 Democrats. 2014 Results District 59 2016 Results

In this episode, we welcome our first guest on the show, ProgressNow Colorado’s Ian Silverii. Ian Silverii provides an experienced and informed Democrat point of view to our discussion about the national and Colorado political landscape. Topics that are discussed include Congressman Ed Perlmutter’s withdrawal from the Governor’s race, Donald Trump’s influence on our elections, and a wide range of state and national political trends. This episode is a good one. Segment 1: Introduction of Ian Silverii of Progress Now Colorado Congressman Perlmutter’s withdrawal from the Governor’s race, coupled with a seemingly ever-increasing GOP field for Governor, has made for an interesting start to the summer. What does it all mean for next year? With Perlmutter’s exit, will Jared Polis be able to easily lock up the Democratic nomination for Governor? Or are we still looking at a bruising primary? And in the age of Trump, how should each party approach the 2018 midterms? Ian Silverii biography, worked for state party and the Democrat legislative committee. Segment 2: The Democrat Primary We discuss Britany Petersen impressive fundraising haul of $170,000, thoughts about the Democratic primary in the 7th Congressional District.  Little PAC money and 90% in Colorado. Segment 3: Thoughts on Ed Perlmutter’s Exit from Governor Primary We discuss Ed Perlmutter exiting the Democrat Governor race in Colorado. He was tired, heart was not in it, and what are Democrat primary voters looking for?  Ian discusses the quality of the Democrat candidates, including state Sen. Mike Johnson, Jared Polis and Cary Kennedy. Ian talks about the confusion for two hours that he did not know if Ed Perlmutter was going to stay in Congress, leaving the three Democrat candidates in limbo. Ian and Britany did not know this was coming. One observation is that the Democrat field has raised a lot more money than the Republican field. Is Ed Perlmutter taking a breather, and will he challenge Cory Gardner in 2020?  Was there any deal done with Congressman Jared Polis? We talk about Jared Polis having a 10-year record in Congress that will be vetted very closely by opponents. We also talk about Jared Polis’s three issue priorities (employee profit sharing, renewable energy by 2040, fully funded public pre-school) when he announced his candidacy. Segment 4: A Discussion About Renewable Energy in Colorado The conversation covers the importance of renewable energy as an issue for Coloradans, and how the politics of it has played out the past few years. Segment 5: A GOP Candidate’s Challenge of Trump Loyalty & Winning Over the Middle There is a real challenge for the Republican Governor candidates to win over primary voters. They will have to embrace Donald Trump’s policies to win over the Republican base, and then turn to the middle to win the general election. In this segment, we discuss Magellan polling that shows how unpopular Donald Trump’s policies are with unaffiliated voters in Colorado. We also discuss the dysfunction of the Republican majorities in Congress trying to get anything done. We also discuss the inability of the Republican majority to repeal and replace Obamacare. Segment 6: Mike Coffman and Cory Gardner Constituent Strategies in This Environment This segment discusses Congressman Mike Coffman’s strategy and chances in 2018, and his courage of holding town halls with some of his angry constituents. We also discuss Sen. Cory Gardner’s different strategy, and how it could harm his standing with Colorado voters. This segment also covers how the environment was the exact opposite for Democrat legislators in 2009 when Democrat voters where passing the Affordable Care Act. Segment 7: Democrat and Republican Strategies for the 2018 Election Cycle What do the results of the 2017 special elections for Congress mean for 2018? In this segment, we really get into the numbers and talk about similarities to the 2006 Democrat wave election year. We also talk about how Rep. Mike Coffman, and other Republican candidates in swing districts must demonstrate a separation from Donald Trump to be successful holding onto their seat. Segment 8: Who is in Charge of the Democrat Party? In this segment, we talk about the problems a political party faces when it does not have a clear leader and messenger like Barack Obama. We talk about the strongest groups within the Democrat Party, including teacher unions, Emily’s List, and environmental groups and if they are going to be able to work together in 2018. We also make comparisons to strong Republican organizations like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.  

In this episode, the Magellan team discusses five insights into the 2016 Clinton Presidential Campaign memoir, Shattered. It is a fascinating book, and delivers a well-documented, truthful story of what happened to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.  Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign is a New York Times best seller that came out this past April. The book is co-authored by veteran journalists Jonathan Allen of Politico and Bloomberg News, and senior White House correspondent for the The Hill, Amie Parnes. These journalists were very familiar with their subject, having penned another book about Hillary Clinton back in 2014, called HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. That book told a mostly positive story of Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Insight #1: It Was Never Clear Why Hillary was Running Ask yourself, what was Hillary Clinton’s message? Why was she running for President? The first chapter of the book, centered on the run-up to her official campaign announcement, describes a chaotic speech writing process with too many cooks in the kitchen, a process that attempted to articulate why she was running. As a source close to Hillary describes: This was the chance to make a credible persuasive case for why she wants to be President. She had to answer the why question. It’s not because of her mother. Her mother’s an inspiration, but that is not why. It has to sort of feel like kind of a call to action, a galvanizing, ‘I’m bringing us together around this larger-than-all-of-us’ idea or cause, and I don’t think it did that. I don’t think it did either of those. (p. 17) Another top aide is more blunt: “I would have had a reason for running…or I wouldn’t have run.” (p. 18) Insight #2: The Campaign Did Not Conduct Any Traditional Polling in the Month Before Election Day, and Relied Much Too Heavily on Analytics (Which Were Wrong) Jumping ahead to Election Night, it’s revealed that the Clinton Campaign relied much too heavily on their analytics and their predictive modeling of the electorate: …John Anzalone tapped out a message to a reporter who asked what was happening. “Wish we knew,” he wrote. “Our analytics models were just really off. Time to go back to traditional polling. This happened in the primaries as well. They just put too much faith in analytics. We did not do any tracking by pollsters for the last month. Just maddening.” (p. 381) As Anzalone notes, relying so heavily on the analytics wouldn’t have been such a huge problem, except for the fact that the models were wrong. For example, early on Election Night, it became clear to on-the-ground operatives that Hillary was in trouble in Florida, and her campaign was caught completely off guard: Yeah, Trump was winning exurban and rural areas, but surely Democratic hot spots like Miami-Dade and Broward would erase the deficit. No, Schale explained, Trump’s numbers weren’t just big, they were unreal. In rural Polk County, smack-dab in the center of the state, Hillary would collect 3,000 more votes than Obama did in 2012 – but Trump would add more than 25,000 votes to Mitt Romney’s total. In Pasco County, a swath of suburbs north of Tampa- St. Petersburg, Trump outran Romney by 30,000 votes. Pasco was one of the counties Schale was paying special attention to because the Tampa area tended to attract retirees from the Rust Belt – folks whose political leaning reflected those of hometowns in the industrial Midwest. In particular, Schale could tell, heavily white areas were coming in hard for Trump… A frightening realization slowly took hold of Mook and Kriegel as they watched results pour in from must-win states. Their vaunted model was way off in Florida. Worse, they had missed the mark in North Carolina too. (p. 375-377) Earlier in the book, on page 367, we learn about campaign manager Robby Mook’s rationale for the decision to rely heavily on analytics: He had learned from David Plouffe…that old-school polling should be used for testing messages and gauging the sentiments of the electorate and that analytics were just as good for tracking which candidate was ahead and by how much in each state. Plus, the analytics were quicker and much cheaper. (emphasis added) The question then becomes, why, on a campaign with incredible resources, were they pinching pennies when it came to traditional polling? It truly was a crippling mistake, because it meant that they couldn’t see what was happening on the ground, particularly in Rust Belt states, and they couldn’t re-allocate campaign resources in an attempt to help save Michigan and Wisconsin, which were absolutely crucial to any of the scenarios in which Hillary could hit 270 Electoral College votes. There is another factor at play here, however. By August, the campaign knew that Hillary was unlikely to win in Ohio or Iowa, but “the imperative to avoiding signaling this to the press and the public drove some of the decision-making. That is, they kept real campaigns going on in those states just to keep up the appearance that they were competitive.” (p. 312) Insight #3: Hillary’s Failure to Win the Votes of Working-Class White Voters Should Not Have Been Surprising…Bernie Did A Lot of Damage Of course, we don’t need Shattered to know that the Rust Belt had the potential to be very problematic for Hillary. We can know that just from looking at Democratic Primary Election results. Bernie bested her by nearly 20,000 votes in Michigan, 32,000 votes in Indiana and a whopping 135,000 votes in Wisconsin. Still, the book provides fascinating insight into the interworkings of the campaign and its failure to appeal to working-class whites, particularly in Chapter 11, Canary in the Auto Plant: On one call…Hillary pushed for information on why Bernie killed her with working-class whites, the demographic group that had been her most consistent support network in 2008…She had counted on adding parts of the Obama coalition to her white working-class base this time around, but it felt like those once-loyal friends had abandoned her. “Why aren’t they with me? Why can’t we bring them on board?” she demanded. (p. 177-178) Allen and Parnes describe how she received conflicting input from her campaign team and advisors, with younger advisors believing in the “Obama coalition-plus” model, while older staff thought she should have started with her base from the 2008 Primaries, meaning “working class…not just working-class white – women, firefighters.” The authors then provide their own explanation for Hillary’s troubles with the working class: The real answer: she’d become the candidate of minority voters on social justice issues while Bernie was hitting her as a corrupt, Wall Street-loving champion of the “rigged” financial system that took advantage of working-class voters. (p.178) Insight #4: Hillary’s Campaign Failed to Focus on Persuading Voters Related to all of the above insights, because it was driven by anxiety over money and by the analytics, and because it surely played a factor in Hillary’s disastrous showing among working-class whites, was the decision to focus almost exclusively on turning out base Democratic voters, rather than persuading voters. This was an issue from as early as the New Hampshire primary, when Bill Clinton clashed with Robby Mook and wanted to get the campaign out of the cities and to talk to more rural voters. To Mook, such a strategy was inefficient, yet as Allen and Parnes note: During the primaries, Mook’s obsession with efficiency had come at the cost of broad voter contact in states that would become important battlegrounds in the general election. It led him to send the Clintons to big cities, where black and Latino voters would produce major delegate hauls. Putting Hillary in Detroit, for example, was the most efficient way of building voters for the primary and the general election, but it meant that she wasn’t in mostly white Macomb County, just outside the city…Mook was giving up on persuading voters who weren’t inclined to support Hillary because it was less efficient to go after them. “It’s hard if you try; it’s even harder if you don’t try,” one senior aide said of the decision to forgo appearances in white suburbs. On some level, the decision to forgo persuasion was driven by a short calendar. By the time Hillary finally won the nomination after a tougher than expected fight with Bernie, it was too late to build the ground forces that are key to knocking on doors and persuading voters. It was also presumed that voters already had a wealth of information and well-formed opinions about Hillary, which meant that attempting to persuade them was especially inefficient. Still, the fact that the campaign, in large part, didn’t even try to persuade voters in key battleground states was surely a contributing factor to Hillary’s loss. Insight #5: E-mails, E-mails, E-mails Clearly, a lot of the media narrative throughout the campaign was focused on e-mails, both Hillary’s private e-mail server and, in the last month of the campaign, the cyberattacks on the DNC and especially John Podesta. There is an entire chapter of the book dedicated to “The Summer of the Server” detailing how Hillary failed to grasp the potential for the story to turn into a full-blown scandal, and had taken far too long to issue any kind of public apology for the way she had handled her e-mail at the State Department. Then, in the month before Election Day, the release of the e-mails from John Podesta’s e-mail account became, as the authors describe, a “slow-bleed story line that plagued her longer than the Access Hollywood video hobbled Trump.” In the end, voters conflated all of the “e-mail” storylines into one, to an effect that, according to campaign insiders, was decisive in her defeat.  

In this episode, we discuss the big announcement of Congressman Jared Polis’s entry into the Democratic race for Colorado Governor. The discussion also covers the impact on the other Democrat candidates in the race, and who is a perceived winner or loser. Jared Polis’s Campaign Priorities – To our surprise Jared Polis has joined the race for Governor! One thing that we find fascinating about the campaign is the Congressman’s top three priorities. These are education, the environment and the economy. You can view his bio video and details about his campaign at www.polisforcolorado.com.  Promises for Education – On the issue of public education, which is ALWAYS a top priority among Democrat voters in Colorado, Jared Polis pledges to establish universal full day kindergarten and preschool in every community across the state. This is a goal that has long been sought after by progressive Democrat groups. It is an issue that is also appealing to unaffiliated voters, primarily because it is a clear example of helping people, not advancing a political agenda. In short, its smart politics.  Promises for the Environment – Jared Polis is trying to appeal to the all-important environmental faction of the Democrat primary voter by setting a goal of accomplishing a statewide clean energy transition by 2040. He claims that he can meet that goal “while saving people money on their utility bills” and creating green energy jobs in Colorado that can never be outsourced. This language is very interesting and difficult to believe, but if Donald Trump can say anything he wants than Jared Polis can too. Promises for the Economy – When discussing the economy, Jared Polis covers his Democrat bases by affirming his support for raising the minimum wage, family medical leave and ensuring that “employers follow our laws”. In an attempt to appeal to Bernie Sanders voters, he proposes a plan to address income disparity and ensure “workers share in the value they help create”. The plan would mandate that Colorado companies have a profit sharing and “employee ownership” program for all employees. We are anxious to the see the details of that plan.   

In this episode, we look ahead to 2018 at key State Senate districts in Colorado, and provide insight into how we view the fundamental demographics and the true competitiveness of each district. Key State Senate Districts Senate District 3 - Democrat Leroy Garcia won this Pueblo district with just under 55% of the vote in 2014. He defeated Republican George Rivera, who had replaced Angela Giron in the 2013 recall election following her support of new gun control legislation. Interestingly, Senator Garcia voted with Senate Republicans this past session on a bill that would have repealed the one piece of that gun control legislation – the limit on the size of ammunition magazines. Senate District 5 – Democrat Kerry Donovan won this mountain-based district with 49% of the vote in 2014, defeating Republican Don Suppes by 1,300 votes in a race where a Libertarian candidate also received 2,374 votes. Senator Donovan also voted with Senate Republicans on the magazine limit repeal, and she has also championed efforts to gain funding for rural broadband and to establish every third Saturday in May as a permanent state holiday: Public Lands Day. Senate District 11 – Democrat Michael Merrifield won this El Paso County district with 52% of the vote in 2014, defeating Republican Bernie Herpin (the other incumbent senator who was elected during the 2013 recall elections). Merrifield has been described as “Colorado’s own Bernie Sanders” and describes Sanders as an inspiration. Though critical of “Denver-centric” Democrats in calling for a more progressive, populist voice, Merrifield is also the Minority Whip in the Senate and a very reliable Democratic vote. Senate District 16 – Republican Tim Neville won this suburban district with 51% of the vote in 2014, defeating incumbent Democrat Jeanne Nicholson. Those who follow Colorado politics will already be familiar with Neville – he ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate last year and is a reliable conservative vote in the State Senate. Neville was one of the three Republican votes on the Senate Finance Committee who voted to kill House Bill 1242 which would have asked voters to pass a .5 percent sales tax increase to go toward transportation projects. Senate District 20 – Term-limited Democrat Cheri Jahn won this Jefferson County district with 47% of the vote over Republican Larry Queen, with a Libertarian candidate receiving 7% of the vote. Jahn is perhaps the most centrist among Senate Democrats, often siding with her Republican colleagues on business issues. District 20 is clearly one of the better chances for Republicans to pick up a seat in 2018. Senate District 22 – Term-limited Democrat Andy Kerr won this Jefferson County district with 51% of the vote in 2014 over Republican Tony Sanchez. With the margin of victory at just 1,336 votes, this is another district where, with the right candidate, Republicans could potentially seize an opportunity. Senate District 24 – Republican Beth Martinez-Humenik won this Adams County district with 51% of the vote in 2014. As detailed here by Marianne Goodland at The Colorado Independent, Martinez-Humenik has emerged as a centrist voice within the Senate Republican caucus, voting with Democrats to kill an anti-abortion bill, among others. Still, the fact that there will be a Democratic Primary in District 24 next year, which will include State Rep. Faith Winter, shows that Democrats sense an opportunity to gain a seat here.  

In this episode, we discuss the end of the Colorado legislative session, which big issues were tackled, and where there still remains work to be done. We’ll refer back to our January 10thpodcast on which issues were top priorities – that podcast can be found here. Show Segments Fixing Colorado’s Crowded Crumbling Roads – Governor Hickenlooper, in discussing last week the potential for a special sessions, had this to say about transportation: “If we don’t invest in transportation, if we don’t invest and make sure we’re out ahead of this, growth in Colorado will stop.” Clearly the governor does not view the transportation provisions of Senate Bill 267 to be sufficient. So can lawmakers claim any success on transportation? Construction Defects Overhaul – After Republican Rep. Cole Wist and Democratic Rep. Alec Garnett agreed to take the lead and partner on the issue, the legislature was able to pass House Bill 1279, which eases builders’ legal burden for construction defects. Energy vs. the Environment – In a move that would not have been anticipated at the beginning of the session, the legislature failed to pass a reauthorization bill for the Colorado Energy Office on the final day. Both the House and Senate also unsuccessfully attempted to pass new regulations regarding oil pipeline safety in the wake of the home explosion in Firestone last month. Funding Public Education – The school finance bill passed by lawmakers actually increases next year’s per pupil funding by an average of $242. House Bill 1375 was also passed, which requires school districts to develop a plan to equitably share voter-approved tax increases with charter schools Hospital Provider Fee – Lawmakers were able to achieve a major agreement within Senate Bill 267 to reclassify the hospital provider fee program that helps reimburse hospitals for uncompensated care. It is a notable accomplishment, aided by Republican lawmakers from rural areas like Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg who felt compelled to make a deal to avoid hospital cuts that would have hit rural areas the hardest. The agreement on the hospital provider fee gives an example of a feature of this year’s legislative session that has been touted by both major newspapers in the state in the aftermath of the legislative session: a willing to work across party lines and compromise.  

In this episode, we finish discussing the results of our Colorado survey. We cover the topics of repealing and replacing Obamacare and how well the Democrat and Republican parties are connecting with Colorado voters. We also discuss voter opinion of a building a wall along the Mexican border, the Trump administration’s temporary travel ban from seven Muslim countries and withholding federal funding from cities that do not enforce our nation’s immigration laws. Overview Among likely 2018 voters, 63% think that the Republican Party is out of touch and 60% think that the Democratic Party is out of touch. Respondents are split on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), as 48% oppose the legislation and 47% support it. When asked how they want Congress to handle Obamacare, a clear majority of 60% wants to keep what works and fix what doesn’t. That number is far lower among Republicans, as 40% would prefer that that law is repealed and that Congress would start over with new healthcare legislation. When asked about specific policies that been enacted or discussed during President Trump’s first 100 days in office, small majorities oppose the travel ban on predominantly Muslim countries (52% oppose) and the proposal to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities (53% oppose). 62% of respondents oppose building a wall along the U.S. border of Mexico that is estimated to cost billions of dollars. Both Parties Viewed as Out of Touch When asked whether the Republican Party is in touch with the concerns of most people in Colorado, 63% of respondents think that it is out of touch. The Democratic Party does not fare much better, as 60% of respondents think that it is out of touch. These results are roughly in line with what the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found, which we discussed on our podcast last week. A Split on Obamacare Now over a month removed from the first failed attempt at repeal, respondents were asked whether they support or oppose the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The results show a very divided 2018 electorate split along partisan lines, with 86% of Republicans opposing Obamacare and 86% of Democrats supporting it. Not only is there a partisan split, but voter intensity is also high on both sides, as 72% of Republicans strongly oppose Obamacare, and 60% of Democrats strongly support it. Clearly, whatever actions are taken by the Republican-led Congress regarding Obamacare will be important in determining the political environment for 2018. Survey Questions Discussed in the Podcast Do you think the Republican Party is in touch with the concerns of most people in Colorado, or is it out of touch? Out of Touch 63% In Touch 28% Unsure or Refused 9% Do you think the Democrat Party is in touch with the concerns of most people in Colorado, or is it out of touch? Out of Touch 60% In Touch 32% Unsure or Refused 8% Do you support or oppose the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare? Total Support 47% Total Oppose 48% Strongly Support 29% Somewhat Support 18% Strongly Oppose 40% Somewhat Oppose 8% Unsure or Refused 5% Which of the following options best describes what you want Congress to do regarding the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare? Keep what works, fix what doesn’t 60% Repeal Obamacare and start over 24% Repeal Obamacare, do not replace 10% Keep Obamacare as it is, make no changes 6% Unsure or no opinion 0% Refused 0% Do you support or oppose Donald Trump’s executive order imposing a temporary travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries? Total Support 45% Total Oppose 52% Strongly Support 33% Somewhat Support 12% Strongly Oppose 40% Somewhat Oppose 12% Unsure or Refused 3% Do you support or oppose building a wall along the US border of Mexico that is estimated to cost billions of dollars? Total Support 35% Total Oppose 62% Strongly Support 24% Somewhat Support 11% Strongly Oppose 51% Somewhat Oppose 11% Unsure or Refused 3% Do you support or oppose a proposal that would withhold federal funding to cities that do not actively enforce our nation’s immigration laws? Total Support 42% Total Oppose 53% Strongly Support 35% Somewhat Support 7% Strongly Oppose 40% Somewhat Oppose 13% Unsure or Refused 5%  

In this episode, we discuss part one of our recently released survey of likely 2018 voters in Colorado. Segment 1: Survey of Likely 2018 Voters in Colorado We begin by discussing decisions about survey weighting, and why we chose to weight the survey as we did. Simply put, a survey of likely 2018 voters is far more relevant for any political observer than a survey of registered voters. Among likely 2018 voters, 47% approve and 49% disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President. Among unaffiliated voters, 40% approve and 53% disapprove of the job he is doing. While these numbers could certainly be worse, we discuss how Republican candidates in Colorado would like to see stronger numbers for the President, since in a lot of ways the 2018 election will amount to a referendum on his first two years in office. The generic Congressional ballot shows that voters prefer the Democrat candidate to the Republican candidate by a 5-point margin, 39% to 34% respectively. Among unaffiliated voters, the generic Democrat candidate leads the generic Republican candidate by a 13-point margin, 34% to 21% respectively. This is a good measurement of the political environment as we currently stand, and we discuss how this seems to show a built-in advantage for Democrats in Colorado, but it is important to note that a significant number of voters, especially unaffiliated voters, are still undecided at this point. Among all respondents, 34% approve of the job the Republicans in Congress are doing and 58% disapprove. Again, this is a number that Republican candidates would love to see improve substantially between now and next November. It also shows how President Trump remains more popular in Colorado than the Republicans in Congress as a whole. Among likely 2018 voters, 40% approve of the job Senator Cory Gardner is doing, 37% disapprove, and 23% do not have an opinion. Among unaffiliated voters 37% approve of the job Senator Gardner is doing and 35% disapprove. We discuss how any looking to either praise or criticize Senator Gardner can probably find what they’re looking for in these numbers. That being said, his approval ratings among women, Latinos and unaffiliated voters remain strong. The top three federal issues from President Trump’s agenda that voters would like to see addressed the most are: creating jobs and growing the economy, funding transportation and infrastructure projects, and reducing government spending and the national debt. We discuss how these really aren’t the areas that have been focused on by the administration thus far, which would seem to suggest an opportunity for the President to improve his standing with Colorado voters between now and 2018. However, to do so he will need to shift focus and concentrate predominantly on policies related to jobs, the economy and transporation.  

In this episode, we discuss the recent round of polls showing voter opinion of President Trump’s first 100 days. How important are these polls, how relevant are they to the 2018 midterm elections, and what are some important indicators? We then briefly discuss France’s Presidential election, the polling, and what it suggests for the future of European politics.  Segment 1: President Trump’s First 100 Days The last week has brought us two major polls, one from NBC News/Wall Street Journal and another from The Washington Post/ABC News, revealing public opinion of President Trump’s first 100 days in office. The two polls find similar measurements of Trump’s job approval, at 40% and 42%, respectively, and the NBC News Wall Street Journal survey found that 45% of respondents believe that the President is off to a “poor start.” Much of analysis in the media has focused on historical comparisons. NBC notes that at this same point, President Obama’s approval rating was 61%, George W. Bush’s was 56% and President Clinton’s was at 52%. Dan Balz and Scott Clement at The Washington Post report that President Trump’s job approval is the lowest recorded at this stage dating back to Eisenhower. Still, both surveys do find some positive data points for the President. The Washington Post/ABC News survey finds that only 2% of his voters’ regret voting for him, and his approval rating among them stands at 94%. Also, his efforts to pressure U.S. companies to keep jobs here enjoy broad support at 73%. And when respondents were asked whether President Trump is in touch with the concerns of most people in the United States today, or is he out of touch, 38% said that he is in touch, which is a higher percentage than both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party generally. In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, 50% of respondents say they approve of the President’s handling of Syria. The first 100 days of Trump’s presidency also show a country that is incredibly polarized. According to the Huffington Post Pollster’s aggregate, 85% of Republicans approve of the job the President is doing compared to only 12% of Democrats and 40% of Independents. 43% approve of the President’s handling of the economy, while only 35% approve of his handling of health care. Segment 2: French Presidential Election The results of France’s first round of presidential elections are in, and Emmanuel Macron will face off against the National Front’s Marine Le Pen in a May 7th election. It was a good result for most pollsters, who correctly called the top four candidates and the order, and were remarkably close to the final percentage of the vote for each candidate. As Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight notes, polls in France have historically been fairly accurate, certainly more so than polls in the United Kingdom have been. At this point, Macron has an overwhelming, 26-point lead in a head-to-head matchup with Le Pen. Still, news coverage leading up to the May 7th election will almost certainly seek to draw comparisons to last year’s U.S. presidential election. That may be a mistake. As Nate Silver points out here, Le Pen finds herself in a much deeper hole than Trump was ever in. There’s not a lot of precedent for a polling error large enough to cover such a large, 26-point deficit. This has led to some prominent models giving Le Pen very little chance to win. Others, however, are far more cautious. For example, political scientist Ian Bremmer, who runs The Eurasia Group, gives Le Pen a 40% chance. At least partly underlying that kind of caution is surely a comparison to, again, last year’s U.S. Presidential election. However, the fact that France has no equivalent of our Electoral College is important to remember. Bremmer also suggested before the first round of voting what many suggest was a dynamic at play in the U.S. last year: that poll respondents are reluctant to voice support for Le Pen, just as they supposedly were for Donald Trump. While we’re skeptical that this phenomenon actually did play out last year, there is even more reason to be skeptical in a European election. This is because, as, again, Nate Silver points out, we have quite a bit of data on whether European right-wing parties actually outperform their polls, and the fact is that they generally don’t.  

In this episode, we take a break from current events and discuss the fundamental steps of putting together a successful data driven political campaign. We walk through all the steps that we follow for our clients so you have a better understanding of how data and campaign strategy come together.  The Steps to Run a Successful Data Driven Political Campaign Review voter registration and past voter turnout demographics for the state or district. This exercise will tell you what voter subgroups are a priority and which ones are not. If you work with Magellan you will also be able access our modeled voter data to identify the “True Middle” voters that will likely decide the election. After compiling voter data and identifying subgroups of voters that are important, you can put together a budget. This is very important, because you will learn how much money you need to raise and what you can afford to do. We strongly recommend putting together the budget using a gantt chart format. This format will help you know when you intend to spend money and how you are spending your money. Field a benchmark survey of likely voters. Without this kind of survey, you are basically guessing what your message will be and that is never a good idea. The survey results will empower you to build out your campaign strategy, messaging, and have a good handle on what you need to, where you need to go and what you need to say. The next step is to use the survey to design the campaign website, bio palm cards, digital and social media assets, direct mail, radio and television messaging. Consistency in messaging across all mediums is very important. We recommend for our clients different vendors for your direct mail, digital, television and radio production.   Make sure you are using the most accurate and up to data voter file before you begin doing any voter contact programs. Voter files that are directly purchased from a county clerk or secretary of state contain voters that have moved or passed away. Therefore, be sure to use the most current, phone enhanced voter file before you deliver any direct mail, phone calls, volunteer activities or door-to-door efforts. Using a solid voter file will save the campaign time, money and increase the efficiency of all efforts. Predictive voter modeling and voter segmentation is powerful because it allows you to “go beyond” the information on a typical voter file. Magellan Strategies has been modeling voter data for more than 10 years. Voter modeling is very powerful to a campaign because it allows you to target “True Middle” voters that are likely to determine the outcome of your campaign.     Voter opinion tracking surveys are short surveys that tell you where things stand. These surveys are used to measure the campaign’s progress and answer vital questions. Are we winning or losing? What is the profile of an undecided voter so we can target them? Are voters familiar enough with our candidate, or more importantly do they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of you?  Without this information, you are basically guessing where things are and are likely to make uninformed decisions that could cost you the campaign. In the final weeks of the campaign a strong get-out-the-vote and voter ID program will ensure that your supporters are voting. Using daily ballot return reports that Magellan Strategies compiles, you will know who is voting and who is not. The bottom line is a political campaign that incorporates data from surveys, voter files, predictive modeling and raw data sources will be in a much better position to win than one that does not use data to make decisions. That is what a data-driven campaign is all about!   

In this episode, we take a look at some special elections being held around the country, and explore what they may reveal about the 2018 midterm elections. We also check in on Colorado’s Democratic candidates for governor, now that two more have made it official. Segment 1: What’s So Special About Special Elections? Campaign watchers don’t have to wait long to attempt to gauge exactly how much Donald Trump will affect midterm elections around the country next year, as three special congressional elections will take place in the next two months: Kansas CD 4, Georgia CD 6, and Montana’s at-large Congressional seat. FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten has a great analysis of what typically happens in special elections here. Basically, special congressional election results don’t vary all that much from the previous presidential vote in the district. Historically, the president’s party does a bit worse than its previous performance, and obviously how much worse depends upon the President’s current popularity. With President Trump’s job approval at only 42%, what does that mean for these three races? Republicans are fortunate that they are all in red districts, but on one level that only increases the potential for an embarrassing loss. So let’s take a look one-by-one. In Kansas’ 4th Congressional District we now have final results. Current State Treasurer Republican Ron Estes defeated civil rights attorney James Thompson by a 7-point margin. In the final days, the race garnered a surprising amount of attention as national Republicans rushed to aid Estes in what came to be perceived as a close race. The single-digit margin could be seen as a sign of increased Democratic strength in the age of Trump. In Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, a crowded Republican field is vying to take on Democrat Jon Ossoff, whose “Make Trump Furious” campaign is a far better test of how far anti-Trump energy can carry Democrats than Thompson’s campaign in KS-04. This race has received significant national attention, and is the only one of the three that is being tracked by the Huffington Post’s Pollster. Ossoff is currently at 43%, which would have him easily advancing out of the primary, but assuming the Republicans close ranks around their top vote getter, falling well short in the general election. Ossoff’s campaign is a textbook example of how special elections differ from regular congressional elections. He’s raised more than $8.3 million in a single quarter, capitalizing on help from Nancy Pelosi and other national Democrats in an attempt to score their first big win of the Trump era. Suffice to say that most Democratic challengers trying to win in red districts during next year’s midterms will not have those kind of resources. He also isn’t actually running as a liberal firebrand in the model of Bernie Sanders, to try to tap as much energy as possible out of the anti-Trump resistance. He’s running as a centrist who criticizes both parties and vows to end wasteful government spending. This just shows the extent to which these special elections can take on a life of their own, with national media portrayals that don’t necessarily match the facts on the ground. If Ossoff is able to win this seat, it will be because he ran as the kind of moderate centrist candidate that Democrats will need to find more of in order to have a shot at winning back the House. The third race, for Montana’s at-large Congressional seat, is also unique in that both candidates start off with solid name ID. Republican Greg Gianforte just came off an unsuccessful run for Governor and Democrat Rob Quist enjoys the status of a legendary folk singer within the state. In contrast to Ossoff in GA-6, Quist does not have much support from national Democrats (which, in Montana is probably a good thing for him), though Bernie Sanders may visit the state in a show of support. With Montana’s history of sometimes electing populist Democrats like current U.S. Senator Jon Tester, if Quist is able to pull off a surprise victory it wouldn’t necessarily have national implications that could carry over to next year. Segment 2: Two More Democrats Jump in for Colorado Governor Democratic Congressman Ed Perlmutter made a long-expected announcement that he’s entering the race for Colorado governor. His announcement was followed on Monday by former Democratic state treasurer Cary Kennedy’s announcement that she too will join the race. Kennedy is the first Democrat to announce who has previously held statewide office, though the initial coverage has been dominated by the bizarre manner in which she announced.

In this episode we take an early look at the candidates in Colorado’s 2018 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary and consider the possibility that Colorado’s major parties might opt-out of Proposition 108. Segment 1: Assessing the Candidates With the announcement by Ken Salazar that he will not run, the field in Colorado’s Democratic Primary for Governor is becoming a bit clearer. Congressman Ed Perlmutter has to be considered the frontrunner at this point. Though he has not officially announced, he has stated as recently as last month that “chances are very good” he will run. Perlmutter, as a Congressman since 2007, would also seem to be a preferred candidate of the establishment, along with former State Treasurer Cary Kennedy if she decides to jump into the race. The question is: Does that help or hurt in a Democratic Primary? Clearly, there is a divide within the Colorado Democratic Party between the more establishment Democrats who backed Hillary Clinton, and the Bernie Sanders wing of the party. Sanders defeated Clinton in last year’s caucus, and since November Sanders-inspired groups have been encouraging supporters to run for leadership positions at the county and state level, with varying degrees of success. Asked to describe the Sanders-inspired, Our Revolution viewpoint by The Colorado Independent’s Corey Hutchins, Joe Salazar, perhaps the most prominent and outspoken Bernie Sanders supporter in Colorado, said: “They want to change the Democratic Party so it’s more responsive to the people and less responsive to corporate dollars, I think that pretty much sums it up”, adding that he worries that oil and gas money has too much sway in Democratic politics in Colorado. What does that mean for Perlmutter? Cozying up to the oil and gas industry is a common criticism coming from the left at prominent Colorado Democrats like Governor Hickenlooper and Senator Bennet, though embracing a more moderate position on the issue has led to some crossover appeal, and Perlmutter appears to be cut from the same cloth. And even among Democratic voters, the environment is rarely a top-of-mind, decisive issue when choosing a candidate to vote for. As for “corporate dollars”? Congressman Perlmutter managed the final stage of Wall Street reform in the House in 2010. He doesn’t appear vulnerable on that front. He also supported Congressman Tim Ryan’s insurgent bid to become House Minority Leader against Nancy Pelosi So maybe Perlmutter is the perfect candidate – appealing to the establishment while having sufficient progressive credentials to garner support from the party’s more liberal wing where a majority of the energy seems to be located. He could be. And that’s likely why Colorado Pols on their Big Line has Perlmutter as far and away the favorite for Governor, stating that “Now that Ken Salazar has backed away from the race, Perlmutter can take the baton and get moving”, and that former State Senator Michael Johnston “cannot beat Perlmutter in a Democratic Primary. Period.” As for Johnston, his campaign made news Tuesday morning by reporting a record early fundraising haul, none of which came from political action committees or from his own pocket. At the very least, this shows that he should be taken more seriously as a candidate, and that his chances of winning the Democratic nomination are greater than zero. If the most important question is which candidate can best position themselves with, for lack of a better term, the “Bernie Sanders” wing of the Colorado Democratic Party, Johnston has already drawn explicit comparisons from local media, and he says that “I think the Bernie folks will find a lot of the values that they share will be evidenced in our campaign.” Still, Johnston supported Hillary Clinton during last year’s primary contest, and his progressive credentials are not without flaws, as Chase Woodruff details here. This all makes for a fascinating, fascinating race to watch. Segment 2: To Opt-Out or Not to Opt-Out? For our second segment, on a related topic, let’s take a look at something Congressman Perlmutter said during his remarks at the 7th Congressional District Democratic reorganization meeting a few weeks ago (from the Colorado Statesman’s Ernest Luning): Perlmutter also urged Democrats to consider looming changes to state law governing how political parties nominate candidates following last year’s voter approval of Proposition 108, which opens up primary elections to unaffiliated voters. “There’s another provision there I think we, as Democrats, and you as members of the state central committee need to keep in mind. And that’s an opt-out provision,” he said, noting that three-quarters of a party’s central committee can vote to skip primaries entirely and nominate candidates through the caucus and assembly process. “It’s a big change in the law and one that Democrats may not pursue, and that’s fine,” he said. “But you all need to know about it and think about it because it’s a very important function, and the decision by the central committee has to be made by Oct. 1 of this year. Potentially it could save candidates a lot of money if you’re working through the assembly process, and it give you, as delegates or committee members a lot of power if you have candidates up and down the ballot going through the assembly process and whoever’s chosen is the nominee.” For a primer on what he’s talking about, here’s an article on Proposition 108 from the Denver Post. Basically, the much-hyped Proposition 108, which opens up primaries to Unaffiliated voters, contains a provision that allows parties to “opt out” of holding primaries and instead choose to nominate candidates by assembly or convention. The Post article goes on to note that Proposition 108 drew opposition from both Steve House and Rick Palacio, both now former chairs of their respective parties. And the crux of the argument can be found in a quote from Penfield Tate, a former state legislator and aide to both former Mayor Peña and former Gov. Romer, who said that he doesn’t want unaffiliated voters, who may not share his values, to play a part in choosing his nominees: “If you’re a Catholic, you want the college of cardinals to select the next pope, not Methodist ministers.” So back to Perlmutter, while not wanting to read too much into what he said, one has to think that he considered carefully what to say to that particular crowd at the re-org meeting. And he sure seems to be supportive or at least considering opting-out of Proposition 108, by noting that it could save candidates a lot of money and delegates or committee members would have a lot of power. Doing so would seem to be a huge dismissal of the will of Colorado’s voters, who voted for Proposition 108 just last year by a margin of 53-47%. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the Democratic establishment in Colorado lined up behind Clinton during the caucuses last March, and yet Sanders still won a resounding victory. The issue of whether or not to opt-out was an issue during the race to become state GOP Chair as well, though a victory for Jeff Hays this past Saturday likely means that Republicans will not be opting-out. If the Democrats do in fact decide to forego a Primary in favor of a caucus and assembly, that would theoretically push a lot more Unaffiliated voters into the Republican Primary, to the point where they actually may have an impact. Only time will tell…

In this episode, we discuss the failed Obamacare repeal and the implications it has going forward, both among the Republican party’s base and among 2018 general election voters. Segment 1: What Went Wrong, What Next? While the specific blame has been spread pretty much everywhere in Republican circles in Washington, there are clearly major differences among House Republicans that may have doomed the effort from the beginning. Both the Freedom Caucus and moderate Republicans were critical of the bill, and each time concessions were made to one group, Congressional leaders lost support from the other. In the end, as the New York Times helpfully details, both groups kept the bill from reaching the 215 votes needed to pass. While the fight over the bill exposed the fault lines in Washington, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey shows that few voters strongly supported it, and that 44% of voters want the Republicans to move on to other issues. The fact is that the bill was never that popular among voters, and so this failure may not turn out to be as disastrous as is being reported. Still, there are clearly lessons to be learned here for President Trump and Congressional Republicans. Byron York has a helpful breakdown at the Washington Examiner.  Segment 2: Impact on 2018 Midterm Elections If the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare turns out to be symptomatic of larger forces in Washington that prevent the Trump administration from fulfilling any of the big promises made to voters over the past year, we could be looking at a Democratic wave election next year. For historical context, in the 2006 midterms, Democrats gained 30 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate to take control of both houses for the first time since 1994. In the 2010 midterms, Republicans gained 64 seats in the house and 6 seats in the Senate, to regain control of the House. And in the 2014 midterms, Republicans gained an additional 13 seats in the House and won back control of the Senate. The precedent, then, for midterms, is for the President’s party to lose seats. However, next year’s Senate map is very favorable for Republicans. And though there are 23 House seats that voted for Hillary Clinton and are currently held by Republicans, even if Democrats were to sweep those 23 seats it would not be enough for them to win back control of the House. Perhaps the best opportunity for Democrats to make gains is in Governor’s races, where they generally face a more favorable environment where Republicans are in the position of having to defend seats that are more or less toss-ups.

In this episode, we discuss recent European election polling misses and how their polling challenges are different than the polling challenges we face in United States elections. Segment 1: Recent Misses for European Election Polls Following the first presidential debate in France’s upcoming Presidential election and with the first round of voting only a month away, U.S. interest in the French election is only going to increase. HuffPost Pollster is now tracking polls for the first round of voting, showing what is likely to be a run-off between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen which Macron is projected to win easily. While the outcome of the election will certainly be worth watching to determine the true extent Europe’s populist wave, we want to take this opportunity to discuss some of the recent misses in European polling, and what we can learn from them.   If the aftermath of last June’s Brexit vote (51.9% leave/48.1% Remain), a lot of British news coverage focused on whether the polls had been wrong again, suggesting that it wasn’t the first big miss for British pollsters. The first example that is generally cited is the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, which polls consistently showed to be closer than it actually was. The final vote was 55.3% opposing Scottish independence, 44.7% supporting it. Nate Silver has a good breakdown of the Scottish independence polling here. This miss was followed the next year by the 2015 U.K. General Election, in which polling suggested that the two parties would finish neck-and-neck yet Conservatives won an outright majority, or 36.9% to 30.5% of Parliament’s 650 seats. The miss in the 2015 General Election spurred an extensive postmortem by the British Polling Council, which pointed to several key groups who were underrepresented in the polling: voters over age 70, young non-voters, and busy voters, and explained that there is “no single, straightforward fix for not having the right sort of people in your sample.” Clearly, these mistakes were not fully corrected in time for the Brexit vote, though what is interesting about the Brexit polling is the clear difference between online and telephone polls. As detailed here by YouGov’s Editor-in-Chief Freddie Sayers, a large majority of online polls predicted the eventual vote to Leave, whereas an even larger majority of phone polls had Remain leading. Sayers states unequivocally that the debate has now been settled: Online polls are more accurate than phone polls. Segment 2: Online vs Telephone Polling What about here in the United States? Should there be a substantial move toward more online polling at the expense of telephone polls? Not so fast. The most prominent online polling companies, Survey Monkey and YouGov, each predicted easy Electoral College victories for Hillary Clinton, including some pretty bad misses. That said there are of course some advantages to online polling. It’s just our opinion that they fall short in their attempts to interview a completely representative sample of the population. This is one of the first places to look when analyzing where any poll went wrong: Were they interviewing a representative sample of the population? If they were, the next question to ask is: Were they accurate in their projection of what the electorate would look like? For an accurate poll, both of those criteria need to be met.

In this episode we discuss our survey of Republican primary voters in Colorado, where they stand on President Trump and his policies, and how they fit into the battle over how best to fix Colorado’s roads. Segment 1: Colorado’s Republican Primary Voters We conducted an internal automated survey of Colorado’s Republican primary voters last week, to find out where they stand on President Trump, his policies, and other state-level issues. The first major finding is that these voters are completely on board with President Trump – 87% have a favorable opinion of him, and his job approval is 86%. Those numbers hold strong among all of the major demographic groups, with even 60% of self-identified moderate Republicans approving of the job he is doing. This stands in stark contrast to the job approval rating for Republicans in Congress, which at just 48% is very low considering that the respondents are all Republican Primary voters. Three out of four respondents who disapprove of Congressional Republicans approve of President Trump. Of course, political parties are almost always going to be less popular than individual politicians, but the gap in these numbers is striking. When asked whether in next year’s primary they are more or less likely to vote for a candidate who supports President Trump and his policies, 84% say they are more likely. And asked generally about Republican candidates in the future, 67% prefer someone similar to President Trump instead of a more traditional Republican candidate. Regarding specific issues, 49% support, 26% oppose and 25% are unsure about the House Republican bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, though those who have heard a lot about the bill are far more likely to oppose it (42%). These voters are also fairly evenly split on President Trump’s proposed 1-trillion dollar infrastructure bill. When informed that such a bill would result in having to increase the debt ceiling, only 46% support the bill, 38% oppose it and 16% are undecided. On other policies, however, Republican primary voters appear to be in near lock-step agreement with President Trump. 86% support the Trump administration’s revised travel ban that forbids individuals to enter the United States from Syria, Yemen, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Libya. 80% support building a wall on the southern border to stop illegal immigration, and 86% of those who do support building a wall support it even if U.S. taxpayers have to pay to build it. Segment 2: Fixing Colorado’s Roads We also wanted to check in on the infrastructure needs facing Colorado, to find out whether these Republican primary voters are supportive, generally speaking, of an increase in the state income tax to pay for road and transportation projects across the state. In general, they are not, with 63% opposed to increasing the state income tax and only 26% supportive. However, when presented with the specifics of the compromise proposal that was promoted last week by State House Speaker Crisanta Duran and State Senate President Kevin Grantham, the numbers look significantly better, with 39% approving and 44% rejecting the proposal. This is in line with past polling we’ve conducted on transportation funding in the state. Republicans are willing to get on board, but the details matter. A number of factors complicate this issue. For one, leading conservatives in the legislature have criticized it. The issue will be further complicated by competing proposals. Jerry Sonnenberg, the number 2 Republican in the Senate, is drafting an alternative bill that would not increase taxes and would use $100 million in existing state dollars to cover a much smaller $1.3 billion bond, which is only enough to improve small local roads. And the Independence Institute on Friday took the first step to getting a different measure on the ballot, an initiative to “Fix Our Damn Roads”. It calls for a $2.5 billion bond issue for transportation, and would pay for it by diverting spending from other programs like subsidies for filmmakers and electric vehicles, the Bustang commuter bus service, and others.

In this episode we discuss President Trump’s address to Congress last week, check in on the public polling data after one month of the Trump administration, and take a look at the Obamacare replacement bill released by House GOP leadership last night. Segment 1: Presidential Address to Congress President Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday night was widely praised as his first “presidential” moment, a moment that voters watching at home seem to have responded to. A CNN/ORC poll of voters who watched the speech showed 57% of respondents with a very positive reaction to the speech, a number that exceeded the reaction to all of President Obama’s State of the Union speeches except for his very first in February 2009. While 58% of respondents thought that President Trump would move the country in the right direction before the speech, after the speech that number shot up to 69%. That’s a data point that the Trump White House has to love seeing. And not surprisingly, that same percentage, 69%, say that Donald Trump made them feel more optimistic about the direction of the country after his speech. A CBS/YouGov poll found similarly positive reviews for President Trump. Even a near majority of Democrats, 46%, found the speech to be “presidential”, and nearly ¾ of Independent voters thought it was “unifying”. One thing to keep in mind, as this CBS article on their poll results points out, members of the president’s own party are more likely than others to watch an address to Congress or State of the Union, which presumably affects these overall numbers somewhat. After a few more days to process the speech, a Huffington Post/YouGov online panel weighed in, and they too generally approved of the speech, with 57% approving of the speech, though 52% also said it was similar to most of what he’s said and done since becoming president. So whether the public really viewed this speech as a change in tone is open to question. Monmouth University also released a poll conducted a few days after the speech and over the weekend, which found about 1-in-5 respondents saying they feel more confident about Trump’s presidency after the speech. A large number of those who came away feeling more confident were Republicans (47%) or Independents (44%).  Segment 2: Public Polling on President Trump and Congress / The Obamacare Replacement Bill Even before his address to Congress, there was some good news for President Trump in the public polling. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey from February 18th-22nd among registered voters showed Trump with significantly higher favorability ratings than both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party generally. The survey also found that a majority, 51%, of respondents thinks the media has been too critical of President Trump. A Morning Consult/POLITICO survey found President Trump’s job approval at 50%, the highest that it has reached in their tracking surveys since he became president. The same survey also found that 43% believe that the country is headed in the right direction, which might not look good on it’s face, but it is a serious improvement from the 71% who believed the country was on the wrong track on the day after Election Day. The Morning Consult/POLITICO survey also asked respondents whom they trust more to handle a variety of issues: Democrats in Congress or Republicans in Congress? Republicans are trusted more on the economy, jobs, and immigration, while Democrats are trusted more on health care (and Medicare and Medicaid), the environment, energy, and social security. That shows the extent to which President Trump has work to do to gain the public’s trust on certain issues, especially as the Republican Congress begins their efforts in earnest to repeal and replace Obamacare. The country is still very much divided on whether to trust them in those efforts. This line of questioning on who voters trust more becomes even more relevant as the GOP leadership’s newly released Obamacare replacement bill has finally seen the light of day, drawing instant criticism from the House Freedom Caucus and from Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee, among others, as “Obamacare lite”. Our own Senator Cory Gardner is in the middle of the fray, as he joined 3 other GOP Senators in voicing concerns over the Medicaid expansion – concerns which were addressed in the bill that was eventually unveiled, but which only added to the criticism from more conservative members of the House and Senate. Clearly this is an issue where the Republican Party is fractured, and these divisions will likely need to be resolved for a repeal and replace bill to eventually pass.

In this episode we focus on Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, or TABOR, twenty-five years after its approval. Does TABOR still enjoy majority support among Colorado voters? What are the factors that influence support and opposition for TABOR? What have been the positive and negative impacts? Segment 1: All About TABOR Last Friday, the Denver Post editorial board published a piece outlining their argument for why TABOR needs to be reformed. Yet even in doing so they acknowledge the obstacles facing any attempts at reform, not the least of which is that there is no political will to do so. TABOR still enjoys widespread support among Colorado voters, which we found here at Magellan in a 2016 statewide survey on general issues facing our state. While Democrats generally support eliminating TABOR, Republican voters and the increasingly large bloc of unaffiliated voters enjoy the direct-democracy of TABOR and the constraints it places on all levels of government. Still, those constraints do not come without consequences. Democratic State Rep. Millie Hamner wrote an accompanying commentary in the Post highlighting five critical state needs that are hindered by TABOR, including two top-of-mind issues for Colorado voters: public education and transportation infrastructure. Simply put, TABOR has created an environment where there is a very high-stakes competition over resources for these important public needs. The interesting thing about the latest effort at TABOR reform in the legislature is that it is led by Republicans, Rep. Dan Thurlow and Sen. Larry Crowder. Their plan would result in reduced tax refunds in the 1st two years and then no tax refunds in the foreseeable future after that. It would allow the state to spend hundreds of millions more each year on transportation, education and health care, while maintaining voters’ power to vote on tax measures. This is more or less the proposal we explained to voters in our statewide survey last year, and it was widely rejected. What about the political ramifications? Former Secretary of State Scott Gessler makes the interesting argument that TABOR actually helps Colorado’s Democratic politicians because voters know that they are protected from fiscal overreach. It also leads to significant infighting within the Republican Party, which is a likely result of the current Thurlow-Crowder plan. Still, it does appear that TABOR is becoming less of a third rail in Colorado politics. How TABOR reform will impact next year’s Republican primaries and general election, it’s probably still too early to tell, though it is safe to say that in a Republican primary there is going to be very little appetite for reforming TABOR. Segment 2: Colorado’s Transportation and Infrastructure Needs Related to our TABOR discussion, Vic Vela at Colorado Public Radio has a good primer on efforts at the statehouse to address our transportation and infrastructure needs. It appears as though voters will eventually be asked to support a sales tax hike, though the specifics still need to be worked out. In the event that a sales tax hike is placed on the ballot, it will matter whether it appears on this November’s ballot or next year’s. Legislators will need to balance the need to do something, which their constituents demand, with the consideration that placing the tax increase on the ballot next year would increase it’s likelihood of passing, with a younger, more tax-friendly electorate.

In this episode we take an early look at the potential candidates in Colorado’s 2018 Republican Gubernatorial Primary, and how they are positioning themselves in a crowded field, and how President Trump’s policies, and the support he still holds among a large majority of the Republican base, will impact the race. Republican Candidates for Governor – Colorado 2018 State Treasurer Walker Stapleton – If one candidate could be called a front-runner at this point, it’s Stapleton.  Over the years he has been a public face for several issue campaigns, including No on Amendment 69 and just recently a U.S. Term Limits campaign to put term limits on members of Congress. He has also crisscrossed the state as a leader of the movement to reform Colorado’s Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA), and has long said that the system needs reforming to address the growing unfunded liability of the pension fund. The end result is that he probably has the best name ID among Republican Primary voters, and is seen as a leader on fiscal conservative issues. Throughout the campaign last year, Stapleton was never publicly supportive of President Trump. District Attorney George Brauchler – Another candidate who is near the top of every list of potential candidates is Brauchler, the District Attorney for Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln Counties. That position has put him front and center on law enforcement issues in the state, especially as the prosecutor in the Aurora theater shooting case. He is by all accounts a terrific speaker and retail politician, but it remains to be seen whether he’ll have the financial resources to break out of a crowded field. As a sitting District Attorney, Brauchler also may find himself caught up in the battle over President Trump’s immigration policies. State Attorney General Cynthia Coffman – From her post as Attorney General, Coffman can take some credit for the fight against President Obama’s regulations, including the Clean Power Plan, which she fought from the beginning. Having President Trump and a Republican Congress in Washington surely makes her life easier, and she has said as much, but a President Hillary Clinton would’ve also provided a pretty effective bogeyman during a Republican Primary campaign. There’s also the complicating factor of her husband Congressman Mike Coffman’s refusal to get fully on board with President Trump – fine for a general election in the 6th Congressional District, but not for a statewide Republican Primary electorate. Former State Representative Victor Mitchell – Last week, Mitchell became the first notable Republican to officially enter the race, and his pledge to spend $3 million from his own pocket suggests that he is taking a run seriously. This piece from John Frank at the Denver Post serves as a good introduction to Mitchell’s bid. Since he only served one two-year term in the State House, and it was a decade ago, he can credibly sell himself as an outsider, and he says that he believes that’s what the voters want. He calls Stapleton and Brauchler “traditional establishment candidates” and himself as a “longshot, outsider candidate”, but his political views don’t neatly fit the typical establishment vs insurgent candidate dynamic. “I may not be the most conservative candidate,” he says, after noting that he doesn’t believe in “bazookas in schools” a caricature of pro-2nd Amendment groups that probably isn’t going to play very well in a Republican Primary. He also didn’t vote for Trump, saying he “just couldn’t get there.” And he pledges to break up partisan gridlock by getting legislator from both parties to do community volunteer activities together. This all suggests that Mitchell is the most likely candidate to basically run a general election campaign during the primary, which is almost always a losing strategy. Still, his conservative stances on taxes and education (describing teachers unions as the “enemy of the state”) will get him a hearing with primary voters. DaVita Healthcare Partners CEO Kent Thiry – Unique among the names currently mentioned in the Republican field, Thiry is not currently a registered Republican. And he spent most of last year funding and advocating for Propositions 107 and 108, to give his fellow Unaffiliated voters more of a voice by allowing them to vote in primaries. A good summary of his argument can be found at the website for Let Colorado Vote. Thiry is on record with the opinion that excluding independent voters from primaries leads to a system where general election voters only get to choose between two “extreme” candidates. What goes unsaid is that if he decides to run in the Republican Primary, he’ll need to win the votes of a whole lot of voters who prefer “extreme” candidates. Or else he’s counting on a huge turnout in the Republican Primary among Unaffiliated voters, which is unlikely. State Senator Ray Scott – Scott is on the fringes of the conversation, but his unique position as the only candidate outside of the Denver Metro area makes him worth mentioning. His “Fake News” spat with the Grand Junction Sentinel seems to channel President Trump, and perhaps he could catch fire in a Republican Primary if he’s the only candidate who runs in Trump-like fashion.  

In this episode we continue our discussion of the anti-Trump movement by taking a look at Elizabeth Warren’s potential impact on the 2018 Midterm elections around the country. We then move on to a discussion of the current polarization in the Colorado statehouse, whether it is simply the “new normal” given the state of our political parties and to what extent it can be attributed to President Trump’s actions. Segment 1: Elizabeth Warren, The Race for DNC Chairmanship and the Future of the Democrat Party Much has been made about Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s use of Senate rules to prevent Senator Elizabeth Warren from reading a letter written by Coretta Scott King during the debate over the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. The move has been described as a terrible blunder and as carefully planned strategy, and everything in between. Which side you fall on depends upon how you view Senator Warren – is she a champion of progressive values who shows the way to future Democratic success, or does she symbolize how far left the national Democratic Party has become, which hurts the chances of the 10 Senate Democrats who are up for re-election next year in states where President Trump won? This all feeds into the discussion we had last week about the Women’s March and the Tea Party, and it’s important to remember that all this anti-Trump energy does not automatically translate to Democratic success. It still matters where in the country the Democrats are trying to win elections. Dan McLaughlin has a useful breakdown of the 2018 Senate Races here at National Review. Clearly, Democratic senators are up for re-election in states that will be incredibly tough: West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana and Missouri are all states were Trump received 60% or more of the two-party vote for President. Whoever prevails in the race for DNC Chair will also presumably play a large role in determining the party’s success next year. James Hohmann at the Washington Post has some great reporting about the race for DNC Chair, and he highlights the fact that the candidates all give a similar explanation for why Hillary Clinton lost: She talked too much about Trump. Yet, as Hohmann points out: “Ironically, every person who complained about how the party was too focused on attacking Trump in 2016 also tried to out-do the other candidates in promising to go after the new president. Ellison called Trump “the most misogynistic person to ever become president.” Perez called him “the most dangerous and destructive person to ever hold the presidency.” Buttigieg described the new commander in chief as “a chicken-hawk.” Most of the DNC Candidates also highlight the need for a 50-state strategy – basically, strengthening local and state parties across the country from the ground up. What they don’t acknowledge is that the party’s move to the left makes this more difficult. Quite simply, the voters who Democrats need to reach in red states and most swing states are not going to respond to this kind of reflexive, anti-Trump sentiment. They are going to view it as either exaggerated or inconsequential. They care far more about kitchen-table economic issues, and they are not going to be animated by the same issue set that concerns the liberal base (immigration, women’s and minority rights, etc…) Segment 2: Polarization in the Colorado State House In Monday’s Denver Post, Brian Eason and John Frank write that anti-Trump sentiment is influencing the Colorado legislative session, as Democrats face pressure to push back against Donald Trump. House Democrats introduced a resolution urging Trump and Congress to rescind his executive order restricting travel from 7 majority-Muslim nations, and a second resolution defending women’s reproductive rights and health care. Both drew criticism from House Republicans as purely political moves that undermine the possibility for bipartisanship and cooperation. At the same time, Republican Rep. Dave Williams introduced a bill targeting sanctuary cities, and House Republicans have also introduced three abortion-related bills, which were all rejected along party lines. The danger for both parties in all this political posturing is that middle voters will witness the back-and-forth arguing over President Trump’s policies and it will just further convince them that legislators are incapable of working together to solve the issues that they care about. Still, it’s important to remember that this kind of polarization is not exactly new. There have always been contentious debates during the legislative session. But if the battle between support for and opposition of Donald Trump’s agenda overshadows the real bi-partisan work that needs to be done on transportation and education, it’s unclear who exactly stands to benefit.

In this episode we discuss the possibilities of the Women’s March growing into a political force like the 2010 Tea Party movement.  Segment 1: The Tea Party Brought New Voters Into Republican Primaries…Will the Women’s March Do the Same for Democrats? Across the country, Tea Party candidates have been successful in Republican Primaries since 2010 by appealing to voters who are not traditional Republicans and do not traditionally vote in primaries. Two clear examples of this phenomenon include: Rand Paul in Kentucky in 2010, who was unpopular among a large number of Republican voters (Grayson’s Supporters, PPP, May 18, 2010) and Congressman Dave Brat who famously defeated House majority leader Eric Cantor (GOP pollsters missed big in Va., Politico, June 12th, 2014). If we see a lasting impact from the women’s marches, we may see the beginnings of the impact in Democratic primaries beginning in 2018. For an interesting article on how the women’s marches may impact Democratic Party politics, see this article from NBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald. Clearly, the women’s march may develop into a movement that will resist being completely overtaken by the Democratic Party. Segment 2: How Will the Women’s March Impact the 2018 General Election? In the aftermath of the women’s marches, President Trump sent a tweet implying that these women did not vote. In reality it is highly likely that they did, as a group of political scientists suggest on The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog. The real question will be whether the historically large size of the women’s marches points to an uptick in voting in next year’s midterm elections, which would be to the detriment of House and Senate Republicans in swing states and districts. However, there is evidence to suggest that the impact of the women’s marches may be only or mostly felt in Blue states. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight points out that 80% of the total crowds in the women’s marches came from states where both President Obama and Hillary Clinton won. He compares that number to the original Tea Party protests on April 15th, 2009, where only 42% of crowds were in McCain/Trump states and an impressive 33% were in Blue states. So, where Senators like Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania were able to capitalize on Tea Party energy in 2010, it remains to be seen whether the energy from the women’s marches will have much of an impact beyond areas that are traditionally Democratic strongholds. On another note, it’s important to also remember the fate of Tea Party candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle in 2010. Simply because candidates are able to harness the energy of the women’s marches in a Democratic Primary does not mean that that energy will translate to success in a General Election. Segment 3: What Are the Issues That Will Likely Drive the Women’s March Movement? While the women’s marches do share some common characteristics with past successful social movements, as discussed here on The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage, the one question that remains to be answered is whether there is a sufficiently coherent goal that they are directing energy toward. CNN contributor Salena Zito raised this point in a column for CNN.com. Simply put, it remains to be seen whether the women’s marches will evolve into a movement with long-standing influence, but the sheer number of marchers on the weekend after President Trump’s nomination suggests a movement that the Republican Party and, especially, the Democratic Party need to understand in advance of the 2018 midterm elections.

There are three segments in this episode. The first segment discusses the political fallout from the Trump Administration’s executive order to increase security vetting for travelers coming into the United States from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia for 90 days. We also discuss how members of Congress are positioning themselves around this decision. The second segment is a discussion about historical voter opinion research showing a majority of Americans opposing proposals allowing refugees to enter the country. The third segment discusses the decision of White House Counselor Stephen Bannon’s to attack on the national media in an interview with the New York Times.  Segment #1 – Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Muslim Immigration Ban  The executive order increases scrutiny on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia for 90 days. The executive order also bans Syrian refugees indefinitely from entering the United States, and the whole refugee program for 120 days. President Trump has said a more “extreme vetting” of immigrants from those state will keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States. His team has said this is not about religion, this is about terror and keeping the country safe.” Critics have said the ban will only make it easier for radical terror groups to recruit new members. We also discuss how Republican members of Congress are reacting to the executive order. We reference an article in the New York Times, Republicans Have One Big Incentive to Stick With Trump, by Kyle Dropp and Brendan Nyman, January 30th, 2017. Segment #2 - America’s History Opposing the People Seeking Refuge in the U.S. A fascinating article by Ariel Edwards-Levy, the polling director of the Huffington Post reviews historical polling data from Gallup and other news organizations. The article summarizes American attitudes and opinions of allowing refugees to enter the United States.    Segment #3 – White House Advisor Stephen Bannon Attacks Media in NYT Interview The final segment discusses the political impacts of Stephen Bannon’s attack on the media in an interview with the New York Times. The advisor to President Trump calls the media the “opposition party” and should be “embarrassed and humiliated, and should keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while”. The discussion also references the findings of a national online survey of adults 18 and older conducted by the polling firm YouGov. The poll asks questions about the media’s coverage and treatment of Donald Trump (positive, negative, just right). The survey also asks respondents how much they trust the Trump administration to state the facts fully, accurately and fairly.

In this episode, we discuss Donald Trump’s job approval numbers according to a poll by Gallup. The Gallup article also discusses how Donald Trump’s approval rating compares to other Presidents at the start of their first terms. The show also covers some basic polling fundamentals. Finally, we discuss what the political impact of the Women’s March on Washington and other marches on January 21sr could have on Colorado and national politics. Segment #1 – Presidential Job Approval Link to Gallup article “Trump Sets New Low Point for Inaugural Approval Rating” by Lydia Saad, January 23rd, 2017, http://ow.ly/jbsV308jJtf   Segment #2 Women’s March Link to Women’s March on Washington website - https://www.womensmarch.com/

In this episode, we discuss the findings of two recent surveys from the Pew Research Center and Politico/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Both surveys measured public support and opposition for repealing Obamacare/Affordable Care Act. The Politico survey also measured public opinion of immigration reform, increased infrastructure spending, increased defense spending, tax cuts for individuals and corporations and filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Segment #1 – Discussing the Politico/Harvard Survey We discuss the methodology of the Politico/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health survey. It was fielded in mid-December among adult population of 18 and older, not registered voters. 1,023 total interviews for a margin of error of +/- 3.6%. The Politico/Harvard survey measured public opinion of: Enthusiasm for President-Elect Trump’s Priorities Repeal & Replacing Obamacare The Future of Medicare Immigration Policy Tax Cuts & Economic Benefits Infrastructure Investment Creating a More Conservative Supreme Court Politico Survey Link: “Trump voters set own priorities for the first 100 days”, by Eli Stokols, January 16th, 2017 http://ow.ly/Dw683085NhA Segment #2 – Discussing the Pew Research Survey Pew Survey Link: “More Americans say government should ensure health care coverage” by Kristien Bialik, January 13th, 2017.  http://pewrsr.ch/2j8yCPo Pew Survey Link: “Republicans, Democrats find common ground on many provisions of health care law”, by Kristen Bialik, December 8, 2016. http://pewrsr.ch/2h8iw7a

In this episode, we discuss the top 10 issues facing the Colorado legislature in 2017. For this show we reference an article in the Denver Post, “The Top 10 Issues Facing Colorado Lawmakers in the 2017 Session”, published January 8th by Brian Eason and John Frank. Segment #1 - The Trump Effect Will legislators try to adopt the style and tone of Donald Trump even though he lost Colorado to Hillary Clinton by 137,000 votes?  We think this is a bad idea, but some legislators will not get the hint. Segment #2 - Fixing Colorado’s Crowded Crumbling Roads Transportation is going to be an issue that voters want addressed. The big question is if Democrats and Republicans can come together and put something on the ballot this November for voters to approve. Segment #3 - The 2018 Governor’s Race What the legislature is able to accomplish or fail to accomplish in the 2017 session will impact the primary and general elections in 2018. However, other than Senator Ray Scott, there are not many players in the legislature that will be running for Governor. Segment #4 - It’s All About the Budget  The projected state budget is 28 billion dollars and a budget shortfall is projected to be $169 million dollars. This is going to force legislators to prioritize their spending and make touch choices. However, we do not believe voters will really care about the actual nuts and bolts of the budget in the 2018 election. Segment #5 - Energy vs. the Environment  The ongoing battle between fossil fuels, oil and gas and the environmental lobby continues into 2017. However, with split control of the legislature it is unlikely any anti-fracking or major changes to energy regulations will occur this session. It’s really more about legislators grandstanding for their respective constituents. Segment #6 - A New Look at Construction Defects Overhaul This is another ongoing battle between the home building community, defective construction compensation and consumer rights advocates. This debate is really inside baseball that only lobbyists and legislators follow. Housing is a hot issue, but construction defects legislation reform is not going to be on voter’s minds come 2018. Segment #7 - Addressing the Affordable Housing Crisis This issue is a big one and will be more and more relevant as we get closer to the 2018 election cycle. The bottom line is housing, either renting or owning a home is more difficult for Coloradans than it ever has been. Governor Hickenlooper has increased funding to fight the increase in the homeless and made this a signature issue of his legacy. We comment on how Republicans would be politically wise to put forth solutions to this problem. Segment #8 - A New Formula for Funding Classrooms  This is also a hot topic and always will be, funding for public education. The article says behind the scenes there may be some discussion about some new funding for public education, however anything that has involved a massive tax increase has been rejected by Colorado voters. We are eager to learn about any new proposals on this front. Segment #9 - Hospital Provider Fee Again, the debate about reclassification of the Hospital Provider Fee so that it does not fall under TABOR limits is in our opinion inside baseball. Voters do not understand or really care about this debate. We discuss the point that this the Hospital Provider Fee is really a debate about setting a new precedent where TABOR would could be weakened. Segment #10 - Marijuana  This segment discusses the problems created by the legalization of marijuana and how the state is dealing with it. We also discuss the politics of marijuana and how there are stark differences by party affiliation.

In this episode, we discuss our findings from a 500n post-election survey of unaffiliated voters and what to expect in the early part of 2017. Segment #1 – Discussing Our 500n Colorado Post Election Survey of Unaffiliated Voters Among voters 44 and younger who tend to vote for Democratic candidates, human rights, civil rights, LGBT rights, abortion rights, the cost of education and the environment were the most important issues. Older Democrat-leaning voters cared more about climate change, immigration reform, jobs and healthcare. Republican-leaning voters cared about immigration, securing our borders, gun rights, jobs and the economy, national security and healthcare. Overall, only 37% of respondents were satisfied and 59% were unsatisfied with their choices for President. Additionally, younger, Democrat-leaning voters were very unsatisfied with their choices for President. Among Hillary Clinton voters, 75% were unsatisfied with their choices, compared to only 28% of Donald Trump supporters who were unsatisfied with their choices. Among all respondents, 35% voted for Hillary Clinton, 30% for Donald Trump, 8% for Gary Johnson, 3% for Jill Stein, 9% for some other candidate, 2% did not vote for President and 13% either refused to answer the question or did not remember. Hillary Clinton’s win margin among unaffiliated voters is very close to her overall win margin in the state of 4.9%. (as of Dec. 6th) A clear majority of unaffiliated voters are uncomfortable with the size and role of the federal government. Among all respondents, 66% believe that the federal government has too much control and 62% believe that the federal government’s role in people’s lives has gotten out of control and needs to be reduced. Also, 61% believe that the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Hillary Clinton’s supporters voted for her because of her experience, qualifications and knowledge of government and world affairs. They also voted for her because they were afraid of Donald Trump, repelled by his comments, and they believed he was a loose cannon. Donald Trump’s supporters voted for him foremost because he was not a politician, he was not part of the “establishment” (Hillary Clinton was), he was a successful businessman and he was perceived as being able to bring true change to Washington and the country.  Segment #2 – We Are All in Donald Trump’s Hands Now David and Courtney discuss the anticipated policy agenda for the new Republican majority and Donald Trump in Washington. David and Courtney discuss the stupidity of the Republican majority attempting to weaken the powers of the U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Office on day one and the damage it will cause the Republican Party’s image.   

In this episode, we discuss the evolving Democrat strategy to stop the Trump Administration’s agenda. Segment #1 – Voter Registration Trends in Colorado From December 1st, 2015 to December 1st 2016, voter registration increased by 324,153. Among those registered voters, 40% identified as Democrat, 28% as unaffiliated, 26% as Republican and 6% with a minor party. Millennials, or voters that are 18 to 34 years old, make up 31% of all registered voters in Colorado. They are the largest voting block by age. Voters identifying as Republican continues decline in comparison to Democrat and unaffiliated registration. Segment #2 – 2016 Voter Turnout in Colorado For the first time ever in Colorado, unaffiliated and “other party” voters made up a larger part of voter turnout than the Democrat and Republican parties. The Republican turnout advantage over Democrats declined by from 45,543 in 2012 to 19,020 in 2016, a drop of 26,523 voters. Turnout as a percentage of all registered (active and inactive) voters in increased by 3 points compared to 2012, going from 71% to 74%. 81% of registered Republicans and 78% of registered Democrats turned out to vote, and increase of 4 points from 2012 for both parties. 66% of unaffiliated voters turned out, and increase of 3 points from 2012. 16% of inactive voters turned out to vote in 2016.

In this episode, we discuss the evolving Democrat strategy to stop the Trump Administration’s agenda. Segment #1 – What is Being Reported by Media About Democrat Soul Searching Democrats have lost the support of traditional working families Donald Trump talked more about the struggling economy and how to fix it New York Times Article reference: Democrats Hone a New Message: It’s the Economy, Everyone by Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin Time Magazine article reference: Inside Democrats’ Plan to Beat Donald Trump at His Own Game by Sam Frizell Segment #2 – What Policy Proposals Should Democrats Oppose? This segment discusses anticipated policy proposals and reforms that Donald Trump will need to work with Congress, which ones he will not need Congress, and ones that he may need Congress. New York Times article reference: Trump to Fulfill His 100-Day Plan by Larry Buchanan, Alicia Parlapiano and Karen Yourish, Nov. 21, 2016 What is the current state of the Republican Party in Colorado? What is the current state of the Democratic Party in Colorado? How does the rise of Unaffiliated voters impact our politics?

In this episode we discuss the election results in Colorado and give our thoughts on politics in our home state. Segment #1 – Turnout in Colorado What did turnout look like in Colorado? Was it substantially different from 2012? Why didn’t Colorado “ride the Trump wave”? Segment #2 – State of the Political Parties in Colorado What is the current state of the Republican Party in Colorado? What is the current state of the Democratic Party in Colorado? How does the rise of Unaffiliated voters impact our politics? Segment #3 Unaffiliated Voters How did they view this election, generally? What issues, if any, were important to them? From the turnout we can tell that they supported Hillary Clinton more than Donald Trump…Why might that be the case?

In this episode we discuss what really happens during a recount, and then try to give at least some explanation for what happened with political polling this year and why very few were predicting a victory for Donald Trump. Segment #1 – Recounts What does a recount mean? What does the process look like? What is unique about these recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? Segment #2 What Went Wrong With The Polls? Where were the polls wrong? Why were they wrong? Was the problem more with the idea of modeling/forecasting, rather than the polling itself? Segment #3 How to Fix The Polls What is the solution? How much longer will telephone-only surveys be viable? Recap the issues with online sample/panels? We try really hard to get feedback from you our listeners about past shows and suggestions for topics to cover in future episodes. To do that you can email us at smarterpolitics@magellanstrategies.com or send us a tweet, our Twitter handle is @smartpolitics77. We really look forward to hearing from you so please don’t hesitate to bug us.

In this episode we discuss the biggest surprise in American politics since Harry Truman beat Thomas Dewey for the Presidency in 1948. Segment #1 – Donald Trump Shocked the World and Got It Done Why did Donald Trump win? Were there changes to voter turnout compared to 2012? Was Donald Trump the reason the Republicans held onto the US Senate? Segment #2 What Does the Democrat Party do to Regroup? Who is now the head of the Democrat Party? What are their chances of rebounding in 2018? Are there silver linings for the Democrats that are not apparent yet? Segment #3 Thoughts About What the GOP Stands for Moving Forward Is it Trump’s Party? Where do moderate Republicans go? How should Republicans position themselves in future primaries?

In this episode Courtney, Ryan and David make their Election Day predictions for president and ballot issues and comment on early voting trends in Colorado. Who will win Colorado and by how much? Using data, who will win nationally and why? Colorado ballot issues: right to die, minimum wage, Raise the Bar  

In this episode we discuss early voting data, how to analyze it, what we are seeing this cycle compared to other historical trends. We also talk about some polling that was released and our general thoughts on where voter opinion is going. Segment #1: What Does our Latest Ballot Return Report Show Ballot Report: 701,062 ballots returned Democrats have a lead of 28,584 ballots returned. What are campaigns doing right now with 11 days to go? Segment #2: Where Do We Think the Election is Going for GOP Candidates Is Donald Trump improving or sinking? Are U.S. Senate Republican candidates going to survive? What impact will lower Republican turnout have on legislative races in Colorado and the statewide ballot initiatives? Segment #3: Thoughts About What the GOP Will Look Like After the Election Is it Trump’s Party? Where do moderate Republicans go? Will there be any backlash from the losses?

In this episode the team discusses the data and trends behind the decline of voters identifying with the Republican Party, why we think this is happening and our thoughts on the final presidential debate. This includes taking a look at the raw numbers for the Republican Party, exploring why exactly voters are leaving the party, and how our numbers from the past 10 years reflect that. In this episode: Segment #1 – The Data Doesn’t Lie, Voter Registration The evolution of the Republican party by the numbers Segment #2 – What Do Unaffiliated FEMALE Voters Think of the Republican Party? 2014 Post Election Research with Colorado Women’s Alliance Segment #3 – Comments About the Presidential Debate Courtney, Ryan, and Dave discuss their thoughts on the presidential race and tonight's final debate. For full show notes for this episode, including all of the numbers and statistics discussed, visit the Smarter Politics website.

In this episode we discuss the fundamentals of microtargeting, voter data mining and predictive analytics. We talk about why this data is so valuable, how we generate it and how it can be used to give a campaign an edge on their opponent. In this episode:  Segment #1 – The End Result of Predictive Modeling What is microtargeting and voter data mining? What is the process and what are the benefits of it? Voter file vs. on a modeled voter file Segmentation and its importance especially in unaffiliated voters it is Segment #2 – The History of Microtargeting Reflecting on time at the Republican National Convention The 2004 presidential election How the Obama campaign used modeling at a more advanced level Segment #3 – Microtargeting Overview and Process Difference between modeling survey questions and regular survey questions Why a large survey sample is needed Enhancing files with census data, consumer data, election return data Segment #4 – Using Modeling to Create Segments Our work in CO, NM and PA for voter segmentation How we use 15 models to put someone in a segment Segment 5 - Limits of Modeling Why it won’t save a blowout election Why it won’t save a bad candidate Challenges building a Republican primary model

In the debut episode of Smarter Politics, the team at Magellan Strategies break down what determines if a poll is right or wrong, how polls are conducted (including the differences in robocalling and cell phone interviews), online interviews, weighting, and why conducting an opinions survey on social media networking sites like Facebook and Twitter present big challenges to pollsters. In this episode: Segment #1 - Voter Demographics What are they and why are they important Colorado’s Registration Demographics as an example Voter demographics from the 2012 Colorado general election What demographic questions are important and what is irrelevant for a campaign Segment #2 – Survey Sample What is it and where do pollsters get it? Telephone sample, online sample, voter file sample Cell phone vs. landline issues for telephone and coverage problems with younger and minority voters What is an online panel and what problems does it create with voter surveys The potential of Facebook surveys Segment #3 – Weighting How weighting works Weighted and unweighted telephone survey results How statistical software actually works Segment #4 – How to Use Survey Results to Make Decisions Candidate/incumbent image rating info and how it is used to define or introduce a candidate to certain voters. Issue preference  

Welcome to Smarter Politics, the Magellan Strategies Podcast, I’m David Flaherty, CEO and Founder of Magellan Strategies. However you came across our podcast, we are glad to have you. If you’re looking for breathless coverage of the Presidential Election, or listen to a so-called “political strategist” commenting on each and every word of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, or a bean counter dissect the latest polls, you’re welcome to stick around but this is not that kind of podcast. That’s not to say that we won’t talk about the polls, the political headlines, and public policy debates, believe me we will have plenty of that. Each week, we’re going to take our listeners on a deep dive into how smart campaigns really work. We are going to talk about how smart campaigns target voters using data. We are going to talk about how to understand what voters really think using survey research. We are going to talk about why all voters are not all the same, and how smart campaigns know which voters to contact and which ones to leave alone. Finally, we are going to talk about what voters could care less about, and how candidates make mistakes and really screw it up, in both political parties.     Those are just a few examples of the kind of conversation you’re going to hear each week as I’m joined by two other members of the Magellan Strategies team, Courtney Gibbon and Ryan Winger. Our goal at the end of each episode is for you, our listeners be more educated and informed about how to use voter data, survey research, data mining and learn effective political strategies so you can practice Smarter Politics. If you have any suggestions for topics for future episodes, you can contact us at smarterpolitics@magellanstrategies.com or send a tweet, the podcast handle is   @smartpolitics77. Please stay tuned, our first episode coming out very soon.