Edit on 12/8 to update County numbers, below...
Post-General Election campaign finance reports are in, and normally this would be the time to do a really geeky and dry post listing figures for contributions, expenditures, cash on hand, etc. However, since the election results are in, I'm going to do something a little different.
Still geeky and dry, but different. :))
Today's post will list the best bargains (based on lowest expenditures per vote for election victors) and the worst bargains (based on highest expenditures per vote for election losers.)
The expenditure figures taken from the cycle-to-date boxes of the campaigns' post-general reports; vote totals taken from the appropriate reporting authority, either the AZ Secretary of State or the Maricopa County Recorder.
Best Bargain - AZ Congressional races
Republican Trent Franks was easily the leader here, spending $400,019.59 to receive 200,914 votes, or $1.99/vote. Republican Jeff Flake was the second most frugal victor, spending $3.76/vote. By contrast, the victor who spent the *most* per vote was another Republican, John Shadegg. Shadegg spent $17.85/vote ($2,656,692.67 spent, 200914 votes received).
Worst Bargain - AZ Congressional races
Democrat Bob Lord, Shadegg's opponent in CD3, "won" this dubious distinction, spending $1,745,210.41 to receive 115,759 votes, for a $17.85/vote pace. The only losing candidate who spent at a pace that was even close to Lord's was Republican Tim Bee. Bee spent 13.25/vote in his failed campaign to unseat Gabrielle Giffords in CD8.
Giffords and Harry Mitchell (D-CD5) each spent more than $15/vote, but since they won their races (rather handily at that), the money spent was a good deal.
Note: Challengers Don Karg (R-CD4), Rebecca Schneider (D-CD6), and Joe Sweeney (R-CD7 [I think]) haven't filed post-general reports that I could find, but I doubt that any of them spent enough money to challenge Lord for the 'Worst Bargain' status.
The comparison of county campaigns was more difficult, because both major candidates for county attorney, Andrew Thomas and Tim Nelson, as well as supervisor candidates Fulton Brock, Joel Sinclaire, and Max Wilson haven't filed post-general reports yet. (Note: with Joel Sinclaire's passing, his committee has been suspended/terminated. I'm not sure if/when a final campaign finance report will be filed.)
Brock, Thomas, Nelson, and Wilson all have reports up on the County Recorder's website, and according to the time/date stamps on the forms, all reports were submitted on time.
However, I don't want it to be said that I'm not able to form conclusions based on incomplete information. :)))
Best Bargain - Maricopa County races
Right now, Don Stapley is the clear winner in this category, but that could change once his legal expenses are added in. At this point, however, the Republican incumbent spent $9933.45 to receive 164,381 votes, or $0.29/vote to retain his seat in SD2.
Note: Stapley was a little creative in filling out his report, neglecting to fill out the "cycle-to-date" column. The expenditure number listed in this post is a total of the "cycle-to-date" number from his pre-general report and the "current period" number from his post-general report.
Worst Bargain - Maricopa County races
Ed Hermes, the Democratic candidate in Supervisor District 1, "led" this category, spending $112,026.14 to garner 119,971 votes, for a $0.93/vote pace. While for the purposes of this post, this campaign qualifies as the "worst" bargain among the county races, I expect Ed to take the lessons of this cycle and apply them to another campaign, one that he may very well win.
Tim Nelson challenged for this one, spending over $438K in his unsuccessful campaign for County Attorney. However, while he spent nearly 4 times as much as Hermes, his countywide race garnered him more than 4 times the votes, dropping his dollars per vote number to $0.80.
One item of interest from Fulton Brock's post-general report were contributions from a couple in Oro Valley, which is in Pima County. The twosome share a name with some of the people involved in the Stapley indictment. On October 16, 2008, Jason and Kris Wolfswinkel each gave $390 (the maximum allowed individual contribution) to Brock's campaign.
Stapley's failure to report his involvement with some Wolfswinkel family businesses is at the heart of his legal travails.
Wouldn't it be sweet if Brock's name was added to the list of indicted Republicans? Yeah, I know it probably won't happen, but one has to wonder why some Pima County residents care enough about a Maricopa County supervisor's race to fork over the max contribution to his campaign.
Both of these could change once all reports are in, plus the numbers don't include the "independent" expenditures that benefitted Joe Arpaio and Andrew Thomas. However, they both won their races, no matter how unethically, so they don't qualify for "worst bargain" under the guidelines of this post.
I was going to do one of the comparisons for some of the ballot initiatives, but there were a couple of hurdles there - too many of the committees haven't filed reports, and in many cases, there are multiple committees in support/opposition of a given prop.
Comparison purposes -
To put some of these numbers in perspective, in 2004, then-Congressman JD Hayworth spent $7.58/vote to retain his seat. However, that was nearly 180 times the rate of his opponent, Elizabeth Rogers. She spent roughly $0.04 per vote.
Compare this to 2006, when both spent more per vote in their races. Hayworth spent $31.12/vote to lose to Harry Mitchell in CD5; Rogers spent $0.06/vote to win the Kyrene Justice of the Peace race.
OK, that's not really relevant to the rest of the post, but it should give pause to those who would support a speculated-upon Hayworth gubernortorial candidacy. It should also give hope to candidates like Rebecca Schneider and Marilyn Fox, who ran strong campaigns on limited budgets.
There is life after losing an election.
Let's see what happens in two years before considering them and others like them, to be electoral afterthoughts.
Other campaign and campaign finance news -
...According to the Secretary of State's website, the first official candidate committee for 2010 has been formed by Michelle Reagan, Republican State Representative from north Scottsdale. It's an exploratory committee and doesn't list the office that she is "exploring." My guess is State Senate, though Corporation Commission or State Treasurer are possibilities.
...Jim McAllister, an AZCentral.com Plugged In blogger, notes that victorious candidates Jim Lane (Scottsdale Mayor) and Lisa Borowsky (Scottsdale City Council) already have their hands out to developers, seeking contributions to retire their campaign debts.
Apparently, they don't read the news reports about indicted and convicted public officials.
...The AZ Republic has a story that current Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne will be forming a committee to explore a run for State Attorney General in 2010.
Ummm....yeah. Horne has spent most of two terms making the public education system in AZ one of the worst in the country, and now he wants us to set him loose on the legal system?
Later...
Showing posts with label Statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statistics. Show all posts
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Impressive Democratic registration gains
Another one of those boring 'numbers' posts, but since I like the numbers in question... :))
All numbers taken from the Arizona Secretary of State's October 2006 and October 2008 voter registration reports.
Across the state, the Democratic Party has shown significant gains in voter registration, frequently outpacing any Republican gains by a margin of four or five to one in some districts. (PoliickerAZ coverage here)
In the Scottsdale/Tempe/Mesa area, the gains were both consistent and pronounced -
CD5 - 108,300 Democrats, 146,691 Republicans
In two years, CD5 Democrats gained almost 14,000 registrations, taking the gap from over 52K to just over 38K.
That gain, as well as an increase of nearly 17K Independent voters in CD5 is definitely positive news for centrist incumbent Harry Mitchell.
LD17 - 30,096 Democrats, 26,433 Republicans
In two years, LD17 Democrats turned a registration shortfall of 970 into an advantage of over 3600.
Definitely good news for State Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill and State Reps. David Schapira and Ed Ableser.
LD8 - 29,161 Democrats, 56,474 Republicans
In two years, LD8 Democrats gained over 2300 voters on the Republicans in the district; in addition, there are more than 5400 more independent voters in the district. While Stephanie Rimmer still faces an uphill battle in her quest for an LD8 House seat, that seat is well within the realm of reachable.
LD18 - 17,780 Democrats, 26,558 Republicans
In two years, the Democrats in LD18 have gained almost 2900 registrations on the Reps. Combine that with the fact that the LD18 Republicans were almost total slackers in registering new voters (they gained 813, or 3.1%, the Reps in the other area districts gained more than 5% each), and Tammie Pursley and Judah Nativio are in prime position to make LD18 purple, if not blue.
Of course, the brutal Rep primary between Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) and Kevin Gibbons (R-Jeff Flake's brother-in-law) and the resultant divisions among the Rep faithful in the district doesn't hurt their chances, either.
All in all, some very encouraging numbers for the Democrats in the area (though LD8 will still be a tough nut to crack).
However, with John McCain at the top of the Rep ticket, Democrats will still need every available vote.
As such, there are precincts to walk in, doors to knock on, and phone calls to place.
Later!
All numbers taken from the Arizona Secretary of State's October 2006 and October 2008 voter registration reports.
Across the state, the Democratic Party has shown significant gains in voter registration, frequently outpacing any Republican gains by a margin of four or five to one in some districts. (PoliickerAZ coverage here)
In the Scottsdale/Tempe/Mesa area, the gains were both consistent and pronounced -
CD5 - 108,300 Democrats, 146,691 Republicans
In two years, CD5 Democrats gained almost 14,000 registrations, taking the gap from over 52K to just over 38K.
That gain, as well as an increase of nearly 17K Independent voters in CD5 is definitely positive news for centrist incumbent Harry Mitchell.
LD17 - 30,096 Democrats, 26,433 Republicans
In two years, LD17 Democrats turned a registration shortfall of 970 into an advantage of over 3600.
Definitely good news for State Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill and State Reps. David Schapira and Ed Ableser.
LD8 - 29,161 Democrats, 56,474 Republicans
In two years, LD8 Democrats gained over 2300 voters on the Republicans in the district; in addition, there are more than 5400 more independent voters in the district. While Stephanie Rimmer still faces an uphill battle in her quest for an LD8 House seat, that seat is well within the realm of reachable.
LD18 - 17,780 Democrats, 26,558 Republicans
In two years, the Democrats in LD18 have gained almost 2900 registrations on the Reps. Combine that with the fact that the LD18 Republicans were almost total slackers in registering new voters (they gained 813, or 3.1%, the Reps in the other area districts gained more than 5% each), and Tammie Pursley and Judah Nativio are in prime position to make LD18 purple, if not blue.
Of course, the brutal Rep primary between Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) and Kevin Gibbons (R-Jeff Flake's brother-in-law) and the resultant divisions among the Rep faithful in the district doesn't hurt their chances, either.
All in all, some very encouraging numbers for the Democrats in the area (though LD8 will still be a tough nut to crack).
However, with John McCain at the top of the Rep ticket, Democrats will still need every available vote.
As such, there are precincts to walk in, doors to knock on, and phone calls to place.
Later!
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Campaign Finance Reports - Corporation Commission
Again, all info courtesy the Arizona Secretary of State's website...
Kara Kelty, Democrat (Clean Elections financing) - Raised $9000, spent $2600, cash on hand $6300.
Sandra Kennedy, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $7700, spent $1400, cash on hand $6200.
Paul Newman, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $7300, spent $900, cash on hand $6400.
Sam George, Democrat (Traditional financing) - Raised $30000, spent $18000, cash on hand of just under $12000. All $30K raised was from the candidate himself and all but $4.00 (four!) of the reported expenditures went to AZ Petition Partners of Scottsdale.
Barry Wong, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $13500, spent $13000, cash on hand $500. Most interesting name: David Iglesias, the ousted U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, gave $130 in seed money.
Bob Robson, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $54000, spent $9000, cash on hand $133000. *Lots* of contributions from lawyers, lobbyists, and PACs. Used paid petition circulators/consultants, Lincoln Strategy Group - all but approximately $400 of this report's expenditures went to them.
Rick Fowlkes, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1000, spent $1800, cash on hand of just under $500.
Marian McClure, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $8800, spent $4000, cash on hand $5300. More than $3700 of her expenditures went to Lincoln Strategy.
Bob Stump, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $14000, spent $9700, cash on hand $7600. He paid Lincoln Strategy $5300.
Joseph Hobbs, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $3500. spent $3600, cash on hand $260. Interesting names: Colette Rosati and Don Goldwater gave him seed money, $130 each. Not exactly voices of moderation, even by the skewed standards of the Arizona Republican Party. He also had paid petition circulators.
John Allen, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $8500, spent almost $8700, cash on hand $200. He received seed money from Colette Rosati, too.
Keith Swapp, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $5800, spent $1900, cash on hand $4200. Interesting names: Received seed money from Colette Rosati, State Rep. Jerry Weiers and Don Goldwater.
One thing that I've learned from doing these posts - Clean Elections candidates tend to have very boring lists of contributors and expenses.
*Very* boring.
Later!
Kara Kelty, Democrat (Clean Elections financing) - Raised $9000, spent $2600, cash on hand $6300.
Sandra Kennedy, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $7700, spent $1400, cash on hand $6200.
Paul Newman, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $7300, spent $900, cash on hand $6400.
Sam George, Democrat (Traditional financing) - Raised $30000, spent $18000, cash on hand of just under $12000. All $30K raised was from the candidate himself and all but $4.00 (four!) of the reported expenditures went to AZ Petition Partners of Scottsdale.
Barry Wong, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $13500, spent $13000, cash on hand $500. Most interesting name: David Iglesias, the ousted U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, gave $130 in seed money.
Bob Robson, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $54000, spent $9000, cash on hand $133000. *Lots* of contributions from lawyers, lobbyists, and PACs. Used paid petition circulators/consultants, Lincoln Strategy Group - all but approximately $400 of this report's expenditures went to them.
Rick Fowlkes, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1000, spent $1800, cash on hand of just under $500.
Marian McClure, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $8800, spent $4000, cash on hand $5300. More than $3700 of her expenditures went to Lincoln Strategy.
Bob Stump, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $14000, spent $9700, cash on hand $7600. He paid Lincoln Strategy $5300.
Joseph Hobbs, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $3500. spent $3600, cash on hand $260. Interesting names: Colette Rosati and Don Goldwater gave him seed money, $130 each. Not exactly voices of moderation, even by the skewed standards of the Arizona Republican Party. He also had paid petition circulators.
John Allen, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $8500, spent almost $8700, cash on hand $200. He received seed money from Colette Rosati, too.
Keith Swapp, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $5800, spent $1900, cash on hand $4200. Interesting names: Received seed money from Colette Rosati, State Rep. Jerry Weiers and Don Goldwater.
One thing that I've learned from doing these posts - Clean Elections candidates tend to have very boring lists of contributors and expenses.
*Very* boring.
Later!
Campaign Finance Reports - LD8, LD17, LD18
All info courtesy the website of the Arizona Secretary of State...
LD8 State Senate -
Carolyn Allen, Republican (traditional financing) - raised $22000, spent $8000, cash on hand $68000. Interesting names: Her entire list of contributors reads like a "Who's Who" of the Arizona business community (heavy on the healthcare sector), so in the interests of brevity, I won't list any of them, but one of the non-business community folks to contribute to her campaign was David Waid, former ED of the Arizona Democratic Party, who gave $100.
Robert Weber, Libertarian (Clean Elections financing) - Nada. Zip. Bupkes. No activity. At all. When I saw this report, I was going to question why go to the effort of getting on the ballot if he wasn't going to at least *try* to mount a campaign, but upon further reflection, I've decided not to go there.
Not because I'm feeling nice, but because Mr. Weber didn't actually qualify for the ballot.
LD8 State Representative -
Michele Reagan, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $11000, spent $11000, cash on hand of just under $46000. Interesting name: David Waid (again!) gave $200.
Stephanie Rimmer, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $2000, spent $1600, cash on hand of $400.
John Kavanagh, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $930, spent slightly less than $400, cash on hand slightly more than $500.
LD17 State Senate -
Meg Burton Cahill, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised almost $2900. spent $86, cash on hand of a little more than $2700.
Jesse Hernandez, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $250, spent $0, cash on hand $250.
LD17 State Representative -
David Schapira, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $16000 ($12921 CCEC funding), spent $2500, cash on hand $14200.
Ed Ableser, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $14600 ($12921 CCEC funding), spent $2400, cash on hand $12600.
Wes Waddle, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $500, spent $150, cash on hand $350.
Mark Thompson, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1200, spent $100, cash on hand $1100.
LD18 State Senate -
Judah Nativio, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $960, spent just under $800, cash on hand of just under $800.
Kevin Gibbons, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $66000, spent $3500, cash on hand of just under $63000. Interesting names: State Rep. Lynne Pancrazi donated $200; Jean McGrath, former legislator and current member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District board, gave $100; Jim Pederson, former Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate gave $390. In addition, he had a large number of agriculture-related contributors, a large group from Yuma, of all places.
Russell Pearce, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $2300, spent $24000 ($23K had to do with closing the books on the Pearce Exploratory Committee), cash on hand $2600. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
I thought that Pearce's exploratory committee was a federal one formed for his abortive run at Jeff Flake's CD6 seat, so I'm not sure why anything related to it is showing up on his state report. I'll see what I can find out (aka - I'll call the Secretary of State's office and ask :) ).
LD18 Representative -
Tammie Pursley, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $1700, spent $350, cash on hand of $1300.
Cecil Ash, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $2950, spent $800, cash on hand of $2150. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
Steve Court, Republican (Clean Elections) -Raised almost $14700 ($12921 CCEC), spent $6500, cash on hand $8200. Received supplemental CCEC funding of $6461 ($19382 total) after the reporting period ended.
Kanani Henderson, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $1300, spent $260, cash on hand of nearly $1100.
Ron Middlebrook, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1245, spent $0, cash on hand $1245. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
CCEC's LD18 candidate forum for Republican candidates (House and Senate) will be held on Thursday, July 10 at EVIT, 1601 W. Main St., Mesa, AZ from 6:00 p.m until 8:00 p.m.
I'll do a post on Corporation Commission candidate reports later on Thursday.
Later!
LD8 State Senate -
Carolyn Allen, Republican (traditional financing) - raised $22000, spent $8000, cash on hand $68000. Interesting names: Her entire list of contributors reads like a "Who's Who" of the Arizona business community (heavy on the healthcare sector), so in the interests of brevity, I won't list any of them, but one of the non-business community folks to contribute to her campaign was David Waid, former ED of the Arizona Democratic Party, who gave $100.
Robert Weber, Libertarian (Clean Elections financing) - Nada. Zip. Bupkes. No activity. At all. When I saw this report, I was going to question why go to the effort of getting on the ballot if he wasn't going to at least *try* to mount a campaign, but upon further reflection, I've decided not to go there.
Not because I'm feeling nice, but because Mr. Weber didn't actually qualify for the ballot.
LD8 State Representative -
Michele Reagan, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $11000, spent $11000, cash on hand of just under $46000. Interesting name: David Waid (again!) gave $200.
Stephanie Rimmer, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $2000, spent $1600, cash on hand of $400.
John Kavanagh, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $930, spent slightly less than $400, cash on hand slightly more than $500.
LD17 State Senate -
Meg Burton Cahill, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised almost $2900. spent $86, cash on hand of a little more than $2700.
Jesse Hernandez, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $250, spent $0, cash on hand $250.
LD17 State Representative -
David Schapira, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $16000 ($12921 CCEC funding), spent $2500, cash on hand $14200.
Ed Ableser, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $14600 ($12921 CCEC funding), spent $2400, cash on hand $12600.
Wes Waddle, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $500, spent $150, cash on hand $350.
Mark Thompson, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1200, spent $100, cash on hand $1100.
LD18 State Senate -
Judah Nativio, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $960, spent just under $800, cash on hand of just under $800.
Kevin Gibbons, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $66000, spent $3500, cash on hand of just under $63000. Interesting names: State Rep. Lynne Pancrazi donated $200; Jean McGrath, former legislator and current member of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District board, gave $100; Jim Pederson, former Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate gave $390. In addition, he had a large number of agriculture-related contributors, a large group from Yuma, of all places.
Russell Pearce, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $2300, spent $24000 ($23K had to do with closing the books on the Pearce Exploratory Committee), cash on hand $2600. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
I thought that Pearce's exploratory committee was a federal one formed for his abortive run at Jeff Flake's CD6 seat, so I'm not sure why anything related to it is showing up on his state report. I'll see what I can find out (aka - I'll call the Secretary of State's office and ask :) ).
LD18 Representative -
Tammie Pursley, Democrat (Clean Elections) - Raised $1700, spent $350, cash on hand of $1300.
Cecil Ash, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $2950, spent $800, cash on hand of $2150. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
Steve Court, Republican (Clean Elections) -Raised almost $14700 ($12921 CCEC), spent $6500, cash on hand $8200. Received supplemental CCEC funding of $6461 ($19382 total) after the reporting period ended.
Kanani Henderson, Republican (Traditional) - Raised $1300, spent $260, cash on hand of nearly $1100.
Ron Middlebrook, Republican (Clean Elections) - Raised $1245, spent $0, cash on hand $1245. Received $19382 CCEC funding after the reporting period ended.
CCEC's LD18 candidate forum for Republican candidates (House and Senate) will be held on Thursday, July 10 at EVIT, 1601 W. Main St., Mesa, AZ from 6:00 p.m until 8:00 p.m.
I'll do a post on Corporation Commission candidate reports later on Thursday.
Later!
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
A quick look at financial reports for County races
Some of the highlights of reports covering the period from January 1 thru May 31, courtesy the Maricopa County Recorder's website -
Sheriff's race -
Joe Arpaio - received $121000, spent $23000, cash on hand of $358000. Nearly all of his expenditures went toward fundraising and consulting fees from a company called Summit Consulting Group ($22500+). The report was hand-written, but at least was somewhat more legible than Mayor Manross'.
Dan Saban - Couldn't find the report on the County Recorder's site, but Dennis Welch of the Trib had an article stating that Saban has raised $48000 for his campaign to unseat Arpaio; no details on expenditures, cash on hand, or whether the funds raised are from the reporting period or for the entire campaign (since 2006). The article goes on to cite "$430000" as the amount raised by Arpaio, but that is for the entire campaign, plus the rollover of cash left over from his previous campaign committee.
However sloppily the article was written, it's clear that the Arpaio money machine is fully up to speed, and Dan Saban needs all of us to help him restore professionalism to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Contribute here.
County Attorney race -
Gerald Richard - Raised $60000, spent $26000, cash on hand of $40000. $10000 of the money raised was a candidate loan to the campaign.
Tim Nelson - Raised $207000, spent $29000, cash on hand of $177000.
Note: there is an open forum for candidates for County Attorney scheduled for next Tuesday at Changing Hands Bookstore, 6428 S McClintock Dr, Tempe (SW corner of McClintock and Guadalupe) at 7 p.m.
Andrew Thomas - Raised $39000, spent $26000, cash on hand of $213000. Over $14000 of his expenditures went to Summit Consulting, the same folks that Arpaio has hired; in addition, he spent over $6000 on paid petition circulators.
Ummm...Tim Nelson's supporters are crowing over his successful fundraising during the period (as they should be), but what shouldn't be lost in the hubbub is the fact that Gerald Richard outraised the incumbent Thomas, too.
Not a good sign for any incumbent when two (2!) would-be challengers do a better job at fundraising. And for a Republican incumbent is what is shaping up to be a horrible year for Republicans in general????
BTW - his report was typewritten, but with lots of "info requesteds" and "retireds" under the "Occupations" headings. The "retireds' might be legit, but any report with more than a few "info requesteds" tends to raise eyebrows.
County Supervisor, District 1 -
Ed Hermes - Raised almost $66000, spent $2000, cash on hand of >$63000. Candidate loan - $10000. Interesting names: OK, there were a lot of names that I recognized on the list of contributors to Hermes, former vice-chair of the LD17 Democrats, but standing out was former U.S. Senator Dennis Deconcini, who gave $390. Oh yeah, and the Hermes family is a large one. :))
Fulton Brock - Raised $34000, spent $14000+, cash on hand of $120000. He also used paid petition circulators.
Sooooooo....did anyone else notice that the relative rookie seriously outraised the long-time incumbent (by almost $30K) and out-organized him too? (Obtained nearly as many nominating sigs - 1254 to 1598 - and got them the hard way, walking and knocking and meeting people.)
County Supervisor, District 2 -
Joel Sinclaire - Raised $5700, spent $560, cash on hand of $5200. Candidate loan of $3200.
Don Stapley - Raised $50,000, spent $7400, cash on hand $83000. Interesting fact found in the financial report - Keith Russell, Republican candidate for County Assessor, paid for a mailing of Stapley's nominating petitions. From the report (page 6) -
Interesting names: Grady Gammage, a developer's favorite attorney, gave $390; Eddie Basha Jr., CEO of Basha's (AZ supermarket chain) gave $390; Jerry Colangelo, yes, *that* Jerry Colangelo, gave $390. There was one really interesting campaign expenditure - $40 for a subscription to Newsweek Magazine.
How does a committee for a county office candidate rationalize calling a subscription to a national news magazine a necessary campaign expense? Inquiring minds want to know. :))
County Supervisor, District 3 -
Marilyn Fox - Raised $1400, spent $200, cash on hand $900.
Andy Kunasek - Raised $81000, spent $15000, cash on hand . Like Arpaio and Thomas, Kunasek has hired Summit Consulting. However, unlike with the Nativist Twins, payments to Summit do not constitute a majority of his expenditures.
Contribute to Fox here. Not sure why she deserves our support? Read about Kunasek in action here (courtesy Sam Coppersmith at Liberal Desert). 'Nuff said.
I'm not going to bother with the reports from Supervisor Districts 4 and 5 (Mary Rose Wilcox and Max Wilson are unopposed) or for the other county offices (the candidates are either unopposed or the winner of the Republican primary will be unopposed in the general election.)
Later!
Sheriff's race -
Joe Arpaio - received $121000, spent $23000, cash on hand of $358000. Nearly all of his expenditures went toward fundraising and consulting fees from a company called Summit Consulting Group ($22500+). The report was hand-written, but at least was somewhat more legible than Mayor Manross'.
Dan Saban - Couldn't find the report on the County Recorder's site, but Dennis Welch of the Trib had an article stating that Saban has raised $48000 for his campaign to unseat Arpaio; no details on expenditures, cash on hand, or whether the funds raised are from the reporting period or for the entire campaign (since 2006). The article goes on to cite "$430000" as the amount raised by Arpaio, but that is for the entire campaign, plus the rollover of cash left over from his previous campaign committee.
However sloppily the article was written, it's clear that the Arpaio money machine is fully up to speed, and Dan Saban needs all of us to help him restore professionalism to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Contribute here.
County Attorney race -
Gerald Richard - Raised $60000, spent $26000, cash on hand of $40000. $10000 of the money raised was a candidate loan to the campaign.
Tim Nelson - Raised $207000, spent $29000, cash on hand of $177000.
Note: there is an open forum for candidates for County Attorney scheduled for next Tuesday at Changing Hands Bookstore, 6428 S McClintock Dr, Tempe (SW corner of McClintock and Guadalupe) at 7 p.m.
Andrew Thomas - Raised $39000, spent $26000, cash on hand of $213000. Over $14000 of his expenditures went to Summit Consulting, the same folks that Arpaio has hired; in addition, he spent over $6000 on paid petition circulators.
Ummm...Tim Nelson's supporters are crowing over his successful fundraising during the period (as they should be), but what shouldn't be lost in the hubbub is the fact that Gerald Richard outraised the incumbent Thomas, too.
Not a good sign for any incumbent when two (2!) would-be challengers do a better job at fundraising. And for a Republican incumbent is what is shaping up to be a horrible year for Republicans in general????
BTW - his report was typewritten, but with lots of "info requesteds" and "retireds" under the "Occupations" headings. The "retireds' might be legit, but any report with more than a few "info requesteds" tends to raise eyebrows.
County Supervisor, District 1 -
Ed Hermes - Raised almost $66000, spent $2000, cash on hand of >$63000. Candidate loan - $10000. Interesting names: OK, there were a lot of names that I recognized on the list of contributors to Hermes, former vice-chair of the LD17 Democrats, but standing out was former U.S. Senator Dennis Deconcini, who gave $390. Oh yeah, and the Hermes family is a large one. :))
Fulton Brock - Raised $34000, spent $14000+, cash on hand of $120000. He also used paid petition circulators.
Sooooooo....did anyone else notice that the relative rookie seriously outraised the long-time incumbent (by almost $30K) and out-organized him too? (Obtained nearly as many nominating sigs - 1254 to 1598 - and got them the hard way, walking and knocking and meeting people.)
County Supervisor, District 2 -
Joel Sinclaire - Raised $5700, spent $560, cash on hand of $5200. Candidate loan of $3200.
Don Stapley - Raised $50,000, spent $7400, cash on hand $83000. Interesting fact found in the financial report - Keith Russell, Republican candidate for County Assessor, paid for a mailing of Stapley's nominating petitions. From the report (page 6) -
Total cost of mailing 463.91
Payment 231.95 Russell 08
231.95 Contribution in-kind to Don Stapley campaign from Keith and Becky Russell
Interesting names: Grady Gammage, a developer's favorite attorney, gave $390; Eddie Basha Jr., CEO of Basha's (AZ supermarket chain) gave $390; Jerry Colangelo, yes, *that* Jerry Colangelo, gave $390. There was one really interesting campaign expenditure - $40 for a subscription to Newsweek Magazine.
How does a committee for a county office candidate rationalize calling a subscription to a national news magazine a necessary campaign expense? Inquiring minds want to know. :))
County Supervisor, District 3 -
Marilyn Fox - Raised $1400, spent $200, cash on hand $900.
Andy Kunasek - Raised $81000, spent $15000, cash on hand . Like Arpaio and Thomas, Kunasek has hired Summit Consulting. However, unlike with the Nativist Twins, payments to Summit do not constitute a majority of his expenditures.
Contribute to Fox here. Not sure why she deserves our support? Read about Kunasek in action here (courtesy Sam Coppersmith at Liberal Desert). 'Nuff said.
I'm not going to bother with the reports from Supervisor Districts 4 and 5 (Mary Rose Wilcox and Max Wilson are unopposed) or for the other county offices (the candidates are either unopposed or the winner of the Republican primary will be unopposed in the general election.)
Later!
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Scottsdale campaign finance reports are in...
Ari Cohn of the Trib beat me to this subject with this story in today's paper (darn you Ari!!! LOL)...Guess I'll have to go for a little depth instead of simple numbers...
Campaign financial reports are in for the period of January 1 through May 31.
Council candidates -
Lisa Borowsky, raised $3100, cash on hand $200. Most of her contributions came in $390 increments (the max amount in local elections) and many came from her family. Interesting name: Travis Junion, a vice chair of the LD8 Republicans handled printing her nominating petitions ($25 in-kind contribution.)
Joel Bramoweth - No money raised during the period, but he had raised a lot of money previous to the period and has almost $8700 cash on hand.
Oren Davis - A late entrant into the race, he raised more than $4200 and spent more than $4100. Reports cash on hand of $94.16. All funds from himself; most of expenditures were for paid petition circulators.
Betty Drake - Raised $8600, spent a little less than $600, cash on hand $9800. Interesting names: Former Councilman Kevin Osterman made a $50 contribution, the UFCW contributed $2000.
Tom Giller - Raised $2300, spent $680, almost $1700 cash on hand. Interesting names: Bob and Kathy Littlefield, City Councilman and treasurer of the LD8 Republicans respectively, each contributed $300, Jim Derouin, former candidate for mayor, gave $390.
Suzanne Klapp - Raised $6500, spent just under $1900, and has cash on hand of more than $11000. Note: She loaned her own campaign $5000. Interesting names: State Rep. Michele Reagan gave her $300; Virginia Korte, Scottsdale business leader, gave $100; Joyce Schweikert, wife of Republican congressional candidate David Schweikert, gave $50; and SRP's PAC gave $400. She used paid petition circulators, The Campaign Finance Company LLC, which is operated by the infamous Derrick Lee.
OK kiddies, can you say "Establishment Candidate"?
Ron McCullagh - Raised $1240, spent $586, cash on hand of $17000. Nothing too interesting as far as names contributing money.
Richard Mueller - Nada. Filed a report with no activity; should have formed his committee as a $500 Exemption one.
Nan Nesvig - Raised just over $1500, spent just over $3100, cash on hand of $120. Loaned her own campaign $350. She used paid petition circulators Petition Pros of Gilbert.
Mayoral Candidates -
John Washington, write-in candidate, set up his campaign as a $500 Exemption candidate - no report filed.
Jim Lane - Raised $25000, spent a little more than $10000, cash on hand of $22000. Interesting names: Clint Bolick, director of the very conservative Goldwater Institute (sort of the business community's version of the Center forArizona Policy), gave $100; Jim Derouin, former candidate for Mayor, gave $250; returned a $390 contribution from the infamous (around Scottsdale, anyway :) ) Henry Becker. Lane's biggest expense was $3368 for TV spots currently airing on cable.
Mary Manross - the incumbent Mayor raised $31000, spent just under $4000, cash on hand of $30000. Interesting names: Jim Bruner, former county supervisor, gave $250, as did his wife Sandy; Debbie Gaby, owner of mattress retailer Sleep America (trust me, you've heard her on one of her ubiquitous radio spots), gave $100; Kevin Osterman gave $100; David Waid, former ED of the Arizona Democratic Party, gave $200. Note: whoever writes up her financial reports either needs to improve their handwriting, or should just type them...and use fewer acronyms, too.
Given the cash on hand numbers for both Lane and Manross, expect lots of mailers, TV spots, and newspaper ads to plaster the city in the weeks leading up to Scottsdale's election in September. As for campaign signs, those are frowned upon in the culture of Scottsdale (they're 'eyesores' or something like that.) There should be some yard signs, but few if any larger signs.
Caveat - All of the "interesting names" are limited to names that I recognized (or in the case of Manross' report, names that I could both read and recognize.) It's very likely that there were other contributors of note; visit the City of Scottsdale's Elections homepage and search through the campaign finance reports for more details.
Later!
Campaign financial reports are in for the period of January 1 through May 31.
Council candidates -
Lisa Borowsky, raised $3100, cash on hand $200. Most of her contributions came in $390 increments (the max amount in local elections) and many came from her family. Interesting name: Travis Junion, a vice chair of the LD8 Republicans handled printing her nominating petitions ($25 in-kind contribution.)
Joel Bramoweth - No money raised during the period, but he had raised a lot of money previous to the period and has almost $8700 cash on hand.
Oren Davis - A late entrant into the race, he raised more than $4200 and spent more than $4100. Reports cash on hand of $94.16. All funds from himself; most of expenditures were for paid petition circulators.
Betty Drake - Raised $8600, spent a little less than $600, cash on hand $9800. Interesting names: Former Councilman Kevin Osterman made a $50 contribution, the UFCW contributed $2000.
Tom Giller - Raised $2300, spent $680, almost $1700 cash on hand. Interesting names: Bob and Kathy Littlefield, City Councilman and treasurer of the LD8 Republicans respectively, each contributed $300, Jim Derouin, former candidate for mayor, gave $390.
Suzanne Klapp - Raised $6500, spent just under $1900, and has cash on hand of more than $11000. Note: She loaned her own campaign $5000. Interesting names: State Rep. Michele Reagan gave her $300; Virginia Korte, Scottsdale business leader, gave $100; Joyce Schweikert, wife of Republican congressional candidate David Schweikert, gave $50; and SRP's PAC gave $400. She used paid petition circulators, The Campaign Finance Company LLC, which is operated by the infamous Derrick Lee.
OK kiddies, can you say "Establishment Candidate"?
Ron McCullagh - Raised $1240, spent $586, cash on hand of $17000. Nothing too interesting as far as names contributing money.
Richard Mueller - Nada. Filed a report with no activity; should have formed his committee as a $500 Exemption one.
Nan Nesvig - Raised just over $1500, spent just over $3100, cash on hand of $120. Loaned her own campaign $350. She used paid petition circulators Petition Pros of Gilbert.
Mayoral Candidates -
John Washington, write-in candidate, set up his campaign as a $500 Exemption candidate - no report filed.
Jim Lane - Raised $25000, spent a little more than $10000, cash on hand of $22000. Interesting names: Clint Bolick, director of the very conservative Goldwater Institute (sort of the business community's version of the Center forArizona Policy), gave $100; Jim Derouin, former candidate for Mayor, gave $250; returned a $390 contribution from the infamous (around Scottsdale, anyway :) ) Henry Becker. Lane's biggest expense was $3368 for TV spots currently airing on cable.
Mary Manross - the incumbent Mayor raised $31000, spent just under $4000, cash on hand of $30000. Interesting names: Jim Bruner, former county supervisor, gave $250, as did his wife Sandy; Debbie Gaby, owner of mattress retailer Sleep America (trust me, you've heard her on one of her ubiquitous radio spots), gave $100; Kevin Osterman gave $100; David Waid, former ED of the Arizona Democratic Party, gave $200. Note: whoever writes up her financial reports either needs to improve their handwriting, or should just type them...and use fewer acronyms, too.
Given the cash on hand numbers for both Lane and Manross, expect lots of mailers, TV spots, and newspaper ads to plaster the city in the weeks leading up to Scottsdale's election in September. As for campaign signs, those are frowned upon in the culture of Scottsdale (they're 'eyesores' or something like that.) There should be some yard signs, but few if any larger signs.
Caveat - All of the "interesting names" are limited to names that I recognized (or in the case of Manross' report, names that I could both read and recognize.) It's very likely that there were other contributors of note; visit the City of Scottsdale's Elections homepage and search through the campaign finance reports for more details.
Later!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Voter Reg Trends and other numbers
Looks like it's the week for really dry and numbers-heavy posts...
...The AZ Republic and PolitickerAZ each have stories up on the latest voter registration figures from the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. The stories discuss some of the statewide numbers and the gains that the Arizona Democratic Party has made since the 2006 election.
The SOS's voter reg figures repository is here.
A more local look at the numbers ('local' meaning CD5 and LDs 8, 17, and 18) -
In CD5, Democratic registrations have increased by more than 10000 since October of 2006 while Republican registrations are down slightly (379). Overall registrations are up a little more than 14000. The most encouraging aspect of this is that more than 71% of the increase in registered voters in CD5 since October 2006 has been Democratic.
In the shorter term, since March of this year (after the bump in registrations brought on by the Presidential primaries), Democratic registrations increased by more than 4200, Republican registrations by more than 2200 and overall registrations by 9600.
In LD8, the Democrats there continue to make headway against the daunting Rep registration advantage.
Since October 2006, Democratic registrations in LD8 have increased by over 3000; Republican registrations are up by 370, and overall registrations are up 5200.
Yes, the Democrats have more than 8 times the new registrations as the Reps since 2006.
Since March (post-primary bump), the Dems are up nearly 1000, the Reps just under 900, and overall registrations up 2600.
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up more than 2400 since October 2006, Rep registrations down more than 200, and overall registrations up 2750.
Yes, more than 88% of the overall increase since the last election is due to Democratic registrations.
Since March, Dem registrations are up 1300, Rep registrations are up 400, and overall registrations are up by more than 2600.
Yes, even post-bump, the LD17 Democrats have been adding to their 2006 momentum.
Some of the most encouraging registration numbers are in LD18, where Democratic registrations have increased by more than 1700 since October 2006 while Rep registrations have decreased by more than 700 over the same period. Overall registrations have increased by more than 1800.
Since March, Democratic registrations have increased by just under 1000, Reps by just under 600 and overall registrations by more than 2200.
The Reps still have a registration advantage in LD18, but it's now a manageable one. Tammie Pursley (House) and Judah Nativio (Senate) are running in LD18; look for one or both to pull off a major surprise come November.
Raw figures (and apologies for the formatting, or lack thereof :) ) -
Key - Party, June 2008 figures, March 2008, October 2006
CD5 -
Democratic, 96842, 92595, 86743
Republican, 138678. 136430, 139057
Overall, 329264, 319622, 315185
LD8 -
Democratic, 26536, 25555, 23500
Republican, 53525, 52654, 53155
Overall, 110687, 108085, 105458
LD17 -
Democratic, 26571,25249, 24131
Republican, 24880, 24478, 25101
Overall, 72909, 70245, 70159
LD18 -
Democratic, 15839, 14852, 14109
Republican, 25009, 24437, 25745
Overall, 55979, 53705, 54123
...The latest KAET/ASU poll asked respondents the following question - "If Arizona state government shuts down because the governor and the state legislature cannot agree on the budget, who do you think is most responsible for the impasse – the governor or the state legislature? "
52% of respondents hold the legislature most responsible for the budget impasse.
Seems like that in spite of the Republicans' best efforts to destroy public education in Arizona, some intelligence and perceptiveness still remains. :)
Later!
...The AZ Republic and PolitickerAZ each have stories up on the latest voter registration figures from the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. The stories discuss some of the statewide numbers and the gains that the Arizona Democratic Party has made since the 2006 election.
The SOS's voter reg figures repository is here.
A more local look at the numbers ('local' meaning CD5 and LDs 8, 17, and 18) -
In CD5, Democratic registrations have increased by more than 10000 since October of 2006 while Republican registrations are down slightly (379). Overall registrations are up a little more than 14000. The most encouraging aspect of this is that more than 71% of the increase in registered voters in CD5 since October 2006 has been Democratic.
In the shorter term, since March of this year (after the bump in registrations brought on by the Presidential primaries), Democratic registrations increased by more than 4200, Republican registrations by more than 2200 and overall registrations by 9600.
In LD8, the Democrats there continue to make headway against the daunting Rep registration advantage.
Since October 2006, Democratic registrations in LD8 have increased by over 3000; Republican registrations are up by 370, and overall registrations are up 5200.
Yes, the Democrats have more than 8 times the new registrations as the Reps since 2006.
Since March (post-primary bump), the Dems are up nearly 1000, the Reps just under 900, and overall registrations up 2600.
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up more than 2400 since October 2006, Rep registrations down more than 200, and overall registrations up 2750.
Yes, more than 88% of the overall increase since the last election is due to Democratic registrations.
Since March, Dem registrations are up 1300, Rep registrations are up 400, and overall registrations are up by more than 2600.
Yes, even post-bump, the LD17 Democrats have been adding to their 2006 momentum.
Some of the most encouraging registration numbers are in LD18, where Democratic registrations have increased by more than 1700 since October 2006 while Rep registrations have decreased by more than 700 over the same period. Overall registrations have increased by more than 1800.
Since March, Democratic registrations have increased by just under 1000, Reps by just under 600 and overall registrations by more than 2200.
The Reps still have a registration advantage in LD18, but it's now a manageable one. Tammie Pursley (House) and Judah Nativio (Senate) are running in LD18; look for one or both to pull off a major surprise come November.
Raw figures (and apologies for the formatting, or lack thereof :) ) -
Key - Party, June 2008 figures, March 2008, October 2006
CD5 -
Democratic, 96842, 92595, 86743
Republican, 138678. 136430, 139057
Overall, 329264, 319622, 315185
LD8 -
Democratic, 26536, 25555, 23500
Republican, 53525, 52654, 53155
Overall, 110687, 108085, 105458
LD17 -
Democratic, 26571,25249, 24131
Republican, 24880, 24478, 25101
Overall, 72909, 70245, 70159
LD18 -
Democratic, 15839, 14852, 14109
Republican, 25009, 24437, 25745
Overall, 55979, 53705, 54123
...The latest KAET/ASU poll asked respondents the following question - "If Arizona state government shuts down because the governor and the state legislature cannot agree on the budget, who do you think is most responsible for the impasse – the governor or the state legislature? "
52% of respondents hold the legislature most responsible for the budget impasse.
Seems like that in spite of the Republicans' best efforts to destroy public education in Arizona, some intelligence and perceptiveness still remains. :)
Later!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Nice but irrelevant study: The effect of polling locations on election results.
...while the following post is incredibly dry, it does have the redeeming feature of being non-partisan.
That may be its *only* redeeming feature. :)
The Arizona Republic has an article on a study conducted in Arizona on the impact of polling location on the likelihood that a voter will support an education funding initiative that's on the ballot.
The upshot of the study was that 56% of voters casting their ballots in school supported education measures, while only 54% of those voting in other public buildings did so.
Ignoring for the moment the statistical similarity (56% to 54%? 2% is within the margin of errors of most statistical analyses of election trends, but I digress :) ), what the Rep article notes, but fails to note the significance of, is the fact that the study analyzed data from Arizona's 2000 elections.
In short, while the study may end up serving as a good snapshot of voting trends at the time (or, given the 2% difference, a good hint of a suggestion of a snapshot), changes in voting activity is just 8 short years render the study nearly useless.
In 2000, a negligible number of voters cast their ballots early; so neglibile, in fact, that the Maricopa County Recorder doesn't show the number in the results listed on its website (no direct link; use the drop down menus on this page.)
In 2006, more than 49% off all votes cast in Maricopa County were cast early or by mail.
In 2008, the trend has continued. During the various municipal elections held so far, early voting has accounted for approximately 80% of ballots cast (i.e. - Tempe's early voting percentage for the general election last month was over 82%).
While the early voting numbers for this November's election probably won't be quite so high, given the trend and the parties' efforts to persuade voters to use vote-by-mail, the percentage of early votes should be well over 60% or even 70%.
In short, the effect of location of polling place, while minimal to begin with (2%!) has been rendered all but moot -
There are an average of 1370 voters per precinct in Maricopa County (a smidge more than 1.5 million voters total). In 2006, voter turnout was approximately 60%; assuming a similar percentage turnout this year, that would mean an average of 822 voters casting ballots in each precinct, and assuming 60% EV, that would leave 329 voters physically casting their ballots at each polling place.
2% of 329 is less than 7 (6.579).
Even assuming that all 1142 precincts in the county cast their ballots in a school (they don't), that means the impact of voting in a school is approximately 7500 votes county-wide.
Most school districts (hence, most school-related ballot questions) don't have nearly that many precincts (Scottsdale Unified #48 has 97).
In other words, while the effect of polling place location does exist, it was small to begin with (2%), is minimized by the fact that most education-related ballot questions cover relatively small areas, and is already shrinking due to the growth of 'vote-by-mail' behavior.
Perhaps the scientists who performed this study, Jonah Berger, Marc Meredith, and S. Christian Wheeler, should do a follow up, studying the effects of vote-by-mail (aka "Vote-in-the-comfort-of-home) on voting patterns.
An abstract of the study is here; the article is here, courtesy the website of Dr. Jonah Berger, one of the authors.
What can I say - I'm a numbers geek. Boring is part of the package. :))
Addendum - I emailed Dr. Berger the question that I asked, regarding whether he and his colleagues planned a follow-up regarding the effects of VBM. His reply was surprisingly prompt (I emailed him at his school email addy, after 7 p.m. local time, during the summer. I wasn't sure that he would reply within a month, much less an hour. :)) ). As of right now, they don't have any plans to do a follow-up on VBM effects.
That may be its *only* redeeming feature. :)
The Arizona Republic has an article on a study conducted in Arizona on the impact of polling location on the likelihood that a voter will support an education funding initiative that's on the ballot.
The upshot of the study was that 56% of voters casting their ballots in school supported education measures, while only 54% of those voting in other public buildings did so.
Ignoring for the moment the statistical similarity (56% to 54%? 2% is within the margin of errors of most statistical analyses of election trends, but I digress :) ), what the Rep article notes, but fails to note the significance of, is the fact that the study analyzed data from Arizona's 2000 elections.
In short, while the study may end up serving as a good snapshot of voting trends at the time (or, given the 2% difference, a good hint of a suggestion of a snapshot), changes in voting activity is just 8 short years render the study nearly useless.
In 2000, a negligible number of voters cast their ballots early; so neglibile, in fact, that the Maricopa County Recorder doesn't show the number in the results listed on its website (no direct link; use the drop down menus on this page.)
In 2006, more than 49% off all votes cast in Maricopa County were cast early or by mail.
In 2008, the trend has continued. During the various municipal elections held so far, early voting has accounted for approximately 80% of ballots cast (i.e. - Tempe's early voting percentage for the general election last month was over 82%).
While the early voting numbers for this November's election probably won't be quite so high, given the trend and the parties' efforts to persuade voters to use vote-by-mail, the percentage of early votes should be well over 60% or even 70%.
In short, the effect of location of polling place, while minimal to begin with (2%!) has been rendered all but moot -
There are an average of 1370 voters per precinct in Maricopa County (a smidge more than 1.5 million voters total). In 2006, voter turnout was approximately 60%; assuming a similar percentage turnout this year, that would mean an average of 822 voters casting ballots in each precinct, and assuming 60% EV, that would leave 329 voters physically casting their ballots at each polling place.
2% of 329 is less than 7 (6.579).
Even assuming that all 1142 precincts in the county cast their ballots in a school (they don't), that means the impact of voting in a school is approximately 7500 votes county-wide.
Most school districts (hence, most school-related ballot questions) don't have nearly that many precincts (Scottsdale Unified #48 has 97).
In other words, while the effect of polling place location does exist, it was small to begin with (2%), is minimized by the fact that most education-related ballot questions cover relatively small areas, and is already shrinking due to the growth of 'vote-by-mail' behavior.
Perhaps the scientists who performed this study, Jonah Berger, Marc Meredith, and S. Christian Wheeler, should do a follow up, studying the effects of vote-by-mail (aka "Vote-in-the-comfort-of-home) on voting patterns.
An abstract of the study is here; the article is here, courtesy the website of Dr. Jonah Berger, one of the authors.
What can I say - I'm a numbers geek. Boring is part of the package. :))
Addendum - I emailed Dr. Berger the question that I asked, regarding whether he and his colleagues planned a follow-up regarding the effects of VBM. His reply was surprisingly prompt (I emailed him at his school email addy, after 7 p.m. local time, during the summer. I wasn't sure that he would reply within a month, much less an hour. :)) ). As of right now, they don't have any plans to do a follow-up on VBM effects.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
More sigs and registration numbers
Time to update last week's post on signatures; specifically, on candidates in the Mesa/Tempe/Scottsdale area who have turned in their petitions.
LD8 State Senate - no change (no sigs filed yet)
LD17 State Senate -
Meg Burton-Cahill (D), incumbent - 632 sigs filed, 253 required. Running as a Clean Elections candidate. Filed May 28, 2008.
LD18 State Senate -
Russell Pearce (R) - 733 sigs, 245 required. Clean Elections. Filed May 28, 2008.
LD8 State Representative - no changes.
LD17 State Representative - no changes.
LD18 State Representative - no changes.
As for statewide office, within the last week, the following candidates filed sigs for their runs for Corporation Commission -
John Allen (R) - 6145 sigs, 5184 required. Clean Elections. Filed May 23, 2008.
Bob Robson (R) - 7576 sigs, 5184 required. Traditional financing. Filed May 28, 2008.
In Scottsdale sig news, the EV Tribune has the story of Jim Lane's filing. He's currently a member of the City Council and is a candidate for mayor.
On the voter registration figures front, according to the Maricopa County Recorder's website...
...In District 17, the Democrats have extended their registration advantage over the Reps to 1584 (24,281 - 26405). That up from the advantage of 771 in March, based on the March figures from the AZ Secretary of State's office.
...In LD8, the Republican registration advantage was closed slightly (by 70 voters) to 27,020 (53,430 - 26,418).
...In LD18, the margin favors the Republicans by 9198 (24,917 - 15,719). That's an advantage of 14.5%. According to the March SOS figures, the gap was 9585 (24,437 - 14,852).
My March post on voter reg figures is here; take the comparisons in this one with a grain of salt - the AZ SOS and Maricopa County Recorder usually have slightly different figures, so this isn't a perfect, "apples to apples" comparison. It's close enough for blogging, though. :)
And on the other hand, their numbers usually aren't that far off from each other's either. :))
I'll do an update on sigs next week after the deadline for turning in petitions (Wednesday, June 4), but I won't anything on registration numbers until early August, which is when early voting starts for the September primary election.
Later!
LD8 State Senate - no change (no sigs filed yet)
LD17 State Senate -
Meg Burton-Cahill (D), incumbent - 632 sigs filed, 253 required. Running as a Clean Elections candidate. Filed May 28, 2008.
LD18 State Senate -
Russell Pearce (R) - 733 sigs, 245 required. Clean Elections. Filed May 28, 2008.
LD8 State Representative - no changes.
LD17 State Representative - no changes.
LD18 State Representative - no changes.
As for statewide office, within the last week, the following candidates filed sigs for their runs for Corporation Commission -
John Allen (R) - 6145 sigs, 5184 required. Clean Elections. Filed May 23, 2008.
Bob Robson (R) - 7576 sigs, 5184 required. Traditional financing. Filed May 28, 2008.
In Scottsdale sig news, the EV Tribune has the story of Jim Lane's filing. He's currently a member of the City Council and is a candidate for mayor.
On the voter registration figures front, according to the Maricopa County Recorder's website...
...In District 17, the Democrats have extended their registration advantage over the Reps to 1584 (24,281 - 26405). That up from the advantage of 771 in March, based on the March figures from the AZ Secretary of State's office.
...In LD8, the Republican registration advantage was closed slightly (by 70 voters) to 27,020 (53,430 - 26,418).
...In LD18, the margin favors the Republicans by 9198 (24,917 - 15,719). That's an advantage of 14.5%. According to the March SOS figures, the gap was 9585 (24,437 - 14,852).
My March post on voter reg figures is here; take the comparisons in this one with a grain of salt - the AZ SOS and Maricopa County Recorder usually have slightly different figures, so this isn't a perfect, "apples to apples" comparison. It's close enough for blogging, though. :)
And on the other hand, their numbers usually aren't that far off from each other's either. :))
I'll do an update on sigs next week after the deadline for turning in petitions (Wednesday, June 4), but I won't anything on registration numbers until early August, which is when early voting starts for the September primary election.
Later!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Quarterly FEC Reports Are Pouring In...
They're not all into the FEC yet, so I'll update over the next few days.
The quarterly numbers so far -
CD1 (open seat)
Shanker (D) (challenger) - Total raised $33,688.73; $31,354.75 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $34,320.21 cash on hand. Note: Shanker's committee has $9,367.88 in outstanding debt (credit card statement).
Hay (R) (challenger) - Total raised $98,618.19; $88,118.19 from individuals; $10,500.00 from PACs; $222,334.01 cash on hand. Note: Hay's committee has $70K in outstanding debt (loans by the candidate).
Kirkpatrick (D) (challenger) - Total raised $257,400.17; $194,650.17 from individuals; $62,250.00 from PACs; $465,464.68 cash on hand. Note: Kirkpatrick's committee has $20K in outstanding debt (loan).
Riley (D) (challenger) - Total raised $15,825.00; $15,825.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $216,165.31 cash on hand. Note: Riley's committee has $205K in outstanding debt (candidate loan). Note2: According to PolitickerAZ, Riley has dropped out of the race.
Titla (D) (challenger) - Total raised $39,114.05; $39,114.05 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $48,321.07 cash on hand.
Korn (R) (challenger) - Total raised $14,567.00; $12,266.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $10,494.16 cash on hand. Note: Korn's committee has $3,185.36 in outstanding debt (candidate loan and credit card).
Renzi (R) (outgoing incumbent) - $0 raised; $3966.46 cash on hand; $456,073.37 in outstanding debt (legal fees, candidate loans).
CD1 note: According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, rumored Republican candidate Ken Bennett has chosen (again!) to pass on the CD1 race.
CD2
Franks (R) (incumbent) - $88,386.00 total raised; $53,261.00 from individuals; $35,625.00 from PACs; 129,774.83 cash on hand. Note: Franks' committee owes $304,100 in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Thrasher (D) (challenger) - Total raised $3,023.50; $3,023.50 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $12,512.49 cash on hand.
CD3
Lord (D) (challenger) - Total raised $220,166.47; $163,116.47 from individuals; $51,550.00 from PACs; $632,485.41 cash on hand.
Shadegg (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $150,716.41; $163,516.41 from individuals; $47,000.00 from PACs; $937,672.59 cash on hand. Note: The reason that the total raised is less than the combined totals of individual and PAC contributions is that Shadegg's committee refunded nearly $60K in contributions.
Annie Loyd (I) (challenger) - Quarterly report not posted yet.
Shadegg's flirtation with retirement may have cost him some contributions - Shadegg outraised the incumbent, even when ignoring the refunds (which included a refund of $10K in illegal contributions from his own PAC.)
From a Lord press release -
CD4
Pastor (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $260,827.71; $164,020.98 from individuals; $96,306.73 from PACs; $1,266,599.90 cash on hand.
CD5
Mitchell (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $321,160.18; $209,028.59 from individuals; $112,110.00 from PACs; $1,121,680.84 cash on hand.
Schweikert (R) (challenger) - Total raised $175,210.23; $171,941.95 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $514,092.21 cash on hand. Note: Schweikert's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Ogsbury (R) (challenger) - Total raised 40,421.17; $37,921.17 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $353,094.41 cash on hand. Note: Ogsbury's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Hatch-Miller (R) (committee terminated) - Owes $17K; cash on hand $245.20.
Knaperek (R) (challenger) - $49,618.00 total raised; $49,518.00 from individuals; $100 from PACs; $44,471.84 cash on hand.
Anderson (R) (challenger) - $55,115.00 total raised; $55,115.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $69,985.52 cash on hand.
CD5 Notes: Susan Bitter Smith (R) is still 'exploring', but given the facts that the signature deadline is fast approaching (early June) and that her name is dirt with many of Scottsdale's grassroots Republicans (see: Hanover Project, The), my guess is that she isn't going to jump into the race.
Oh yeah - that Schweikert guy has the money race locked up, if not the balloting race. I don't know what the polling numbers among CD5 Republicans looks like, but Schweikert looks like the frontrunner based on contributions from individuals.
Oh yeah2 - Mitchell has more cash on hand that all of his Republican challengers combined. Mitchell still faces a Republican registration advantage in his district, but he is well-positioned to face whichever Rep makes it out of the primary.
CD6
Flake (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $58,342.00; $52,742.00 from individuals; $6,000.00 from PACs; $974,536.74 cash on hand.
CD7
Grijalva (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $91,312.93; $54,296 from individuals; $37,010.00 from PACs; $139,670.64 cash on hand.
CD8
Giffords (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $466,786.20; $333,616.20 from individuals; $138,070.00 from PACs; $1,672,821.88 cash on hand.
Bee (R) (challenger) - Total raised $466,092.60; $406,992.60 from individuals; $40,000 from PACs; $525,439.88 cash on hand.
The quarterly numbers so far -
CD1 (open seat)
Shanker (D) (challenger) - Total raised $33,688.73; $31,354.75 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $34,320.21 cash on hand. Note: Shanker's committee has $9,367.88 in outstanding debt (credit card statement).
Hay (R) (challenger) - Total raised $98,618.19; $88,118.19 from individuals; $10,500.00 from PACs; $222,334.01 cash on hand. Note: Hay's committee has $70K in outstanding debt (loans by the candidate).
Kirkpatrick (D) (challenger) - Total raised $257,400.17; $194,650.17 from individuals; $62,250.00 from PACs; $465,464.68 cash on hand. Note: Kirkpatrick's committee has $20K in outstanding debt (loan).
Riley (D) (challenger) - Total raised $15,825.00; $15,825.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $216,165.31 cash on hand. Note: Riley's committee has $205K in outstanding debt (candidate loan). Note2: According to PolitickerAZ, Riley has dropped out of the race.
Titla (D) (challenger) - Total raised $39,114.05; $39,114.05 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $48,321.07 cash on hand.
Korn (R) (challenger) - Total raised $14,567.00; $12,266.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $10,494.16 cash on hand. Note: Korn's committee has $3,185.36 in outstanding debt (candidate loan and credit card).
Renzi (R) (outgoing incumbent) - $0 raised; $3966.46 cash on hand; $456,073.37 in outstanding debt (legal fees, candidate loans).
CD1 note: According to Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion, rumored Republican candidate Ken Bennett has chosen (again!) to pass on the CD1 race.
CD2
Franks (R) (incumbent) - $88,386.00 total raised; $53,261.00 from individuals; $35,625.00 from PACs; 129,774.83 cash on hand. Note: Franks' committee owes $304,100 in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Thrasher (D) (challenger) - Total raised $3,023.50; $3,023.50 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $12,512.49 cash on hand.
CD3
Lord (D) (challenger) - Total raised $220,166.47; $163,116.47 from individuals; $51,550.00 from PACs; $632,485.41 cash on hand.
Shadegg (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $150,716.41; $163,516.41 from individuals; $47,000.00 from PACs; $937,672.59 cash on hand. Note: The reason that the total raised is less than the combined totals of individual and PAC contributions is that Shadegg's committee refunded nearly $60K in contributions.
Annie Loyd (I) (challenger) - Quarterly report not posted yet.
Shadegg's flirtation with retirement may have cost him some contributions - Shadegg outraised the incumbent, even when ignoring the refunds (which included a refund of $10K in illegal contributions from his own PAC.)
From a Lord press release -
“We could not have come this far or raised this much without the support of the over 1,000 Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who have contributed to my campaign,” Lord said. “I’d like to thank everyone for their continued support. We will change Washington – together.”
CD4
Pastor (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $260,827.71; $164,020.98 from individuals; $96,306.73 from PACs; $1,266,599.90 cash on hand.
CD5
Mitchell (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $321,160.18; $209,028.59 from individuals; $112,110.00 from PACs; $1,121,680.84 cash on hand.
Schweikert (R) (challenger) - Total raised $175,210.23; $171,941.95 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $514,092.21 cash on hand. Note: Schweikert's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Ogsbury (R) (challenger) - Total raised 40,421.17; $37,921.17 from individuals; $2,500.00 from PACs; $353,094.41 cash on hand. Note: Ogsbury's committee has $250K in outstanding debt (candidate loan).
Hatch-Miller (R) (committee terminated) - Owes $17K; cash on hand $245.20.
Knaperek (R) (challenger) - $49,618.00 total raised; $49,518.00 from individuals; $100 from PACs; $44,471.84 cash on hand.
Anderson (R) (challenger) - $55,115.00 total raised; $55,115.00 from individuals; $0 from PACs; $69,985.52 cash on hand.
CD5 Notes: Susan Bitter Smith (R) is still 'exploring', but given the facts that the signature deadline is fast approaching (early June) and that her name is dirt with many of Scottsdale's grassroots Republicans (see: Hanover Project, The), my guess is that she isn't going to jump into the race.
Oh yeah - that Schweikert guy has the money race locked up, if not the balloting race. I don't know what the polling numbers among CD5 Republicans looks like, but Schweikert looks like the frontrunner based on contributions from individuals.
Oh yeah2 - Mitchell has more cash on hand that all of his Republican challengers combined. Mitchell still faces a Republican registration advantage in his district, but he is well-positioned to face whichever Rep makes it out of the primary.
CD6
Flake (R) (incumbent) - Total raised $58,342.00; $52,742.00 from individuals; $6,000.00 from PACs; $974,536.74 cash on hand.
CD7
Grijalva (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $91,312.93; $54,296 from individuals; $37,010.00 from PACs; $139,670.64 cash on hand.
CD8
Giffords (D) (incumbent) - Total raised $466,786.20; $333,616.20 from individuals; $138,070.00 from PACs; $1,672,821.88 cash on hand.
Bee (R) (challenger) - Total raised $466,092.60; $406,992.60 from individuals; $40,000 from PACs; $525,439.88 cash on hand.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Voter Registration Trends - CD5, LD17, and LD8
Tony Cani over at Wactivist has a post about an EV Tribune article on the latest voter registration numbers in AZ. He observes that while many in the D.C. power structure of the Democratic Party are writing off AZ this fall because John McCain (R-Truant) will be at the top of the ballot, the voter reg trends indicate that Arizona will be a battleground state, both for the Presidency and in many of the Congressional races.
From the AZ Secretary of State's latest report on voter reg figures -
CD5 (compared to January 2008)
Democrats 92,595 - up 394 (.43%)
Republicans 136,430 - down 2835 (-2.04%)
Libertarians 2,058 - down 164 (-7.38%)
Independents 88,539 - down 5918 (-6.27%)
Total 318,691 - down 9454 (-2.88%)
LD17
Democrats 25,249 - down 281 (-1.1%)
Republicans 24,478 - down 905 (-3.57%)
Libertarians 650 - down 70 (-9.72%)
Independents 19,868 - down 1955 (-8..96%)
Total 70,245 - down 3211 (-4.37%)
LD8
Democrats 25,555 - up 189 (+ 0.75%)
Republicans 52,654 - down 1016 (-1.89%)
Libertarians 490 - down 42 (-7.89%)
Independents 29,386 - 1849 (-5.92%)
Totals 108,085 - down 2718 (-2.45%)
Brief analysis -
In LD17, the Democrats extended their newfound registration advantage over the Republicans (whooo hooooo!), something that bodes well for LD17's legislators come November, especially if the trend continues. Right now, while the Dems do have a definite advantage, at 36% to 35%, it's still a virtual dead heat.
In LD8, while the Reps still have a more than 2 - 1 registration advantage, the trend is clear - the hard work of the LD8 Democrats is paying off. Since the 2006 election, the Democrats have closed the registration deficit by almost 3000 voters (+2500 Dems, -500 Reps).
That hard work is a major reason why that, since October 2006 in CD5 as a whole, the Republican registration advantage has been cut by almost 8500 voters.
While Congressman Harry Mitchell still has an uphill battle in his re-election fight, that hill is a little less steep, whether or not John McCain is at the top of the ballot in the fall.
Later!
From the AZ Secretary of State's latest report on voter reg figures -
CD5 (compared to January 2008)
Democrats 92,595 - up 394 (.43%)
Republicans 136,430 - down 2835 (-2.04%)
Libertarians 2,058 - down 164 (-7.38%)
Independents 88,539 - down 5918 (-6.27%)
Total 318,691 - down 9454 (-2.88%)
LD17
Democrats 25,249 - down 281 (-1.1%)
Republicans 24,478 - down 905 (-3.57%)
Libertarians 650 - down 70 (-9.72%)
Independents 19,868 - down 1955 (-8..96%)
Total 70,245 - down 3211 (-4.37%)
LD8
Democrats 25,555 - up 189 (+ 0.75%)
Republicans 52,654 - down 1016 (-1.89%)
Libertarians 490 - down 42 (-7.89%)
Independents 29,386 - 1849 (-5.92%)
Totals 108,085 - down 2718 (-2.45%)
Brief analysis -
In LD17, the Democrats extended their newfound registration advantage over the Republicans (whooo hooooo!), something that bodes well for LD17's legislators come November, especially if the trend continues. Right now, while the Dems do have a definite advantage, at 36% to 35%, it's still a virtual dead heat.
In LD8, while the Reps still have a more than 2 - 1 registration advantage, the trend is clear - the hard work of the LD8 Democrats is paying off. Since the 2006 election, the Democrats have closed the registration deficit by almost 3000 voters (+2500 Dems, -500 Reps).
That hard work is a major reason why that, since October 2006 in CD5 as a whole, the Republican registration advantage has been cut by almost 8500 voters.
While Congressman Harry Mitchell still has an uphill battle in his re-election fight, that hill is a little less steep, whether or not John McCain is at the top of the ballot in the fall.
Later!
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Positive voter registration trends for Democrats in CD5
The AZ Star (Tucson) ran an AP article on the Arizona Secretary of State's voter registration numbers for the presidential preference election on February 5, 2008. It inspired me to look at a more local breakdown of registration trends.
Those numbers, when compared to the registration numbers for 2006, show some very favorable trends for AZ Democrats.
Statewide, overall registration has increased 5.6%, with Democratic registrations increasing at more than twice the pace of Republican registrations. Democratic registrations are up 5.9%; Republican registrations are up 2.7%.
Of course, both major parties should take heed of the fact that Independent/non-affiliated registrations are up 9.7%.
In CD5, the numbers are even more eye-opening. (Apologies for the formatting - I haven't figured out how to set up a neat table in Blogger. :( )
Key -
Party, Jan 2008 #s, Oct 2006, Raw change, % change
To sum up - In CD5, the trends indicated by the statewide numbers are even more pronounced. Independent registrations increased at more than twice the pace of the increase in overall registrations. In addition, Democratic registrations increase at a greater pace than the overall pace.
As for the Republicans? They virtually maintained status quo, while everyone else moved up.
The short-term trends are even more encouraging.
Since October 2007, the date of the voter reg report immediately prior to the current one, in CD5, Republican registrations have decreased .19%, Independent registrations have decreased 2.53%, and overall registrations have decreased by .47%.
As for Democratic registrations? They increased by 1.48%.
:))
The indication of decreased Independent registrations is attributable to Arizona's closed primary system for the presidential preference primary election. Many independent voters registered with a party in order to vote in that party's primary. Most, but not all, will change back after February 5th,
The fact that Democratic registrations increased while the overall registration numbers decreased suggest that most of the independents registered as Democrats.
This idea is supported by the national trend of record Democratic turnout in the caucuses and primaries in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.
Simply put, average voters are far more excited by the slate of Democratic contenders for the presidency than they are by the slate of Republican contenders.
Add to that the continued voter dissatisfaction with the status quo (war without end, economy stalling, health care that doesn't care, economy tanking, immigration rhetoric founded on blind hate not substance, economy in recession) associated mostly with the Republicans, and you have a trend that should continue to favor the Democratic Party, both nationally and here in AZ.
The trends in LD8 and LD17 are similarly positive for Democrats -
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up 5.8% since October of 2006 (down .54% since October 2007), Republican registrations are up only 1.1% since 10?06 (down 1.4% since 10/07). Overall registrations are up 5.1% since 10/06 and down .5% since 10/07.
Of course, even in the slightly negative news for Democrats (down a little since October 2007), one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that they still did better than the Republicans in LD17.
Oh, and for the first time in recent memory, there are more registered Democrats in LD17, 25,530, than Republicans, 25,383!
An advantage of 147!
In October of 2006, the Republican registration advantage was 970, for a net change of 1117 more Democratic registrations than Republicans.
In LD8, the trend is even better (though the Reps still have a huge registration advantage there).
LD8 Democratic registrations are up almost 8% since October 2006, Republican registrations are up almost 1% and overall registrations are up 5.1%.
Those are pretty encouraging numbers, but the short-term numbers are even better -
Since October 2007, Republican registrations are down .5% while Democratic registrations are up 2.11%! (Overall registrations in LD8 are down almost .5.)
These numbers, both locally and statewide, won't make any difference on February 5th - that election is 'party-only.'
Come November, however, these trends could spell trouble for Republican candidates up and down the ballot.
Those numbers, when compared to the registration numbers for 2006, show some very favorable trends for AZ Democrats.
Statewide, overall registration has increased 5.6%, with Democratic registrations increasing at more than twice the pace of Republican registrations. Democratic registrations are up 5.9%; Republican registrations are up 2.7%.
Of course, both major parties should take heed of the fact that Independent/non-affiliated registrations are up 9.7%.
In CD5, the numbers are even more eye-opening. (Apologies for the formatting - I haven't figured out how to set up a neat table in Blogger. :( )
Key -
Party, Jan 2008 #s, Oct 2006, Raw change, % change
Democratic Party, 92201, 86743, 5458, 6.3%
Republican Party, 139265, 139057, 208, 0.15%
Independent, 94457, 87060, 7397, 8.5%
Overall, 328145, 315185, 12960, 4.1%
To sum up - In CD5, the trends indicated by the statewide numbers are even more pronounced. Independent registrations increased at more than twice the pace of the increase in overall registrations. In addition, Democratic registrations increase at a greater pace than the overall pace.
As for the Republicans? They virtually maintained status quo, while everyone else moved up.
The short-term trends are even more encouraging.
Since October 2007, the date of the voter reg report immediately prior to the current one, in CD5, Republican registrations have decreased .19%, Independent registrations have decreased 2.53%, and overall registrations have decreased by .47%.
As for Democratic registrations? They increased by 1.48%.
:))
The indication of decreased Independent registrations is attributable to Arizona's closed primary system for the presidential preference primary election. Many independent voters registered with a party in order to vote in that party's primary. Most, but not all, will change back after February 5th,
The fact that Democratic registrations increased while the overall registration numbers decreased suggest that most of the independents registered as Democrats.
This idea is supported by the national trend of record Democratic turnout in the caucuses and primaries in New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada.
Simply put, average voters are far more excited by the slate of Democratic contenders for the presidency than they are by the slate of Republican contenders.
Add to that the continued voter dissatisfaction with the status quo (war without end, economy stalling, health care that doesn't care, economy tanking, immigration rhetoric founded on blind hate not substance, economy in recession) associated mostly with the Republicans, and you have a trend that should continue to favor the Democratic Party, both nationally and here in AZ.
The trends in LD8 and LD17 are similarly positive for Democrats -
In LD17, Democratic registrations are up 5.8% since October of 2006 (down .54% since October 2007), Republican registrations are up only 1.1% since 10?06 (down 1.4% since 10/07). Overall registrations are up 5.1% since 10/06 and down .5% since 10/07.
Of course, even in the slightly negative news for Democrats (down a little since October 2007), one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that they still did better than the Republicans in LD17.
Oh, and for the first time in recent memory, there are more registered Democrats in LD17, 25,530, than Republicans, 25,383!
An advantage of 147!
In October of 2006, the Republican registration advantage was 970, for a net change of 1117 more Democratic registrations than Republicans.
In LD8, the trend is even better (though the Reps still have a huge registration advantage there).
LD8 Democratic registrations are up almost 8% since October 2006, Republican registrations are up almost 1% and overall registrations are up 5.1%.
Those are pretty encouraging numbers, but the short-term numbers are even better -
Since October 2007, Republican registrations are down .5% while Democratic registrations are up 2.11%! (Overall registrations in LD8 are down almost .5.)
These numbers, both locally and statewide, won't make any difference on February 5th - that election is 'party-only.'
Come November, however, these trends could spell trouble for Republican candidates up and down the ballot.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Iraq - the gift that keeps on taking
Bush's obsession with Iraq is going to be an albatross around the neck of the U.S. military (and the U.S. budget) lonnnnggggg after he leaves office.
A recently released Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, generated at the request of Sen. Kent Conrad (D - ND), places the costs of a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq at $10 billion (non-combat situation; think Korea or Germany) to $25 billion (combat) per year.
The estimate for each scenario assumes an occupation force level of 55,000 troops, less than 1/3 of the current level of 168,000.
More than $800 million per month for a peaceful situation? And more the $2 billion per month if there is fighting? That's a lot of money and lives spent to protect oil company profits for the next couple of generations. The figures also appear to be conservative ones, as the current estimated monthly cost for the war in Iraq is $12 billion.
Oh, and when you wonder what "long-term" means in this context, remember that as recently as 2004, 50 years after the end of the Korean War, the U.S. had more than 41,000 servicemen and women stationed in South Korea, the model cited by the White House as their goal for the Iraq force.
Current troop levels are estimated to be somewhat lower (25K or so), mostly due to the pressing need for replacements in Iraq.
At least South Korea was invaded by a country not named 'The United States," so the force presence could be justified; a circumstance that isn't true in Iraq.
A Korea-like occupation of Iraq could cost more than 2 trillion dollars and thousands more lives of American troops (and the lives of hundred of thousands of Iraqis.)
Bush's legacy - dead U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, generations of budget shortfalls, and secured oil profits.
W's grandfather Prescott Bush would be so proud.
Let your Congresscritter know - *real* troop withdrawal (not token withdrawals to 'pre-surge' levels) by spring, and complete withdrawal by the end of Bush's term.
Nothing less.
A Reuters story on the CBO estimate is here.
Note: I heartily recommend bookmarking the CBO webpage; it's non-partisan and it's an incredible source of information and analysis on just about every issue that comes before Congress.
Better yet, sign up for their email service; whenever the CBO publishes a new document, a link to the .pdf file is sent to your inbox.
Have a good rest of the weekend!
Later...
A recently released Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, generated at the request of Sen. Kent Conrad (D - ND), places the costs of a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq at $10 billion (non-combat situation; think Korea or Germany) to $25 billion (combat) per year.
The estimate for each scenario assumes an occupation force level of 55,000 troops, less than 1/3 of the current level of 168,000.
More than $800 million per month for a peaceful situation? And more the $2 billion per month if there is fighting? That's a lot of money and lives spent to protect oil company profits for the next couple of generations. The figures also appear to be conservative ones, as the current estimated monthly cost for the war in Iraq is $12 billion.
Oh, and when you wonder what "long-term" means in this context, remember that as recently as 2004, 50 years after the end of the Korean War, the U.S. had more than 41,000 servicemen and women stationed in South Korea, the model cited by the White House as their goal for the Iraq force.
Current troop levels are estimated to be somewhat lower (25K or so), mostly due to the pressing need for replacements in Iraq.
At least South Korea was invaded by a country not named 'The United States," so the force presence could be justified; a circumstance that isn't true in Iraq.
A Korea-like occupation of Iraq could cost more than 2 trillion dollars and thousands more lives of American troops (and the lives of hundred of thousands of Iraqis.)
Bush's legacy - dead U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, generations of budget shortfalls, and secured oil profits.
W's grandfather Prescott Bush would be so proud.
Let your Congresscritter know - *real* troop withdrawal (not token withdrawals to 'pre-surge' levels) by spring, and complete withdrawal by the end of Bush's term.
Nothing less.
A Reuters story on the CBO estimate is here.
Note: I heartily recommend bookmarking the CBO webpage; it's non-partisan and it's an incredible source of information and analysis on just about every issue that comes before Congress.
Better yet, sign up for their email service; whenever the CBO publishes a new document, a link to the .pdf file is sent to your inbox.
Have a good rest of the weekend!
Later...
Monday, July 16, 2007
Quarterly numbers, anyone?
The FEC has posted candidates' quarterly financial reports online.
Summary of interesting stuff for Arizona's Congressfolk and would-be Congressfolk -
Ed Pastor of CD4 has the most cash on hand, at $1,185,109.24 but in a bit of a surprise, freshman Gabrielle Giffords of CD8 is second with a whopping $941,489.64.
Whoever the Reps throw against her next year will have a steep uphill fight.
In terms of fundraising, the two freshman Democrats in Congress, Giffords and Harry Mitchell of CD5, led the way raising $580,637.32 and $354,638.52 respectively.
Coming in 3rd, however, playing catch-up to (and surpassing) the surprising fundraising totals of challenger Bob Lord from last quarter's reports, Republican John Shadegg of CD3 raised $311,532. He now has a lead in cash on hand over Lord by approximately $50K.
Leading the state's Congressional delegation in the 'seriously scuffling' category is Republican Rick Renzi of CD1.
He's down to $20,418.16 cash on hand after raising just over $40k during the quarter.
The best part of the numbers? He paid out $25,000 in legal fees, and owes over $100K more.
And speaking of a (former) Congressman with legal issues, here are JD Hayworth's numbers:
Cash on hand: $23,134.64 (that's good news)
Raised: $0 (that's better news)
Spent: $107,879.42, with nearly $100K of that in legal fees. (that's *great* news :) )
Later!
Summary of interesting stuff for Arizona's Congressfolk and would-be Congressfolk -
Ed Pastor of CD4 has the most cash on hand, at $1,185,109.24 but in a bit of a surprise, freshman Gabrielle Giffords of CD8 is second with a whopping $941,489.64.
Whoever the Reps throw against her next year will have a steep uphill fight.
In terms of fundraising, the two freshman Democrats in Congress, Giffords and Harry Mitchell of CD5, led the way raising $580,637.32 and $354,638.52 respectively.
Coming in 3rd, however, playing catch-up to (and surpassing) the surprising fundraising totals of challenger Bob Lord from last quarter's reports, Republican John Shadegg of CD3 raised $311,532. He now has a lead in cash on hand over Lord by approximately $50K.
Leading the state's Congressional delegation in the 'seriously scuffling' category is Republican Rick Renzi of CD1.
He's down to $20,418.16 cash on hand after raising just over $40k during the quarter.
The best part of the numbers? He paid out $25,000 in legal fees, and owes over $100K more.
And speaking of a (former) Congressman with legal issues, here are JD Hayworth's numbers:
Cash on hand: $23,134.64 (that's good news)
Raised: $0 (that's better news)
Spent: $107,879.42, with nearly $100K of that in legal fees. (that's *great* news :) )
Later!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Quarterly FEC reports are in...
...and I'll let others write about the presidential candidate numbers.
Some of the FEC's quarterly financial reports for active Congressional candidate committees in Arizona.
Incumbents bolded, challengers italicized.
Note: "PAC" numbers include all contributions from non-political party committees. Generally speaking, Republicans had a lot of corporate contributions; Democrats had a lot of union contributions.
CD1 -
Democrat Ellen Simon raised $4,295.54, more than $4K from herself.
Republican Rick Renzi raised $117,698.70, $76,950.00 from PACs.
CD2 -
Republican Trent Franks raised $40,031.00, $9,000 from PACs.
Democrat John Thrasher raised $4,340.00, $3,000 from himself.
CD3 -
Democrat Bob Lord raised $137,968.15, $0 from PACs.
Republican John Shadegg raised $19,338.57, $4,500.00 from PACs.
CD4 -
Democrat Ed Pastor raised $11,650.00, $1,000 from PACs.
CD5 -
Democrat Harry Mitchell raised $234,768.46, $107,162.35 from PACs.
Republican JD Hayworth raised $136.00.
CD6 -
Republican Jeff Flake raised $84,065.00, $3100.00 from PACs.
CD7 -
Democrat Raul Grijalva raised $26,843.86, $25,500 from PACs.
CD8 -
Democrat Gabrielle Giffords raised $325,252.61, $104,966.17 from PACs.
Democrat Jeff Latas raised $900.00, all from himself.
Active during the quarter, but no contributions received - Bob Stump (R-CD3), Ron Drake (R-CD7, committee termination report filed), Eva Bacal (D-CD8), Jim Kolbe (R-CD8), Larry King (D-CD5), Herb Paine (D-CD3, termination report filed 03-01-2007),
Brief observation: By far, Mitchell, Giffords, and Renzi were the most active incumbent fundraisers this quarter, but that's no surprise - they are all targeted for defeat in the next election; Mitchell and Giffords because they are in their first terms, and Renzi because of his ethical and residency issues.
Brief prediction: Expect Shadegg to get his fundraising organization into gear after the showing of Bob Lord (top fundraiser among the non-incumbents, #3 overall) this quarter.
Some of the FEC's quarterly financial reports for active Congressional candidate committees in Arizona.
Incumbents bolded, challengers italicized.
Note: "PAC" numbers include all contributions from non-political party committees. Generally speaking, Republicans had a lot of corporate contributions; Democrats had a lot of union contributions.
CD1 -
Democrat Ellen Simon raised $4,295.54, more than $4K from herself.
Republican Rick Renzi raised $117,698.70, $76,950.00 from PACs.
CD2 -
Republican Trent Franks raised $40,031.00, $9,000 from PACs.
Democrat John Thrasher raised $4,340.00, $3,000 from himself.
CD3 -
Democrat Bob Lord raised $137,968.15, $0 from PACs.
Republican John Shadegg raised $19,338.57, $4,500.00 from PACs.
CD4 -
Democrat Ed Pastor raised $11,650.00, $1,000 from PACs.
CD5 -
Democrat Harry Mitchell raised $234,768.46, $107,162.35 from PACs.
Republican JD Hayworth raised $136.00.
CD6 -
Republican Jeff Flake raised $84,065.00, $3100.00 from PACs.
CD7 -
Democrat Raul Grijalva raised $26,843.86, $25,500 from PACs.
CD8 -
Democrat Gabrielle Giffords raised $325,252.61, $104,966.17 from PACs.
Democrat Jeff Latas raised $900.00, all from himself.
Active during the quarter, but no contributions received - Bob Stump (R-CD3), Ron Drake (R-CD7, committee termination report filed), Eva Bacal (D-CD8), Jim Kolbe (R-CD8), Larry King (D-CD5), Herb Paine (D-CD3, termination report filed 03-01-2007),
Brief observation: By far, Mitchell, Giffords, and Renzi were the most active incumbent fundraisers this quarter, but that's no surprise - they are all targeted for defeat in the next election; Mitchell and Giffords because they are in their first terms, and Renzi because of his ethical and residency issues.
Brief prediction: Expect Shadegg to get his fundraising organization into gear after the showing of Bob Lord (top fundraiser among the non-incumbents, #3 overall) this quarter.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
George W. Bush more respected...
...than the Arizona Legislature.
Thanks to Sonoran Sam for the heads-up on this in a comment on Tedski's Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.
From a press release from the Behavior Research Center's Rocky Mountain Poll:
Percentage of those Arizonans polled who believe that George W. Bush is doing an excellent or good job -
32%
Percentage of those Arizonans polled who believe that the Arizona legislature is doing an excellent or good job -
28%
Somehow, I can't see either Bush or the Republican leadership at the lege being happy about this comparison.
Meanwhile, in Arizona...
OK, so maybe it won't bother the Reps all that much. :)
Note: Any line marked by a "*" is pure satire and the product of the author's imagination; to the best of the author's knowledge, the above conversations have not taken place, nor is there any evidence that the Republican leadership in the lege has any knowledge of Snoopy or dancing.
Later!
Thanks to Sonoran Sam for the heads-up on this in a comment on Tedski's Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.
From a press release from the Behavior Research Center's Rocky Mountain Poll:
Percentage of those Arizonans polled who believe that George W. Bush is doing an excellent or good job -
32%
Percentage of those Arizonans polled who believe that the Arizona legislature is doing an excellent or good job -
28%
Somehow, I can't see either Bush or the Republican leadership at the lege being happy about this comparison.
*Low-level White House staffer: "Mr. President, great news! Things are looking up! The latest poll shows that you are even more well-respected than the legislature in Arizona!"
*President: "That is good news, but I'm going to wait for next week's poll, the one that checks to see if I'm finally more popular than a root canal, before I start crowing about my growing popularity."
Meanwhile, in Arizona...
*Republican leader #1: "Wow!! Look at this! The people really love us! We're only four points less popular than the President!"
*Republican leader #2: "Eat that, Janet! We RULE!!"
*The sane Republican in the lege: "Umm...Guys? Bush has run the highest deficits in American history; led us into a seemingly endless war, a war based on lies; has multiple advisers under indictment or investigation; and is known for routinely disregarding the rule of law. He's historically unpopular, and yet he *still* garners more respect than we do."
*Republican leaders #1 and #2 look at each other for a moment, then start doing the Snoopy dance and singing "We're only four points behind the President!!"
OK, so maybe it won't bother the Reps all that much. :)
Note: Any line marked by a "*" is pure satire and the product of the author's imagination; to the best of the author's knowledge, the above conversations have not taken place, nor is there any evidence that the Republican leadership in the lege has any knowledge of Snoopy or dancing.
Later!
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Short attention span musing
A couple of newly-instituted awards this week...
...Winning award for "Scariest Elected Official of the Week" is our own Maricopa County DA, Andrew "Kill 'em quick and let God sort out the mistakes" Thomas.
The reason for Thomas's victory is best illustrated by this interesting sequence -
On the AZ Rep website (and this may change by the time you go to the front page), is the headline "Faster death-penalty trials?" that links to an article about the county attorney's efforts to speed up the capital trial, appeals, and execution process. He's upset that there aren't enough qualified public defenders for all of the defendants that he wants to kill. He has called for the existing death-qualified defense attorneys to take on more cases.
Directly below that headline is one that states "Ajo Al's owner cleared of charges". It links to an article concerning a case where the county attorney brought criminal charges against a restaurant for health code violations. He held a big press conference and everything.
He ignored one little detail though; a detail that resulted in the dismissal.
The restaurant had already been sanctioned and corrected the code violations.
That darn double jeopardy thingie. How's a DA supposed to run an efficient railroad with that getting in the way?
...The "Dumbest Elected Official of the Week" award goes to Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco.
Seems he had an extramarital affair with the wife of a close friend; not a good thing for his political career, but hardly a certain end to it. Bill Clinton survived the hubbub surrounding his affair, and at least two people who are known to have cheated on their wives, at least in the past, are candidates for president in 2008 (Giuliani and Gingrich.)
The really dumb part? Not only was his girlfriend, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, the wife of a close friend; that close friend, Alex Tourk, is his campaign manager.
Make that "was" his campaign manager as Tourk resigned on January 31.
All of which should make for an interesting conversation when Mayor Newsom starts interviewing for a replacement campaign manager:
Interviewee: "So, Mr. Mayor, why is this position available?"
Newsom: "Well, there was some inappropriate boinking going on, and the situation had to be dealt with."
Interviewee: "Oh? Who was he boinking?"
Newsom: "Errr...ummm...."
As the Time Magazine article linked above points out, the biggest issue for Newsom may not be the affair itself, but the fact that he betrayed not only his own wife but his closest and most loyal confidant. Pretty dumb when you're asking people to place their trust in him and to cast their vote for him.
And that is what merits the "Dumbest..." award.
...In JD Hayworth news, he has earned the "Sloppiest (Un-) Elected Official" award of the week.
In his "Year-End" filing with the FEC, covering the period from November 28 thru December 31, 2006, he reported period contributions of $136.00, with cycle-to-date contributions of $15,592.17. The rest of the report had similarly low numbers for both the period and cycle-to-date.
In his "Post-General" report, covering through November 27, 2006, he reported cycle-to-date contributions of $2,932,181.67.
That's a decrease in cycle contributions of $2,916,589.50 in a 34-day period.
That's also either accounting fraud on an almost Enron-esque level, or the sloppy attention to detail of a profoundly disappointed losing candidate.
My guess, based on the fact that there were other glitches in the report (dates and such) and also on the expectation that he is going to run for office again is that this is simple sloppiness and will be corrected in an amended report.
It's still fun to point out, though. :)
Note: assuming that one detail from the form is accurate, Hayworth still has over $200,000 cash on hand. That's a nice amount of seed money if he decides to challenge Harry Mitchell in 2008, or try for John McCain's U.S. Senate seat in 2010.
Note2: The Mitchell campaign's year-end report lists cash-on-hand at just under $21,000.
Have a great weekend!
...Winning award for "Scariest Elected Official of the Week" is our own Maricopa County DA, Andrew "Kill 'em quick and let God sort out the mistakes" Thomas.
The reason for Thomas's victory is best illustrated by this interesting sequence -
On the AZ Rep website (and this may change by the time you go to the front page), is the headline "Faster death-penalty trials?" that links to an article about the county attorney's efforts to speed up the capital trial, appeals, and execution process. He's upset that there aren't enough qualified public defenders for all of the defendants that he wants to kill. He has called for the existing death-qualified defense attorneys to take on more cases.
Directly below that headline is one that states "Ajo Al's owner cleared of charges". It links to an article concerning a case where the county attorney brought criminal charges against a restaurant for health code violations. He held a big press conference and everything.
He ignored one little detail though; a detail that resulted in the dismissal.
The restaurant had already been sanctioned and corrected the code violations.
That darn double jeopardy thingie. How's a DA supposed to run an efficient railroad with that getting in the way?
...The "Dumbest Elected Official of the Week" award goes to Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco.
Seems he had an extramarital affair with the wife of a close friend; not a good thing for his political career, but hardly a certain end to it. Bill Clinton survived the hubbub surrounding his affair, and at least two people who are known to have cheated on their wives, at least in the past, are candidates for president in 2008 (Giuliani and Gingrich.)
The really dumb part? Not only was his girlfriend, Ruby Rippey-Tourk, the wife of a close friend; that close friend, Alex Tourk, is his campaign manager.
Make that "was" his campaign manager as Tourk resigned on January 31.
All of which should make for an interesting conversation when Mayor Newsom starts interviewing for a replacement campaign manager:
Interviewee: "So, Mr. Mayor, why is this position available?"
Newsom: "Well, there was some inappropriate boinking going on, and the situation had to be dealt with."
Interviewee: "Oh? Who was he boinking?"
Newsom: "Errr...ummm...."
As the Time Magazine article linked above points out, the biggest issue for Newsom may not be the affair itself, but the fact that he betrayed not only his own wife but his closest and most loyal confidant. Pretty dumb when you're asking people to place their trust in him and to cast their vote for him.
And that is what merits the "Dumbest..." award.
...In JD Hayworth news, he has earned the "Sloppiest (Un-) Elected Official" award of the week.
In his "Year-End" filing with the FEC, covering the period from November 28 thru December 31, 2006, he reported period contributions of $136.00, with cycle-to-date contributions of $15,592.17. The rest of the report had similarly low numbers for both the period and cycle-to-date.
In his "Post-General" report, covering through November 27, 2006, he reported cycle-to-date contributions of $2,932,181.67.
That's a decrease in cycle contributions of $2,916,589.50 in a 34-day period.
That's also either accounting fraud on an almost Enron-esque level, or the sloppy attention to detail of a profoundly disappointed losing candidate.
My guess, based on the fact that there were other glitches in the report (dates and such) and also on the expectation that he is going to run for office again is that this is simple sloppiness and will be corrected in an amended report.
It's still fun to point out, though. :)
Note: assuming that one detail from the form is accurate, Hayworth still has over $200,000 cash on hand. That's a nice amount of seed money if he decides to challenge Harry Mitchell in 2008, or try for John McCain's U.S. Senate seat in 2010.
Note2: The Mitchell campaign's year-end report lists cash-on-hand at just under $21,000.
Have a great weekend!
Thursday, December 21, 2006
CD5 Precinct-By-Precinct: preliminary number crunching
The Maricopa County Recorder's Office has finally posted the precinct-by-precinct results for the November election. I've put them into an Excel spreadsheet to play with them, and have a few results now:
Out of 250 precincts in CD5:
Harry Mitchell and JD Hayworth tied in 2 - Mesa 51 (274 votes each) and Pima (450 each).
They were less than 10 votes apart in 15 other precincts.
JD Hayworth won in 75 precincts; Harry Mitchell won 171. There were two precincts that had no votes recorded, Longmore (6 registered voters) and Canyon (0 registered voters).
171 Mitchell + 75 Hayworth + 2 ties + 2 no votes = 250 precincts accounted for.
Disclaimer: Now for the "preliminary" part.
One of the analyses that I performed was to compare the results of the voting with the registrations, which was enlightening, until I realized that I had used incomplete registration numbers for each precinct. I used only the "active" registrations for each precinct; unfortunately for the calculations, "inactive" registrations are still valid. The difference won't make a large difference in the analysis, but could affect it slightly. I'll update it next week, but even when using only the "active" numbers, the results are eye-opening.
As part of the analysis, I used as a baseline the registrations with declared affiliations and then compared that to the actual breakdown of the results.
For example, if a given precinct had 150 registered voters, 100 with affiliations, 60 Rep, 35 Dem, and 5 Libertarian, that would give a baseline of 60% Rep, 35% Dem, and 5% Lib. With a vote breakdown of 53% Hayworth, 45% Mitchell, and 2% Severin, that would give Mitchell a +10 rating compared to affiliations.
In essence, for the purposes of this analysis, the baseline assumes that independents vote the same way and in the same proportions as affiliated voters in that precinct. The reality, of course, is a little different, but it's still a valid yardstick, imo. It shows the precincts where a candidate draws greater support than his opponent from independents (or from across party lines, but I can't measure that with these numbers). This is useful info for minority party candidates looking for areas in "enemy territory" where a campaign appearance might be fruitful, or for a majority party candidate looking for weak areas to shore up.
Out of 250 precincts, Mitchell did worse than the baseline in
What does this mean?
While he didn't win each precinct, he gained on Hayworth in 240 precincts! Which jibes with something I said in August - Mitchell didn't need to win in Scottsdale to beat Hayworth, he just had to make Hayworth's margin of victory in Scottsdale smaller than his (Mitchell's) margin of victory in Tempe.
He did so, and he did win.
That speaks to both a broad base of support and a tremendous Get Out The Vote effort by the Mitchell campaign and by the AZ Dems.
More analysis next week!
Have a great holiday!
Out of 250 precincts in CD5:
Harry Mitchell and JD Hayworth tied in 2 - Mesa 51 (274 votes each) and Pima (450 each).
They were less than 10 votes apart in 15 other precincts.
JD Hayworth won in 75 precincts; Harry Mitchell won 171. There were two precincts that had no votes recorded, Longmore (6 registered voters) and Canyon (0 registered voters).
171 Mitchell + 75 Hayworth + 2 ties + 2 no votes = 250 precincts accounted for.
Disclaimer: Now for the "preliminary" part.
One of the analyses that I performed was to compare the results of the voting with the registrations, which was enlightening, until I realized that I had used incomplete registration numbers for each precinct. I used only the "active" registrations for each precinct; unfortunately for the calculations, "inactive" registrations are still valid. The difference won't make a large difference in the analysis, but could affect it slightly. I'll update it next week, but even when using only the "active" numbers, the results are eye-opening.
As part of the analysis, I used as a baseline the registrations with declared affiliations and then compared that to the actual breakdown of the results.
For example, if a given precinct had 150 registered voters, 100 with affiliations, 60 Rep, 35 Dem, and 5 Libertarian, that would give a baseline of 60% Rep, 35% Dem, and 5% Lib. With a vote breakdown of 53% Hayworth, 45% Mitchell, and 2% Severin, that would give Mitchell a +10 rating compared to affiliations.
In essence, for the purposes of this analysis, the baseline assumes that independents vote the same way and in the same proportions as affiliated voters in that precinct. The reality, of course, is a little different, but it's still a valid yardstick, imo. It shows the precincts where a candidate draws greater support than his opponent from independents (or from across party lines, but I can't measure that with these numbers). This is useful info for minority party candidates looking for areas in "enemy territory" where a campaign appearance might be fruitful, or for a majority party candidate looking for weak areas to shore up.
Out of 250 precincts, Mitchell did worse than the baseline in
10.
What does this mean?
While he didn't win each precinct, he gained on Hayworth in 240 precincts! Which jibes with something I said in August - Mitchell didn't need to win in Scottsdale to beat Hayworth, he just had to make Hayworth's margin of victory in Scottsdale smaller than his (Mitchell's) margin of victory in Tempe.
He did so, and he did win.
That speaks to both a broad base of support and a tremendous Get Out The Vote effort by the Mitchell campaign and by the AZ Dems.
More analysis next week!
Have a great holiday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)