With so few respondents this survey is worthless.

I wonder if being a Republican in the mountain west is like being a Democrat in the south - not as indicative as you would think.  Colorado has more Repubs than Dems - but we also have a dem governor, state senate, state house, and 4/7 U.S. representatives and 1/2 senators.

Part of what is going on is that there are a lot of independents here - almost a third of voters.  While most independents are more loyal to one party than the other, they (I would think) are easier to move than those registered in a party.  But I also think that there might be a cohort of Repubs who stay in their party for traditions sake, but won't vote for religious rightwing nuts.  In spite of Colorado Springs, Colorado has more of the libertarian flavor of conservativism than the religious right flavor.

I certainly don't think Democrats are guaranteed anything here.  They have an opportunity, not a lock.  And the door was opened by the Republicans' bad behavior, both here and nationally.  We can't count on that lasting forever.

In Colorado, "affiliation" usually ends up polling as approximately 1/3 Democratic, 1/3 Republican, and 1/3 Independent/Unaffiliated.  I think that the percentage of registered independents here is much higher than the national average.  Also, it seems, anecdotally, that the percentage of people who STRONGLY identify themselves with their party of registration is lower here.

I remember diving into some approval numbers from minorities in the Mountain West last year because African Americans were showing up super-Republican.  Discovered (with a bit of help from commenters) that the sample often consisted of about 2 African Americans.  So as mentioned above, grain of salt.

The interesting thing to me from these numbers is how wide the gap is overall between parties.

You might want to separate the Deep South from the rest of the South, too.

Democrats don't outnumber Republicans in any state in the Mountain West.  Party affiliation is not strong.  In Colorado, Democrats have won in districts with nearly 2 registered Republicans for every one Democrats. (example)

You may want to compare the summed 2006 or 2004 congressional results over the entire region and see if the number is dramatically different.

All of what is above about affiliation is true.

But I still think attacking the Midwest is a better 2008 strategy than attacking the Mountain states--there are more electoral votes there, anyway, and a longer history of voting democratic.  If Wisconsin can be moved more solidly blue, and Missouri and Iowa are carried, then the Republicans are in serious trouble.  

This polling suggests we can win in both the Mountain West and the South.

   Still I am convinced we can (and should) win Colorado in 2006, and challenge in Nevada.  The other states...not so much.  I'd really like to see numbers from the states on the fringe of The South.  Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Florida should be challenged.  There are unpopular Republicans in office in all those states (maybe not in Florida) and Democrats performed well there in 2006.  We may not win them all (or even one), but it would certainly put the Republicans on the surprise defensive in 2008.

Anyone who ever thought that winning the Mountain West was the key to winning 2008 just wasn't paying attention.  We could win some states there, but if we do, we will already have won the election elsewhere.  So there is nothing dramatically new here.

We have some favorable trends in the Mountain West. What we need to do there is put long-term investments into building infrastructure (50-state strategy, anyone?), because there is a significant long-term opportunity.  This opportunity is much greater than we have in the South, outside of a few "outer south" states.

Partisan breakdowns in the South can be misleading because (a) there are still some Dixiecrats registered as Dems who will never vote Dem in a federal election, (b) there are racially gerrymandered districts that reduce the bang-for-the-buck of Democratic voters at the congressional level, even while racially polarized voting makes it virtually impossible to get statewide majorities, and (c) the South is so anomalous that trying to appeal to Southern swing voters will ensure that the national Democratic Party never stands for anything at all.  This means that Southern indepedents should properly be regarded as Republicans for any sort of comparative purposes.  (Though, of course, it doesn't mean that candidates in those races should take that view.  But they should not expect the national Party to remake itself in their image, just so they can lose by 1 percent instead of five or ten.)

The true potential of the Mountain West is likely to start showing up in 2010--especially if we win the presidency and a fillibuster-proof Senate majority in 2008--and beyond.

It is the candidates.

States like Utah, Wyoming and Idaho likely skew the sample.  There are some extreme Republican states, but some states that are clearly in play for the Dems.

uh....no.

I never take much stock in generic congressional polls.  They are nice for sensing trends, but in order to take advantage of them you need strong candidates running strong campaigns to challenge incumbents.  We wouldn't have won Montana if we didn't have a Tester, they won't elect just any Democrat.  Which is why I'm going to shamelessly shill for Bill Richardson to be the Presidential candidate.  The only Westerner in the race, and with Vilsack out, the only governor, he has a real chance to win these states and bring coattails to the Democrats running for congress.  His moderate stances, like on gun control, are likely to play a lot better in the west than Obama, Clinton or Edwards will.  And as a Westerner, he can assure the West that their issues, like water usage, will not be overlooked by his administration.  New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Montana could be in reach of the Democrats, all states lost in 2004.

Everytime the discussion turns to how well the Democats are doing in Colorado, I point out that it is a purple state, not a blue state. Statewide democratic candidates that win tend to be cautiously conservative, rather than dramatically populist (let alone progressive). The rural, small-town, exurban, and suburban West tends to be fairly conservative. Lotta Christian-right in them thar hills.

Colorado ends up purple-blue almost entirely because Denver is a very liberal Urban area and the Denver metro area is almost half the state's population. That makes Colorado more like Washington, Oregon and California, than Idaho, Montana and even Kansas for that matter.

In other words, any of these lightly populated states WITHOUT an urban center is dominated by Conservative and sometimes arch-conservative views. The liberal Urban center is the critical counterweight to the conservative rural/exurban. It makes me interested in whether Atlanta plus the black population of Georgia could provide us with a Democratic opportunity in the South.

Can the Mtn West vote Democrat?

Well, we saw that populist and libertarian values gave Tester a win in Montana and Gary Trauner an almost win in Wyoming. However Madrid's loss in the Albuquerque area shows that merely being a democrat is insufficient, you also have to be a good candidate.

Also important for this analysis, is the fact that the Rocky Mountain West doesn't really contribute a lot of voters, electoral votes or US representatives when compared with other areas, such as the Midwest or the South. As Paul Rosenberg pointed out, let's look to flipping Ohio which has a large population and solid Democratic traditions, such as Unions. (The West is lightly unionized).

Stick with Howard Deans 50 State Strategy. It works. The democratic party will continue to gain ground.

This all Depends on Who the candidate is for President. Though I don't like Richardson if he is nominated he probally throws the Sw and mtn west into play.

Mountain West states are republican because of one thing: they want government out of their lives.

If you can convince them the Dems won't take away their guns and that the Repubs are obsessed with what they do behind their closed door, you'll have them.

A sample of 78 people for a region with 20M people has a margin of error of about 11% with 95% confidence. In other words, a 40/50 split has a 95% chance of being between 29/61 and 51/49, and can be  ANYWHERE in that range.

Take this research as a cautionary flag to do more in depth polling, but don't use it as a basis on which to make decisions.  It is certainly good practice to redouble efforts in every region, and to not be complacent.   Urgent effort should be spent in refining this data before allocating scarce resources.  

Also, analyzing regions is highly questionable. The politics of Utah are very different than the politics of Colorado, both of which are included in Mountain West.  

I'm all for good analysis - we need better than this. Who knows of any?

The Rocky Mountain eight is a pretty diverse set of states, nowhere near as monolithic as, say, Dixie or New England.

Utah is pretty much a state by itself due to its overwhelming Mormon influence. Most of the other Rocky states have much LESS religious influence than the country as a whole, and to the extent they are conservative, it is a secular, libertarian conservatism, very ripe for a rift with the modern Bible-beating moralism of today's GOP. Except for Utah. And a couple of other islands like CO Springs.

Idaho and Wyoming are, together with Utah, the reddest states of them all, and the only ones that still consistently give Bush a net positive approval rating. But for different reasons than Utah. Wyoming less red than Idaho.

The other five range from getting ready to start being competitive for Democrats to already being VERY competitive for Democrats.

Montana used to be down there with ID and WY, but Schweitzer and Tester are turning that around, with some help from the immolation of Rethugs like Conrad Burns.  It's also the only one of the five presently competitive states that is not heavily influenced by a latino presence. It will be interesting to see whether the national Democratic party is willing to invest the effort needed to flip this state fully to our side. It might not look worth it for the measly three electoral votes, but it seems to me they'd be making a big mistake not trying. Our status in Montana amounts to just getting our foot in the door, and we'll surely lose it again if we don't help Schweitzer press the Dem advantage.

Nevada is almost as unique as Utah, due to the influence of Vegas, which balances an Idaho-like conservatism upstate. Nevada has been a bellweather swing state for decades. Both Clinton and Scrappy Doo won it by razor thin margins twice.

Colorado, and to a lesser extent, Arizona, are purple states slowly trending blue. Both are winnable by Dems in 2008, and the national party would be mindbogglingly stupid to ignore either state. Fortunately, because of their choice for convention site, we know they're not ignoring them.

New Mexico is, it seems to me, the only Rocky State where the Democrats have a clear advantage.

Montana is not really in play for a presidental race. It's simply becoming the New South Dakota. i.e. the Democrats control seats based on the people elected not the party.