Five top-tier candidates ran in the 2006 Council At-Large primary: incumbents George Leventhal, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin and labor-backed challengers Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg. A host of less competitive candidates also ran, including four who were black and one who was Asian.
Did the demographic characteristics of the county’s precincts have any effect on these candidates’ votes?
Following are the vote totals of the five major at-large candidates by demographic category of precinct.
Overall, the rank order of finish in the 2006 Democratic at-large primary was George Leventhal, Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenberg, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin, in that order. Those ranks did not change very much in different kinds of precincts. Leventhal had a great year and finished first in most places. Marc Elrich was a Takoma Park City Council Member and had run twice before in majority-minority District 5, so he did very well in heavily black precincts in those areas. Duchy Trachtenberg ran well in Bethesda since she had run for council there four years before. Her performance in white precincts was driven by her strength in Bethesda. Mike Subin ran fifth nearly everywhere. In none of these categories did a candidate of color break into the top four, though in precincts where blacks were 33% or more of the population, Hugh Bailey (who is African American) did edge out Subin for fifth.
The bottom line in our analysis is that we do not detect major race- or ethnic-based voting patterns in the 2006 at-large primary. Perhaps that was more of a factor in the 2008 and 2009 Council District 4 special elections, when Nancy Navarro was on the ballot. Perhaps things will work out differently in 2010.
And since we are now putting the finishing touches on the 2010 data, we will find out soon enough.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
MoCo Demographics and Voting, Part Four
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
MoCo Demographics and Voting, Part Three
Conventional wisdom holds that voters of color do not turn out at the same rate as white voters. How true is that in Montgomery County?
As we detailed in Part One, we have collected precinct-level data on population percentages of Hispanic, white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic and Asian non-Hispanic residents and merged it with precinct-level turnout and voting data. This does not allow us to see the turnout percentages for each group, or the voting behavior of each group. But it does allow us to see whether precincts that are dominated by each group tend to behave differently from other precincts.
Following are the turnout rates by different demographic category of precinct in the 2006 primary. These rates include all voters, not just Democrats.
The countywide turnout rate was 24.0%. In precincts with white population shares of more than 90%, that turnout climbed north of 29%. In precincts with Hispanic and Asian population shares of more than 33%, turnout dipped to below 20%. In precincts with black shares of more than 33%, turnout was 23.1% - not that different from the countywide average. That may be because African Americans are concentrated in District 20, and that district saw a barnburner of a Senate race (Ida Ruben vs. Jamie Raskin) in 2006.
The turnout rates differ by precinct demographic, but not that much. Compare these differences to turnout rates by raw geography.
There is actually more variation on geography than there is on demographics. Several Upcounty areas had turnout rates in the mid-teens, while Takoma Park topped 32%. Now perhaps the Upcounty areas had more Republicans and unaffiliated voters, who have fewer voting options in a primary, and that explains their lag. But at least in the 2006 primary, geography was as good – and maybe even better – a predictor of turnout than race or Hispanic status.
So did demographically diverse precincts vote differently from white precincts? We’ll look at the 2006 at-large primary to answer that question tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
MoCo Demographics and Voting, Part Two
As we saw in Part One, MoCo’s major demographic groups are not distributed evenly across the county. Here are the percentages of Hispanics, white non-Hispanics, black non-Hispanics and Asian non-Hispanics in every Congressional, legislative and council district as well as each locality in the county.
Two years ago, we demonstrated that Montgomery County was the most diverse jurisdiction in Maryland. But the county is essentially a group of smaller subdivisions, some integrated and some not. State Legislative District 20, Council District 5 and Takoma Park, East County, Downtown Silver Spring, Wheaton, Burtonsville and the City of Gaithersburg were all “majority-minority” areas in 2000. It’s reasonable to assume that since then, State Legislative Districts 17, 19, 39 and perhaps 18, Council Districts 3 and 4 and North Potomac and Germantown may have also become majority-minority. On the other hand, State Legislative District 16, Council District 1, and Bethesda, Chevy Chase, the Town of Kensington, Damascus and several other rural Upcounty areas are very heavily white.
So does any of this affect actual voting behavior? We’ll start investigating that in Part Three.
Monday, September 27, 2010
MoCo Demographics and Voting, Part One
Like many of you, we are eagerly entering the precinct-level counts from the recent primary. (OK, we know that not all of you are on the edges of your seats about that – just the really nerdy ones. But we love all of you data dorks on MPW!) While we work on that task, we offer our readers a new layer of electoral analysis. In our prior work, especially on the Council At-Large race, we focused on precinct-level geography in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of candidates. Now we are ready to integrate something new: demographics.
As part of the ten-year Census, the U.S. Census Bureau collects data on race and Hispanic status on a variety of geographic levels, including all the way down to election precincts. State and local governments as well as courts are supposed to consider that data as part of redistricting. We have collected and crunched distributions of Hispanic, white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic and Asian non-Hispanic and merged it with Democratic primary results at the precinct level for 2006. That allows us to determine turnout and voting patterns for different demographic categories of precincts.
There are some limitations with this technique. First of all, if we can show that eight precincts with a concentration of a particular demographic group voted heavily in favor of Candidate X, we cannot necessarily conclude that that particular group was directly responsible for that outcome. Such an analysis may suggest that, but it does not necessarily prove that. Second, the demographic data is ten years old. We used data for all residents as opposed to voting residents because we believe the teenagers of 2000 may well be the voters of 2010. But that does not truly fix the time lags associated with using ten-year-old data. Our hunch is that non-white population shares have increased all over the county, but we will not be able to see that at the precinct level for 2010 for another couple years. Third, a few of the precinct definitions have changed since 2000. Some have merged and others have split up. We have tried to compensate for that by redistributing demographic results across split districts. So, for example, if Precinct A is 40% white, and is then split up into Precincts B and C, we assume that both B and C are 40% white. That is FAR from perfect, but if A, B and C remain in the same council district, legislative district, zip code and locality, it won’t matter very much. Finally, there are sample errors associated with the Census data. Even with high citizen response rates, the Census Bureau cannot collect demographic data on every single human being in every precinct.
The above caveats shows that our analysis is not perfect, but it’s the best we can do.
Let’s start by acknowledging that the county’s demographic groups are not distributed evenly across its land area. Here is the percentage of residents who were white in 2000 by census tract.
Here is the percentage of residents who were African American in 2000 by census tract.
Here is the percentage of residents who were Asian in 2000 by census tract.
And here is the percentage of residents who were Hispanics in 2000 by census tract.
Keep these maps in mind as we start looking at demographics and geography in Part Two.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Council At-Large: Becky Wagner and Hans Riemer
With Jane de Winter and Fred Evans reporting dismal fundraising numbers, there are only two at-large challengers with a shot to win: Becky Wagner and Hans Riemer. What are their chances?
Becky Wagner
Becky Wagner’s personality is shinier than a new silver dollar. MoCo is full of people with IQs surpassed only by their egos. Not Wagner. The long-ago comments by our spies were dead on: she is smart, extraordinarily gracious, a great speaker and aces interviews. People who meet her in person usually like her very much.
Wagner has never run for office before, so assessing her potential electoral performance is difficult. Her closest candidate analogue may be Nancy Floreen. Like Floreen, Wagner has deep roots in the community, support from business, and experience in the public arena. Unlike Floreen, she is on the Apple Ballot (which is good) and is running against four incumbents who are more or less sticking together (which is not good). Wagner’s message combines the pro-growth appeal of Nancy Floreen and the fiscal discipline of Duchy Trachtenberg. Because of that message overlap, their demographic similarity and their close residential proximity (Wagner in Bethesda, Trachtenberg in North Bethesda and Floreen in Garrett Park) the three women could be chasing many of the same votes.
We expect Wagner to do well in Bethesda because it is her home and the Apple Ballot made a strong showing there in 2006. That cuts directly into Trachtenberg’s base, since she won Bethesda last time when she was on the Apple. If Wagner erodes Trachtenberg’s area of strength and Trachtenberg cannot make it up elsewhere, Duchy will go home.
Could Becky Wagner win? It’s possible if Trachtenberg falters and Riemer does not live up to his hype, but we doubt it. Something has not clicked with this campaign. Wagner raised just $60,238 in outside contributions between January and August, less than half the outside contribution totals of Riemer ($130,782) and Floreen ($124,063) despite having substantial business support. She appears to be running the same sort of campaign as the incumbents, namely showing up at civic, public and candidate events and saving up a six-digit mail budget for use at the end. The incumbents can get away with that because of their superior name recognition. Wagner cannot. We are picking Wagner to finish sixth, with a small chance of fifth if Trachtenberg implodes.
Hans Riemer
Riemer’s campaign is one of the great stories of the election season. He has outraised all of the other at-large candidates, including the incumbents, since January. He has the support of both MCEA and the Post and his endorsement mix is better than anyone except Marc Elrich. He has reassembled much of the campaign team that won the 2009 special election for Nancy Navarro, including David Moon and Ken Silverman. And his ground game is easily the best in the at-large race, placing thousands of door-knocks and phone calls. Riemer’s opponents grumble about his brief history in the county and question his resume, but his supporters are excited and motivated.
Riemer ran for an open seat in District 5 in 2006. School board member Valerie Ervin blew him out by a 62-38% margin. Riemer won just six of forty-nine precincts, five of which were outside the Beltway, and Ervin crushed him in Takoma Park and Downtown Silver Spring. But Ervin is now Riemer’s ally and even his opponents expect him to run well in District 5. Since Riemer is on the Apple Ballot, he has a chance to run decently in places outside District 5 where the Apple performs well, including Chevy Chase, Bethesda and Potomac. His challenge will be to put together enough votes in the rest of the county to break through the incumbents.
Riemer has become something of a vessel for discontent with one or more of the incumbents. Organizations or individuals who have a problem with an incumbent have usually chosen Riemer as the alternative. For example, MCEA ditched Duchy Trachtenberg and Nancy Floreen in favor of Riemer (and Becky Wagner). The Post dropped George Leventhal and added Riemer. The AFL-CIO and SEIU dropped Trachtenberg and added Riemer. Progressive Maryland dropped both Floreen and Trachtenberg and added Riemer. The Sierra Club has never supported Floreen or Leventhal, but they added Riemer to their list along with past endorsees Trachtenberg and Elrich. And MANY people with whom we have spoken have voiced unhappiness with an incumbent or two (usually Floreen or Trachtenberg) and have included Riemer on their vote list. If Riemer is everyone’s fourth vote, he will win.
We are picking Riemer to finish anywhere from third to fifth. If his campaign skills, endorsements, money and work ethic can compensate for the incumbents’ starting name recognition, he will be headed to Rockville. If not, then the incumbents will likely have been invincible from the start. Riemer definitely benefits from a sense of momentum and the number of spies who believe he will win is growing. We will soon see if they are right.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Council At-Large: Nancy Floreen
Council Member Nancy Floreen finished fourth in the 2006 at-large Democratic primary. What does that mean this year?
First, some basic statistics on Floreen along with her performance chart in 2006.
Electoral Experience
Two-term at-large incumbent. Finished third in 2002 as a member of the End Gridlock slate. Finished fourth in 2006. Former Mayor of Garrett Park.
Areas of Strength, 2006
Finished first in Montgomery Village, Poolesville and Garrett Park. Finished second in Council District 2, State Legislative Districts 14, 17 and 39, and in Gaithersburg, Germantown, Damascus, Clarksburg, Sandy Spring and Laytonsville.
Areas of Weakness, 2006
Finished fourth in Council Districts 4 and 5, State Legislative Districts 18, 19 and 20 and in Silver Spring, Potomac, Chevy Chase, Derwood, Kensington, Takoma Park and Brookeville.
Endorsements
In 2006, Floreen had overwhelming support from the business community plus a couple unions and the Post, but not the Apple Ballot. The story is the same this year.
Campaign Receipts
$347,369 for the 2006 cycle, best in the at-large field. In the 2006 cycle through the Pre-Primary 1 report in 2006, Floreen raised $281,656. In the 2010 cycle through the Pre-Primary 1 report in 2010, Floreen has raised $225,983, a 20% decrease from the prior cycle. Floreen is a good fundraiser, primarily because of her popularity in the business community.
What is Different Now
Not much. Nancy Floreen is the same candidate with the same positions and pretty much the same kind of campaign and endorsement mix as in 2006. If there was a powerful anti-incumbent sentiment, Floreen might be targeted by angry voters as the current Council President, but our door-knocking spies do not report a wave of this kind. Challenger Becky Wagner could steal some votes from Floreen, but Floreen could also benefit from Duchy Trachtenberg’s problems.
Forecast
There is little reason to believe Floreen’s performance will be substantially different from last time. Sure, we have heard theories of her vulnerability including Trachtenberg’s money, Hans Riemer’s endorsements and even a backlash about her Council Presidency. (Trust us – rank-and-file Democratic voters don’t care how she became President.) But the bottom line is that Nancy Floreen is a survivor and nobody has made a lot of money betting against her.
We are picking Floreen to finish fourth, with a small chance of finishing fifth if Hans Riemer does very well and Duchy Trachtenberg gets lucky.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at the top two challengers: Becky Wagner and Hans Riemer.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Council At-Large: Duchy Trachtenberg
Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg finished third in the 2006 at-large Democratic primary. What does that mean this year?
First, some basic statistics on Trachtenberg along with her performance chart in 2006.
Electoral Experience
Freshman at-large incumbent. Ran unsuccessfully in District 1 in 2002, losing to Republican incumbent Howie Denis by a 51-49% margin. Finished third at-large in 2006.
Areas of Strength, 2006
Finished first in State Legislative District 16, Bethesda, Derwood, Cabin John and Dickerson.
Areas of Weakness, 2006
Finished fifth in Council District 2, Germantown, Olney, Damascus, Clarksburg and Laytonsville.
Endorsements
In 2006, Trachtenberg had the support of nearly every progressive group in the county but was not endorsed by the newspapers. This time, most of her progressive support has disappeared but she has earned the endorsement of the Post.
Campaign Receipts
$319,900 for the 2006 cycle, which ranked third. In the 2006 cycle through the Pre-Primary 1 report in 2006, Trachtenberg raised $305,500. In the 2010 cycle through the Pre-Primary 1 report in 2010, Trachtenberg has raised $313,660, a 3% increase from the prior cycle. About three-quarters of Trachtenberg’s funding comes from outside Maryland.
What is Different Now
Where do we start? Trachtenberg ran as a pro-labor progressive in 2006 and was backed by virtually every union and liberal group in the county. But once Trachtenberg took office, she tried to kill the 2007 domestic worker protection bill, supported Ben Kramer over Nancy Navarro in the 2009 special election, threatened to sue officials with the National Organization for Women, accused Ike Leggett’s Executive Branch of acting like the KGB and declared war on the public employee unions. These kinds of incidents plus what even her allies at the Washington Post call her “cantankerous” personality have alienated a great many of her 2006 supporters. Trachtenberg’s most prominent endorsements now come from the Post and the Montgomery County Business PAC. No Democratic politician in the county has more enemies than Duchy Trachtenberg.
Forecast
Stripped of the Apple Ballot and surrounded by legions of foes – especially in the unions – Trachtenberg may actually be weaker as an incumbent than she was as a challenger. Her great advantage is her heaping war chest, which contained $226,911 in mid-August – easily the class of the at-large field. But Trachtenberg has not used her money wisely so far. Earlier this year, when Trachtenberg had an enormous financial advantage, she could have done two things that no other candidate could do: hire world-class talent and do some early media, including mail. But instead she hired political neophyte Woody Brosnan to run her campaign and blew $35,000 on tracking polls. Now we are less than a month out from primary day and Trachtenberg will have to flood the field at the very same time that everyone else is clamoring for attention. Contrast that decision-making with District 19 Senator Mike Lenett and District 39 Senate challenger Saqib Ali, both of whom are well-financed and have hit the ground early and often.
We are picking Trachtenberg to finish anywhere from third to fifth. If she spends her remaining money wisely and the campaigns of Nancy Floreen and Hans Riemer collapse, she will win. But if Floreen, Riemer and Becky Wagner run well, Trachtenberg continues to squander her money, and her problems with Maryland NOW erupt in public, Trachtenberg could well lose.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at Nancy Floreen.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Council At-Large: Marc Elrich
Council Member Marc Elrich finished second in the 2006 at-large Democratic primary. What does that mean this year?
First, some basic statistics on Elrich along with his performance chart in 2006.
Electoral Experience
Freshman at-large incumbent. Ran unsuccessfully in District 5 in 1990 and 1998 and at-large in 1994 and 2002. Finished second at-large in 2006. Takoma Park City Council Member, 1987-2006.
Areas of Strength, 2006
Finished first in Council District 5, State Legislative Districts 18 and 20, Takoma Park, Downtown Silver Spring and Kensington. Without Council District 5, Elrich would have finished fourth overall.
Areas of Weakness, 2006
Finished fifth in State Legislative Districts 15 and 17, Council District 3, Gaithersburg, Potomac, North Potomac and Cabin John.
Endorsements
In 2006, Elrich had the support of nearly every progressive group in the county but was not endorsed by the newspapers. This time, he retains all of his prior support plus the Post.
Campaign Receipts
$113,787 for the 2006 cycle, which ranked fifth. In the 2006 cycle through the Pre-Primary 1 report in 2006, Elrich raised $48,780. In the 2010 cycle through the Pre-Primary 1 report in 2010, Elrich has raised $87,411, a 79% increase from the prior cycle. Elrich has always refused contributions from developers, a policy that limits his financial capacity.
What is Different Now
On the downside, Elrich’s home base of State Legislative District 20 will probably have a lower turnout than in 2006. But there is simply no way that Elrich will finish fifth in Gaithersburg again. Elrich’s base is FAR bigger now than it was four years ago due to his close attention to local concerns all over the county. Your author cannot go anywhere in MoCo without finding Elrich supporters who credit him for listening to them on their issues. We expect his larger base plus the Post endorsement to more than make up for any shrinkage in District 20 turnout.
Forecast
Elrich’s decision to reject developer financing is his biggest obstacle to reelection. (Many developers who are fans of Elrich’s BRT plan would likely give him MANY thousands of dollars if asked.) But Elrich’s cash on hand in mid-August ($59,553) was not much less than fellow incumbent George Leventhal’s ($70,461). With help from well-financed allies like County Executive Ike Leggett and Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg, Elrich could be able to mount a credible mail program. Overall, Elrich is a smart incumbent who has leveraged his opportunities for constituent service to generate lots of support for his return. We are picking Elrich to finish second, with an outside shot for first in the event that he attains financial parity with Leventhal.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at Duchy Trachtenberg.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Council At-Large: George Leventhal
Council Member George Leventhal finished first in the 2006 at-large Democratic primary. What does that mean this year?
First, some basic statistics on Leventhal along with his performance chart in 2006.
Electoral Experience
Two-term at-large incumbent. Finished fourth in 2002 as a member of the End Gridlock slate. Finished first in 2006. Former Chair of the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee.
Areas of Strength, 2006
Almost everywhere. Leventhal finished first in four of five Council Districts and five of eight State Legislative Districts. He finished first in Silver Spring, Gaithersburg, Rockville, Germantown, Potomac, Chevy Chase and Olney, among MANY places.
Areas of Weakness, 2006
Finished fifth in Poolesville and fourth in Garrett Park and Dickerson. In other words, Leventhal had almost no geographic weaknesses.
Endorsements
In 2006, Leventhal had the Apple, the Post, lots of labor support, lots of business support… you name it, he had it, except for the Gazette. His endorsements are similarly numerous this year.
Campaign Receipts
$328,606 for the 2006 cycle, second only to Nancy Floreen. In the 2006 cycle through the Pre-Primary 1 report in 2006, Leventhal raised $285,246. In the 2010 cycle through the Pre-Primary 1 report in 2010, Leventhal has raised $257,353, a 10% decrease from the prior cycle.
What is Different Now
The Washington Post has targeted Leventhal for defeat over his dealings with the unions. We find the Post’s arguments against Leventhal to be unfair, but the Post is the lone political actor in the county that is unaccountable to anyone. (Witness the lack of consequence for the paper’s former practice of using a non-resident intern to write its local editorials.) Leventhal’s cash position is also not what it once was. In mid-August 2006, he had $132,162 in the bank. In mid-August 2010, he reported having $70,461.
Forecast
We do not believe the Post’s attacks or cash flow issues will seriously hinder Leventhal. He finished first in 2006 largely because he was the only at-large incumbent to hold a spot on the Apple Ballot, he had good financing and he had very broad institutional support. Not much has changed. George Leventhal is a strong incumbent who will return. We are picking Leventhal to finish first, with a second-place finish possible if fellow incumbent Marc Elrich improves his financial performance.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at Marc Elrich.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Council At-Large Geography, Part Four
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.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Council At-Large Geography, Part Three
MCEA’s Apple Ballot had a lot of success in 2006, beating both the Post and Gazette endorsements on win rate in contested races. What impact did it have specifically on the at-large race?
Last time, incumbent George Leventhal and challengers Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg were listed on the Apple Ballot. Incumbents Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin and a host of lesser challengers were not.
Here are the vote totals of the above five candidates in 2006.
Leventhal: 52,364
Elrich: 47,574
Trachtenberg: 46,975
Floreen: 44,580
Subin: 38,896
And here are the precinct vote totals for these five candidates. While MCEA does mailers on behalf of its endorsees, the Apple Ballot’s main effectiveness comes from its distribution at polling places.
Leventhal: 46,073
Elrich: 41,778
Trachtenberg: 41,334
Floreen: 38,973
Subin: 34,066
The above data illustrates that Leventhal finished first by a comfortable margin, Elrich and Trachtenberg were virtually tied after him, and Floreen trailed those three but beat Subin significantly. The Apple Ballot was just one factor in this performance, but it was a factor. Consider that the Post endorsed Leventhal, Floreen, Subin and Bo Newsome while the Gazette endorsed Floreen, Subin, Newsome and Reggie Felton.
The key to understanding the Apple Ballot is knowing that is not equally effective in all areas of the county. To gauge its effectiveness, we calculated the combined vote totals of its three at-large endorsees – Leventhal, Elrich and Trachtenberg. They ran three very different campaigns. Leventhal stuck to the same pro-growth positions that he had as a member of the 2002 End Gridlock team and had lots of money. Elrich and Trachtenberg ran on platforms of limiting development. Elrich had lots of volunteers and little money. Trachtenberg had lots of money and few volunteers. The only thing that all three shared was their support by many labor unions, and more specifically, presence on the Apple Ballot. We calculated their combined votes as a percentage of all at-large votes cast to serve as a proxy for Apple influence. This is an admittedly imperfect statistic, but it does produce some interesting results.
Following are the combined precinct vote percentage of the Apple at-large candidates by Congressional District, State Legislative District, Council District and locality.
Overall, Leventhal, Elrich and Trachtenberg combined to receive 44.0% of all votes for at-large candidates cast at polling places, but there are WIDE disparities across the county. The Apple’s popularity was greatest in Downcounty areas like Takoma Park (58.3% of at-large votes), Downtown Silver Spring (48.9%), Kensington (47.7%), Bethesda (46.0%) Chevy Chase (45.6%) and Potomac (45.2%). These are mostly politically liberal areas where education is usually the number one issue.
Takoma Park is an outlier because of the popularity of former City Council Member Marc Elrich, who was a strong supporter of Trachtenberg in 2006 as well as today. (If Vladimir Putin ran on a slate with Elrich, he would win in Takoma Park). What makes Takoma Park’s respect for the Apple in the at-large race even more remarkable is that the city voted to eject Apple-endorsed Senator Ida Ruben in favor of Jamie Raskin even as it led MoCo in Apple fealty at the county level.
The Apple was weakest in Upcounty areas like Burtonsville (37.0%), Clarksburg (37.7%), Germantown (37.8%), Laytonsville (38.5%), Poolesville (39.6%), Montgomery Village (39.7%) and Damascus (39.8%). Non-coincidentally, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin tended to perform well in these areas. Upcounty is more politically moderate than Downcounty and a few precincts even lean to the right. This should be cautionary information for MCEA’s efforts to elect Craig Rice to Council District 2.
The Apple’s skewed success rate is going to have an impact on the 2010 at-large race. We’ll explore that further as we analyze the individual candidates later in the series.
Tomorrow, we’ll present the overall precinct results for the four at-large winners in 2006 as well as Mike Subin.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Council At-Large Geography, Part Two
Today, we look at turnout in the 2006 primary and ponder how it might be different this year.
Following is 2006 primary turnout for all voters casting ballots at precincts. Our statistics are limited by the fact that precinct-level turnout data includes members of all parties and excludes absentee and provisional voters. For the record, while total precinct turnout was 24.0% for the county as a whole, Democratic turnout (including absentees and provisionals) was 40.0% and Republican turnout (again including absentees and provisionals) was 19.0%. So the chief value in the statistics below is comparative.
A few notes.
1. The high turnout rates in Takoma Park (32.1%), Downtown Silver Spring (29.3%), State Legislative District 20 (28.7%) and Council District 5 (28.2%) are likely a product of the intense Jamie Raskin-Ida Ruben Senate race. Raskin is running unopposed this year as is District 5 County Council Member Valerie Ervin so these turnout rates are likely to decline.
2. About one-quarter of all cards cast in the election came from Council District 1, which includes Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac. If Council District 5’s turnout goes down, Council District 1 will be even more important.
3. Upcounty’s Council District 2 had the poorest turnout rate (17.9%). Will its rate go up due to its contested council primary?
4. Gaithersburg’s turnout rate (18.9%) was also well below the county average. Will the debate over the Gaithersburg West Master Plan cause its turnout to increase?
5. Districts 14, 17, 19 and 39 have marquee Senate races and District 16 has a chaotic, loaded House race. Will that affect any of their turnout rates? Other than District 16, these districts are not based in Downcounty where turnout is usually higher. Will this change the mix for the at-large race?
As you can see, despite possessing reams of data, we have more questions than answers on turnout. The only thing we know for sure is that the geographic distribution of turnout will have a large impact on the at-large council results, and no one knows for sure how that will play out.
In Part Three, we’ll look at the Apple Ballot.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Council At-Large Geography, Part One
With County Executive Ike Leggett running unopposed in September and no chance of primary upsets in the races for Governor, U.S. Senator or Congressional Districts 4 or 8, the County Council At-Large contest is the premier election in the county. It affects every single part of the county, features all four incumbents running against two plausible challengers and has implications for the 2014 Executive race. It is also rather unpredictable as many round-robin races are. In this new series, we look at how the incumbents performed in 2006, why they earned the votes they received and what their prospects are for reelection. We also examine to the best extent possible the chances for one of the challengers to break through.
While we will tap into our database of 2006 primary results to illustrate many of our points, it is worth noting the ways in which 2010 will be different. Recognizing those differences will impact which 2006 data are relevant today and which are not.
1. 2010 will likely see lower turnout.
In 2002, 44.8% of MoCo Democrats voted in the primary. That was primarily driven by the Congressional District 8 primary pitting Mark Shriver against Chris Van Hollen, in which 47.6% of Democrats voted. The epic County Council slate war between the End Gridlock team and Blair Ewing’s slate probably contributed to that turnout rate. In 2006, 40.0% of MoCo Democrats voted in the primary, which featured a contested County Executive race, a strong challenge by Donna Edwards against Congressman Al Wynn and a U.S. Senate primary between Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume. This year will see no such high-profile races and turnout will almost certainly be lower. Perhaps this year’s turnout rate will be comparable to 1998, when just 33.1% of MoCo Democrats voted in the primary.
Low turnout tends to favor incumbents because of their pre-existing name recognition. But it also favors any smart, well-funded candidates who have identified their voters and know how to get them to the polls.
2. The Post is at war against MCEA.
Historically, the Post has based its endorsements on whether candidates adhered to its pro-growth outlook, often using support for the ICC as a deciding factor. This year, the Post has declared war on MCEA and against public employee unions more generally. We are skeptical that the Post’s repeated anti-union editorials will have a mass effect on the public due to its declining influence. But the Post has affected the thinking of the candidates. Post editorial writers have made clear that any candidate who contributes to MCEA’s PAC risks not receiving the newspaper’s endorsement, sometimes by making crude threats to candidates in cell phone calls. We hear that this has reduced candidate contributions to the teachers’ PAC and will accordingly impact MCEA’s independent expenditure program.
3. The economy has forced some candidates to change their messages.
In their prior races, at-large incumbents Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg emphasized limiting development. With the economy now in the tank, both of them have largely dropped that plank from their platforms. Will that impact their ability to turn out their voters? And will voters who pay attention find them to be credible? Nancy Floreen and George Leventhal, on the other hand, were for economic growth back when growth was not cool. The message that they have always had will sell better now.
4. District 20 is quiet.
State Legislative District 20 is the most liberal district in MoCo, and perhaps in Maryland. It was fired up in 2006 because of its spectacular Senate race in which progressive hero Jamie Raskin knocked out long-time incumbent Ida Ruben. Raskin had a very strong volunteer base and an excellent get-out-the-vote operation that boosted the district’s Democratic turnout rate to 43.2%. The fact that outgoing Delegate Peter Franchot was running for Comptroller probably helped that rate. In 2002, the district was energized by the Congressional District 8 race as well as former Senator Ida Ruben’s successful effort to defeat her hated enemy, Delegate Dana Dembrow. Democratic turnout that year was an extraordinary 54.0%. This year, Raskin is running unopposed, the incumbent Delegates are certain to be reelected and there are no top-ballot primaries. District 20’s 2010 Democratic turnout could be close to its 1998 level of 34.6%. That will hurt at-large incumbent Marc Elrich, who has a large base in the district, but he could very well make up those votes elsewhere.
5. Mike Subin is not on the ballot.
Mike Subin was a five-term incumbent who was on Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock slate in 2002, but who finished in fifth place in 2006. Many observers were surprised by Subin’s defeat, but he had lackluster fundraising, was not on the Apple Ballot and was limited on the campaign trail by a bicycle accident.
Subin may have lost, but he did well in a few areas. Subin finished second in North Potomac and Damascus and finished third in Laytonsville, Clarksburg, Potomac, Germantown, and most critically, Gaithersburg. Gaithersburg (including both the city and the unincorporated areas) cast the second-highest total of at-large votes in 2006 (60,926) behind only Silver Spring (127,867). That area has now been awakened by the debate over the Gaithersburg West Master Plan and could have a bigger impact on this election than it did last time. Subin’s absence frees up a lot of votes that should be a focus of any intelligent at-large candidates.
6. Will new Democrats turn out?
In 2006, 267,825 registered MoCo Democrats were eligible to vote in the primary. As of June 2010, MoCo had 318,868 registered Democrats, most of whom probably joined the party to vote for Barack Obama. That means there are a whole lot more potential primary voters out there. Many political observers dismiss the possibility that Obama voters will pay attention to local elections. But consider this: the 2008 District 4 Democratic special election primary had 7,658 voters while the 2009 District 4 Democratic special election primary had 8,718 voters – a 14% increase. Given the fact that Nancy Navarro defeated Ben Kramer in the latter election by just 62 votes, it’s entirely possible that new voters handed her the win.
Most candidates target “Super Dems,” or Democrats who have a history of voting in past primaries, for their voter contact. That model fails to account for new voters. It would require lots of resources and considerable sophistication to locate, communicate with and turn out new voters. But any candidate who does that successfully will have a leg up in this year’s at-large primary.
We’ll look at 2006 turnout in Part Two.
