Runoff precinct analysis, At Large #5

Here are the numbers for the At Large #5 runoff between CM-elect Jack Christie and CM Jolanda Jones. As this was a rematch from 2009, I’m putting the 2011 numbers alongside the 2009 numbers, again with the caveat that they’re not really directly comparable. We work with what we’ve got, though, so here it is:

Dist Chris11 Jones11 Chris% Jones% Chris09 Jones09 Chris% Jones% ================================================================== A 4,080 1,309 75.7 24.3 10,541 5,300 66.5 33.5 B 523 5,733 8.4 91.6 1,658 10,673 13.4 86.6 C 6,501 2,820 69.7 30.3 10,675 9,215 53.7 46.3 D 1,190 6,384 15.7 84.3 3,681 17,653 17.2 82.8 E 3,998 1,269 75.9 24.1 10,894 4,771 69.5 30.5 F 1,101 487 69.3 30.7 4,404 2,964 59.8 40.2 G 7,554 1,347 84.9 15.1 18,001 6,039 74.9 25.1 H 1,117 1,644 40.5 59.5 5,011 6,531 43.4 56.6 I 1,006 880 53.3 46.7 3,025 4,119 42.3 57.7 J 1,166 491 70.4 29.6 K 1,989 2,741 42.1 57.9

At first glance, it’s more of the same from 2009, only more so. With the exception of District I, Jones did better in all the places she had done well before, and Christie did better in all the places he had done well before. The problem with this, at least from Jones’ perspective, is that she had a lot less room to grow than Christie did. In addition, and this is something we’ve discussed before, in this lower turnout environment, the bigger percentages in B and D meant a smaller total number of votes, meaning that Christie had less to make up everywhere else. With him building on his margins as well, and with the difference between the two so small, that was enough.

What really stands out to me is the change in District C. If you didn’t know better, you’d think it was another Republican stronghold. I can think of two possible explanations for Christie’s strong performance in this district. The Bill White endorsement of Christie probably moved a few Anglo Dem voters to support the challenger. District C was also Mayor Parker’s cradle of support, and it’s not unreasonable to think that Parker supporters there expressed that support by voting against her most vocal and visible critic on Council. I’m sure there’s plenty of overlap among those groups, but if so then that’s double the motivation. Jones’ deficit overall was bigger than the gap in District C, so it’s not the case that this was the whole election for her, but presumably the same forces that affected this district were at work elsewhere as well.

As noted before, the undervote in this race was tiny, as it was the marquee matchup. In fact, the 1.02% undervote in At Large #5 was less than that of the 2009 Mayoral runoff undervote of 1.45%. This was the race that drew people out to vote, and that ultimately did not work in Jones’ favor. While it’s possible to imagine different outcomes under higher turnout scenarios in At Large #2, I don’t think that would have made any difference here. As CM Jones said the day after the election, the voters have spoken.

I hope you found this useful. I will have one more thing to say about the 2011 elections tomorrow. Greg has more.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Election 2011 and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Runoff precinct analysis, At Large #5

  1. Jj says:

    Great work as always. Thank you. Interesting
    comments on C re mixed voter motives.

  2. landslide says:

    I have a couple more theories as to a Dist C motive: people either finally had enough, and/or the shift after redistricting (it is a much different district now geographically, if not demographically) worked against Jones.

  3. Mainstream says:

    The data I have seen for District C suggests that glbt voters did not turn out at usual levels, and that the electorate was one of the oldest in memory. Elderly white voters in C were not fans of Jolanda.

  4. paul kubosh says:

    I think she should have run against the mayor. Just my opinion. I think brown successfully tied the mayor to stardig. Just my opinion again.

Comments are closed.