tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78721402024-03-23T12:55:06.186-05:00St. Louis OracleSt. Louis-based political forecasting plus commentary on politics and events from a grassroots veteran with a mature, progressive anti-establishment perspective.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger150125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-28142570230957010832017-01-04T20:42:00.000-06:002017-01-07T17:49:53.837-06:00The African American vote after ObamaOne major part of the 2016 election that I have not addressed until
now is the black vote. I wondered to what extent, if at all, African
American voting behavior would change after President Obama, the
inspirational first black president, would no longer be on the ballot.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump made campaign overtures to
the black community, promising to address their economic woes, asking
pointedly what they had to lose.<br />
<br />
Cutting to the chase, black turnout plummeted, but the African Americans who did vote supported Democrat Hillary Clinton almost as overwhelmingly as they had Obama. But the details below are worth reading. <br />
<br />
Since the 1930s (1940s
in St. Louis) African Americans have been strong supporters of the
Democratic Party, following years of loyalty to Republicans as the party
of Abraham Lincoln. The appeal of New Deal programs attracted the first
wave of party switchers, and the association of Democrats (like
President Kennedy) with the civil rights movement brought black support
for Democrats up to the 90% level in 1964, where it has largely remained
ever since. Obama's candidacy brought the double surge of nearly 99%
black support and higher turnout of African American voters. The high
level of support Secretary Clinton received from black voters against
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in the presidential primaries and President
Obama's working endorsement of her candidacy in the general election
foreshadowed that Clinton would continue the trend. Exit polls showed
her beating Trump 88% to 8%, but when the actual votes were tabulated,
results were mixed.<br />
<br />
My analysis focuses mostly on seven
St. Louis wards (1, 2, 3, 4, 21, 22 and 27) in which almost all voters
are African American. Four other wards (5, 18, 19 and 26) have African
American majorities but with substantial white minorities. All 11 of
those wards elect African American aldermen. In St. Louis County, six
townships have African American majorities, but all have larger white
minorities than the city wards mentioned above. (Norwood Township, south
of Ferguson, approximates the racial mix in the 18th Ward (the northern
edge of the city's Central West End, north to Page Avenue). The
integrated wards and townships provide less reliable evidence of black
voting behavior, even though the whites there vote heavily Democratic,
because 80% is a really high Democratic percentage for white voters,
while black voters generally top 95%; so a white population as low as
25% still produces significant dilution of the black vote. On the other
hand, black voters in the segregated wards may well vote more Democratic
than black voters in integrated suburban and rural locations. But the
segregated wards are the most accurate election returns available for
this analysis.<br />
<br />
Race-based comparisons to years before 2004 are complicated by significant ward and township redistricting after the 2000 census, when the segregated black north-side 20th Ward and the black majority Halls Ferry Township were eliminated and absorbed by neighboring wards and townships.<br />
<br />
So, what happened in 2016? It's a two-part
answer, one part favoring each party. The good news for Democrats is
that Secretary Clinton trounced Trump in the segregated black wards, 96%
to 2%. The 8% Trump support in the exit polls did not surface in St.
Louis. While some black Republicans who backed Obama returned to their
party, Clinton's vote fell about halfway between Obama's and John
Kerry's in the election before Obama (2004). Her support was diluted
down to just below 90% in the integrated black majority wards (about the
same as Kerry's 2004 support) and down to 85% in the black county townships.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Changes in Democratic presidential vote share in black neighborhoods</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="5" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="166"></col><col width="65"></col><col width="60"></col><col width="53"></col><col width="65"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18" width="166"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER" width="65">Kerry</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="60">Obama</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="53">Obama</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="65">Clinton</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Segregated black wards</td>
<td align="CENTER">93.30%</td>
<td align="CENTER">98.39%</td>
<td align="CENTER">98.50%</td>
<td align="CENTER">95.61%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Black majority wards</td>
<td align="CENTER">89.46%</td>
<td align="CENTER">93.14%</td>
<td align="CENTER">91.47%</td>
<td align="CENTER">89.83%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Black majority townships</td>
<td align="CENTER">*</td>
<td align="CENTER">93.30%</td>
<td align="CENTER">87.36%</td>
<td align="CENTER">84.90%</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Changes in Republican presidential vote share in black neighborhoods </b>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="5" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="166"></col><col width="65"></col><col width="60"></col><col width="53"></col><col width="65"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18" width="166"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER" width="65">Bush</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="60">McCain</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="53">Romney</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="65">Trump</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Segregated black wards</td>
<td align="CENTER">3.31%</td>
<td align="CENTER">1.35%</td>
<td align="CENTER">1.32%</td>
<td align="CENTER">2.14%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Black majority wards</td>
<td align="CENTER">7.46%</td>
<td align="CENTER">6.43%</td>
<td align="CENTER">7.68%</td>
<td align="CENTER">6.08%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Black majority townships</td>
<td align="CENTER">*</td>
<td align="CENTER">10.76%</td>
<td align="CENTER">11.29%</td>
<td align="CENTER">10.84%</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
*Township-level election returns for 2004 in St. Louis County are not available online.<br />
<br />
<br />
Republicans can take solace in the second part of the answer. The Obama-inspired surge in African American turnout evaporated in 2016. Compared to 2012, turnout was almost 26% lower in the segregated black wards, nearly 20% lower in the black majority wards, and nearly 18% lower in St. Louis County's black townships. Turnout in the city wards in 2016 was actually the worst of this century, dipping well below pre-Obama levels. In contrast, turnout in white majority wards and townships was mostly either level or higher, and turnout was way up in the rural and exurban areas where Trump soared. The reduction in black turnout was a major reason why Missouri, a national political barometer before 2008, was not close this time.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Changes in voter turnout in St. Louis black neighborhoods</b></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="5" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="166"></col><col width="65"></col><col width="60"></col><col width="53"></col><col width="65"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18" width="166"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER" width="65">2004</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="60">2008</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="53">2012</td>
<td align="CENTER" width="65">2016</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="17">Segregated black wards</td>
<td align="CENTER">35563</td>
<td align="CENTER">37794</td>
<td align="RIGHT">36072</td>
<td align="CENTER">26814</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Black majority wards</td>
<td align="CENTER">19588</td>
<td align="CENTER">21721</td>
<td align="RIGHT">18725</td>
<td align="CENTER">15070</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Black majority townships</td>
<td align="CENTER">n/a</td>
<td align="CENTER">108356</td>
<td align="CENTER">106673</td>
<td align="CENTER">87533</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<br />
The charts above demonstrate the consistent patterns based on how diluted the black vote is or isn't. However, some of the variations are also instructive. In the city, in spite of lower overall black turnout, Trump drew more black votes than Romney (albeit just 98 votes, a gain of less than a percentage point); but in the diluted wards and townships Trump and Clinton both lost voters (Clinton losing more in the black county townships and both losing voters in the same proportions in the integrated black majority wards). Obama's 2008 support held fast in 2012 in the segregated black wards, but his support slipped that year in the integrated wards and townships like he did in white areas.<br />
<br />
There were also differences in how Clinton and Trump performed in relation to the rest of their party tickets. In all city wards where black voters were significant factors, Clinton led the Democrat ticket and Trump fared worse than the entire Republican ticket. But in black townships in St. Louis County, the presidential candidates were the median contests (or close to it); the county townships where Clinton led her ticket and Trump trailed his were the mostly Republican elite areas where Trump ran poorly (as discussed in <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2017/01/diverging-cross-currents-in-2016.html" target="_blank">this earlier post</a>).<br />
<br />
Without expensive and extensive survey research, the cause of these differences is subject to speculation. One possibility is that black voters living outside the echo chamber and peer pressure of a segregated ward may be more independent (or subject to different class influences or peer pressure from white neighbors). Spanish Lake Township, home to a largely black middle and upper-middle class, votes less Democratic than the other black townships and, like upper middle class white areas, was also less receptive to Trump.<br />
<br />
Differences in the respective white minorities may also account for the variations. Black settlement and white flight in the black-majority areas of the city were fairly complete by the 1990s. The white minorities in the those areas consist primarily of (a) liberal Central West End and Midtown residents, whose neighborhoods remain predominantly white, and were redistricted into black wards to maintain the number of black aldermen, and (b) predominantly young, progressive singles and childless couples who are re-gentrifying parts of the city. Both are strong demographics for Clinton. But the black majority county townships are mostly formerly white areas where integration is still proceeding, and the remaining whites are primarily older blue-collar voters who were a promising demographic for Trump. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-4157154423520768782017-01-03T13:34:00.000-06:002017-01-04T20:58:11.063-06:00How Clinton and Trump affected their ticketsHeading into the 2016 presidential election, except for pockets of enthusiasm for either the billionaire populist or the potential first woman president, it was clear that
both major-party candidates were really unpopular. It was uncertain, though,
how down-ballot candidates would be affected. Would Republicans who
couldn't stand Trump and Democrats who couldn't stand Clinton stay
home and vote for no one, would they vote but split their tickets for
another party's presidential candidate, or would they be so repelled
by a party who would nominate such a person that they voted for most
or all of the other party's candidates? We now have most of the answers. While this post examines data from just Missouri, it probably tracks similar locales in other states.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
The really bad news for Democrats is the extent to which disaffected Democrat voters stayed home. As much as progressive commentators complain about disloyal Democrats voting instead for Libertarian Gary Johnson, Green Jill Stein or a write-in candidate, those voters were at the polls to vote in down-ballot contests. The stay-home voter voted for no one. Both St. Louis and Kansas City logged about 10% fewer total votes
in 2016 than in 2012. The total suburban vote in St. Louis and
Jackson Counties also declined. These are Democrats' strongest areas. Elsewhere else in the
state, which is now mostly Republican, turnout was up.<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
What about voters of both parties who did show up but didn't vote for their party's presidential candidate? When comparing the presidential vote to that for the rest of the ticket, one needs to be mindful that a big gap means more ticket splitting and less benefit to the rest of the ticket (or less harm when the presidential candidate is tanking). Trump made little effort on behalf of the rest of ticket, much of whom
wanted nothing to do with him. Nevertheless,
most of the Trump surge also seemed to help the entire Republican
ticket. Statewide, Trump led the state-office ticket by just a little
over a point, and Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time since 1928.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In the last big Republican win, Ronald Reagan won 60% of the Missouri vote in his 1984 re-election, a nearly 9-point improvement over 1980. The
Republican state-office ticket won 52.7% in 1984, a 6+ point improvement over
the prior election. But Reagan led the rest of the Missouri Republican ticket by
more than 7 points, and Democrats retained the open Lieutenant Governor's seat (and control of both houses of the state legislature). So, in spite of everything, Trump appears to have
helped his Republican ticket mates more than Reagan helped his.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
It would be a mistake, however, to credit Trump (or blame Clinton) entirely for Republicans' ticket-wide success. While Trump ran 3 points ahead of Romney statewide, Republican
candidates for the five statewide offices on the ballot (excluding
the U.S. Senate race) surged an average 10 points ahead of their 2012
counterparts. These down-ballot results are partially explained by the respective situations of the down-ballot contests and the candidates
who ran. In 2012, popular incumbents (3 Democrat, 1 Republican) ran
in four of the five contests, but in 2016 all five
contests were open seats. Nevertheless, the magnitude of the
10-point statewide surge was probably somewhat influenced by the presidential vote.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
The statewide comparisons, though, are necessarily averages of the entire state, where one area's movements in one direction are canceled out by another area's movement in the opposite direction. (<a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2017/01/diverging-cross-currents-in-2016.html" target="_blank">I wrote earlier</a> about pockets of Trump's appeal to blue-collar
Democrats and his repellent to upper-crust establishment
Republicans.) These areas produced a somewhat greater coattail effect. In
Trump's strong areas, the whole Republican ticket surged over 4 years
ago, but Trump still ran several points ahead of the ticket (but
still less than Reagan in 1984), leaving some potential Republican
votes on the table. In Clinton's pockets of strength in urban and
suburban areas (and Boone County, home of the University of
Missouri and the only
rural county Clinton carried), Trump declined compared to Romney, and the statewide
ticket's improvement was much less than in the rest of the state.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Details</i>: In the rural and exurban counties, where Trump led the Republican
ticket, the statewide ticket improved by nearly 13 points. But those
areas also experienced more ticket splitting, as Trump led the ticket
by 5½ points in rural counties and 4 points in exurban counties. The three white St. Louis County Townships where Trump improved over Romney also saw the state ticket improve by 5.8 - 9 points, which was better than in the rest of the county, and there wasn't much ticket splitting. Results were mixed in the city neighborhoods where Trump improved. The more Democratic areas had high ticket splitting and the state ticket improved in line with the rest of the city, but the state GOP ticket surged in "city limits precincts" in Wards 12, 23 and 24. In other urban and suburban areas and Boone County,
where Trump trailed the rest of the Republican ticket by about 2½
points, the state candidates' improvement (4 points urban, 6
points in Boone County and 6½ points in the suburbs) was less than
in areas where Trump did well. In the St. Louis County townships were
Trump underperformed Romney the most, the statewide ticket's
performance also improved the least (1.1% in Clayton Township and 1.6% in Hadley Township).<br />
<br />
Isolated areas where the state Democratic ticket bucked the trend and improved over 2012 probably represent population changes such as white flight more than political trends. This was notable in downtown St. Louis and the Loft district, which have both experienced well-publicized increases in crime.<br />
<br />
The big question has yet to play out. Will the Trump Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans undergo a
permanent party change, or was 2016 just a one-time thing? The success or failure of the Trump presidency will have a lot to do with the answer.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-5444129306227436532017-01-03T00:25:00.000-06:002017-01-03T16:03:35.230-06:00Diverging cross-currents in the 2016 election<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2016/12/missouris-urban-rural-split-on-steroids.html" target="_blank">I wrote earlier</a> how Trump's win in
Missouri, as well as nationally, was fueled by a surge in support
from rural and exurban areas, but that this surge merely continued
the direction set in earlier 21<sup>st</sup> Century presidential
elections. However, this continuity masks the underlying intraparty
strife that played out in 2016. Even the third-party challenges of
Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan in 2000 didn't touch the partisan
uncertainty that prevailed in 2016.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
One tea party blogger attributed the
Trump surge to <a href="http://hennessysview.com/2016/02/22/donald-trump-reads-my-blog/" target="_blank">the common man's electoral revolt against the elites</a>.
Maybe so, but that revolt was just a reaction to the elites' own
overwhelming rejection of Trump. We would have read all about it as
the cause of Trump's defeat, if Trump had lost as expected. Trump's
unexpected triumph changed the focus to how such a thing could have
happened. But I will examine the elite revolt that other commentators
have forgotten.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This is not about how millennial
Democrats and Democrat elites in media, academic and old-money
circles hated Trump even worse than prior Republican nominees; their
votes for Democratic candidates remained consistent, and the
intensity of their disdain for Trump didn't make their votes count
any more. What drove Trump's performance in certain areas below Mitt
Romney's four years earlier was Republicans and Republican-leaning
independents changing how they voted.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
This post analyzes data from the City
and County of St. Louis because those are the areas where I know
enough about the neighborhoods producing the results to make
meaningful conclusions. Similar trends probably occurred in other
urban and suburban areas nationwide, so these observations may be
useful on a national level.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Trump's rejection by his party,
predictably, was greatest in St. Louis' central corridor, both city
and county. As I noted in <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2016/12/analysis-of-2016-presidential-election.html" target="_blank">an earlier post</a>, the most dramatic shift
took place in Clayton Township (mostly western Clayton and Ladue),
where a half-point Romney win turned into a 19-point Trump loss. It
was one of only two townships were Secretary Clinton picked up more
of the lost Republican votes than third parties and write-ins did.
Trump's next biggest drop came in Missouri River Township (Town &
Country), where Trump lost 12 points compared to Romney (but still
won). In progressive, formerly Republican Jefferson Township (Webster
Groves), Trump suffered an 11-point decline, but most of it went
third-party. Another predictable area of Trump decline was Creve
Coeur Township, where he dropped nearly 9 points. Trump's greatest
decline in the City of St. Louis was the 28<sup>th</sup> Ward (the
very old-money Central West End and Skinker-DeBaliviere), where he
dropped nearly 7 points. (Declines in the City are less dramatic
because the electorate there is already so Democratic as to leave
little room for movement towards Democrats.) In all five of those
jurisdictions, Trump trailed the entire statewide Republican ticket
(and Clinton led the Democrats).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
While Trump's rejection by moderate
pro-business and old-money Republicans was expected, the breadth of
Republican flight from their populist nominee was surprising to me.
Trump also lost a lot of ground in “new money” west county. Trump
dropped 10 points in Chesterfield Township, nearly 9 points in
Lafayette Township, and 7½ points in both Wild Horse and Maryland
Heights Townships. Trump ran last on the ticket in Chesterfield and
below median in the others, but still carried all but Maryland
Heights.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Trump also suffered lesser Republican
flight in areas not usually associated with “political
correctness,” such as south county and conservative wards in the
southwest part of the city. Clinton picked up almost 2 points of the
6½ points Trump dropped in the City's 16<sup>th</sup> Ward (St.
Louis Hills and western Southampton). Trump dropped nearly 7 points
in both Bonhomme (Kirkwood) and Gravois (parts of Affton and
Crestwood) Townships, but most of those votes went third-party
instead of to Clinton. In most south city wards, as well as
Republican Tesson Ferry and Oakville Townships, both Clinton and
Trump lost share to third-party candidates. While Trump's performance
was median or lower in these areas, he did not trail the entire
ticket in any of them.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Democrats suffered from their own
intraparty defections. Secretary Clinton suffered more from a decline
in voter turnout in many Democratic wards and townships than from
actual defection to Trump. Turnout losses may be attributable to
millennial voters and former supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders who
Secretary Clinton failed to win over, as well as African Americans no
longer inspired without the first black president on the ballot.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Though less significant, the
well-publicized defections of blue-collar whites to Trump did occur
in a few select neighborhoods. Clinton's big wins in Democratic areas
<span style="font-weight: normal;">camouflaged</span> Trump's gains.
At first blush, the 11th Ward (where Clinton beat Trump 67%-27%),
25th Ward (79%-16%), Midland Township (60%-33%) and Airport Township
(65%-29%) do not look discouraging for Democrats or hopeful for
Trump. But all of these results represent a 6-7½ point drop for
Clinton from Obama and a 2-3 point gain for Trump over Romney. Lemay
Township (adjacent to the City's 11th Ward) sported the biggest
Republican gain, with Trump gaining 3½ points and Clinton dropping
7½ points, enough to give Trump a 2-point win (48%-46%) in the
usually Democratic township.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Sample trends in St. Louis County </b></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="6" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="124"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="37"></col><col width="86"></col><col width="86"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18" width="124"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
<td align="CENTER" width="37"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
<td align="LEFT" width="86"><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18"><br /></td>
<td align="RIGHT">2012 Obama</td>
<td align="RIGHT">Romney</td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="RIGHT">2016 Clinton</td>
<td align="RIGHT">Trump</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Clayton Township</td>
<td align="RIGHT">48.84%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">49.47%</td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="RIGHT">55.70%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">36.51%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="LEFT" height="18">Lemay Township</td>
<td align="RIGHT">53.16%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">44.14%</td>
<td align="LEFT"><br /></td>
<td align="RIGHT">45.67%</td>
<td align="RIGHT">47.51%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Precinct-level returns disclosed some
pattern differences within wards. In St. Louis' 11<sup>th</sup> Ward,
Trump advanced most in the Patch neighborhood across the city limits
from Lemay and a neighboring precinct in Carondelet, but Clinton
advanced in the precinct that includes upscale parts of Holly Hills.
In the neighboring 12<sup>th</sup> Ward, Trump improved in the two
precincts bordering the city limits. One of them (southwest of Saints
Peter and Paul Cemetery between Gravois Avenue and Morganford Road)
was the City's only precinct where Trump won.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Some precincts of relative Trump
strength form another interesting pattern. Trump improved (and
brought much of the rest of the Republican ticket with him) in most
precincts bordering the city limits, from Ellendale (bordering
Maplewood) south to the Mississippi River. In addition to the 11<sup>th</sup>
Ward Patch precincts and the 12<sup>th</sup> Ward precincts mentioned
above, Trump also showed improvement in the Lindenwood Park precinct
in the 23<sup>rd</sup> Ward that includes the Shrewsbury Metrolink
station and the usually progressive Ellendale precinct in the 24<sup>th</sup>
Ward bordering Maplewood. These precincts in the 12<sup>th</sup>,
23<sup>rd</sup> and 24<sup>th</sup> Wards were the only precincts in
those wards (except for statistical noise in one tiny precinct) in
which Trump ran better than Romney. All of those precincts also
produced the greatest Republican improvement in their wards over 2012
for the rest of the statewide ticket. None of these border precincts
are upscale neighborhoods, and they were not among the south side's
stronger Republican precincts until recently.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Whether these movements represent
permanent party shifts or were merely reactions to unpopular
candidates remains to be seen.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-65686787087755081582016-12-10T17:49:00.000-06:002016-12-11T16:46:10.469-06:00Missouri's urban-rural split on steroidsThe urban/rural electoral split in Missouri got even wider in 2016. <br />
<br />
I have written twice before about the widening urban-rural electoral split in Missouri. In 2004 my focus was putting the evangelical vote in historical context, but the upshot of <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2004/11/evangelical-vote-in-historical.html" target="_blank">that post</a> was the contrast of the Democratic trend in St. Louis and Kansas City and their suburbs with the Republican trend in exurban and rural counties. The diverging directions of those areas resulted in a widening difference in their vote. <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2012/11/re-examining-missouris-urbanrural.html" target="_blank">I updated the post in 2012</a>, noting that the intervening two presidential elections had continued the trend and widened the difference.<br />
<br />
So, what would happen in 2016? Would Hillary Clinton's appeal (and Donald Trumps' repellent) to women everywhere and Trump's appeal to blue-collar voters put an end to that trend? In a word, no. In fact, Trump's appeal in exurban and rural areas not only continued the divergence, but sharply accelerated it. As I inferred in my post-election posts earlier this month, more of the undegreed blue-collar Democrats and Democratic leaning independents who defected to Trump live in rural and exurban areas than in urban and suburban areas.<br />
<br />
Democrats performing better in urban/suburban areas than in exurban/rural areas in Missouri has been true for about a hundred years, but not by all that much. As recently as 1992, when Bill Clinton dispatched President George H.W. Bush, Clinton's performance in urban and suburban areas was just 9 points better than in rural areas. My prior posts linked above noted that this urban/rural split increased to 12 points in 1996, to 16 points in 2000,
21 in 2004, 23 in 2008 and 25 points in 2012. This year the split skyrocketed to 33 points. While the Democratic share of the vote dropped 2-1/2 points from 2012 in urban and suburban areas, it tanked by almost 9 points in rural counties.<br />
<br />
The rural vote was a Tale of Two Clintons. In 1996, with many votes being diverted to third-party populist Ross Perot, President Bill Clinton won a healthy plurality in Missouri's rural counties, winning about 43% in those counties. Twenty years later his wife would win less than 25% there.<br />
<br />
Trump's curious appeal to rural voters this year was foreshadowed by
his rural success in the presidential primaries. But the continuation of
the generation-long trend suggests that fundamental shifts in party
identification are taking place.<br />
<br />
The urban/rural split I have identified may actually be understated, because my county classifications have become outdated. My original 2004 post examined data starting in 1952. (See <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2004/11/evangelical-vote-in-historical.html" target="_blank">the original 2004 post</a> to see data back to 1952.) For consistency purposes, my analysis continued to categorize counties the same way throughout the following 64-year period. But population changes since then have rendered some of my classifications obsolete. Some of the areas that I considered "exurban" then (e.g., St. Charles County outside St. Louis and Clay and Platte Counties north of Kansas City) are now behaving more like suburbs, and some counties that I considered "rural" (e.g., Lincoln and Warren Counties outside St. Louis) are now part of the St. Louis Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), with voting patterns that more closely resemble exurban counties than rural counties. Today, suburbs are more Democratic than exurban counties, which in turn are more Democratic than virtually all rural counties.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the biggest rural county, Greene, has evolved into a combination
of urban (Springfield, population 160,000, though just 4.1% African American and 3.7% Latino), suburban, college town
(Missouri State and Drury) and exurban areas. Collectively those areas cause Greene County to be 12 points more
Democratic than purely rural counties. In addition, eight rural counties containing college campuses run several points more Democratic than other rural counties. Reassigning all of these counties would make all three categories less Democratic, but the rural counties more than the others.<br />
<br />
At the other end of the spectrum, the "urban" category has included the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City together with their inner-ring suburbs in St. Louis and Jackson Counties. I didn't segregate the city vote from the suburbs because election data before 1996 reported all of Jackson County (both Kansas City and its suburbs) together as one. Enough elections have now taken place since 1996 to provide a meaningful pattern and a more accurate comparison of rural with purely urban areas.<br />
<br />
I have more number crunching to do, but these refinements
are bound to produce even higher Democratic numbers in purely urban areas and even higher Republican numbers in purely
rural counties, resulting in an even larger urban/rural split. More to come.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-45537796510414595712016-12-04T17:38:00.001-06:002016-12-06T17:59:44.210-06:00Analysis of 2016 presidential election in St. LouisTo most of us who live in St. Louis, Democrat Hillary Clinton seemed to be cruising to an easy win. Almost everyone we knew seemed to be for her, some enthusiastically and others readily settling for her as the obvious antidote to Republican Donald Trump. Our Republican friends couldn't stand Trump and were defecting.<br />
<br />
And then, WHAM! Trump pierced the "blue wall" and rode Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to an Electoral College landslide. Secretary Clinton's 2-point win in the meaningless popular vote was a mere consolation prize. Here in Missouri, despite how it seemed here, Trump won the state by 19 points and carried the entire statewide Republican ticket (including embattled Sen. Roy Blunt) in with him.<br />
<br />
As was the case in 2004, when Democrat John Kerry seemed assured of making George W. Bush a one-term president like his father, we in St. Louis suffered from <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2004/11/post-election-analysis-overview.html" target="_blank">myopia</a>. We had no clue what was going on out in the sticks. It turned out that, even more than in 2004 (or any other year for that matter), rural and exurban Missouri went big time for the Republican nominee.<br />
<br />
An examination of results in St. Louis wards and townships shows an entirely different story. (I expect a similar analysis of Kansas City wards and Jackson, Clay and Platte County townships would show something similar.) In metropolitan areas in Missouri, there were clear patterns of both blue-collar Democrats defecting to Trump and highly educated Republicans abandoning him. Here under "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKOb-kmOgpI" target="_blank">The Bubble</a>," NeverTrumpers won that battle.<br />
<br />
With national and state exit polls reporting that 8% of blacks (and 13%
of black men) and 52% (up 5 points from 2012) nationally (and 59% in Missouri) of
voters without a college degree voting for Trump, I thought he might do much better here (especially with the first black president no longer
being on the ballot). But the exit poll results were not reflected in election returns here. Trump won only 2% of the vote in
segregated black wards. (Returns from other black majority wards and all black majority townships are too diluted with blue-collar whites to be a meaningful measure.) All told, Secretary Clinton fared nearly as well here as President Obama had four years ago. Both Clinton and Trump lost ground here compared to Obama and Romney. Third-party candidates and write-ins picked up the slack. Clinton dropped more in the city and Trump dropped more in the county.<br />
<br />
Patterns of both Trump and NeverTrump strength emerged in the ward-by-ward and township-by-township data, especially when compared to past presidential elections.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Where NeverTrumpers powered Clinton gains</b> </div>
<br />
First, let's examine Secretary Clinton's areas of relative strength compared to Obama. On the whole, in the St.
Louis area, defections of NeverTrump Republicans overwhelmed the
counter-movement of blue-color Democrats and Democrat-leaning
independents voting for Trump. As accurately predicted by polls, these were largely areas with more highly educated voters, a national
demographic that favored Clinton. Most were in Republican townships where Trump's drop was larger than Clinton's gain. Her biggest comparative success was in Clayton Township (western Clayton, Ladue and Rock Hill), formerly the county's most Republican township. It followed the
national Republican decline in old-money trust-fund neighborhoods (but
about a generation behind the east and west coasts) so that by the turn
of the 21st Century, few Republican candidates carried the township. Sen. John McCain won 43.7% in 2008 and Mitt Romney claimed a narrow plurality win in
the township with 49.7% in 2012. But Trump's numbers plummeted 13 points
to 36.51% while Clinton picked up 7 points over Obama. <br />
<br />
Clinton gains and Trump drops aren't evident at first in Republican areas because Trump still carried many of them. But when compared to 2012, in addition to Clayton Township, Clinton scored big gains and Trump suffered significant deterioration in Missouri River Township (Town & Country), where Clinton gained 6 points and Trump dropped 12, followed by Jefferson Township (Webster Groves) (Clinton up 5 points, Trump down 11), Chesterfield Township (Clinton up 5 points, Trump down 10), Creve Coeur and Lafayette Townships (Clinton up 3 1/2 points and Trump down 9 in both), Hadley Township (eastern portions of Clayton, Richmond Heights and University City) (Clinton up 3 points and Trump down 8 1/2), Maryland Heights and Wild Horse Townships (Clinton up 2 1/2 points and Trump down 7 1/2 in both), the City's 28th Ward (Central West End) (Clinton up 2 points and Trump down 7), Ward 16 (St. Louis Hills) (Clinton up 2 points and Trump down 6 1/2) and Ward 19 (Grand Center and St. Louis University) (Clinton up 2 1/2 points and Trump down 5 1/2). In all but three of those jurisdictions, as well as in all of the city's African American wards, Trump ran worse than every other statewide Republican on
the ballot. If you live in any of these areas, your expectations of a Clinton win were based on an accurate perception of what was really happening in your area.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Blue-collar gains for Trump</b></div>
<br />
What about white voters without degrees? In a mirror image of what happened in Republican parts of St. Louis County, Trump gains and Clinton drops aren't evident at first in blue-collar areas because Clinton still carried them. Nevertheless, blue-collar whites are probably
the reason Trump improved over Romney's numbers (and Clinton underperformed Obama) in Wards 9 (Benton Park
and Mount Pleasant neighborhoods), 10 (The Hill), 11 (Carondelet and
the Patch), 13 (Holly Hills), 20 (Marine Villa and the area south of
Cherokee Street) and 25 (Dutchtown), all in south St. Louis. Trump
showed similar improvement in Airport (St. Ann), Midland (Overland) and
Lemay (Lemay and Mehlville) Townships in St. Louis County. The most significant were the 11th Ward and Lemay Township, both of which provided Trump with a 3-point gain and Clinton with a 7-point drop. The
improvement was marginal (about half the 5-point increase in the exit
polls), but was notable because it ran counter to the trend in the city and county. Those results were also probably diluted by NeverTrumpers in those neighborhoods
moving in the other direction. Trump didn't trail the entire Republican
ticket in any of these Trump-improvement wards or townships, running
second-best in the 11th Ward and (except for the racially diverse 9th
and 20th Wards) no worse than median in the others. As was the case in
the city's 14th Ward (Bevo), Trump's improvement in south county was probably
negated or diluted by a significant Bosnian Muslim population that I think feels threatened by Trump's policies on national security. However, the significant Latino presence in the 20th Ward did not retard Trump's improvement there (consistent with exit polls amazingly showing Trump improving slightly over Romney's performance with Latinos).<br />
<br />
In addition, Trump's poor showing in black wards was
actually better than either Romney or McCain had managed against Obama
the prior two elections. Secretary Clinton dropped nearly 3 points there, but Trump was only able to pick up 3/4 of a point. The impact of the black vote going all the
way up to 2% was minor. More significant was the 29% drop in turnout in the segregated African American wards, reducing Clinton's margin there by nearly 10,000 votes.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Outstate voters powered Trump's big win</b></div>
<br />
How did
Trump win the state? Outstate voters love him. Apparently most of the
blue collar voters who broke for Trump live in Missouri's rural counties
and the exurban "collar counties" surrounding St. Louis and Kansas
City. No significant erosion of Trump's base was evident in those results,
except in counties containing either a major city (like Springfield) or a
college campus (like Mizzou or Truman State). In the exurban counties, Trump won 67% of the vote. Even Jefferson
County south of St. Louis, long a Democrat stronghold, went 65% for
Trump. Rural voters love Trump even more, as Trump outperformed the rest
of the statewide Republican ticket in most rural counties. Trump won
75% of voters in rural counties (excluding
cosmopolitan Greene County and rural counties with college campuses). He
topped 80% in 20 rural counties, including two (Mercer (<a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2016/12/dukakis-counties-illustrate-democrats.html" target="_blank">a "Dukakis county"</a>) in northern
Missouri and Bollinger west of Cape Girardeau) where he topped 85%.
That's more dominant than Democrats are in the City of St. Louis! All of
these percentages dwarf the numbers of prior Republican presidential
nominees.I am planning a later
post that examines the county-by-county returns more thoroughly and puts
them in historical context, but I still have numbers to crunch.<br />
<br />
In short, the exurban and rural Missouri surge for Trump overwhelmed NeverTrump trends in metropolitan St. Louis and Kansas City.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-57617945214264461472016-12-01T01:24:00.000-06:002016-12-01T17:50:45.877-06:00'Dukakis counties' illustrate Democrats' decline in rural MissouriDonald Trump's upset win in the 2016 presidential race was based in rural counties in "flyover country," places that the "deplorables" call home. The national red-blue county map looked much the same as prior 21st Century presidential elections, but Trump's rural margin was dramatically higher. Most of the under-educated blue-collar whites who powered Trump's win lived in rural and exurban areas, while similar voters in urban and suburban areas mostly stayed with Democrat Hillary Clinton. Secretary Clinton won big in St. Louis City and County and in Kansas City. But she lost every rural or exurban county except Boone, home to the large (and progressive) academic community
at the University of Missouri.<br />
<br />
What happened? Democrats formerly held their own quite well in rural Missouri. The state re-fought the Civil War at the ballot box every four years, with counties that had wanted to join the Confederacy (especially in the southeast Missouri bootheel and the Little Dixie region in northeast and central Missouri) voting Democrat and Union-loyal counties in southwest Missouri and the German counties along the eastern Missouri River voting Republican. This pattern mostly lasted through the end of the 20th Century.<br />
<br />
Republican gains and setbacks in rural Missouri alternated throughout the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administrations. The foundation for a permanent shift was laid in 1968, when Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace by winning the suburbs and some traditionally Democratic rural counties, with one bootheel county (Stoddard) defecting to Nixon and another (Pemiscot) going full rogue for Wallace. In Nixon's 1972 landslide reelection over anti-war Democrat George McGovern (who first picked then dumped Missouri Sen. Tom Eagleton as his running mate), Nixon won every rural country except Monroe. Those fortunes reversed abruptly but temporarily in 1976, when Watergate reaction and the candidacy of born-again Christian Democrat Jimmy Carter brought Democrat numbers in rural counties to their modern-day high. Carter's perceived betrayal of conservative Christians sent them fleeing to Ronald Reagan in 1980, giving them a new political home that has persisted to this day. That brings us to 1988, when George H.W. Bush won most rural counties, leaving the 33 rural Missouri counties who voted for the inept Michael Dukakis as the last hard-core "blue dog" Democrat holdouts that I examine in this post.<br />
<br />
I chose 1988 as my base line because in the next two elections, populist billionaire independent (later Reform Party) candidate Ross Perot put a major dent in both parties' vote totals, murking the two-party trend lines. Democrat Bill Clinton won Missouri both times, including several rural Missouri counties, but mostly by mere pluralities, as Perot's votes came more from erstwhile Republicans than Democrats. During those eight years of presidential statistical noise, many fundamental pro-Republican changes occurred. Just two years in, Republicans won control of Congress for the first time in a generation. Later, Clinton sex scandals and the partisan divide over his impeachment would make rural Christian voters even more Republican. While Perot had effectively throttled the elder Bush's re-election and
handed the White House to Bill Clinton, Perot also served as the bridge
to Republican dominance thereafter. In 2000, when Perot declined to run again, most of his Republican supporters returned to the GOP fold, but many of his
Democrat supporters either stopped voting or crossed over to the
Republicans. That year, GOP presidential candidates began a rural-based winning streak in Missouri that persists to this day. <br />
<br />
Returning to 1988 as my baseline, I compared the 33 rural counties Dukakis carried in 1988 with their numbers this year, and the comparison is jaw dropping. Dukakis won Mercer County on the Iowa border, but by 2016, Hillary Clinton won only 12.38% of that county's vote. And the 37-point drop there wasn't even the state's largest. About 400 miles south in the lead belt, Reynolds County dropped nearly 44
points, giving Dukakis 61.42% but only 17.81% to Secretary Clinton. In Monroe County in northeast Missouri's "Little Dixie," the sole rural Democratic holdout in 1972, Democratic presidential performance declined steadily from 1988 to 2016. Dukakis' solid 61.31% there dwindled nearly 41 points over the next 28 years to Hillary Clinton's 20.53%. Neighboring Ralls County dropped just as much.<br />
<br />
The median 1988-to-2016 decline among the rural "Dukakis counties" was 29.4%. Here are the ten largest declines in Democrat fortunes among those counties:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="3" frame="VOID" rules="NONE"><tbody>
<tr><td align="LEFT" height="18" width="86"><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cols="6" frame="VOID" rules="NONE">
<colgroup><col width="124"></col><col width="124"></col><col width="124"></col><col width="124"></col><col width="124"></col><col width="124"></col></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="18" style="text-align: center;" width="124"><b>County</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="124"><b>Dukakis 1988</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="124"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="124"><b>Clinton 2016</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="124"><b><br /></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;" width="124"><b>Democrat decline</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="17" style="text-align: center;">Reynolds</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">61.42%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">17.81%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">43.61%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="17" style="text-align: center;">Monroe</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">61.31%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">20.53%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">40.78%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="18" style="text-align: center;">Ralls</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">62.38%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">21.61%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">40.77%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="17" style="text-align: center;">Mercer</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">50.00%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">12.38%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">37.62%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="17" style="text-align: center;">Lewis</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">57.57%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">20.96%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">36.61%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="18" style="text-align: center;">Oregon</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">54.22%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">18.65%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">35.68%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="18" style="text-align: center;">Shelby</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">53.35%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">18.62%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">34.73%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="18" style="text-align: center;">Dunklin</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">54.53%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">19.93%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">34.60%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="17" style="text-align: center;">Clark</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">56.11%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">21.83%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">34.27%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="18" style="text-align: center;">DeKalb</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">51.26%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">17.94%</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">33.33%</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</blockquote>
<br />
Republican rural counties got even more Republican over that period, but the change was less dramatic. In Wright and Douglas Counties in southwest Missouri, Secretary Clinton's declines from 1988 were only about 20 points. In Jasper (Joplin) and Gasconade (Hermann) Counties, her declines were even smaller.<br />
<br />
A major counter trend in urban and suburban areas has kept Democrats competitive in Missouri. Hillary Clinton carried St. Louis County this year, 55% to 39%, a margin of over 81,000 votes. In 1988, Bush had carried St. Louis County by nearly 10 points, a margin of over 46,000 votes. Bush's big suburban win then wasn't unusual, as the Republican presidential nominee had won St. Louis County every prior election since Lyndon Johnson's 1964 drubbing of Barry Goldwater. But no Republican presidential nominee has carried St. Louis County since Bush's win in 1988.<br />
<br />
The core cities of St. Louis and Kansas City have also moved even more Democratic, but their impact is blunted by their shrinking populations. While Secretary Clinton's 79% in the City of St. Louis was six points better than Dukakis, that only improved her victory margin over 1988 by 12,000 votes. With nearly 2.8 million votes being cast in 2016, her improved St. Louis performance improved her statewide share by less than half a percent.<br />
<br />
The widening gap between rural voters and urban and suburban voters in Missouri has been in process since 1976, but it accelerated in 2012 and 2016. I will have a more thorough analysis, hopefully with a graph, in a later post. Stay tuned.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-53869501899782199922016-08-03T21:17:00.006-05:002016-08-04T11:18:31.523-05:00Takeaways from the 2016 Missouri primary<b>Establishment vs. Outsiders.</b> In the marquee contest, first-time candidate Eric Greitens defeated three credentialed political veterans for the Republican nomination for Governor, and based on pre-election poll results, nearly all of the undecideds broke for Greitens. But other than that contest, established candidates generally turned back challenges from outsiders. While Sen. Roy Blunt, Secretary of State Jason Kander (running for Senator), Attorney General Chris Koster (running for Governor), and Gubernatorial son and former Congressman Russ Carnahan (running for Lieutenant Governor) and all but one Missouri congressman defeated mostly token opposition, establishment wins in three other contests are worth noting. State Sen. Mike Parsons defeated first-time (albeit well-funded) candidate Bev Randles for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor. Former state representative and Congressional nominee Judy Baker defeated Kansas City banker Pat Contreras for the Democratic nomination for state treasurer. First District Congressman Lacy Clay turned back challenges from State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal and school board member Bill Haas.<br />
<br />
However, below the surface of winners vs. losers, incumbents and other establishment candidates experienced more challenges and significant erosion in their support, even against token opposition. In 2012, of the six statewide incumbents and seven incumbent congressmen, only Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder and two congressmen faced a significant primary opponent. Two statewide incumbents and two congressmen ran unopposed for renomination. This year, U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt and all nine congressmen faced primary challenges. (There was no incumbent seeking reelection in five statewide offices this year.) But voters' increasing dislike for incumbents and other pros showed up in the voting percentages. Until recently, established candidates generally won close to 90% of the vote in the primary. In 2012, two statewide incumbents and two contested congressmen won 80.3% to 86.9% of the vote, while four more seriously contested races (including one member vs. member contest resulting from reapportionment) were won with margins of 59.7% to 67.0%. This year, except for uncontested Republican State Treasurer candidate Eric Schmitt, no statewide candidate and only two congressmen (Ann Wagner and Emanuel Cleaver) topped 80%. Sen. Blunt won just 72.5% of the Republican vote, while Kander, the presumptive choice for the Democratic nomination, won just 69.9%, both against token opposition.<br />
<br />
<b>Big win for establishment African American Democrats</b>. In the St. Louis area, establishment African Americans challenged white city-wide candidates and also faced intra-party challenges from activists from the Black Lives Matter movement. Against whites, African American candidates swept both contested city-wide primaries (and retained a black incumbent who ran unopposed) and unseated a long-time St. Louis County Council member. The contests weren't even close. State Rep. Kim Gardner defeated her closest competitor, assistant prosecutor Mary Pat Carl (the pick of outgoing Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce), by more than 2 to 1 in the Circuit Attorney primary. The two black candidates outpolled the two white candidates 60-40 in that contest. Vernon Betts cruised to a 12-point win over favored 23rd Ward Alderman Joe Vaccaro for the Sheriff nomination. In north St. Louis County, State Rep. Rochelle Walton Gray routed incumbent Mike O'Mara by 22 points.<br />
<br />
In a state representative race, incumbent Penny Hubbard held off BLM activist Bruce Franks by 84 votes, pending a challenge. In Democratic committee contests, black (or black-backed) establishment candidates held off BLM and Bernie Sanders affiliated challenges in nine of 11 contests. Sanders people had more success against establishment whites on the south side, winning contested committee seats in Wards 7 (against Brian Wahby) and 14.<br />
<br />
<b>Mayor Slay's diminishing influence</b>. The Democratic contest for attorney general was a classic St. Louis vs. Kansas City showdown. St. Louis County Assessor Jake Zimmerman carried his home county big, 59%-41%, and piled up a 15,000-vote cushion there. He was endorsed by both the <i>St. Louis Post Dispatch </i>and <i>St. Louis American</i>, and in the City he snared the backing of St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay. But the City went to former Cass County (suburban Kansas City) prosecutor Teresa Hensley, 55%-45%, a larger margin than the state as a whole. Hensley did have the support of usual Slay ally, Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, but Joyce's "clout" did not carry over to the contest to elect her own successor. Next spring's contest to succeed the retiring Slay should be a barnburner.<br />
<br />
<b>Continued growth in Republican primary vote</b>. While both major
parties drew more voters to their primaries this year than 2012, nearly
all of that increase went to the Republicans. This mirrors the
Republican surge in the March presidential primary, probably generated
by both support of and opposition to Donald Trump. But even without a
presidential contest on Tuesday's ballot, the increase in the Republican
primary vote was explosive. 126,117 more voters took Republican ballots
this year than in 2012 (a nearly 23% increase), compared to a more
modest 10,202 increase (up 3.25%) in Democrat ballots. This year's
Republican primary vote more than doubled the Democrats.' Republicans even outpolled Democrats in St. Louis County.<br />
<br />
<b>Rex's money was meaningless</b>. <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/what-did-million-buy-rex-sinquefield-in-tuesday-s-primaries/article_0b0dfb78-a435-5147-a373-ebb79a2c0683.html" target="_blank">As first noted by the <i>Post Dispatch</i></a>, three candidates who received over $10 million in aggregate campaign contributions from St. Louis philanthropist Rex Sinquefield all lost their Republican primaries. In past campaigns, Sinquefield has been a benefactor of Koster, this year's Democratic nominee for governor. Republicans may secretly hope that Sinquefield brings his 2016 "magic" to Koster this year.<br />
<br />
<b>Boom generation holds off Gen X (mostly)</b>.The Boom generation (a/k/a aging baby boomers) mostly held off their significant younger challengers from Generation X. Republican Boomer Mike Parson dispatched Gen Xer Bev Randles in the
Lieutenant Governor race, producing an all Boomer general election
contest against Democrat Russ Carnahan. Other Boomer wins over Gen Xers include Hensley over Zimmerman, Baker over Contreras, and Clay over
Chappelle-Nadal.<br />
<br />
The exception, though, was a big one. Greitens, the youngest of four GOP gubernatorial contenders, defeated two Boomers and an older Generation X. He will face Koster, also a Gen X, in the general, to succeed Boomer Jay Nixon. But they won't break any new ground, as former Republican Gov. Matt Blunt already claimed the office for Generation X in 2004.<br />
<br />
Major inter-generational battles in November pit Gen X (nearly Millennial) challenger Kander against Boomer incumbent Roy Blunt for U.S. Senate and Republican Gen Xer Josh Hawley against Democrat Boomer Teresa Hensley for Attorney General. <br />
<br />
<i>This post was edited on the morning of August 4, 2016, adding the section about Mayor Slay, substantially revising the section about generations, and, of course, adding this disclosure.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-90395198022940818842016-08-01T16:25:00.001-05:002016-08-02T00:59:30.232-05:00BLM's early impact on north St. Louis politicsThe usual racial wars in Missouri's Democratic primary are back. The Black Lives Matter movement has inspired several candidacies, some against whites and some against establishment blacks. Their challenges have some in the African American establishment flummoxed on how to react. This is quite apparent in the endorsements - and non-endorsements - by the voice of the African American establishment (the weekly <i>St. Louis American</i>) and the voice of the white Democratic establishment (the daily <i>St. Louis Post-Dispatch</i> and its online presence, stltoday.com).<br />
<br />
In the contest for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, the <i>American </i>notes in passing that Cori Bush is running, but the paper made no endorsement in that contest. The <i>Post Dispatch</i> endorsed the establishment pick, Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander. (The Oracle prefers drug reform advocate Chief Wana Dubie.)<br />
<br />
The highest profile challenge is in Missouri's First Congressional District, where Ferguson activist State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal is challenging veteran African American Rep. Lacy Clay. The <i>American </i>pointedly declined to endorse, describing the contest as "a choice between experience and seniority versus new energy and bold direct action." (In contrast, the <i>American </i>did go to the trouble to endorse Bill Otto, unopposed for the Democratic nomination in the Second District.)<br />
<br />
The Lieutenant Governor's race has drawn less attention that I expected. Term-limited State Rep. Tommie Pierson is an African American state representative from just north of Ferguson but isn't generating much attention. The establishment candidate, former Congressman Russ Carnahan, was last seen losing a racially charged primary against Clay. The <i>Post </i>predictably backed Carnahan, while the <i>American </i>remained silent.<br />
<br />
In the contest for Secretary of State, former KTVI anchor Robin Smith is the establishment pick against two political unknowns and got the <i>Post </i>endorsement. This marked the first time in several years that the <i>Post </i>endorsed an African American candidate in a contested Democratic primary with one or more white opponents. Surprisingly, the <i>American </i>made no endorsement, in spite of Smith's family connections with the African American political establishment. Her father and brother were city aldermen and part of the storied political operation of the late J.B. "Jet" Banks.<br />
<br />
The most visible local contest is in north St. Louis County, where long-time white incumbent County Councilman (and ally of County Executive Steve Stenger) Mike O'Mara is being challenged by African American State Rep. Rochelle Walton Gray. While Walton Gray (whose parents both served in the legislature) is part of the African American political establishment and is not a BLM activist, she has substantial financial backing from Chappelle-Nadal. The <i>American </i>endorsed Walton Gray, while the <i>Post </i>did not endorse<i>.</i><br />
<br />
In State Senate District 5 in the city, BLM activist Jamilah Nasheed is the incumbent. She has the <i>American</i>'s endorsement over white Bernie Sanders activist Dylan Hassinger. No endorsement by the <i>Post</i>.<i> </i><br />
<br />
The <i>Post</i> also remained curiously silent in the city-wide primary for the open Sheriff position vacated by retiring Sheriff James Murphy. South-side ward organizations are united behind white 23rd Ward Alderman Joe Vaccaro, despite his lack of education and other qualifications. Most labor unions (including white police and fire unions) also back Vaccaro, but the SEIU and black police and fire unions back Vernon Betts, a college-educated African American former deputy. Betts also has the backing of the <i>American </i>and most black ward organizations; but Vaccaro scored the backing of Aldermanic President Lewis Reed, north-side Aldermen Dionne Flowers and Jeffrey Boyd and Boyd's 22nd Ward Democratic organization. <br />
<br />
There are numerous twists in the contest for St. Louis Circuit Attorney, featuring two white and two black contenders. Most African American ward leaders have coalesced around State Rep. Kimberly Gardner, and the <i>American </i>backs her as well. Steve Harmon, son of former Mayor Clarence Harmon, has little support. The white candidates are two current assistant circuit attorneys who are running well-financed campaigns, Mary Pat Carl and Patrick Hamacher. Most south-side ward leaders are backing Carl. The <i>Post </i>endorsed Carl for the lamest of reasons: incumbent Jennifer Joyce endorsed Carl and that's good enough for the <i>Post</i>. One intriguing twist is that the African American Hubbard family organization in the 5th Ward has broken with other black organizations and backed Carl. The Hubbards face BLM challengers for Penny Hubbard's state rep seat and her and son Rodney's 5th Ward committee posts. The <i>American </i>backs BLM challenger Bruce Franks over Hubbard in the state rep contest and the Post was silent.<br />
<br />
Like the challengers to the Hubbard family dynasty, many BLM and allied Sanders candidates are vying for ward committee posts, which fly beneath the radar of most newspaper coverage. (Neither paper endorsed in any committee contests.) A front-page story in the current edition of the <i>American </i>(the last before the primary) mentions several of these candidates, as well as several others who it calls "white allies." BLM challenges of black incumbents are taking place in Wards 5 and 27, while "white allies" (with financial support from Chappelle-Nadal) are challenging establishment forces in Wards 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15 and 20. Of particular interest is the racially integrated Ward 6, where Matt Carroll-Schmidt, attorney for anti-Trump protesters, faces off against black State Rep. Michael Butler for committeeman, and white Ferguson activist (and NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri executive director) Allison Dreith challenges Mary Entrup (the white wife of Aldermanic President Lewis Reed) for committeewoman. In spite of its non-endorsement in the committee races, the <i>American </i>made its preference known by endorsing the establishment's Butler in the state representative primary in which he runs unopposed.<br />
<br />
While not featuring anyone associated with either BLM or the Sanders campaign, the contest for committeewoman in the 26th Ward (home ward to the Clay dynasty) is interesting as a clash of established African American officials. City Treasurer Tishaura Jones faces off against State Rep. Karla May. As in the 6th Ward contest, the <i>American </i>made its preference known with its endorsement of Jones in her uncontested primary for Treasurer, but not of May in her uncontested primary for state rep.<br />
<br />
Also of interest is the north St. Louis County state representative primary in which African American incumbent Courtney Allen Curtis faces three challengers, including white former state rep Eileen Grant McGeoghegan. Neither the <i>Post </i>nor the <i>American </i>endorsed anyone.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-36961631944579696482016-07-15T17:11:00.001-05:002016-07-23T17:49:04.896-05:00Uh oh! Trump plays the 10-character card!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dM1_KFWk_po/UMoWTinfbYI/AAAAAAAAAXk/fuEqIrUi-nkvugdbF3NYLCzUvfHihpwOwCKgB/s1600/oracle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dM1_KFWk_po/UMoWTinfbYI/AAAAAAAAAXk/fuEqIrUi-nkvugdbF3NYLCzUvfHihpwOwCKgB/s200/oracle.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may have stumbled on a winning strategy in naming Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his vice-presidential running mate. It's all about the numbers, but not the numbers you expect. Indiana's electoral votes have nothing to do with it.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-biden-its-numerologically-correct.html" target="_blank">As I wrote nearly eight years ago</a>, there is a certain magic to presidential tickets consisting of exactly 10 characters (not counting the space or hyphen between the names). Trump Pence is exactly 10 characters (not counting The Donald himself, a real character of a different sort).<br />
<br />
For the past half century, the surnames of the winning presidential ticket have added up to exactly 10 characters 9 times out of 12:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
1968 and 1972: Nixon Agnew<br />
1980 and 1984: Reagan Bush<br />
1988: Bush Quayle<br />
2000 and 2004: Bush Cheney <br />
2008 and 2012: Obama Biden</blockquote>
<br />
Two
of the three exceptions were 1976 and 1996, when neither major party ticket consisted of 10 letters. And when 1976's winning Carter Mondale ticket ran for re-election, it faced a 10-letter Reagan Bush ticket and lost, marking the first time since 1932 that an incumbent president was defeated for reelection.<br />
<br />
This presents a last-minute quandary for presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. Her surname has seven letters, so that a 10-character ticket would require a running mate with just a three-letter surname. Names that short are, so to speak, in short supply. It gives her "short list" a whole new meaning, and the people heretofore on that list, Tom Kaine, Julian Castro and Elizabeth Warren, don't come close. There are no Democratic U.S. Senators with a three-letter last name. The only 3-character Democratic governor is David Ige of Hawaii, but he is relatively unknown, comes from a state whose electoral votes are in the bag, and lives and works several hours away from campaign appearances on the U.S. mainland. There are two choices (maybe just one) from Congress, Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Jackson Lee may not work because she uses her combined maiden and married surnames as her name and is regularly alphabetized under Jackson not Lee.<br />
<br />
While defying a strategy with a 90% success rate might be troubling, Mrs. Clinton can be encouraged by the single instance when a 10-character ticket lost to a non-conforming ticket. In 1992, the successful 1988 Bush Quayle ticket lost to a team headed by a Clinton. That win was aided in no small measure by the presence of a significant third candidate, independent Ross Perot. The current tumult in the Republican Party may allow Libertarian Gary Johnson to offer similar help to Mrs. Clinton this year.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-28010289496716776132015-03-01T23:39:00.000-06:002015-03-01T23:39:58.264-06:00Political dichotomies in election analysis
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Among the detailed findings of national
exit polls from biennial elections are results that contrast a
particular demographic group with everyone else. Sometimes these
contrasts are startling and lead to some groups claiming
responsibility for one side's victory.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Who powered President Obama's
reelection in 2012? The GLBT community claims they were decisive, and
the exit polls provide supporting evidence. The 5% of the electorate
who self-identified as GLBT voted for Obama, 76% to 22%. Everyone
else, the other 95%, split dead even, 49-49. Gays provided Obama's
entire margin of victory.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But unmarried individuals of all sexual
orientations could make a similar claim. Singles, comprising 40% of
the 2012 electorate, voted for Obama by 62-35, offsetting married
voters, some 60% of the electorate, who backed Republican Mitt
Romney, 56-42.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The rich-poor dichotomy produced
similar results. While voters from households earning $50,000 or
more, representing a 59% majority of the electorate, backed Romney,
53-45, voters from households earning less than $50.000 carried the
day for Obama, 60-38.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The largest and most cited dichotomy is
the gender gap. For about a generation, women have tended to vote
more Democratic and men more Republican. Since more women usually
vote than men, Democratic victories are often credited to the
majority delivered by women. In 2012, women backed Obama, 55-44,
overcoming men's 52-45 majority for Romney.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
On the other hand, white evangelical
Christians take credit for turning the tide in the 2014 midterms.
Comprising 26% of the electorate, they voted for Republican
congressional candidates by 78-20. Everybody else voted for
Democratic candidates by 55-43.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But these statistics, viewed in that
precise vacuum, can be deceiving. Most of these demographic groups
support the same party's candidates election after election for a
generation or more. What is usually more significant is changes in
margin and relative turnout within the groups from one election to
another.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Women, for example, provided a majority
of their votes to Democratic congressional candidates in 2014, but
they weren't the deciding factor they had been in 2012. While the
mainstream press and media usually cite the gender gap as a
Republican problem, it was the male vote that cost Democrats control of the U.S. Senate in 2014. Men increased their Republican majority to 57-41 in
2014, while women's Democratic support slipped to 51-47. And even
though the relative proportions of voting age men and women remained
constant between the two elections, men increased their share of the
electorate by 2 percentage points in 2014, with a corresponding
shrinkage in women's participation.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
After “delivering” the 2012
election to Obama, what did gays do in 2014? They voted for
Democrats, 75-24, in 2014, nearly identical to 2012. But it was
“straight” voters who made the difference in 2014. Comprising 96%
of the 2014 electorate, they gave Republican congressional candidates
an 8-point margin (53-45) after having broken even in 2012.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The unmarried individuals of all sexual
orientations who share credit for Obama's 2012 win also share the
blame for the Democrat debacle in the 2014 midterms. Singles'
27-point 2012 margin for Obama shrank to just 12 points for congressional Democrats in 2014, one
of the largest demographic shifts of the midterms. This was
exacerbated by woeful turnout, dropping from 40% of the electorate to
just 37%.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Households with less than $50,000 in
income, who also shared credit for Obama's 2012 win, also shared
blame in 2014. The 11-point margin they gave Democrats in 2014 was
only half the 22-point spread they had produced for Obama, and their
proportion of the electorate dove 5 points in 2014, from 41% to just
36%.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
And where were the evangelicals, the
Republican heroes of 2014, two years before? They were there all
along, giving Romney a nearly identical 78-21 win over Obama while
comprising the same 26% of the electorate. But they weren't the
difference-maker in 2012. Obama won because he won all the other
voters, comprising a 74% majority of the electorate, by 23 points,
60-37. In fact, a case can be made that it was those other voters,
not the reliable and consistent evangelicals, who powered the
Republican 2014 win, even though Democrats carried them. That's
because the Democratic advantage with these non-evangelical voters
cratered, from a 23-point spread in 2012 to just 12 points in 2014.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Is your head spinning yet?</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-34352815066358389582014-11-24T12:19:00.000-06:002014-11-24T12:19:33.800-06:00Analysis of 2014 election in St. Louis County
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; page-break-before: always;">
St. Louis
County voters just went through a highly unusual election for County
Executive, but produced the usual result. Democrat Steve Stenger
overcame the 2014 Republican wave and <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/steve-giegerich/coalition-of-black-st-louis-county-democrats-endorse-republican-for/article_6cb9f7d2-7583-5578-8112-e40fdbc06c49.html" target="_blank">an open revolt on the part of African American leaders who publicly endorsed and worked for Republican Rick Stream</a>, to eek out a narrow win (subject to possible
recount). The <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/steve-giegerich/election-results-show-north-county-delivered-the-votes-for-stenger/article_2651d0ab-a3ce-53d2-8403-ffe11b17e22d.html" target="_blank"><i>St. Louis Post Dispatch</i></a> (the area's only print daily)
and <a href="http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/north-st-louis-county-carried-stenger-across-finish-line" target="_blank">St. Louis Public Radio</a> have offered their somewhat simplistic
analyzes, with which I disagree in part.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Analyzes based on raw vote noted that
Stenger won north county, including the black townships, big, but
lost his home base in south county. That was pretty much like the
last election. I prefer to look instead at how the vote patterns
differed between the elections.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The previous election for county
executive was 2010, a Republican wave election much like 2014.
Democratic County Executive Charley Dooley won reelection by four
points, 51%-47%. But this year Dooley, the county's first African
American to hold the post, lost a contentious Democratic Primary to
Stenger. Four days after Dooley's stinging defeat, unarmed African
American teenager Michael Brown was killed by a white policeman in
Ferguson. Stenger stood by the decision of his political ally,
Democratic County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch, not to prosecute the
officer without an indictment from a county grand jury. By the time
of the general election, the grand jury had not announced a decision.
In this environment, Stenger received 17 to 28 percentage points less
support in the six townships with African American majorities than
Dooley had received four years earlier. Stenger also underperformed
by about 8 points in Creve Coeur Township, which includes a
significant African American minority.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But while black support for Stenger was
weak, black support for Stream was even weaker. Stream only picked up
about 8 points of that defection, with the rest diffused among
third-party and write-in candidates. Ordinarily black support for
third-party candidates is much lower than white voters. African
Americans' loyalty to the Democratic Party and especially its
aversion to the Republican Party were far stronger than the organized
black support for Stream. As a result, Stenger still handily beat
Stream in the African American townships.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Nevertheless, the black defections
would have been enough to erase the 4-point 2010 Democrat cushion if
Stenger merely duplicated Dooley's vote from four years before in
other areas. In most of the rest of the county, Stenger ran within a
point or two of Dooley's 2010 performance, some up and some down. In
Bonhomme Township (Stream's home base), Stream's strength caused
Stenger to underperform Dooley by nearly five points.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Stream also beat Stenger in the four of
the five townships comprising Stenger's council district . Yet that
is where Stenger made up the votes he needed to win. Though trailing
Stream there, Stenger ran four to six points better than Dooley. In
blue-collar-Democrat Lemay Township, Stenger improved by more than 6
points, flipping a Dooley 2010 township loss to a Stenger 2014 win.
All told, Stenger's overperformance (while losing) in south county
offset enough of his underperformance (while winning) in black
townships to maintain just enough of the four-point cushion from
2010.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, in a nutshell, the template for
this contest during a national Republican wave election was set four
years before when Dooley won by four points. The biggest variance
from the template was the African American revolt, which eliminated
that cushion. The next biggest variance was home-base loyalty, with
each candidate outperforming the template in his own base by about
five points. Most of the rest of the county voted about like they had
the time before, with variances canceling each other out. What made
Stenger the winner was that Stenger's base (a county council district
covering five townships) was bigger than Stream's base (a state rep
district consisting mostly of just one township), making Stenger's
relative home-base advantage decisive.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<b>Other election observations</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Challenges for Republican inroads with
African Americans</b>: Black voters' unwillingness to vote for a
Republican candidate even while withholding their votes from the
Democrat weakened the crossover effort for Stream. The problem
appeared not to be Stream, but the weakness of the Republican brand
in the black community. This weakness was confirmed in an astonishing
way in the generally ignored contest for state auditor, in which
incumbent Republican Tom Schweich ran with no Democrat opponent.
Schweich, a candidate from the moderate “Danforth wing” of the
Republican Party, won reelection easily, but he lost every black ward
and township in the St. Louis County, the City of St. Louis and
Kansas City to the Libertarian candidate, and in many cases even to
the ultra conservative Constitution Party candidate as well.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
One positive election development for
Republicans, at least symbolically, was the election of several new
black Republicans. These included Tim Scott of South Carolina to the
U.S. Senate, Mia Love of Utah and Will Hurd of Texas to the U.S.
House of Representatives, and locally, Shamed Dogan of Ballwin to the
Missouri House of Representatives. While none of them represent black
majority districts, Hurd unseated a Hispanic Democrat Congressman in
a district that is two thirds Hispanic.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>South county</b>: St. Louis Public Radio's
analysis had stated that “the results [in south county] offer some
sobering news for Stenger, and reasons for optimism for Republicans.”
Not really. South county is a swing area where Democrats do well in
higher turnout presidential years (when Stenger's council seat is on
the ballot) but where Republicans typically do well in low-turnout
mid-term elections. Illustrative is the house district comprised by
Mehlville, Green Park and part of Tesson Ferry Township, which elects
a Democrat in presidential years and a Republican in mid-term
elections. Stream's strength there was no surprise, but Stenger's
ability to limit his losses there allowed him to win.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Zimmerman's big night</b>: The
Post-Dispatch quoted Mike Jones, a senior aide to Dooley, as stating
that Zimmerman's totals were the “benchmark” that signified
“where Stenger should have been,” but that observation belittled
how well Zimmerman did. In addition to outpacing Stenger in every
township, Zimmerman also ran ahead of Dooley's 2010 performance in
every township, even the black townships. Zimmerman's 59% was
comparable to what big Democrat winners get in St. Louis County in
Democrat years. It was the same as President Obama got in his 2008
Democrat wave election and better than Obama did in his 2012
reelection, but Zimmerman accomplished it against the current in a
Republican wave election.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Short coattails</b>: The relative strength
of Stenger and Stream in their home areas did not carry over to
others on their party ballots. While Stenger, relatively speaking,
did well in south county, the Democrat state representative
representing Mehlville, Green Park and part of Tesson Ferry Township
lost her seat to the Republican she unseated two years ago. Democrats
got that seat back by picking up Stream's own house seat.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-33049166685386333482014-10-30T21:09:00.000-05:002014-10-30T21:09:48.733-05:002014 midterm predictions: national
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
With no U.S. Senate or any competitive
U.S. House races on the Missouri ballot, the state is effectively
sitting out this national midterm election.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<b>U.S. Senate </b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In the U.S. Senate, Democrats (plus two
Independents who caucus with them) currently control 55 of the 100
seats, and Vice-President Joe Biden's tie-breaking vote means Democrats have a 6-seat cushion in order to keep control of
the upper chamber. But the seats that are up this year are those that
were swept into Democrat hands in 2008, the anti-Bush Democratic wave
accompanying President Obama’s first election. Seven of those seats
are in states carried by Mitt Romney last election, and several more
Democrat seats in “purple” states are also in serious play. Only
three Republican seats are seriously contested.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
According to <a href="http://media.cq.com/raceratings/?" target="_blank"><i>Roll Call Politics</i></a> (click SENATE'), two of
the Democrat seats opened by retirements, West Virginia and Montana,
are already deemed “Safe Republican.” Twelve additional
Democrat-held seats and just three Republican-held seats are
reasonably competitive (i.e., rated between “Toss-Up” and
“Favored,” but not “Safe”). Four of the Democrat-held seats
(the open seat in Michigan and incumbents in Minnesota, Oregon and
Virginia) are in the least competitive category, “Democrat
Favored,” but the other eight (in additional to the two already
regarded as lost) are in greater jeopardy. The open seat in South
Dakota is “Republican Favored” (i.e., as likely a Republican win
as the aforesaid four “Democrat Favored” seats are for Democrats). Sen. Mark
Pryor's seat in Arkansas “Leans Republican,” while the seats of
Democrat incumbents in Alaska, Colorado and Louisiana “Tilt
Republican.” That's a total of seven Democrat-held senate seats in
which Republicans are favored to some degree. In addition, Sen. Kay
Hagan's North Carolina seat and the open seat in Iowa are listed as
“Toss Ups,” while Sen. Jean Shaheen's shrinking lead in New
Hampshire is rated merely as “Tilts Democrat.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The three vulnerable Republican seats
could partially offset those potential losses, but prospects there aren't
as good. Democrats aren't actually favored in any of them. Their best
chances, according to <i>Roll Call</i>, are Kansas (where Democrat hopes
hang on a left-leaning Independent) and the open seat in Georgia,
which are both rated as “Toss Up.” Mitch McConnell's vulnerable
Kentucky seat “Leans Republican.”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Largely confirming <i>Roll Call</i>'s
projections is Nate Silver's incredibly accurate <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/" target="_blank">538 model</a> (click "ELECTIONS"). Silver is
more encouraging for Democrats in the four “Democrat Favored”
seats, to which he assigns double-digit Democrat leads and 96-99%
probability of winning. Silver currently gives Democrats an 83%
chance of holding New Hampshire and a 68% chance in North Carolina,
but eight Democrat-held seats (including Iowa, a <i>Roll Call</i> “Toss
Up”) and two of the three competitive Republican seats (including
Georgia, a <i>Roll Call </i>“Toss Up”) are all assigned a 65% or better
chance of a Republican win. The Independent in Kansas is the
Democrats' best hope of a takeback, but that's assigned a more modest
51% percent chance of success. Silver will modify these figures
several more times before the election as new data are received.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Oracle sees the Republican trend
accelerating. When most folks go to bed on election night, the GOP
will have held Kentucky and Kansas, taken the Democrat open seats in
Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota and Iowa, and unseated Democrat
senators in Arkansas, Colorado, North Carolina and New Hampshire.
Many of the surviving Democrat senators will have won in closer
elections than expected. No candidate will have won the majority vote
necessary in Louisiana and Georgia. The following morning the seat in
late reporting Alaska will also have fallen to Republicans, giving
them 53 seats, pending the two runoffs. A win in the December
Louisiana runoff will give them 54 seats when the new Congress
convenes, and a win the Georgia runoff on January 6 will make the
final count 55, a 10-seat pickup.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<b>U.S. House of Representatives </b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The House will be a slightly different
story. Republicans already won most of the districts they could
possibly win when they picked up 63 seats in the 2010 wave, and new
district lines locked most of them in. That success left House
Republicans susceptible to the same numbers game that haunts Senate
Democrats this year. Immediately after last year's government
shutdown, Democrats seemed poised to retake the House. But those
hopes were cut short when the botched Obamacare rollout shifted
voters' attention to GOP-friendly issues, where it has remained ever since. While both parties will
take seats from the other, Republicans will add to their majority.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The changes start with four congressmen
(three Democrats and one Republican) who won fluke elections in 2012
and decided to bail out on their parties and retire a winner.
<a href="http://media.cq.com/raceratings/?" target="_blank">According to <i>Roll Call</i></a> (click "HOUSE"), the three Democrat seats (NC-7, UT-4 and
lately even NY-21) aren't even listed among competitive districts
because they are “Safe,” although <a href="http://fox13now.com/2014/10/30/new-poll-shows-doug-owens-closing-in-on-mia-love-in-4th-congressional-district-race/" target="_blank">the Democrat is closing the gap</a>
in the Utah district. CA-31, where Obama got 57% last election,
“leans Democratic.” The seats of three incumbents, one Republican
and two Democrats, “tilt” to the other party. Beyond those seats,
<i>Roll Call</i> currently labels 11 districts (9 Democrat and 2 Republican)
as “Toss Ups” and eight other districts (four in each party)
merely “tilting” in the current party's direction.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
One example of how badly things are
going this year for House Democrats is NY-11, the only
Republican-held district in New York City, but which Obama won in
2012. Incumbent Rep. Michael Grimm (R) is under indictment, and video
shows him threatening to throw an inquiring reporter off a balcony.
This all happened after the filing deadline prevented Republicans
from fielding a different candidate. Grimm was written off as dead
meat. Today his district “tilts Republican!”</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another example: IL-12, the district
containing East St. Louis and other heavily Democratic St. Louis
suburbs, plus Cairo, IL, and lots of formerly Democratic rural turf
in between, represented by Rep. Bill Enyart (D), now “tilts
Republican” towards state rep. “Screamin'” Mike Bost. Some
Democrats may even be secretly clearing Enyart out of the way for
state rep Jerry Costello, Jr., namesake son of Enyart's predecessor,
in more Democrat-friendly 2016. That kind of political intrigue
happens all the time in Illinois.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
While unpopularity of the Republican
House will temper the party's gains, I see them winning 13 new seats
and losing three, for a net GOP pickup of 10.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-76214133964618286342014-10-30T00:27:00.001-05:002014-10-30T00:42:57.061-05:002014 midterm predictions: state and local<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Dull is the new black. At least two
times out of three. While glitz usually wins, this will be the year
for the capable but charisma-challenged candidate.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Were it not for the political fallout
following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, this would be
the dullest election in my lifetime. For the first time perhaps since
the founding of the Republican Party, a major political party (in
this case the Democrats) has failed to file a candidate for a
statewide office. Not even a vanity candidate! The State Auditor
contest, in which capable but charisma-challenged first-term
Republican incumbent Tom Schweich is opposed only by candidates of
the Libertarian and Constitution parties, is also Missouri's <i>only
statewide contest</i>. Furthermore, every Missouri congressman, 6
Republicans and 2 Democrats, are prohibitively safe. In St. Louis
County, newly controversial prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch is
running unopposed. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that
Schweich, McCulloch and all of Missouri's congressmen get reelected!</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The most interesting contest in the
state is for St. Louis County Executive. Councilman Steve Stenger, a
south county white who had McCulloch's backing, defeated Africian
American incumbent Charlie Dooley in a racially charged Democratic
primary. Four days later Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old African
American, was killed by a white Ferguson police officer, triggering
unrest that continues to get national attention. McCulloch has
refused to bring charges against the officer unless indicted by a
grand jury. McCulloch has resisted African American demands that he recuse himself
because of the bias that might logically result from McCulloch's
police officer father having been killed in the line of duty by an
African American suspect. Stenger has stood by McCulloch, prompting
many African American Democratic leaders to endorse and actively work
for Stenger's capable but charisma-challenged Republican opponent,
state rep Rick Stream. The <i>St. Louis American</i>, the area's largest
black weekly, has not endorsed in the race, but columnists <a href="http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_1369a204-5d67-11e4-8455-cf6bf79bd7e3.html" target="_blank">Umar Lee</a>
and <a href="http://www.stlamerican.com/news/political_eye/article_7be1823a-5a5a-11e4-9be6-3bf539987110.html" target="_blank">The Eye</a> have endorsed Stream. Other blacks, wary of backing any
Republican, have lined up behind the write-in candidacy of local
African American Green Party leader Zaki Baruti.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Ordinarily these developments would
destroy a Democratic candidacy, especially in an election shaping up
as a Republican wave. In the Republican wave of 2010, the black vote
provided Dooley's margin of victory. But I think this year's black
Democrat defections are being overestimated. Congressman Lacy Clay
has provided cover for party-loyal blacks by endorsing Stenger. I
also remember years ago when Tom Zych defeated African American
aldermanic president Tink Bradley in a racially charged Democratic
primary, African American leader Jet Banks threw his support to
Republican alderman Leonard Burst, but Banks could only deliver a
third of the vote in his own ward. And as I wrote in <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2014/10/stenger-seeks-to-ride-jay-nixons.html" target="_blank">my previous post</a>, Stenger may benefit from white backlash over the Ferguson
events. Four years ago, Dooley's Republican challenger Bill Corrigan
carried South County big. This year, that's Stenger country. That's
the area that has twice elected him to the county council, and south
county lawns are a sea of dark blue with his lawn signs. Stenger will
still carry the black vote, though by less than usual, and whites
moving to Stenger will outnumber blacks moving to Stream. Advantage
Stenger (unless that “charisma-challenged” wave carries Stream
over the top).</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
A capable but charisma-challenged
candidate with better odds of winning is Democratic County Assessor
Jake Zimmerman. His <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GY36oMarsY" target="_blank">cowboy-themed television commercial</a> may be the
best of the year. While he isn't as sure a bet as Schweich, Zimmerman
still wins, even in a Republican wave.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Two open state senate seats are also
drawing big bucks and lots of interest. The Democrat seat in the
Republican-trending 22<sup>nd</sup> District in Jefferson County pits
Democrat state rep Jeff Roorda against Republican state rep Paul
Wieland. Democrat Roorda is using his board membership of a charity
supporting the policeman that shot Brown and his high-profile police
union position to tap into the white backlash following Ferguson, and
he should win. Unless Wieland can tap into that “charisma-challenged”
wave.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Republican seat in the
Democrat-trending 24<sup>th</sup> District in St. Louis County's
central corridor pits Democrat state rep Jill Schupp against
Republican attorney John “Jay” Ashcroft, the namesake son of
Missouri's former governor, U.S. Senator and Missouri and U.S.
Attorney general. Schupp's television ads resurrect the Democrats'
2012 “war on women” theme, a tactic which Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)
is also using and receiving <a href="http://gazette.com/editorial-war-on-women-backfires-on-udall/article/1539364" target="_blank">lots of criticism</a> for doing. But while
Ashcroft was actually the most moderate of the three Republican
primary candidates for this seat, his surname may prove to be more
hindrance than help among a moderate electorate that has soured on
political dynasties – Carnahan, Clay, Bush, Blunt, and maybe even
Clinton. Ashcroft's lovely wife, featured prominently in his ads,
preclude him from joining the “charisma-challenged” wave, but the
2014 Republican wave should be enough to lift Ashcroft to victory.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The only notable contest in the city of
St. Louis is recorder of deeds. Long-time recorder Sharon Carpenter
resigned over a nepotism scandal but still won the Democratic primary for a
new term. Her appointed replacement, former alderman Jennifer
Florida, is running as an independent with the endorsement of Mayor
Francis Slay. In 2011 Florida rebelled against the work-ethic demands
of aldermanic president Jim Shrewsbury and backed Lewis Reed's
successful challenge, but she switched her loyalty to Slay last year
when Reed unsuccessfully challenged Slay. The city Democratic party
isn't even objecting to Florida's campaign literature labeling her an
“independent Democrat,” a label over which the party previously
challenged African American Sen. Maida Coleman when she did so. <a href="http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_06e374e4-5aef-11e4-a499-e33d37a663e0.html" target="_blank">The St. Louis American is endorsing Carpenter,</a> noting that city
government “would shut down instantly if every relative of an
elected official walked off the job.” While all candidates
(including Republican Erik Shelquist) are white, this may turn into a
north-south battle, with the north side for Carpenter and the south
side (except Carpenter's 23<sup>rd</sup> Ward) for Florida. Turnout
is the key, and that gives the advantage to Florida.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-45308867521767915722014-10-02T21:49:00.001-05:002014-10-02T21:49:32.285-05:00Stenger seeks to ride Jay Nixon's Newtonian strategy to victoryThe recent <a href="http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_be737856-49c0-11e4-90b3-3b2469695f94.html" target="_blank">endorsement of State Rep. Rick Stream</a>, the Republican nominee for St. Louis County Executive, by a group of 30 prominent African American Democratic officials could put a fork into the candidacy of the Democrat nominee, Councilman Steve Stenger. The group acted on the heels of Stenger's successful conquest of County Executive Charlie Dooley, the first African American to hold the post, in the Democratic Primary, and the actions and inactions of Democratic Party officials during the nationally televised crisis in Ferguson.<br />
<br />
Since the exodus of sizable numbers of African Americans from the City of St. Louis to St. Louis County in the mid-1990s, blacks have reliably delivered St. Louis County to the Democrats. County whites lean slightly Republican, while the monolithicly Democratic black vote provides the margin of Democratic victory.<br />
<br />
But a political version of Newton's Third Law of Motion -- that every action generates an equal and opposite reaction -- may save the day for Stenger and white Democrats. Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon has ridden this phenomenon to victory in this increasingly red state his entire career, and Stenger's post-Ferguson actions suggest that his strategy is to do the same.<br />
<br />
This political phenomenon is based on a resurrection of <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/race-and-the-modern-gop-111218.html#.VC4AIRZgG8A" target="_blank">1960s "white resistance"</a> to the civil rights movement. Many whites have recoiled at the actions of protesters in Ferguson. Seemingly increasing black-on-white crime, sometimes <a href="http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Thieves-allegedly-rob-six-victims-in-name-of-Michael-Brown-275945191.html" target="_blank">explicitly in the name of the fallen Michael Brown</a>, have increased their fear and resentment. As a result, the anti-Stenger actions by the black officials may actually increase Stenger's support among whites. Since white voters still far outnumber black voters in the county, this won't be just an "equal" reaction. Stenger may well gain more whites votes than lost black votes.<br />
<br />
Nixon has long played the Newtonian strategy in Missouri politics. He has retained the support of many rural white voters who flipped from Democrat to Republican over the past 20 years, by posturing himself as a Democrat who stands up to blacks and resists their demands. The most notable instance was his opposition, as state attorney general, to state financial contributions to school desegregation. Black leaders objected vociferously, but their cries actually helped Nixon in rural Missouri. More recently, Nixon's actions and inactions in the Ferguson crisis have visibly angered blacks, while quietly reassuring many less-than-progressive whites. In the 2012 election, Nixon came close to breaking even in rural and exurban counties where Obama barely scratched out 35%. And Nixon did so while still riding Democratic strength in urban and suburban areas. Black voters supported him substantially as well as they did the rest of the Democratic ticket. Win/win for Nixon.<br />
<br />
Stenger hopes to ride the same white backlash to victory next month.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-84811010495525364432014-09-04T17:35:00.001-05:002014-10-30T00:50:57.692-05:00Will Obama save the senate by going to war?This morning's <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup Poll</a> (covering the first three days of September) pegged President Obama's job approval at 38%, his all-time low. That's pretty close to just his partisan base. His unpopularity is producing enough of a drag on Democratic incumbents and challengers in this year's midterm elections, that Nate Silver's <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/" target="_blank">Five-Thirty-Eight Senate Forecast</a> today gives Republicans a 63.4% chance of overcoming the Democrats' 6-seat cushion and seizing the majority in the U.S. Senate.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, the Presidency provides an unparallelled opportunity to create game-changing events, a so-called "October surprise." This often involves a total about-face by an unpopular president in an important policy matter. Lyndon Johnson's halting of Vietnam War bombing in 1968, literally the day before the election pitting his Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey, against Richard Nixon (and third-party candidate George Wallace), is generally regarded as the ultimate October surprise. The move failed to elect Humphrey, but it is regarded as saving a number of Congressional Democrats, including Missouri's open seat (won by Lt. Gov. Tom Eagleton, 51-49%, over Rep. Tom Curtis (R-St. Louis County)).<br />
<br />
A "peace move" like Johnson's is not really possible for Obama, who took office with a Nobel Peace Prize already in hand. Obama's October surprise would have to be the opposite - asking Congress to declare war. To the extent that war is ever justifiable, the brutal actions of the new Islamic State could easily provide a justifiable pretext that most swing voters would support and appreciate. A <a href="http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/08/29/military-action-syria/" target="_blank">recent poll </a>claims that Americans support war against the Islamic State by a 63-16% margin, in contrast with opposition to military intervention in Syria, 20-62%, just a year earlier. With most Obama critics harping on his alleged timidity and indecision in the face of the ISIS/ISIL/IS threat, asking Congress for a declaration of war would indeed be the kind of 180-degree turn that comprise classic October surprises.<br />
<br />
Moreover, Americans tend to rally behind their president in times of war, even if they think the President might have been at fault. Note the otherwise unexplainable spike in George W. Bush's popularity following the 9/11 attacks in 2001 (<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-George-Bush.aspx" target="_blank">from 51% on September 10 to 86% on September 15</a>), in spite of his befuddled initial reaction.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, would playing the war card alienate the Democrats' anti-war base? I'm not aware of any polling data that specific, but one could surmise that the 16% opposing such action is composed primarily of people who instinctively oppose military action on principle, i.e., part of the Democrat base. No, these voters won't defect to Republicans, but with very few progressive independent or third-party alternatives, they might not vote at all.<br />
<br />
And then there is the question whether the President would take action contrary to his base instincts in order to save fellow party members. Would improving the chances of congressional approval of the remaining parts of his agenda be enough to get him to take action he seemingly finds so distasteful?<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-9281904330933923352014-08-04T11:31:00.001-05:002014-08-04T11:31:32.358-05:002014 Missouri primary predictions
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The racial politics that has infected
Democratic primaries in the City of St. Louis for so many years has
followed migrating voters to St. Louis County. White South County
Councilman Steve Stenger is challenging incumbent black County
Executive Charlie Dooley in a knock-down-drag-out slug fest.
Predominantly black townships in north St. Louis County are standing
behind the incumbent, while whites in south and west county are
backing the challenger. The only thing missing is a steel cage. The
racial divisions in this Democratic primary taint the Democrat
narrative that Republicans are the racists.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
While lawn signs are unreliable
predictors of outcome, the total absence of Dooley signs in a sea of
Stenger signs in south county is notable. Adding to the racial
cleavage is the <i>St. Louis Post-Dispatch</i>, whose <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-in-democratic-primary-steve-stenger-for-st-louis-county/article_1f5750bd-f4c1-5296-b822-ca1778117508.html" target="_blank">endorsement of Stenger</a>
follows its recent consistent trend of exclusively endorsing whites
in Democratic primary contests against blacks. (The <i>Post </i>apparently
hates Republicans more than blacks, as it regularly endorses the
black candidates who defeat their endorsed primary opponents against
Republicans in the general election.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The elites in liberal white central
county may decide the election, just as the elites in the central
corridor wards decide the racial wars in the city. Republican
crossovers will also be important, and the ones that do cross over
will tend to be of the more moderate strain. <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2014/06/county-democrats-alienate-crossover.html" target="_blank">As I noted before</a>, the
Dooley campaign seemingly went out of its way to offend those voters
with a negative ad that compared Stenger to moderate GOP hero Mitt
Romney. But central and west county crossovers will be limited by
spirited Republican primaries to replace retiring Sen. John Lamping.
State Rep. Dwight Scharnhorst and Councilman Greg Quinn.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
I believe turnout will be the key, and
that north county Democrats will turn out strongly enough to save
Dooley. That result would also be most beneficial to Democrats in the
general election, because black turnout in that election would suffer
if Dooley loses, especially since there are no statewide contests at
stake (Democrats failed to file a candidate for state auditor, the
only statewide contest on the November ballot), and black incumbents
from Rep. Lacy Clay on down are all running in safe Democratic
districts. In contrast, a damaged Dooley would still likely win
re-election in November, following the pattern of his win against
well-financed Republican attorney Bill Corrigan against the grain of
the Republican wave in 2010.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
There is also a spirited contest for
the Republican nomination. State Rep. Rick Stream has better
qualifications than Green Park Alderman Tony Pousosa, but Pousosa has
a dedicated <a href="http://hennessysview.com/2014/03/25/tony-pousosa-county-executive/" target="_blank">grassroots following from Tea Partiers</a>. Pousosa has lots
of lawn signs in south county, while Stream's are hard to find. Even
in Stream's base in Kirkwood, his signs are outnumbered by those for
Deb Lavender, the Democrat (unopposed in the primary) seeking
Stream's open seat in the Missouri house. Stream also suffers from
the <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2006/08/examining-post-curse-in-republican.html" target="_blank">kiss-of-death</a> endorsement of the <i>Post</i>. While Stream remains the
favorite, I see that election as being close, and a Pousosa upset
would not be much of a surprise.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The GOP primary in Lamping's 24<sup>th</sup>
senate district demonstrates how conservative Republicans have grown
in just the past couple years. The most moderate candidate is John R.
“Jay” Ashcroft, namesake son of the conservative former governor
and senator. <a href="http://hennessysview.com/2014/07/16/ashcroft-passes-opportunity-deny-medicaid-expansion-fix/" target="_blank">Tea Partiers are attacking the younger Ashcroft</a> for his
alleged support for Medicaid expansion and a possible city-county
merger. But conservatives are divided between two self-funding
opponents. The conservative reputation of the Ashcroft brand should
bring a primary win to that budding dynasty, but the general election
in that swing district remains in doubt.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The racial wars in the City involve
three contests. The hottest one (License Collector) doesn't actually
have a white candidate, but features a black candidate (Jeffrey Boyd)
who has solid support among most white Democratic officials and
organizations, running against an appointed black incumbent (Mavis
Thompson) who enjoys significant (but less unanimous) support from
black Democratic officials and organizations. It is reminiscent of
the 1997 mayoral contest, in which south side whites ousted black
Mayor Freeman Bosley, Jr. by backing another African American, former
police chief Clarence Harmon (“the white man's black man”). Boyd
appears to be this year's Harmon. In a vanity battle of surrogates,
Mayor Francis Slay is backing Boyd, while Gov. Jay Nixon stands
behind his appointment of Thompson. Boyd has endorsements from all
the pivotal central corridor wards and should oust Thompson.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The city contest that should be most
interesting is one that Democrats are trying to hide. Veteran white
Recorder of Deeds Sharon Carpenter resigned over a nepotism scandal,
but continues to seek a new term anyway. Both of her primary opponents are
black, are not very appealing and lack funds to mount a serious
campaign. The late-breaking scandal may give Edward McFowland some
traction, especially in black wards, but former alderman Jimmie
Matthews will split off a significant part of the vote. I believe
city Democratic voters will look beyond the primary to the
independent candidacy of appointed incumbent Jennifer Florida in the
general election and stick with Carpenter temporarily in the primary.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The final race war pits school board
member Bill Haas against state Rep. Kimberly Gardner. While this
contest between two attorneys should merit more attention, the racial
composition of the district makes Gardner a 2-to-1 favorite.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-42715662477464746492014-06-22T21:28:00.000-05:002014-06-22T21:28:37.128-05:00County Democrats alienate crossover voters
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
As St. Louis County transitions to a
reliably Democrat county, some county Democrats are slow to realize
what their counterparts in the City of St. Louis have known – and
dealt with – for years. Missouri has an open primary system, in
which any voter can take any party's ballot. In Democrat areas,
Republican voters often vote Democrat ballots in the primary, because
that is where the action is. Especially in south St. Louis, where
most city Republicans reside, Democrats have learned to tailor their
approaches to grab these votes in the usually decisive Democratic
primary. Mayor Francis Slay has mastered the technique.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In spite of the county's new blue hue
in the general election, enough Republican voters remain to make the
number of potential crossovers in the primary very significant, much
more so than in the city. That is especially true this
year, as the only Republican primary contests in most of the county
are low-key matches for the nominations for county executive and
county auditor. The biggest draws for Republican primary voters will
be in one state senate district in mid county and just one state
representative district. The Republican primary for the right to lose
to Democratic 1<sup>st</sup> District Congressman Lacy Clay is low
profile and mostly where few Republicans reside. Neither Republican
incumbents for state auditor nor Congress in the 2<sup>nd</sup>
District face primary opposition. The high-profile Democrat tussle
for county executive, where both candidates are already on the
airwaves, will be tempting for Republican voters to join.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Neither Democrat County Executive
Charlie Dooley nor his primary challenger, County Councilman Steve
Stenger, seem to have figured that out. Both have played to their
party bases in ways that alienate the Republican crossover voters.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Dooley is currently airing an ad that
compares Stenger to 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
While that plays well with the Democrat base that comprises most of
the primary vote, it leaves the crossover voters with a positive
impression of Dooley's opponent. Even though Romney lost the county
by 14 points in the general election, he out-polled every other
Republican on the ballot, and was especially well-liked by the more
moderate Republican voters that are most likely to cross over in the
primary.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
But Stenger burned his bridges to
conservative Republican voters last year when running his wife's
unsuccessful non-partisan campaign for a seat on the governing board
of St. Louis Community College. The Stengers sent out flyers claiming
that Allison Stenger would stand up to incumbent Joan McGivney “and
her Tea Party friends.” That was a strange, false charge against
McGivney, a long-time advocate for women's rights and public
education who publicly favored marriage equality before it was cool.
The flyer drew broad, unwanted attention when popular <i>Post-Dispatch</i>
columnist <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/bill-mcclellan/mcclellan-all-s-fair-in-last-minute-campaign-mailings/article_eabec8d7-563c-5044-a7b0-96dc805f1232.html" target="_blank">Bill McClellan lambasted it</a>. Tea Partiers, including county
voters outside the district, took notice when a blog post on the <a href="http://stlouisteaparty.com/blog/" target="_blank">St.Louis Tea Party web site</a> protested. Steve Stenger foolishly alienated
these potentially favorable crossover voters.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Both politically and in the interests
of effective governance, Dooley, Stenger and other Democrats who
focus myopically on their base should take lessons from seasoned city
officials like Mayor Slay.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-63317993854461504332013-03-04T00:14:00.001-06:002013-03-04T00:14:11.481-06:00Slay must overcome voter complacency to stop ReedMost of the political smart money thinks St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay will cruise to renomination to an unprecedented fourth term next Tuesday. His administration has been free of major scandal, civic optimism is high, and he enjoys a huge fundraising advantage, which he is using to blanket the airwaves and fill mailboxes with large expensive glossy cards. He also enjoys important endorsements, including Rep. Lacy Clay, his father and legendary predecessor William L. Clay, Sr., civil rights icon Frankie Muse Freeman, Gov. Jay Nixon, Sen. Claire McCaskill, and the city's fading daily, the <i>St. Louis Post-Dispatch</i>. But the Oracle's crystal ball remains cloudy. Slay must overcome two major challenges to make history.<br />
<br />
The first major challenge is Aldermanic President Lewis Reed, whose quest to wrest City Hall away from the mayor has history on its side. Since the city began electing mayors to four-year terms, no one has ever been elected four times. The only other one who tried, Raymond R. Tucker (after whom the downtown stretch of 12th Street is named), was defeated by Alfonso J. Cervantes, who, like Reed, was then the Aldermanic President. That, in fact, was the office Slay himself held when he unseated former Mayor Clarence Harmon twelve years ago.<br />
<br />
But Reed has more than just history in his corner. While racial consciousness has settled down to irrelevancy among the city's increasingly progressive white voters, it seems to be on the upswing among African-American voters. Last August, when it appeared that newly drawn districts and well-known white candidates might eviscerate city black representation in the Missouri legislature and the <i>Post Dispatch</i> endorsed exactly zero black candidates (see <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2012/08/primary-could-dilute-african-american.html" target="_blank">link </a>to my post about that situation), black voters turned out in unusually high numbers for a summer primary and won all of the contests in question. President Barack Obama's tough but successful reelection campaign added to black racial consciousness and accelerated the momentum. The Reed campaign is well positioned to ride any continuing wave. The Clay endorsement looks good for Slay on paper, but it is paper thin. The worst kept secret in town is that Clays' endorsements are payback for Slay's active support of the younger Clay last election when he beat back a challenge from displaced white Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan. Black voters recognize that Clay is doing what he has to, but few of them will follow his lead this time. Even the elder Clay's former chief of staff, Pearlie Evans, is backing Reed. While Slay has faced at least one significant black challenger in every mayoral election, he will get his lowest share of the black vote this time around.<br />
<br />
Reed complements his solid black support with some significant pockets of support from whites. He made the right promises to get the support of the firefighters union, whose members are suing the city over pension issues. The teachers union backs Reed due to old resentment over Slay's past intervention in school board elections and support for charter schools. The St. Louis Police Officers Association is officially neutral, but many officers resent Slay's backing of local control. Of less importance is Reed's endorsement by former 24th Ward (Dogtown) Alderman Tom Bauer, one of only two aldermen to be recalled by voters midterm.<br /><br />Reed used a similar pattern of solid black support and spotty inroads of the white vote to unseat Aldermanic President Jim Shrewsbury six years ago. However, consistent street talk at the time said that some of Reed's white support was from Slay backers who were upset with Shrewsbury's independence on the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. Those folks are back with Slay in this contest.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A second challenger, former 27th Ward Alderman Jimmie Matthews, is also running, but he is not Slay's second major challenge. If anything, a black candidate like Matthews could help Slay by splintering his black opposition. But that's not likely to happen here, even though Matthews is gamely attending candidate forums on both sides of town. As the other alderman (besides Bauer) to be recalled by voters of his own ward, the Matthews candidacy will have a miniscule impact.<br /><br />Slay's second major challenge is the possible complacency of his own supporters. His south side base sees an overwhelming majority of Slay signs on lawns and nothing but Slay ads on television, and they don't think Reed has much of a chance. The mayor and his campaign do not suffer from such complacency and are working very hard. But motivating complacent supporters to get out and vote, especially in the bad weather that is predicted for Tuesday, will be a challenge. Reed's supporters are more motivated and more likely to vote.<br /><br />These factors make this contest hard to call. Slay will win big in his base in southwestern St. Louis (Wards 12 (his current home), 16 and 23 (where he grew up and served as alderman), and he will win other south side wards by smaller margins with lower turnouts. Reed will win big on the north side, and the size of the turnout will be important. The election will be decided in the central corridor. Reed should do well in Ward 6 (his home ward), but not as well as on the north side. The election will be decided in Wards 8, 17 and especially the high-turnout 28th.<br />
<br />
A big Slay win is possible, but a close election that could go either way is more likely.<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-88827059788968081352012-11-25T21:52:00.001-06:002012-11-25T21:52:36.921-06:00Re-examining Missouri's urban/rural electoral split
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Right after the 2004 election, I posted about the widening electoral gap between metropolitan voters and those in rural or exurban counties, in the context of the evangelical vote. Two presidential elections later, this urban/rural split has not only persisted, it has intensified.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
I observed in <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2004/11/evangelical-vote-in-historical.html" target="_blank">that original post</a> that, while Missouri’s
rural areas have been more Republican in presidential elections than
metropolitan areas for years, recent elections have markedly
increased the spread. In the 11 presidential elections from
1952-1992, this spread averaged about seven percentage points. The
difference was never greater than the 14-point spread in the 1960
religious war centered on the first Catholic president, John F.
Kennedy, and the spread virtually disappeared in the 1976 election
involving born-again Christian Jimmy Carter, but seven points was a
pretty typical spread.
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Then, a realignment of voters began
during the 1990s, in which rural evangelicals disgusted by the
Clinton sex scandals switched from voting Democrat to Republican,
followed by a counter-shift of
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
“old money” aristocrats and
suburban “soccer moms” who were uncomfortable with the social
conservatism of the new party members. The urban/rural spread crept
up to 12 points in Clinton’s 1996 re-election, and exploded at the
start of the 21<sup>st</sup> Century. In both 2000 and 2004, the
metropolitan vote went more Democratic than before, and the exurban and rural vote
went more Republican. In 2008, both areas trended Democratic, but
metropolitan areas did it more. In 2012 both areas trended
Republican, but rural areas did it more. The common thread was the
increase in the spread, from 12 points in 1996 to 16 points in 2000,
21 in 2004, 23 in 2008 and up to 25 points in 2012.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
County-by-county election returns
demonstrate this realignment. Prior to the Clinton years, many
Missouri rural counties (especially in eastern Missouri) had been
Democratic since the Civil War. Democrats won both houses of the
Missouri legislature every time from 1956 through 2000. As recently
as 1988, when George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis in Missouri,
52-48, Dukakis won 33 rural counties. By 2004, when George W. Bush
defeated John Kerry in Missouri, 53-46 (fairly similar to the elder Bush's 1988 margin), Kerry lost every rural county except one. A
Democratic wave in 2008 helped Obama win six rural/exurban counties,
but in 2012 he too could carry only one. And the lone Democrat
holdout in 2012 was Boone, whose electorate is disproportionately
influenced by a large liberal academic community.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Meanwhile, St. Louis County flipped the
other way. After voting reliably Republican for many years, including
the Bush-Dukakis contest in 1988, the county went for Clinton in 1992
and for every Democratic presidential nominee since then. The
suburban part of the realignment mentioned above has been evident in
“old money” areas of St. Louis County, like Clayton, Ladue and
Webster Groves, but the Democrat takeover of the county was magnified
by a major, non-realignment factor, the migration into the county of
African American Democrats.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
In Missouri, the rural/suburban
trade-off has benefited Republicans. The state's congressional
delegation was 6-3 Democratic when Clinton won in 1992. Today
Republicans hold a 6-2 advantage. Similarly, Democrats maintained
control of both houses of the Missouri legislature until 2002, and
Republicans have controlled both houses ever since.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-34823379482223980452012-10-26T21:48:00.000-05:002012-10-26T21:48:16.608-05:00POTUS 2012: Another split decisionThe tight 2012 presidential race is shaping up as the second split decision in the last three contests, but just the third time ever in which the winner of the popular vote is defeated in the Electoral College. But this year, neither of those divergent results will be all that close.<br />
<br />Recent national polls have trended towards Republican challenger Mitt Romney. I see that trend continuing through election day, with Romney winning the popular vote by as much as 7 million votes and five percentage points, 52% to 47%. Romney will also lead in electoral votes when the local news airs (11:00 eastern, 10:00 central), with leads in most of the uncalled swing states, but awaiting results from traditionally late reporting urban areas. But as the sun comes up the following morning, the urban vote in most of those states will push President Barack Obama over the top, giving him a comfortable majority of electoral votes, possibly as much as 313 to 222.<br />
<br />
This historic result will be the largest popular vote deficit of any Electoral College winner, both by percentage points and raw vote. Until now, Rutherford B. Hayes' 3-point popular vote deficit to Democrat Samuel Tilden in 1876 was the largest such deficit by far. Both Benjamin Harrison (1888) and George W. Bush (2000) lost the popular vote by less than a percentage point. Bush's 543,000 vote deficit is the current raw vote record.<br />
<br />
How can the popular and electoral votes diverge so much? Because of the President's conscious campaign strategy to devote his resources almost exclusively to nine "swing" states. He will win most of them, including those with the most votes (maybe not Florida, but he won't need Florida). Obama will also win 18 "blue" states that he is taking for granted, but by smaller margins than in 2008. And he will lose all 23 states that he has written off, including Indiana (which he won in 2008) and Missouri (which he lost by a fraction of a percent). In most of the 41 states where virtually no Obama campaign resources are devoted, Obama will significantly underperform his 2008 results.<br />
<br />
Romney's surge in popular votes will come primarily from the 41 neglected states, but all but Indiana will nevertheless deliver their electoral votes the same way they did in 2008. Obama will do well enough in enough of the contested swing states to pull out a comfortable Electoral College win.<br />
<br />
There shouldn't be any whining from Republicans about this loss. George W. Bush noted when accepting his own minority victory in 2000 that he had campaigned to win electoral votes, and that he would have campaigned differently if the popular vote had determined the outcome. That is exactly what President Obama has done in this campaign, and it is working.<br />
<br />
With the veto pen securely in the President's hand for four more years, the Affordable Care Act is assured of implementation, regardless of who controls Congress.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-13275480685322149442012-08-11T12:26:00.000-05:002012-08-11T12:32:22.575-05:00Game on: Battle of the Perfect 10sFormer Gov. Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to be his running mate creates a general election contest in which both sides have history of their sides.<br />
<br />
One can argue till the cows come home (did I write that?) about the effect on the election of the tickets' contrasting views on the economy, the Affordable Care Act, Ryan's controversial budget proposal, Bain Capital, same-sex marriage, the importance of government assistance to small business success, or even the traded cheap shots over transporting a dog on the car roof vs. actually eating dog meat as a child. Like the illogical but persistent recurrence of hemline lengths' and Super Bowl winners' accuracy in predicting stock market behavior, presidential elections over the past half century have turned more on the number of letters in the names of the respective tickets' nominees. (<a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2008/08/obama-biden-its-numerologically-correct.html" target="_blank">I wrote about this phenomenon</a> four years ago after then-Sen. Obama picked then-Sen. Biden as his running mate.)<br />
<br />
Since 1968, a presidential ticket whose surnames added up to exactly ten letters has won eight times out of nine:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>1968 and 1972: Nixon Agnew</i><br />
<i>1980 and 1984: Reagan Bush</i><br />
<i>1988: Bush Quayle</i><br />
<i>2000 and 2004: Bush Cheney<br />2008: Obama Biden</i></blockquote>
Now, for the first time during this period, two ten-letter tickets go head-to-head! <a href="http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-4-letter-options-for-john-mccain.html" target="_blank">As I also wrote back in 2008,</a> then Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (six letters) could have called Obama's ploy by matching him with a four-letter pick of his own (such as retiring MO Sen. Kit Bond, then-Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), or then-Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice). But McCain picked then -Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), who was, among other things, one letter too long.<br />
<br />
Romney didn't repeat McCain's mistake (in spite of successive gaffes during the veep announcement ceremony). The cool, calculating Romney picked a four-letter veep to set up the showdown.<br />
<br />
Barring an unlikely third-party surprise, we are now assured that a ten-letter ticket will be victorious again for the ninth time since 1968. But which side does history favor in this head-to-head clash? The only historical signal is ambiguous. The election in which a 10-letter ticket lost was in 1992 (Bush Quayle). On one hand, that contest's 10-letter losers were Republicans. On the other hand, they were also the sitting incumbents, presiding over a bad economy.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-70852665623655973122012-08-05T00:49:00.000-05:002012-08-07T11:17:06.900-05:00Primary could dilute African American clout in St LouisSeparate columns in the current edition of the <i>St. Louis American</i>, the city's largest African American weekly, evidence growing angst among African American politicos about the possible outcome of the 2012 Missouri Democratic primary.Veteran columnist <a href="http://www.stlamerican.com/news/columnists/article_edf085e0-d6a1-11e1-af14-0019bb2963f4.html" target="_blank">Jamala Rogers complained</a> in general terms about the "continued, blatant disrespect of black people by the leading white Dem[ocrat]s." Rising star Alderman <a href="http://www.stlamerican.com/news/columnists/article_f216b8e0-dc48-11e1-9600-001a4bcf887a.html" target="_blank">Antonio French was more specific</a>, warning that the primary could eliminate all African Americans from the city's delegations in Congress, the state senate and the state house. I have concluded that French is exaggerating, but only by a little. Let's look at the contests.<br />
<br />
<b>First Congressional District</b>. This classic member vs. member contest pits Rep. Lacy Clay against Rep. Russ Carnahan, who currently represents the 3rd District that was relocated in redistricting due to Missouri's loss of a congressional seat in reapportionment. Demographically the district is barely a black plurality (and not a majority). The <i>St. Louis Post Dispatch</i> endorsed Carnahan, but hardly anyone reads the <i>Post </i>any more. Clay will win over 90% of the black vote and will probably come close to breaking even with Carnahan among whites, many of whom are unimpressed by Carnahan. Clay will win overall by about 2-to-1. So African Americans will retain black representation in the most visible contest.<br />
<br />
But French's concerns about the legislative contests may be well-founded.<br />
<br />
<b>State Senate</b>: The city's shrinking population now leaves it with only one complete senate district and a bare majority in another that it shares with St. Louis County. The shared district is represented by Sen. Joe Kaveney, a white Democrat, who has two years remaining on his term. The other district, up this year, is represented by scandal-plagued Sen. Robin Wright-Jones, who is opposed for renomination by state Reps. Jamilah Nasheed (who, like Wright-Jones, is black) and Jeanette Mott Oxford (who is white), in a district with just a small black majority. Oxford"s progressive record has earned her strong support from the progressive community, including many blacks. As the first openly gay woman state senator, she enjoys especially strong loyalty among the city's gay population, much of which resides in this district. African Americans are divided between Wright-Jones and Nasheed. If those two split the vote fairly evenly, Oxford will win, making the city's senate delegation entirely white for the first time since 1960. Oxford has represented a racially diverse house district well, and will do the same if elected to the senate, but black pride, as evidenced by French's column, will be hurt if she wins. The Oracle believes Wright-Jones is toast. While I don't subscribe to identity politics, I believe French is correct in suggesting voters who believe that it is important to preserve black representation for the city in the senate need to unite behind Nasheed.<br />
<br />
<b>State House</b>: Six of the city's current ten House seats situated entirely in the city are held by African Americans. Population loss and slicing and dicing by the bipartisan redistricting commission reduce the number of all-city seats to just eight. (Some portions of the city are tacked on to four other districts that are centered in neighboring parts of St. Louis County.) The commission drew five of the all-city districts with black majorities, but that majority in three of them is less than 65%. French's warning that blacks might not win any of them is exaggeration, but blacks could be left holding just the two with black super-majorities. African American Rep. Chris Carter is unopposed in the primary, and all three contenders for the open seat in District 77 are black. But each of the other districts has a serious white contender. In two of them, two serious black contenders could split the vote and create an opening for the white.<br />
<br />
Rep. Penny Hubbard is the incumbent in the 78th District, which is 62.3% black. The <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/print-edition/2012/07/06/will-august-burnout-chill-november.html?page=all" target="_blank"><i>St. Louis Business Journal</i></a>, though, reported that the district's voting age population is only 52.8% black. The polarizing Hubbard political family always draws African American opposition, and Samuel J. Cummings, III is doing so now. But also running is Ruth Ehresman, a white former staffer for the progressive Missouri Budget Project who appears to be a very serious challenger. The district is hard to peg geographically, because the district's
portion of the city's predominantly black north side includes a
substantial and growing white minority in Old North St. Louis, while its
portion of the predominantly white south side includes most of the
south side's black migration in the southern wing of the 6th Ward.<br />
<br />
The 79th District is an open seat with a one-on-one contest between Michael Butler, a black former legislative assistant to Wright-Jones, and Martin Casas, a white businessman. While Casas does not have the advantage of a split opposition, he nevertheless appears to be garnering significant support among blacks, including French himself.. Casas would appeal to the Washington Avenue loft district, if he can persuade those yuppies to vote.<br />
<br />
The most interesting contest is probably the 84th District, where incumbent Karla May squares off against the rep she ousted last election, Hope Whitehead. The seat was represented by Clay before his election to the state senate. The white candidate in the 84th District is the very well known Mike Owens, former Channel 5 investigative reporter turned lawyer and husband of 28th Ward Alderman Lyda Krewson. Owens' and Krewson's ward is the highest turnout ward in the district, and its organization is one of the city's most effective in delivering votes in the primary.<br />
<br />
For its part, the <i>American </i>has endorsed Clay, but no candidates in these other contests.<br />
<b>UPDATE</b>: In addition to Carnahan, the <i>St. Louis Post Dispatch</i> also endorsed Oxford for the state senate. The <i>Post </i>no longer bothers with state rep races. All-told the <i>Post </i>endorsed <b>zero </b>African American candidates for the primary.<br />
St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, who may face a challenge from African American Board President Lewis Reed in the spring, endorsed African American candidates Clay, Nasheed, Hubbard and May, and joined French in backing Casas.<br />
<br />
The concern described by Rogers and French is that African Americans could become very dispirited by white wins in historically black districts. While President Obama is likely to motivate African Americans to go to the polls, they might just vote for Obama and leave the rest of the ballot unaddressed. The appearance on the ballot of Gov. Jay Nixon (whom the <i>American </i>declined to endorse over token primary opposition), who has historically based his political success on appealing to rural white voters by using African American interests as a foil, could reinforce black inclinations to skip down-ballot races.<br />
<br />
Former Rep. Bill Clay, the father of Lacy Clay, warned over a month ago that the Clay-Carnahan primary fight could have a "chilling effect" on turnout in November. Rogers echoed that not-so-veiled threat: "It is time for a show-down in the Show Me State." To supporters of white candidates who are running for office in good faith, that sounds a lot like extortion.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-86749771390413742482012-02-13T18:03:00.013-06:002012-02-14T11:43:45.169-06:00Primary reconfirms Obama's rural MO weaknessAs I scoured the numbers from last week's "meaningless" Missouri presidential primary, I was startled to find that the real news was not in the hyped Republican contest but in the (technically meaningful) Democratic contest.<br /><br />Overall, President Obama received a slightly underwhelming 88.3% of the vote in the Democratic primary against three little known vanity candidates and an option to send uncommitted delegates to the convention. Uncommitted, at 6.3%, was the most popular Democratic alternative to Obama. In contrast, incumbent President George W. Bush received 95.1% of his party's vote in an analogous Missouri primary in 2004. No Democrat wants to underperform Dubya!<br /><br />However, it's the geography behind the numbers that should provide greater concern for the President and his strategists.<br /><br />Obama was predictably strong in urban areas (the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City plus St. Louis County) where African American voters (Obama's strongest demographic) dominate the vote in the Democratic primary, plus Boone County, where faculty and some students at the state's largest college campus predominate. Obama polled a near-unanimous 96% in St. Louis and Kansas City, 93.3% in St. Louis County, and 92.8% in Boone County.<br /><br />Unlike St.Louis County, Democrats in Kansas City's suburbs showed less love for Obama, with Jackson County (excluding Kansas City itself), Clay County to the north and Cass County to the south giving the President a little less than his share of the vote in the state as a whole.<br /><br />But the President's numbers were more concerning in rest of the state. In rural and exurban areas (everything but St. Louis City and County, Kansas City, the rest of Jackson County and Boone County), 17.2% of Democratic Primary voters voted against their party's president. The non-Obama Democratic vote topped 20% in nearly half the rural counties, and over 30% in seven of them. In Reynolds County in the southern Missouri lead belt, it came within one vote of 40%. Even in relatively populous Buchanan County (St. Joseph and environs), the non-Obama Democratic vote was 24.3%.<br /><br />Democrats have performed poorly outstate in recent November general elections, but the above numbers are from a Democratic Primary! Those numbers aren't significantly tainted by crossover votes, because nearly all of the Republican and independent voters who drive the general election numbers were most likely drawn to the highly contested and well publicized Republican contest, if they voted at all. The voting pool here would have been almost entirely true Democrats, and over a sixth of them in the rural and exurban half of the state said no to their President.<br /><br />Not everyone who votes against his party's President in a primary votes for the other party's candidate in the following general election. But some (including many who chose not to vote at all in the primary) may exercise their frustration by not voting at all in November. That could adversely affect Sen. Claire McCaskill (who shares much of the President's record) and the rest of the Democratic ticket.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Republican Primary</span><br /></div><br />The contest that I expected to analyze turned out to be pretty homogeneous. There was no significant urban/rural split, as former Sen. Rick Santorum carried every county, including the separately tabulated cities of St. Louis and Kansas City, defeating establishment-endorsed runner-up Mitt Romney by 30 points statewide. Santorum's success here was aided by the absence of conservative rival Newt Gingrich on the ballot, but Santorum also won caucuses the same day in two other states where Gingrich did compete.<br /><br />Here are what few Republican patterns I could discern:<br /><br /><ul><li>Anti-war libertarian Ron Paul (12.2% statewide) ran strongest in the big cities, winning 20.3% in the City of St. Louis (compared to just 10.6% in St. Louis County) and 15.2% in Kansas City, although his best county was Mercer in northern Missouri, where Paul's 27.9% was good for second place over Romney. Paul had been expected to overperform in academic centers, but only Boone County (University of Missouri) met expectations with 18.2%. Paul ran marginally ahead of his statewide share in Phelps (Missouri S&T), Adair (Truman State) and Nodaway (Northwest Missouri State) Counties, but trailed in Johnson County (University of Central Missouri). Other campuses (e.g. Missouri State) are situated in counties in which their share of the vote is insignificant. Paul's relative strength appeared to come at Santorum's expense rather than Romney's.<br /></li><li>Romney performed relatively well (30%+) in the Kansas City and St. Joseph areas in western Missouri. Santorum's victory margin over Romney in Buchanan County was single digits. Romney also flirted with 30% (29.8) in St. Louis County, where he enjoyed fundraising success.</li><li>Santorum's share (55.2% statewide) was quite consistent across the state. The biggest departure from the norm was Ralls County, south of Hannibal, which delivered 75.4% for Santorum. He topped 60% in some exurban counties (Franklin west of St. Louis, and Cass and Lafayette south and east of Kansas City), but not in others. He marginally underperformed his statewide share in urban areas, primarily due to Paul's relative strength there.<br /></li></ul>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-69153771150025417522011-02-18T14:26:00.002-06:002011-02-18T14:35:16.487-06:00Let's not be more irrational than 'birthers'<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">President Obama's place of birth is much more than the controversy that will not die. It is a matter that is driving both the political right and the political left to make fools of themselves. It's time to chill already.</p><br /><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Even before Obama's election, some conservatives and Republicans (though notably not defeated Republican Presidential nominee John McCain) became obsessed with the idea that their conqueror was ineligible to be president because he didn't meet the constitutional requirement that he be born in the United States. This in spite of the fact that McCain's own candidacy was a bit of a stretch, his having been born in the Canal Zone, at the time a territory of the United States but never a state. It is admitted by all that Obama was born to parents who were attending college in Hawaii, then already a state. But the “birthers,” as they came to be known, contend that Obama's Kansas-born mother foresook the health and safety of American medical facilities and traveled halfway around the world to Kenya, the homeland of Obama's namesake father, to deliver her child in third-world conditions. The absurdity of the necessary assumptions that attend this scenario help to make birthers seem unreasonable to everyone else.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">For his part, the President has taken steps to feed the controversy. Promptly releasing (or authorizing Hawaiian officials to release) his actual birth certificate would have ended the controversy. Instead, Obama belatedly released a modern-day abstract or summary of the birth certificate, which birthers contend to be fabricated. Birthers ask why not release the document issued contemporaneously with his birth, complete with signatures of the certifying government officials. They charge that he can't release what doesn't exist. They liken his refusal to a politician caught in a sex scandal defiantly refusing to dignify the charges with a comment.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">A conservative friend of mine recently emailed me a pdf file of what purports to be a photo of Obama's Certified Copy of Registration of Birth from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. Such a document is easily fabricated with technology widely available to anyone with a computer. But because of the passage of time, the production of the actual Hawaiian birth certificate now would be subject to the same suspicions.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">So, why did the President let this controversy fester? He may be trying to protect his deceased parents from the release of embarrassing private personal information that his birth certificate may contain. Whether or not that is true, I believe that Obama has learned that his refusal is leading his opponents to make fools of themselves, and to deflect their efforts away from other issues that might have greater negative impact on his reelection. He is playing this controversy masterfully!</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">But other progressives are not so masterful, and are embarrassing themselves as much as the birthers. Progressives following Saul Alinski's playbook by ridiculing the birthers are now going a bridge too far. A Facebook page called <a href="http://www.facebook.com/#%21/pages/Ostracizing-Birthers/164263366956348?sk=info">Ostracizing Birthers</a> was launched this past week, with the stated mission “to purge Birthers from our social networks, online and in person, refusing to interact with known Birthers, with the goal of making Birtherism as socially unacceptable as possible.”</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Excuse me, but this is really stupid strategy. The popularity of Democrats in general and the President in particular has improved markedly in the aftermath of the tragic Arizona shooting and subsequent appeals to civility. While my previous post disagreed with a civility movement that sought to repress legitimate public debate, this whole ostracization business is entirely different. The information page for this political organization urges people specifically to “avoid engaging Birthers in arguments about Birtherism <span style="font-style: italic;">or other topics</span>” (my emphasis added) because “anyone who still believes that Obama is not a US citizen is a fundamentally unreasonable person, and a waste of our time and energy.” In promoting the refusal to interact at all with persons holding these particular views, on this or any other topic, it is itself a strategy that represses the free and rational exchange of ideas and political thought. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Moreover, ostracization is a form of bullying, which has recently become the subject of extensive legitimate criticism. That's not the way a political movement wants to be perceived.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Ostracization is also potentially very disruptive to everyday business and even family relationships, not the least because of how relatively prevalent birther views are. The organization's Facebook page linked to a <a href="http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/romney-and-birthers.html">Public Policy Polling poll</a> that disclosed that birthers comprise a majority of all Republican primary voters. In view of the huge generational divide opened by Obama's 2008 campaign, this strategy will necessarily pit Generation X and Millennial children against their Boomer and older parents in many cases. Disagreeing over the dinner table (or, more realistically, at the keyboard) is healthy; ostracizing family members is not.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Progressives need to be smart, stop trying to suppress opponents who are defeating themselves, and avoid being even more unreasonable than those they oppose.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7872140.post-61386551831691983622011-01-25T11:23:00.005-06:002011-01-25T16:02:17.093-06:00Need for civility: a dissenting view<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Much has been said since the Tuscon shooting involving Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) about the need for civility in our discussion of political issues and people. From the President on down, both left and right, politicians are falling over themselves trying to look good by taking this “high road,” no matter how hypocritical it may be in the context of the speaker's own rhetorical past.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The most passionate voices of both the right and the left have come under fire for their rhetoric on subjects unrelated to Giffords or her shooting. Keith Olbermann, the most inspiring, uncompromising voice of the left, was canned by left-leaning MSNBC (though ostensibly for reasons unrelated to his rhetoric). That move led many progressives (e.g., Democrat strategist Mo Elleithee and State Rep. Rich DiPentima (D-NH) in <span style="font-style: italic;">Politico</span>'s discussion in <a href="http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/what-should-obama-say-in-the-state-of-the-union.html">The Arena</a>) to press right-leaning Fox News to shed rhetorical flamethrowers Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and even opinionated moderate Bill O'Reilly, and for individual stations to disconnect the Rush Limbaugh radio program.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> </p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I respectfully dissent.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I'm a big-time First Amendment guy. I view all attempts to stifle free expression of ideas with great suspicion. While courts have extended First Amendment protection to such things as sexually explicit artwork, it is undeniable that speech on political topics is at the very heart of the amendment's protection. It is also undeniable that physical violence is not a protected expression of free speech.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Many politicians and media personalities have seized on the Arizona tragedy to suggest that the incident was the result of predictable reaction to heated political discussion. That's nonsense. And even if it were true, the occasional tragic response of an irrational sociopath to controversial expression is a small, necessary price to pay for our broader fundamental freedoms. After all, traffic accidents cause thousands of deaths every year, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to drive automobiles.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">The fact is, the most virulent expressions of opinion are often the most effective. Displaying photographs of coffins of dead soldiers, though offensive and insensitive to some, is a legitimate, effective way to promote ending war. And I must admit that Sarah Palin's characterization of the <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html">Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research</a> as “death panels,” though offensive and insensitive, is legitimate and effective in promoting the arguments of health care reform opponents. Those who seek to stifle so-called “toxic” speech are really seeking to suppress the effective, persuasive communication of ideas that they oppose.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Certainly responses to disagreeable expressions of ideas are equally protected and encouraged. Outrageous expressions should not go unchallenged, lest acquiescence be inferred from the silence. Unfortunately, today's society prefers suppression of ideas they don't like over vigorous, reasoned debate, as illustrated by popular culture's favorite retort, STFU. Censorship is wrong, unless there is a clear and present danger to national security. While the First Amendment only limits the government from interfering with free speech and does not prohibit private citizens from doing so, bullying speakers into submission with orchestrated public outcry is just plain wrong.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">We don't need to monitor our “tone.” We need more ideas, not fewer. We need to return to the richness of their unintimidated expression. Self-imposed "civility" won't get us there.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0