Tag: mayor

9:28pm: With the races for tonight settled, SSP will be calling it a night.  Expect plenty of analysis in the coming days…

9:08pm: With thanks to Johnny Longtorso for the link, Dems hold Missouri SD-09, a KC-based seat. With seemingly all precincts reporting, Sly James also pulls into first for Mayor, with incumbent Mark Funkhouser falling into 3rd.

8:58pm: Here’s a shocker, and perhaps a sign of racial progress in an extremely segregated city: Rahm did better in wards represented by Black aldermen (59% to Chico’s 11%) than in those by White aldermen (55% to Chico’s 32%). CMB did better in the former – 20% – than the latter – 2%. Rahm also got 40% in wards represented by Hispanic aldermen, to Chico’s 32% and Del Valle’s 26%.

8:54pm: Backtracking on HD-99 in Connecticut.  NBC is reporting that the Dem has held the East Haven-based seat.

8:44pm: Chicago wasn’t the only Midwestern city to have an election.  While some of you might be surprised that the Midwest has two cities, in Kansas City, incumbent Mark Funkhouser is barely in second at 22.5%, with challengers Mike Burke and Sly James in first at 27.5% and 22.1%, respectively.  Funkhouser is an indie; Burke and James Democrats.

8:39pm: Looks like CT is over. Says the Courant:

In nine special elections Tuesday night, Republicans picked up a net gain of two seats – one in the House and one in the state Senate.

Both sides were happy as Republicans said they had made inroads on traditionally Democratic territory, and Democrats said they had largely held back a Republican onslaught that was part of a national trend that started last year.

8:37pm: Ghosts of the machine?  Gery Chico’s best ward tonight: 60% in the 14th, run by powerful ward boss – and prominent Chico supporter (and wife of IL Supreme Court justice Anna) – Ed Burke.

8:31pm: Dems also hold SD-6 in New Berlin, CT.

8:23pm: The Hartford Courant is reporting that Dems have lost another seat, HD-99, in “traditionally Republican-leaning Madison.”

8:11pm: Some down in the weeds City Council stuff: Sandi Jackson at 52% in the 7th; incumbent Sharon Denise Dixon has a plurality in the 24th with 19% (yes, 19%. Fortunately, we have runoffs for this reason).  West Ridge stalwart (and Council Wars veteran…and IMO noted ass) Bernie Stone at 38% with Ward Dem Committeeman (and wife of State Sen Ira) Debra Silverstein at 33%.

8:04pm: The Courant is also reporting that Dems hold the West Hartford-based HD-20.

7:58pm: We’ll diversify into some non-Chicago news here – in Connecticut, with its slew of special elections for 9 Dem-held seats; Dems have lost the 13th SD.  However, CT-02 loser Janet Peckinpaugh (R) loses again, as Dems hold the 36th HD.

7:53pm: Mayor Emanuel!  Rahm’s dominance today is stunning – 57% on the South Side; 59% on the West Side, and 70% in his former North Side stomping grounds.  Chico did well on the Southwest Side, 50% to Rahm’s 36%.  Rahm just shy of 50% on the Northwest side, 49.1%.

7:47pm: We’re calling this one for Rahm.  He’s over the 50% in 35 of 50 wards, including 75% in the Loop-based 42nd, Lincoln Park-based 43rd, and Lakeview-based 44th.

7:42pm: We’re now at 75% of the vote reporting, and Rahm’s at 54.44%. He’s still got some North Side strongholds to report, which is behind the curve at 72% in.

7:40pm: Alternatively, going by “side” of city, 66% of the Southwest Side is in, 60% of the Northwest Side; 55% of the West Side; 52% of the South Side, and 51% of the North Side.  The Northwest side, which has some heavily Hispanic pockets will be a mixed blessing for Emanuel, who did represent part of the area in Congress.  The North Side should turn out heavily for Rahm.

7:31pm: These votes are pretty evenly distributed.  Using the ever-so-rough approximation of aggregating by the race of the incumbent alderman, 59% of precincts in wards represented by white alderman are reporting; 53% of precincts represented by Black and Hispanic aldermen each.

7:28pm: And with 56% reporting, Rahm’s up to 53.9%, Chico at 25.8%. Del Valle and CMB still in 3rd and 4th.  

7:26pm: With 17% reporting, Rahm’s at 51.4% with Chico at 29.8.  Del Valle’s in 3rd, and Carol “You were strung out on crack” Moseley Braun is in 4th. It will be interesting to see where these votes are coming from.

7:04pm: No results just yet, but there are quite a few downballot races for City Council, where many incumbent aldermen are not seeking re-election. Of particular interest to SSPers might be the 7th ward, where incumbent Ald. Sandi Jackson (wife of IL-02 Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.) is seeking re-election.

Let’s get this party started…polls close at 7pm Central Time.  As my form of rebellion against the tyranny of the East Coast powers that me, all posts tonight will be stamped with Central time!

---

Results:

Chicago: Chicago BoE | Trib | Sun-Times

Connecticut: Hartford Courant

Kansas City: Kansas City Election Board

By: Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

In little more than a year several months, the great city of Chicago will select its next mayor. Following the retirement of Mayor Richard Daley, the field is wide open.

Enter Rahm Emanuel. A powerful Democrat and President Barack Obama’s former chief-of-staff, Mr. Emanuel currently looks like the front-runner for the office. With many strong candidates declining to run and his potential opposition divided, things look good for Mr. Emanuel.

And yet one shouldn’t overestimate Mr. Emanuel’s chances as media-anointed front-runner. Mr. Emanuel has a number of hidden weaknesses that may combine to badly damage his campaign.

More below.

A strong attack, for instance, could be levied against Mr. Emanuel as a Washington insider who doesn’t care for the little man. This attack is all the more damaging because its first portion is completely true: it is hard to find a politician more immersed in Washington than Mr. Emanuel.

There are other variations on this theme. There is the geography version: Mr. Emanuel is a carpet-bagger who hasn’t lived in Chicago and doesn’t care about it. There is the populist version: the Washington elite may have already declared Mr. Emanuel the winner, but Chicago doesn’t have to listen to what the elite say. There is the class version: Mr. Emanuel is one of the rich elite who don’t understand the concerns of the working-class. There is the race version: Mr. Emanuel is one of the white elite who don’t understand the concerns of Chicago’s minorities.

None of this possibilities has yet been tried out, or turned into a coherent critique of Mr. Emanuel. It is too early in the game for that. But already there are signs that Mr. Emanuel has limited appeal amongst Chicago’s poor and its minorities (who compose a majority of the city’s population).

Mr. Emanuel does have a lot of things going for him, more than for any other single candidate. He has the support of most of Chicago’s machine, the business community, the politically influential North Side, and probably President Barack Obama (although most pundits probably overrate the importance of an Obama endorsement). Other candidates would probably love to be in his position.

On the other hand, Harold Washington had all this interests aligned against him when he campaigned for mayor. Yet Mr. Washington – the first and to date only black mayor of Chicago – still won consecutive elections on the back of minority support.

Chicago has a run-off system, in which if nobody gets more than 50% of the vote, then the first two winners go on to a second-round.  Most experts expect Mr. Emanuel to get in the somewhere in the 40s, if not an outright majority of the vote.

But it’s also quite conceivable that Mr. Emanuel polls in the low 30s come election day, if he fails to attract the working-class and minority votes that he needs to win in a place like Chicago.

A few threads back, there was a lively discussion about voting patterns in Brooklyn, and how that impacted the 2009 mayoral race.

Thanks to David who worked his lawyerly Freedom-of-Information magic, we got some precinct results to look at.

I compared Thompson’s performance to Obama’s performance, and the results are pretty stark as to where the areas of relative strength are for each candidate.

So the baselines first:

Obama beat McCain by 59.27%; he earned 79.34% to McCain’s 20.07%. 2,613,944 total votes were cast.

Thompson lost to Bloomberg by 4.38%; he earned 46.33% to Bloombo’s 50.71%. 1,154,505 votes were cast, meaning turnout was 44% of 2008 turnout.

Maps (what else do I post here?) and more over the flip.

So here are Obama and Thompson’s absolute performances in the city.

Obama’s performance we already knew about, but a few striking aspects of Thompson’s performance:

• Upper East Siders lurve them some Bloombo.
  

• Whites in the Bronx voted for Bloomberg.
  

• Hispanics voted mostly for Thompson (though not to the levels they voted for Freddy Ferrer, I would posit).
  

• Blacks stayed strongly loyal to Thompson, with slight drop-offs visible in Brooklyn and East Queens.
  

• Staten Island stayed Staten Island.
  

More interestingly, here is a comparison of Obama and Thompson’s absolute performances. A more intense blue indicates a stronger Obama performance; a deeper red indicates a stronger Thompson performance.

Obviously, most of the map is some shade of blue, since Obama’s margin was 63.65% greater than Thompson’s. Even given this, there are still two visible clusters of red in Brooklyn: Williamsburg and Borough Park. Thompson still lost these precincts by a decent margin, but he improved over Obama despite the tide moving 64% in the other direction. I took this as evidence of the Hasidic Jewish community’s growing dislike of Bloomberg, which had been mentioned a few times before the election.

On the flipside, as you would expect, Manhattan and Brooklyn Heights are home to the Obama-Bloomberg voters, especially on the Upper East and West Sides, in Midtown, and down in the Financial District.

The lighter shades of blue are in East Queens and Central Brooklyn – mostly majority-black precincts that went strongly for both.

Another interesting cluster of these, though, is on the South Shore of Staten Island; Thompson’s performance didn’t fall all that much off from Obama’s (admittedly already weak) performance there. It seems there, though, that the voters are more reflexively Republican than those in Southern Brooklyn, where Obama seemed to be a particularly bad fit. (backup evidence: Stephen Cymbrowitz and Carl Kruger are elected from those areas in Brooklyn. Southern Staten Island elects two Republicans to the Assembly/Senate, Lou Tobacco and Andrew Lanza).

Alternatively, this can be shown in graph form. Obama’s margin on the x-axis; Thompson’s on the y-axis.



Now any monkey could have told you generally a stronger Obama performance is correlated with a stronger Thompson performance, but the exceptions to that general rule are evident here as well. The large cluster of green on the bottom right are those previously mentioned Manhattan precincts, while the dispersed red dots towards the middle and lower left are the Brooklyn precincts in which Thompson actually improved. (Incidentally, yellow represents Staten Island, orange for the Bronx, and blue for Queens). The bright green line is the even-performance line.

Now two more maps of interest, each candidate’s performance relative to their citywide cumulative total (Obama first, then Thompson).

Obama did well throughout the city, a strong Obama performance was the norm. You don’t see many places darker than light blue, simply because you can’t get more than 100% of the vote! Where Obama underperformed, he really underperformed. You see this in Suburban Queens and also Middle Village/Maspeth, and of course Southern Brooklyn and Staten Island.

Thompson’s performance really varied much more. He overperformed in many places, and underperformed in many places as well; these deviations are of much more equal magnitude. Again, as we’ve realized, Thompson’s weakest area was the Upper East Side.

So all this poses the question, what happened?

Well, in three words, Thompson’s turnout problem.

Conventional wisdom dictates that minorities (who are actually a majority in NYC) turn out less in general. While this may or may not be true, I normalized and considered 2009 turnout as a percentage of 2008 turnout.

The results, first at the precinct level. The same color codes apply as before for borough. Turnout as a percentage of 2008 turnout is expressed on the x-axis; the Thompson-Bloomberg margin on the y-axis. (Turnout dropped most in the Bronx, in case you’re wondering.)



You see a general effect of center left to lower right, suggesting stronger Bloomberg performances being correlated with greater turnout. This effect is even more pronounced when we consolidate to an assembly district level:



It’s not pretty. For you stats geeks out there, the correlation on that bad boy is -0.77. Ouch.

Incidentally, that one AD with the lowest drop-off? None other than Dov Hikind’s 48th AD. Turnout there was lower there in 2008, but those that voted in 2008 were most likely to have voted again in 2009.

As a parting thought, take solace (or anguish) in this: if turnout had dropped to the 44% figure I mentioned at the start equally across the city, Thompson would have won, 49.16% to 48.00%.

Having arrived at Brooklyn, I’m going to sleep. I realize I owe you a proposed set of New York Senate districts. I just need to write the diary. I’ll get around to it…eventually.

http://www.suntimes….

Mayor Richard Daley announced today that he’s running for his sixth term in 2007. It is my opinion that, assuming he wins reelection, he will step aside in 2009 to take over running the Chicago Olympic Organizing Committee, if Chicago is awarded the 2016 games.