The bottom line in any election is who wins and who loses. We’re not ready to make that call for 2010, but we know in excruciating detail how the 2006 contest played out. And now we reveal all!
Here are 2006 at-large Democratic primary results for the top five candidates for all voters casting ballots at precincts by Congressional District, State Legislative District, Council District and locality. Our statistics are limited by the fact that precinct-level data excludes absentee and provisional voters. But we are using the precinct data to zero in on the geographic areas where each candidate ran strong and weak. That information is indispensable for evaluating possible results in 2010.
We understand that there is a tremendous amount of data in the chart above – too much to be digested in any one sitting. And we will break it down further in individual analyses of the four incumbents later in the series. But for the moment, we offer a few notes.
1. George Leventhal was not only the top vote-getter, he was also the most reliable performer. Leventhal finished first in five of eight State Legislative Districts and four of five Council Districts.
2. Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg were nearly tied, with Elrich barely capturing the second spot. But as we shall see, their votes came from very different places.
3. Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin were the two incumbents left off the Apple Ballot. Even though Subin had served five terms while Floreen was a freshman, Floreen had more money and worked much harder to win reelection.
4. Sixty-five percent of the at-large votes came from four areas: Silver Spring (31.2%), Bethesda (12.8%), Rockville (11.7%) and Gaithersburg (8.9%). Any candidate who runs weak in any of those areas risks a loss.
5. The Apple Ballot included Leventhal, Elrich and Trachtenberg in 2006. The latter two were challengers but these three candidates finished at the top in that order. In 2010, the Apple Ballot includes two incumbents – Leventhal and Elrich – and two challengers – Hans Riemer and Becky Wagner. Two incumbents – Floreen and Trachtenberg – have been excluded. Despite the Post’s best efforts to destroy MCEA, that change will impact this year’s at-large race.
We’ll look at the individual candidates in greater detail next week.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Council At-Large Geography, Part Four
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Adam,
I again troubled by where you are going with this information.
First check your numbers for the number of precincts in each legislative district. There were 239 precincts in 2006. You have 238. Hair splitting. But you continue to list LD19 as having 26 precincts in 2006 and it currently has 31 precincts with the only change in the past four years is Leisure World was split into two precincts. So if you miss on something like that your data figures might be off in other LDs.
The first three points (George was strong everywhere; Marc and Duchy were close but their votes came from different parts of the county; and that Nancy worked harder than Mike Subin) are all correct.
But your 4th point -- that 60% of the votes came from Silver Spring, Rockville, Gaithersburg and Bethesda -- is a first class head scratcher. Those precincts, using your data, are 59% of the total precincts and they are over 60% of the total population.
I would fully expect candidates to go where the people live. Since only people can be voters. Most of the county lives in one of those 135 precincts. Using this logic, one could predict anytime the Redskins score more points than their opponent they will win.
A more realistic measure would be if a precinct or geographic area had significant turnout away from the mean. Downcounty, in general, has higher turnout than upcounty. But not always. Those differences are the key to using election results.
But here is my major disagreement with where you going with this: pitting everything in 2010 as WaPo vs the Apple. It was not the primary reason for people voting in 2006 and I seriously doubt that it will be the primary issue in 2010.
Maybe Hans has some polling data that he is sharing with you that could disprove what I am writing but using 2006 primary results to make the case of the impact of the Post vs. the Apple is pure folly. Use the polling to make your case not election results four years old.
You have been singing "the Post is attacking MCEA" tune for most of 2010. It has been a clear factor in the pre-primary maneuvering. It could also explain why the Post moved up its endorsement process for the county council: to help its allies and forestall the teacher's union. But again you fail to show cause and effect with the 2006 primary election results to measure the strength of the Post and MCEA then or now.
You are eager to make that case but you have to do a better job of isolating those competing themes in the 2006 primary results to sustain that argument. You have not.
I generally love your stuff but this is a rant trying to be passed off as research.
Please go back to the drawing board and re-think this theory. It is not holding water.
Post a Comment