TX-28 Postmortem, Part I: Data

by Chris Bowers, Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 06:46:14 AM EST

With all the early voting in, and one precinct for March 7th remaining:
Cuellar: 52.79%, 23,622
Ciro: 40.73%, 18,222
Morales: 6.48% 2,900

Here is the breakdown by Early Voting, and March 7th Voting:
Cuellar: 57.98% early, 47.77% on March 7th
Ciro: 34.40% early, 46.85% on March 7th
Morales: 7.62% early, 5.38% on March 7th

We did the job on March 7th. If the March 7th numbers were the overall numbers, we would be confidently heading towards a run-off victory. Unfortunately, the campaign was lost in the early voting.

Here is the breakdown by county, relative to 2004:
Atascosa: Cuellar +8.9%, turnout 80.8%.
Bexar: Cuellar +0.4%, turnout 105.4%.
Comal: Cuellar +5.3%, turnout 26.3%.
Frio: Cuellar +9.1%, turnout 69.2%
Guadalupe: Cuellar +7.7%, turnout 74.7%
Hays: Cuellar -3.7%, turnout 131.3%
LaSalle: Cuellar +6.8%, turnout 53.2%
McMullen: Cuellar +19.8%, turnout 305.1%
Webb: Cuellar +0.7%, turnout 94.9%
Wilson: Cuellar +5.4%, turnout 75.4%
Zapata: Cuellar +6.6%, turnout 98.2%

Cuellar's gains were generally stable across the board. The odd numbers in McMullen and Comal probably come from the very small number of voters in those counties. Cuellar lost % from 2004 in only one county. Despite the fact that Bexar, Ciro's big county, turned out slightly better than Webb, Cuellar's big county, these gains were enough to push Cuellar over 50%.

It should be noted that Webb County was actually Cuellar's third worst county, relative to 2004. Generally speaking, we lost the election in the middle-size counties Atascosa, Frio, Guadalupe, Wilson and Zapata. These five counties, which range wildly in their support for Ciro and Cuellar, only composed 28.6% of the vote, but they composed nearly 80% of Cuellar's % gain over 2004. From what I know of our third-party operations down there, we did not focus heavily in these areas, preferring instead to concentrate on the more densely populated Bexar area. So, it looks like a repeat of 2004, where our GOTV operations only focused on heavily blue areas of swing states. As a result, like in 2004, we got great turnout in the areas that we targeted, but lost the popular vote because of poor performance in all non-swing states. When will we learn the lesson that it is not just where people live, but how they live, that matters? We can't just target our safe areas and hope that will be enough. While where someone lived was probably the primary motivation for most voters in this election, it certainly was not the only motivation. We could have done better.

Matt here - I would add that Cuellar's campaign was very mail-intensive, which only adds to the targeting misfires that Chris alludes to.

Tags: Activism, election results (all tags)

Comments

7 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: TX-28 Postmortem, Part I: Data

Here's my armchair quarterbacking take on it: the netroots push just comes too late. Same thing in OH-02, same thing in CA-48. We all get onboard in the last couple weeks, raise lots of volunteers and money, get very enthusiastic and drive buzz. In fact many other outside groups pile on too, led by that buzz. But in all three elections, the absentee/early voting killed us. We compete on Election Day, but too many votes are banked by the other side ahead of time.

I'm almost thinking the netroots should consider an Emily's List-style strategy: early money, early volunteers, early everything are key. But that's fighting human nature: election narratives are just more compelling when we get down to the wire. And it's not like the netroots are an organized group that sits down and has meetings and questionnaires for endorsements and so on, months ahead of time. I don't think it's likely to happen either.

And Chris's points about targeting are well-taken: it's just not enough to target the cities anymore (in most districts).

So I have no solutions. But I hope that Busby's campaign is taking notes about early voting. And targeting, for that matter.

by lpackard 2006-03-08 06:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

Classy

An I told you so would have been justified.

"When will we learn the lesson that it is not just where people live, but how they live, that matters?"

This applies to messaging and strategy as well as gotv. It is a brilliant statement and explains why the dem party is so often left out in the cold.

by aiko 2006-03-08 07:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Classy

I don't understand this:

As a result, like in 2004, we got great turnout in the areas that we targeted, but lost the popular vote because of poor performance in all non-swing states. When will we learn the lesson that it is not just where people live, but how they live, that matters?

What did they do wrong? Should they have targeted other districts or targeted more?

by eRobin 2006-03-08 08:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TX-28 Postmortem, Part I: Data

It is actually ironic that the poeple who have generally pushed early voting tend to be progressives, but the people who vote early tend to not be.

by Chris Bowers 2006-03-08 07:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TX-28 Postmortem, Part I: Data

I'm not sure that's true. It might be - but then again, if many early voters are somewhere in the mushy middle, it could be that the Dem campaigns just didn't have the resources to reach out to them and win those votes.

In general, I'm assuming any given Rep candidate probably has more money than the Dem. And so they can send out more mail pieces to known early voters, call & knock their door and so on, and keep pushing them until they vote.

Especially in the races that the netroots have engaged in: OH-02, CA-48, and now TX-28, our candidates didn't have money and resources till the end. They really needed it much much earlier to do an effective early voting campaign. So the buzz the netroots generate is to no effect on early voters - persuadables already voted, absent our message.

Would be interesting to see if somebody's done research and knows the answer. Absentee voters are different from the general population (at least here in MI), because the qualifications for getting an absentee ballot are strict. But does that apply to early voters?

by lpackard 2006-03-08 08:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TX-28 Postmortem, Part I: Data

I agree about early voting (and closed primaries as well).

When the voting starts, the campaigning must stop, period. Voters need to vote after having seen all the information.

Both spreading the voting over a couple of days, or making election day a holiday, are things that should happen, but even in the absence of that early voting is a dumb idea.

Absentee voting is necessary, but it should be required that the absentee ballot is postmarked on Election Day. A better system would be to allow voters to go to any post office in the country on Election Day (including military post offices), or any consulate or embassy, get their address verified, and then vote. No more having to apply for an absentee ballot. I've voted absentee several times by necessity, and I agree its more of a pain than just going to the polls.

by Michels 2006-03-08 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TX-28 Postmortem, Part I: Data

Netroots may have come on too late for Ciro. But it won't be too late for Francine Busby. Why? We still have one month until the first election. And there is a volunteer supporter base that has been continuously active since early 2004. An infusion of cash will make a a big difference with the grassroots support going strong.

by JohnLeeEvans 2006-03-08 09:00PM | 0 recs