Eidsness Switches To Dems

Sort of cross-posted (0.00 / 0)

at daily Kos with edits for the national audience.

Illegal is not a noun

---

by: Luis @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 21:40:21 PM CST

If (0.00 / 0)

Eric kicks ass and speaks out like Reagan's Secretary of the Navy - we'll take him. Post haste.

---

by: Zappatero @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 21:54:27 PM CST

Eidsness probably a better match for CD-4 (0.00 / 0)

As much as I like Angie, my guess is that at this time, Eric is probably a much better candidate to win CD-4. I think Angie would do well in CD-1 and possibly in CD-2. However we do it, I'd love to see CD-4 in the D column, that would just leave CD-5 & CD-6.

Things might get really interesting if we could get Jay to run in CD-6 in 2008.

Be a community organizer, sign-up at East Denver Neighborhood Volunteers for Change.

---

by: davewolfusa @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 00:02:23 AM CST

I think (0.00 / 0)

he's pretty much in the Springs for good. But man, I'd love to see him on C-SPAN ripping these fools on the other side.

---

by: Zappatero @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:17:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

if he wants to run (0.00 / 0)

and we can get him some money, and make Musgrave spend millions again, I'm game.

CD-4 is a tough nut to crack for any Dem--new or old.

SoapBlox - the new blog framework.

---

by: pacified @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 00:20:32 AM CST

Primary in CD-04? (4.00 / 1)

I ran into Jim Merlino last weekend at the JJ. He was introducing 'likely' CD-04' candidate Jim Long to party activists. Long is former Bent County Commissioner.

I don't know either potential candidate. I do know that I saw lots of comments here and elsewhere last year that Eidsness came accross as the stronger of the three candidates.

ACTION - VOICE - SPICE
Visit my new blog Green Chile Democrats

---

by: greenchiledem @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:03:34 AM CST

Oops! Bill Long is his name! n/t (0.00 / 0)

ACTION - VOICE - SPICE
Visit my new blog Green Chile Democrats

---

by: greenchiledem @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:05:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Eidsness (0.00 / 0)

"I am a new Democrat..."

I find this decision very interesting.  It sounds like Eidsness is frustrated enough with Musgrave's non-representation of CO-04 that he's willing to even join the Dems.  It's not too much of a stretch to recognize he can tap into one of the two major party's infrastructure.

But this decision again raises the question in my mind, as Eidsness puts it, what is a new Democrat?  Expanding on that, would he fit into a "Western Democrat" mold, more libertarian than liberal?

A Responsible Plan for Iraq: endorsed by Jared Polis

---

by: WeatherDem @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:03:05 AM CST

Immigration claim? (0.00 / 0)

Can you go further to support your argument that Paccione lost due to her immigration stance?

---

by: Ricki @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:04:47 AM CST

Follow the link (0.00 / 0)

The argument is laid out in the post I linked to. 

Illegal is not a noun

---

by: Luis @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:31:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry. (0.00 / 0)

I see. I should have done that first. I'm very interested in the political future of Latino/as in national life, especially Colorado.

Survey USA said Musgrave was 10 points up 20 days out of the Election. Yet Musgrave only won by 2.5 points. So is this poll even credible in the first place?

Let me see if I follow you: Out of 581 likely voters, 9% were "Hispanic." That means the results polled less than 46 voters.

Do we know how many registered Latino voters there are in that district, to know if 46 voters was genuinely representative?

---

by: Ricki @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:44:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Lack of good data (0.00 / 0)

Yes, you have identified the substantive flaw in my analysis: the high MOE in the subsamples of the SUSA poll.

All I can say in response is that I remember seeing earlier SUSA polls with similar internals (although I couldn't find them when I wrote that post).  And in a year when regional exit polls showed a strong swing to the Democrats among Latinos in the West, as a reaction to the Republicans' right wing turn on immigration, there is no reason to believe that a Democrat whose TV ads echoed the Republicans' "tough on immigration" message could benefit from that swing, especially when there was a strong third party candidate in the race.

In an ideal world, we'd have district specific exit poll data, but here we don't.

To answer your question re the demographics, CO-04 is 17% Latino per the 2000 Census.

Illegal is not a noun

---

by: Luis @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:07:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Or put another way, (0.00 / 0)

over 110,000 voters, of which 46 were polled. You're killing your own argument, Luis.

---

by: Pager @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:14:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That argument (0.00 / 0)

would apply to any analysis of any polling data.  And actually, it would be 110,000 residents, not 110,000 registered voters.

Illegal is not a noun

---

by: Luis @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:35:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not necessarily (0.00 / 0)

Only a proportion of that amount would be registered voters, and then only a proportion of registered voters would be likely voters. Still though, 46 is a statistically insignificant amount because you can't establish a margin of error to determine probability, and it's essentially bad data to be drawing empirical conclusions out of.

Therefore, Luis' explanation may possibly be true, but it is unkowable at this point, because it cannot explained using SUSA as empirical evidence. So it is possibly false too. This makes it generally unreliable.

---

by: Ricki @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:39:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Right (0.00 / 0)

Right, and then we should avoid the flawed assumption that all Latinos were voting on the basis of that one issue. Since Musgrave was pulling a sizable chunk of that demographic (according to one unreliable SUSA, I admit), then it would seem that there wasn't a Latino "bloc" that could really swing the election.

My guess is a lot of those pro-Musgrave folks were swayed by "culture of life" ideology. It may also be flawed to think there aren't a sizable bloc of Latinos who are actually pretty right on immigration. I think it is wrong to stereotype a demographic of voters as all being motivated in the same way.

If any of this is right, then the argument that some one single strategic mistake caused Paccione to lose by only 2.5% (as opposed to the shellacking Bill Winter and Jay Fawcett received) seems pretty flawed. In fact, even if Paccione went more left on immigration, she may have made gains there while ultimately losing lots of moderates and blue-collar Democrats, and lost by an even larger factor.

Although it may be one among several factors.

---

by: Ricki @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:28:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's an even more flawed assumption (0.00 / 0)

to believe that "culture of life" talk has any traction whatsoever when the regional polling data showed such a strong swing against the Republicans.  If your speculation were correct, that swing would not have happened.

Illegal is not a noun

---

by: Luis @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:36:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The bottom line to both of you (0.00 / 0)

is that I have an analysis based on evidence, and you don't.

Illegal is not a noun

---

by: Luis @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:37:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not claiming to, however (4.00 / 1)

Can you link to the regional data? I'd really like to take a look at it, because we need to do a better job all around.

---

by: Ricki @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:41:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, thank you! (0.00 / 1)

That's the best laugh I've had all morning. You have 46, count them, Luis--46--out of 110,000 Latinos polled. You call that accurate?

Instead of responding to your flawed analysis, you dig your heels in and insist that your theory, which cannot be proven, must be truth.

Why? Because even with the facts in front of you, and your own admittance that you "can't find" the other polls that support your theory, you so want this to be true that you would prefer to believe it, even when it isn't.

That's a dangerous mentality, my friend, to engage in. It serves no purpose, except to blind you to the truth and to the reality of what other factors affected the outcome of this race.

Angie has done post-election reviews all over the district to get input from voters. She is willing to seek out the truth. Why aren't you?

---

by: Pager @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:43:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bullshit (1.00 / 2)

You're not my friend, and you're calling me a liar.  Go check with SUSA yourself if you don't believe their previous polling internals showed the same thing.

Illegal is not a noun

---

by: Luis @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 13:34:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"My friend" is an expression, Luis. Grow up. (0.00 / 0)

Your comment is equally unproductive. Was that your goal?

The bottom line is you don't have the goddamn data to back up your theory but you don't have the interest to look at the facts. That's your problem. Not mine. You've been espousing your theory since the day after the election. I'm still waiting, with bated breath, for your diary that you claimed you were going to write, regarding the mass robocall that went out to Hispanic voters the day of the election, threatening them if they turned out to vote.

But I'm sure that had no bearing at all on the turnout. I'm sure it doesn't factor in at all. I'm sure a 3rd party candidate who took 11% of the vote doesn't really factor in, either. Just and ONLY your unproved theory that Latino voters stayed away because of Angie's stance on immigration.

Well, unlike you, I prefer to deal in reality so that I know what we need to do the next time in CD4 to take this seat away from Musgrave. Out of the three Democratic candidates that ran for Congress and lost, Angie came within spitting distance, unlike the other two that lost by 20 percentage points. I think indicates a whole lot of things done right on the campaign, considering that registration in this district does not favor a Democrat. I think if we have any desire to see this district go Democratic, we might start looking at ways to work together, instead of picking our single issue topics and using them to tear each other apart.

Oh, and FYI, I saw the SUSA poll and I believe Ricki already addressed the problems with your "analysis".

---

by: Pager @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 14:14:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I disagree (0.00 / 0)

Since you are using SUSA as "evidence," how else would explain such a large proportion of the 46 voters going for Musgrave.

My guess -- because I don't claim to have evidence -- is that abortion politics and a rightward tilt within this demographic are possible explanations.

---

by: Ricki @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 11:44:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dear Pager and Luis (0.00 / 0)

I don't care who's right and who's wrong, please tone it the fuck down right now!

For the record, Luis never claimed his theory was the only reason Angie lost, he said it could have been a factor.  Pager is also correct that there were other factors that kept voter turnout down among latinos and there was the third party candidate to siphon off moderate votes. 

---

by: johne @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 14:20:06 PM CST

Johne, this isn't about who's right and who's wrong (0.00 / 0)

It's about putting out incorrect theories with no analysis to back those theories up.

And pardon me, but that was Luis's main claim as to why Angie lost, that and Eidsness running.

http://www.squaresta...

I'm getting some criticism for suggesting that Angie Paccione's me-too approach to the immigration issue cost her the election in CO-04.

and

I think Musgrave's survival in a Democratic wave election was a combination of the presence of a third party candidate who threw a wrench into the typical "lesser of two evils" argument, combined with the standard take-Latinos-for-granted mentality that made Democratic leaders believe there was no electoral price to be paid from posturing as "tough on immigration."

I'm sorry if I'm coming off strident but when I see this rehashed on a national blog, again without proof or merit, then I believe it is time to at least have a conversation about it and set the record straight. Perhaps this is no longer the right blog to do that on.

---

by: Pager @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 14:57:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my point is (0.00 / 0)

Argue all you want but the tone needs to be kept civil.  We absolutely want these kind of discussions here.  But, as soon as civility goes out the window we're wasting everyone's time.  And I don't want to hear about who started it. 

---

by: johne @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 15:04:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, I got your point. (0.00 / 0)

And I don't believe anyone went into 12 year old mold with who started it first. Sorry if this conversation makes you uncomfortable. I'm not real thrilled to be having it, yet again, either.

---

by: Pager @ Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 15:10:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Several people (0.00 / 0)

That last line is the most profound understand you can frame in the English language.

---

by: doog @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:49:27 AM CST

DUH (0.00 / 0)

Make that 'understatement' - definitely sub-caffeinated today

---

by: doog @ Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:50:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]