I say that because if surveyusa's polls about abortion and gay rights.  You see, there are TWO very distinct GOP states:  evangelical and libertarian.  States like AZ, NV, and CO, and even NM are more libertarian.  Whereas, OH's GOP is very religious.  

I feel that Lousiana's gone forever (much to the chagrin of Mary Landrieu who is TOAST in 2008), considering the loss of it's D base and it's HARD RIGHT social conservatism according to surveyusa it is the SECOND most anti-choice state behind only Utah.  

forgot to add that libertarian states are easier to flip than evangelical ones like GA, most of the South, and the Dakotas and NE.

are those "big 4" gonna plan on doing a repeat performance?

I'm hardly surprised that that's how it happened though.  I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why it didn't happen ten years ago, across the country.

I guess no one really anticipated the Bush Administration, but still.  

I'm going to offer a different take from someone who was on the ground in Colorado in 2004. It's the Republican mantra--want some cheese with that whine?--that Democrats won so many seats in Colorado in 2004 because the big 4 spent so much money.

I think that's only part of it. The other parts were great candidates and powerful on the ground efforts by supporters of candidates who lost in primaries.

From Deaniacs to Kucinich supporters to Vets for Kerry to John Edwards folks and right down to supporters of Colorado Senate candidate Mike Miles, darn near everyone stayed on board and worked hard even after their favorite candidate lost in a primary. I think one big reason we did so well in 2004 is because so many people were inspired by so many outstanding candidates, and they stayed involved after those candidates were out of their respective races.

Just a thought...

Bill Winter
www.WinterForCongress.com

It's true the state party didn't do much in 2004 and before. The movement toward the blue side has had more to do with the Republicans moving away from personal freedom libertarian sensibilities, and the Democrats moving into that vacuum. That's a long-term movement and it will certainly continue. (And I think a great many Democratic politicians in Colorado haven't gotten the memo yet; we have a ways to go to fully take advantage of the vacuum.)

But the change in leadership from Gates to Waak had nothing to do with ideology, just as the state Party has little influence over ideology. The change was precisely because the state party had been so ineffective in the past in basic duties such as organizing, fund-raising, recruiting, and getting out the vote. Many of us (especially those new to party activism) wanted someone with a more active agenda.

Pat has certainly accomplished a lot of what we were hoping for. For us in the county organizations, the difference between now and two years ago is night-and-day. I think in the future the state party will become relevant to election results, perhaps as early as 2006.

There is a lot more to the successful Colorado elections in 2004 than funding from the Big 4. A number of top state politicians helped out, but they kept things quiet and blind-sided the Colo gop who had become lazy, self-destructive and relying too much on extreme right-wing messaging. First they used a classic swing-district strategy. Second they strategically allocated the additional 527 money. They identified swing districts, made sure that good candidates were selected, nurtured and well-funded, and, paid for hard-hitting, sometimes even outrageous ads, like an actress dressed in a pink dress like Marilyn Musgrave stealing money from Iraq veteran's.

I'm sure the gop would like to copy the dem 527 and swing-district strategy, but the ground game in Colorado has changed. The gop continues to fight internally between the religious nuts and the anti-government libertarians. The dems control state House and Senate which gives them a lot of influence on issues and press. Plus, they now have momentum going for them.

Certainly the Democratic Party helped contribute to the successful takeover, but resources (money, personal networks, messages, strategies) seem to concentrate in the campaigns of individual political figures more than with the Party.

You get a sense that the top Democratic strategists and influence brokers are the Senate Prez & House Speaker (Ken Gordon & Andrew Romanoff), not the Party operatives (former or present). Don't get me wrong, Gordon & Romanoff are attractive and smart.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even nationally, more resources seem to stick to individual candidates more than to the Party. What the hell is the party platform, anyway? If this is where the influence is, then perhaps that is where progressives should be working.