Precinct analysis: The Mayorals by Council district

I’ve got some preliminary precinct data from the County Clerk’s office, and have been doing my usual spreadsheet action on it to get a handle of how the vote went this past Tuesday. What follows below is a look at the Mayoral vote by City Council district. If you want a more visual analysis of the data, go see Greg‘s maps.

```
Dist   Parker   Locke   Brown   Morales
=======================================
A       7,450   2,601   4,937     6,312
B       1,537   8,774   2,931       681
C      10,439   4,522   5,224     4,156
D       6,185  11,928   4,642     1,007
E       5,741   3,147   5,734     8,084
F       2,714   2,079   3,026     1,935
G      11,183   4,985   7,643     9,881
H       6,011   3,119   3,082     2,143
I       2,650   2,815   2,215     1,582
```

Breaking it down one candidate at a time:

Annise Parker turned in a solid performance pretty much everywhere. She finished first in Districts A, C, G, and H, came in second in D, E, F, and I, and third in B, which was her only poor showing. Whatever we might have believed about Locke’s pincer strategy or Peter Brown’s supposed Republican appeal, it was Parker who ran the best overall in the Republican districts. Now, there are still plenty of Democratic voters in those places, and I suspect Parker cleaned up with them to post these results. If so, and if she can entice some former Brown backers to come to her side next month, she’ll be in a very strong position to win.

Beyond the obvious fact that he did indeed make it to the runoff, I have to figure that Gene Locke isn’t too happy with his performance last week. He finished last in as many districts (three – A, E, and G) as he did first (B, D, and I, just barely), and finished third in two others (C and F; he finished second in H). It’s less obvious what his path to victory in the runoff is, though clearly he will need to get the Brown voters from B and D into his column, and to try to convince African-American voters who sat it out in the first round to come out next month. I guess he can try to appeal to Republican voters, but given his dismal showing with them plus the possibility of pushing more Anglo Dems into Parker’s camp, I have my doubts about that. Maybe he can make some headway with Latinos for Locke, but they didn’t exactly turn out in droves last week, and Parker did pretty well with them besides. There are possibilities for him, I’m just not sure he can make enough of them work for him. But we’ll see.

Peter Brown was Mister Consistency. Outside of D (-3.12%) and F (+5.87%), he finished within three points of his overall 22.55% total in every district. He finished first in F, second in B and C, and third everywhere else. I have to assume his 21% showing in B damaged Locke, though it’s unclear to me how much his attacks on Locke actually helped him. Whoever his voters are, they can have a huge effect in the runoff if they come back out.

Ah, Roy Morales. What can you say? He did do well in the Republican areas, finishing first in E by carrying Clear Lake and Kingwood, and second in A and G. Everywhere else, he finished last. If that’s what the full force of the Harris County GOP can do for you, I would expect more of the same for Roy if and when he runs again citywide. Greg noted that Roy did reasonably well in some Hispanic boxes. All I can add to that is that it’s not apparent from his overall performance in H and I.

Finally, for the morbidly curious, the three fringe candidates had their best combined showing in District F, garnering a total of 1.95% of the total. Amada Ulman received 1.16% in F, which was the only time any of them broke the one percent barrier. Their worst combined showing was in D, where they finished with 0.55% of the vote. I know you’re glad to know that.

Here’s the Chron analysis of the race. I’ll be taking a look at the City Controller and City Council races next. Let me know what you think about this.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that this is Harris County data only, so the small pieces of Districts D and F that are in Fort Bend, and the even smaller piece of E that is in Montgomery are not included.

Related Posts:

1. Don Large says:

I think what this amply demonstrates is the failure of the leadership of the Harris County Republican Party, particularly with respect to the incumbent Chairman, to have provided appropriate, early, and sustained support for Roy Morales. Earlier this year, there was a motion to endorse, and that motion was tabled. An executive committee meeting that was scheduled for September 14th was moved to October 19th, where a Roy Morales endorsement motion finally passed. It still took a week or so for that to be made public knowledge. Roy improved his campaigning performance in major ways during this campaign, and I have publicly told him so at various Republican meetings.

Based on early anecdotal evidence, Roy Morales supporters are mad as h— at the Harris County Republican Party for its unnecessary and costly foot dragging here. So am I.

When I am elected next March 2nd to succeed the incumbent as the next Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party, I will work hard to promote ALL Republican candidates, whether they are Latino, African-American or Asian-American. That also includes open and out LGBT candidates running under the Republican party banner. This I pledge to my fellow Republicans. This I will do when I am humbly called to serve as the next Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party.

Warmly yours,

DON LARGE
Past Republican Precinct Chairman, Precinct 411, Harris County, Texas
Candidate, Chairman, Harris County Republican Party
[email protected]

“A Chairman for All of Harris County”

2. Baby Snooks says:

I don’t think anyone cares about the Republicans at this point since most if not all of them will not vote in order to protest either the African-American or the lesbian and use whatever disaster ensues, and one will regardless given the looming financial disaster everyone knows is looming despite Bill White’s “proclamation” that everything is just fine and dandy, as a platform for further elections.

As for the Locke campaign, it needs to get a little better organized. Some believe his main mistake was believing the endorsements alone would garner him the votes. They didn’t.

Reality is reality. Unless the majority of the Brown and Morales supporters vote for him, Locke is yesterday’s news already. Part of the reality is that most of the Brown and Morales voters, the Morales voters in particular, probably won’t even bother to vote in the runoff. So it’s Ma Parker and the Parker Gang headed for the mayor’s office. Not by mandate so much as by default.

3. Don Large says:

I disagree. Republican voters will vote for Parker over Locke. We remember the excesses of the Lanier years regarding spending, for which Mr. Locke has to answer for.

Warmly yours,

DON LARGE

4. G. Lopez says:

Don,

I think someone has pointed this out to you before but you’re not going to find many Republicans in this blog so please stop campaigning here because if Republicans take you as seriously as liberal Democrats and the lgbt dems then you don’t have a chance at winning anything. Any Latino, black, or LGBT person who is a part of the Republican party needs to go get checked.for stockholm syndrome.

5. Eric says:

I am a Republican reader of this blog and many of my R friends read it as well. It is a good blog for taking the temperature of politics inside the loop, west of 288.

With that said, R votes are up in the air.

I have gotten “Conservatives for Parker” mail at my Energy Corridor home and I’m not alone. However, Parker is a known ultra-lib and that isn’t forgotten. I think Locke will end up winning more of those votes, but unless council races (Costello is a dud, maybe the district races, 2 and 5) I think many Rs will not get back to the polls.

Older Rs are rainy day voters and will be back, but the problem is district E Rs, who may sit on the sidelines.

As for Large, neither the right nor left take him seriously. He is the LaRouche of Houston and the reason why Harris County has free mental health services (rightly so).

Woodfill will win an easy reelection, with Hubbard doing OK, but not great.

6. Don Large says:

I always acknowledge good political discussion, and, more than anything else, I am a lifetime student of politics, both nuts and bolts and theory. I like Mr. Kuffner’s analytical approach, even if I do not share his political views. As somebody who has run for office a number of times over the last thirteen years, I have learned that I do better when I pay close attentio to the arguments advanced by the other side. It makes my preparation stronger, and it makes my best arguments better. I may not always carry the day – and neither will the other side. Majorities are always ephemeral. And let us hope they always remain so.

ON A MORE DIRECT NOTE:

Ah, Eric, you are getting quite close to something truly foolish and unwarranted there. You need to calm down and actually listen to real people. I have not been impressed with how you conduct yourself, and any campaign that considers hiring you should reconsider that decision. I am, at long last, impressed that you decided to “out” yourself on the blog. You are a young man. Live a little first. Then show me the development of your political acumen. You simply do not have the wisdom or political mileage to make those sorts of statements. You like to throw firebombs. I do not. Perhaps, one day, you will grow out of this childish behavior, and peole will take your political talents far more seriously. It is quite clear that you don’t like being called out for your political behavior, but I will always take the time to explain to political activists of a lesser vintage the error of their ways and see that they are corrected, if and when that is possible. And, with that, I bid you a fond good night.

Warmly yours,

DON LARGE

7. Don Large says:

Just one last thing to remember:

To those who may unfairly criticize me on the blogs, I must say I do appreciate the name check. I thank you for the free publicity.

Warmly yours,

DON LARGE

8. Eric says:

I am not sure this is the publicity you want.

9. Mainstream says:

A fair number of us Republicans read this blog. Some portion of the GOP vote already went to Annise in the first round. These are pragmatist voters who consider that her executive experience and fiscal policies make her preferable to Locke, whose ties to the Lanier administration and the downtown crowd are not always viewed as positives. She also has fairly extensive contacts through non-ideological shared memberships such as being a Rice alumna, having been a civic club leader, serving on lots of community boards and attending lots of lunches and dinners. Some GOP folks went with Locke in the first round assuming that he was going to sweep and they did not want to be left behind, fearing what might happen to business opportunities with the city if they backed a loser. I expect a fair number of the Morales/GOP voters to come back out to vote for especially Christie, somewhat Costello, definitely Stardig, probably Hoang, but with the election in the midst of Christmas shopping, who knows.

10. John says:

Kuff or others,

does anyone have the link to get precinct data? I looked on Kauffman’s website and could not find anything

11. Eric says:

Mainstream … i will email it to you if you want.

12. Eric says:

sorry, i meant john

13. […] suspect that when the precinct data becomes available, it will look a lot like it did in November, with Locke dominating Districts B and D, and Parker leading everywhere […]

14. […] race broken down by City Council districts. For comparison, here was the same analysis from the general election, from which the first table below […]