I'm not american so I don't understand how a state like Colorado is so relatively cool/progressive these days based on its geographic location compared to the others (especially some of the least cool ones). Any cultural reason?
Prior to California/etc diaspora it was diaspora from the surround states. Wyoming/Kansas/etc all have more conservative values so the progressive young adults often moved to CO.
(Pure speculation)
Conoco bought the land like 10 years back and demolished the old offices for a "clean energy lab" IIRC , though that never happened and now Tape Drive (and Disk Drive, on the western side of the campus) just deadend into a large empty field.
The fact that those offices are gone feels like a weird message about tech, but i don't know what it is.
The next question is why Denver is in Colorado and not anywhere else? The answer is that, from the beginning, Colorado had some geographic advantages and the leaders of the state pushed for intentional growth. As the state grew based on geographic advantages, the state was able to push for government contracts to get things like the National Energy Research Lab. The gov't contracts drew an educated population which drove the creation of a pretty big university system, and it all became self-reinforcing.
The surrounding states just don't have a big city like Denver. Utah is an exception with SLC but Utah has its own idiosyncrasies.
They wouldn't have such a big statewide majority if it was just because of Denver. That case is more like PA, which has 2 big cities, and while it has a Dem governor, it has a republican majority in the state senate and no majority in the house. This microcosm of Capitol Hill leads to very little legislation being passed, even for stuff the voters want & stuff that would really benefit the state.
Sure, but the Dem majorities are exactly because the cities are liberal.
https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/m...
https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/m...
Outside of the cities, the state is almost as red as Wyoming.
Pennsylvania looks very similar to Colorado actually: https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/m...
You raise an interesting point though. My guess for PA is that their population is spread out enough that you can create more credible districts in the rural areas because almost all the land is livable whereas Colorado sort of self-gerrymanders because despite its size there are decent chunks of the state that are unlivable (plus all the national parks, etc).
It's like that old xkcd comic about heat maps - a map of democratic voters is basically just population density heat map.
The interesting question isn't "why is Colorado blue?" - we know the answer, it's because of the cities. The real interesting question is "why did Colorado develop so many cities when no one else in the intermountain west did?"
Depends on who you ask.
The answer I liked was that CO had a good blend of farmable land and minable mountains which gave it a slight edge over the other Rocky states so early on it was just slightly bigger. And then when it came time for the USG to start establishing a bunch of west-located offices it was a winner take-all situation.
A common go-to example of New Mexico's libertarian tradition was the legalization of same-sex marriage in this very Catholic state by a supreme court ruling, after some county clerks started issuing same-sex marriage licenses on their own initiative because they didn't think the law prohibited it. This kind of thing is sometimes viewed as apathy but is more charitably seen as part of a general attitude towards permissiveness.
Arizona is basically New Mexico, except it became a retirement destination (like a western version of Florida), which shifted its demographics older and whiter (and therefore more conservative). Texas is probably a little more unique since it is both massive and at the crossroads of several geographical and cultural regions.
I couldn't tell you what created the initial imbalance, but it feels like at this point what sustains it is a simple positive-feedback loop. To generalize, when relatively liberal, educated, wealthy people from the coasts want a different lifestyle (work-life balance, better outdoor access, less density, etc.) they move to CO because that where others like them have moved, which further bolsters that reputation.
From what I know, it's kind of like Austin in that the its reputation as a progressive outpost in TX just attracts more of those people.
How places evolve seem like a kind of an interesting study in how branding can become reality.
* Mountains!
* Great legal protections for gender minorities, especially Boulder County
* Good tech scene to job hunt locally
We weren't part of that initial shift, but we're definitely part of the acceleration. We've met plenty of other transplants with similar stories.
I'd say Colorado is (at least) 3 different states in a trenchcoat.
1. Cities mostly clustered together. The state is sort of weird geographically. Giant open plains to the east, and big ass scary mountains to the west. Lots of cities formed along the boundary between them, forming what is now called the 'Front Range'. Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, Longmont are all along here. Most of the population lives along this long corridor.
2. Rural farms and ranches. Both on the plains, and in the mountains, and the Western Slope (an area sorta coming out of the mountains towards the far west end of the state). This is fairly conservative, matching what other rural people in neighboring states. Include poorer mountain towns here, which are often farming focused.
3. Rich mountain towns. Skiing, or other attractions. Aspen, Vail, Breckenridge, Steamboat Springs, etc. The areas are very attractive due to natural beauty, but typically have geographical or weather reasons they can't really grow huge. That leaves richer and richer people driving out others. Many of these end up with a 'theme park' feel to them. Rich people have a condo that gets used a few times a year, and rented out another few times, but no real residency.
Generally though, the common theme through all of those is a love of the outdoors. Even those who want to drill aggressively for oil are out hunting and 4-wheeling. Granola hippies are out hiking, skiing, and backpacking. But practically everybody has at least a passing interest in the outdoors.
As for the comparison to other states that have swung super-conservative in recent years, I'd guess that it's to some degree that a more liberal western state had to exist somewhere, and it ended up as Colorado. If you want to move west, smoke pot and ski or hike all day, you go where others are already doing that. Other than accidents of history, I don't see any reason Wyoming couldn't have been shifted that direction. Colorado and Wyoming are very similar states geographically, and early-on economically. We both have ranching, farming, oil, mining. It'd be interesting to really dig in and figure out why one went one way, and the other a different way.
My guess would be airport access. Denver is a major hub and getting non-stops to many other cities is conveniently easy. Wyoming doesn't have the same ease of access
Well, the skiing out of SLC is closer and better :-)
More seriously though, you're still living in an environment that's very closely aligned with a specific church. Which depending on your circumstances may be difficult to pretend just doesn't exist. Some people are fine with it. But it's a factor.
SLC felt far sleepier & suburban, to me. With incredible mountains right there.
I think the weather is noticeably less friendly in Wyoming than Colorado. There's three degrees of latitude between Denver and Casper, for example.
But on top of that, a good chunk of the republicans are honest to god libertarians and can be reasoned with (though that doesn't always include those they elect, like Boebert).
This is key: Colorado has far more libertarian-conservatives than social-conservatives. It comes from the Western ideal of "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." Libertarians are "classical liberals" and value individualism, so they do not push for government-sponsored restrictions. The conservatives in many other states are socially-conservative and legislate to preserve their social values and cozy business interests.
I’m sure that was a great line of thought when the government was just giving away land to people.
In Boebert country you'll see plenty of less philosophical politics. "I identify as non-bidenary" stickers, yard signs about how Biden enjoys anal sex with illegal immigrants, that kind of thing.
Colorado polling suggests two thirds of Republicans and a third of "Independents" approved of the Dobbs decision restricting abortion. Half of Republicans and a third of "Independents" believe Biden didn't win the election.
Source: https://www.colorado.edu/lab/aprl/sites/default/files/attach...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Colo...
And it's only fairly recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_senators...
When you have a state like Utah next door it might pull a large portion of the religiously Republican.
I don't live in, or near, Colorado though.
Pedantically, though, the votes haven't been strictly progressive, more lowercase-L libertarian. Often the state votes to increase freedoms instead of traditional progressive/conservative lines.
Overall, i think the CO population is more drug-friendly than the average liberal US voting pool. Denver feels relatively moderate, politically, as we have so many influences from where people came from (east coast, california, texas). We have one of the most liberal (Boulder) and conservative (CO Springs) cities in the US. The things that the population collectively agrees upon is often the freedom-y bits.
This also reduces the amount of private land, making rural living more difficult and expensive. Conservatives tend to live in rural areas which weighs the political landscape towards liberals when 43% of the land is publicly owned. Compare that to Texas which is 4.2% publicly owned.
But now with every Californian moving here because it’s cheaper, costs have gotten out of control and they are already voting for the very same policies that ruined the state they fled. It’s not “cool” at all.
Piratically, you just fly if you go back to the east coast for some reason, just like if you were on the west coast.