Monday, November 13, 2006

As Promised, post-mortem #1

First of all, thanks for your patience, those of you who have been checking back here. Second, thanks for your patience, those of you who are insisting that every vote be counted. I will keep you updated as I get info on the provisionals and absentees in House District 20.

There will be some changes coming to Blue Bexley. Some changes will be merely cosmetic, others will be more substantive. I'm happy to take suggestions, as well.

In the meantime, here's the first autopsy data on the SS-3 race:

I started with the idea that this district was split pretty evenly at the top of the ticket in '04, which means that voters were more pro-Kerry here than statewide, and that the top of the ticket went overwhelmingly blue in '06. The question then is whether the district trended rightward this go-around compared to '04, if Goodman over-achieved for a Republican, or if using the top of the ticket is simply an inaccurate measure of partisan tendencies.

So the 3rd State Senate District went for Strickland by approximately a 24% Margin (61-37), which is almost identical to the 60-37 margin being reported unofficially statewide. So Democrats at the top of the ticket apparently did very well, and just as well as they did statewide.

But the Coattails were pretty short statewide, with the Democrat Sykes losing very narrowly to Republican Taylor for State Auditor. As such, using the gubernatorial vote as an estimate of partisanship is overstating things. In line with this, Taylor received almost 5000 more votes than Sykes in SS-3. So if we assume that the Sykes vote represents the partisanship of a district more accurately, the Sykes vote makes a good basis for comparison when analyzing other Dem races.

Emily did not do as well as Sykes in the 3rd District. There were two reasons for this:

1) In general, Sykes voters were only voting for Emily about 94% of the time, meaning that Emily lost about 6% of the Dem-leaning voters, and

2) Specifically, although a few precincts primarily in Westerville and Worthington, showed a pattern of Emily outperforming Barbara Sykes, a handful of traditionally Democratic precincts split their votes heavily between mostly Dems + David Goodman. As I implied earlier, that handful of Dem precincts is an embarrassing list:
Precinct Sykes-Kreider (%)

BEXLEY 2-A
0.17
BEXLEY 1-B
0.17
BEXLEY 3-C
0.14
REYNOLDSBURG 2-E
0.12
ABSENTEE
0.12
BEXLEY 2-C
0.10
BEXLEY 4-C
0.10
BEXLEY 2-B
0.10
BEXLEY 1-C
0.09
BEXLEY 1-A
0.09
GROVEPORT-B
0.09
GAHANNA 4-A
0.09
GAHANNA 1-A
0.09
WHITEHALL 3-B
0.08
BEXLEY 4-A
0.08
WHITEHALL 3-C
0.08
COLUMBUS 84-A
0.08
BEXLEY 4-B
0.08



So all in all, the Dems moved voters at the top of the ticket, did not get the coattails one would hope for, and as a result just getting the Dem-Freindly voters wouldn't have carried the district. A more balanced media approach by the party might very well have made things a rout up and down the ticket. It still would have been closer, however, if Emily had run stronger in some of the Goodman-friendly Dem precincts. Like in my hometown. As I said, changes are in store.

17 comments:

Nat said...

Part of it is that Goodman is from Bexley and the other part is Kreider did not have much help from the Dem party.

bonobo said...

Nat, you are of course right on both of those counts. Goodman has left for the redder pastures of New Albany, but he has roots here in Bexley. As far as help from the party goes, the Dems obviously could have provided much more to Kreider, and it would have helped, but I doubt they would have been able to provide a million dollars. Goodman's campaign spent more than $15.00 on each vote they got.

For what it's worth, I think Emily ran a great campaign. She was simply outgunned in terms of budget, and I really think the smear from the Dispatch Editorial Board hurt.

nat said...

Yes the Dispatch Editorial Board did hurt Kreider. The good ol boys have to help daddy Goodman. The Kreider campaign was one of the best I have seen. I do hope They make a come back in 2008 for the 19th, if not '08 maybe 2010.

Jill said...

Bonobo - Just asking, because I do not know your area very well, but...the areas where Dems went for Goodman, high or low percentage of Jews? I believe I've heard Bexley referred to as a more Jewish area, and I just wonder, being Jewish myself, even though I didn't crossover for Josh Mandel, I did seriously think about it, and I would have given serious thought to doing the same for Goodman. I honestly do not know who I would have voted for - I like David, but I have really come to appreciate the need for the Ohio legislature to be more balanced, with Dems and with women. Would have been a very very very long decision making process for me!

Anyway - you can pffft me if you want. I just wanted to ask.

Nice blogging btw.

BillyBob said...

Jill....so what you are saying is next time there is a Baptist running for office in my dist I should vote for him are her because I am a Baptist.? As for me I vote for the person and the better person in last weeks Election was Emily Kreider. Goodman and his daddy bought that race with the help of the Ohio Republican party as well as the Columbus Dispatch. Hell Goodman was such a coward that he did not even tell the public he was a Republican nor that he was the incumbent." Leadership For a Chang "? Oh well thank you for letting me rant.

bonobo said...

Jill,

David Goodman is Jewish, and Bexley has the highest Jewish concentration in Central Ohio. I haven't made a big deal about this because 1) I am not Jewish, either by belief or by descent, and that makes me a little uncomfortable being the one to be attributing this motive to the voting patterns, 2) Bob Shamansky under-polled Sherrod Brown in Bexley, even though Bob is also Jewish and a Bexley native. This somewhat undercuts the notion of a monolithic Jewish voting bloc (not totally, as one could make a quite reasonable argument that there are a greater proportion of Dems who are also Jewish and might cross-over for a Jewish Republican, but relatively few Republicans who are also Jewish and might cross-over for a Jewish Democrat. Even then, though, one would expect a hometown-born Jewish Democrat to be the most popular candidate, and that wasn't the case).

In general, it is hard to disentangle the social networking that goes on in our community from the religious leanings of the community (and that's not unique to Bexley). I think that simply attributing Goodman's electoral strength in these precincts in this election to his Judaism probably oversimplifies things. To the extent that it might have an element of truth, it would probably send the wrong message were I to spend too much time speculating, so I'll let others like yourself consider it.

Also, I'm interested in your statement that you "like David." Many people who know him personally do seem to find him likable. I don't know him personally, and as I somewhat graphically described during the campaign, I grew to find his campaign persona to be anything but likable (as opposed to Emily, whom I actually only met face-to-face once, but found her quite likable both in person and as a candidate). This supports my suspicions that it was more about social connections than religious affiliation per se.

I'll be able to tell you more in the coming months. The biggest limitation in executing my vision for this blog, is that I am located in Bexley, but the blog is not really OF Bexley yet. I'm still somewhat new to the community, and I obviously have some assimilation left to do. In high-school, most of my friends were Jewish, and I was not religious, and everyone got along famously. I'm hoping for a repeat of that here, so I may be somewhat wishful in my discounting of the Jewish angle on this vote, but I'm glad you said something. Someone was going to, and you did it more deftly than most would.

Jill said...

Thanks, Bonobo. I'm sorry that BillyBob didn't read my comment more carefully - I, as a Democrat, and Jewish, didn't crossover and vote for Josh Mandel. So clearly I'm not saying, and I never would say, that a Baptist vote Baptist and so on. That's really just way too simpleminded these days. No matter how often that gets asserted.

I spent quite a bit of time at OhioMoneyTree.com looking at where Josh got his money. I also know from reading about him in the Cleveland Jewish News and from the Jewish folks I know that his being Jewish definitely had an impact. But anyone could ask him that - I don't honestly know if he would deny it or not. I can tell you that Lance Mason, who won Eric Fingerhut's senate seat, is an excellent candidate and very aware of the dense Jewish population in his district.

I do think it's relevant, I don't think there is a Jewish bloc per se, but I do believe that with particular candidate and particular issues, you are going to see some gelling of groups.

Last example, not from here: my parents in CT. They did not vote for Lieberman in the primary - they're disgusted with him and they went with Lamont. However, their town, which has a significant Jewish population, was the only one of 26 higher income towns to go with Lieberman in the primary.

Then, in the general? My parents voted for Lieberman. Why? Because of his record of getting things done, because Lamont's lack of depth scared them, and because, ultimately, Israel and the Middle East are important enough, to my parents, that they wanted to be sure of where there senator would be on that issue.

I sense that Bonobo knows from reading other stuff I've written, I'm not putting this out there to make people uncomfortable - the truth is, it makes me uncomfortable to talk about it. But given what you were trying to analyze, I just wanted to know your thoughts.

Thanks for not taking my curiosity the wrong way or out of context.

Oh - about liking David - yes, I think I've mentioned before that I knew him in law school, he and his wife. I particularly liked his wife - we did a lot of public interest law stuff together. I believe she graduated a year after me.

I didn't know him as a politician or anything like that - only as a classmate.

This is interesting - I was just saying to someone, if a person only knows me from blogging, they have this idea of me. That's kind of like people who never knew me before I started dying my hair a lighter blonde. They all think it looks real, but it's not, but their image is that it is.

Likewise, my image of Goodman remains from the earlier days. I'm not saying that's okay - i'm saying, I don't live where you do and he's not my rep so I just don't know or have a sense of him this go round.

Emily ran, from what I understand, an excellent campaign. She is very bright, savvy and articulate. I have to believe she'll be back. That doesn't excuse Goodman's behavior that others didn't like but it should make him work a lot harder, one would hope!

billybob said...

Sure he worked hard. 1.5 millon in tv ads. I am not sure Emily will be back unless the Dem party steps up and helps her the next time around. Yes Kreider did run a great campaign and put good people in charge. As to the voting, you are right I did thake that the wrong way, sorry. BTW I enjoyed you blogg and will check in from titm to time.

nat said...

Jill......you say you "particularly liked his wife" ( David Goodman) I am sure she was not than as she is now. It was not long ago that a post on this blogg spoke about the true Mrs Goodman.

http://bluebex.blogspot.com/2006/10/open-letter.html#links

If you have not read this I feel you sould.

Jill said...

Hmm - I wrote a response and thought I'd posted it but I guess I didn't do a good verification!

Nat - that link doesn't seem to have a direct connection to David's wife - is it the right one? Am I not reading something right?

Please remember that what I'm recalling is my experience. I'm not saying it's who you'd meet now, or who I'd meet. I'm describing to you my experience of a person, and memories, based on first-hand experience with someone over a couple of years during law school. I don't think anyone can really impugn what I accept as my feelings about someone, who, btw, I don't even know if she knew David Goodman then. I just don't remember (I'm a lot older than then anyway!).

I'm a newsmonger and appreciate being directed to more and different perspectives. So let me know how that link relates - I couldn't discern the connection right away (I've read the post and comments twice).

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Jill....."Get out of our district!!" was apparently the response you gave to that.. that was Mrs. Goodman talking.....I think is what nat is talking about.

http://bluebex.blogspot.com/2006/10/open-letter.html#links

Jill said...

Ok - I understand now.

Look- I'm not going to argue with this person's re-telling of an incident that the person writing the letter didn't witness. When in doubt, I will fallback on being a lawyer and wanting more. :)

Seriously though - it's several degrees of hearsay, but even if it were true (and all us legal folks are taught to figure out those even if arguments), I would still say that I wouldn't believe it unless I was there. I simply cannot imagine those words coming out of her mouth without something else going on.

But as I've said before - it's been a long time and a lot of life since I've seen her. People change and change happens to people.

I'm of course curious to know who would write a letter to David's wife, tell her a story that isn't about the letter writer, and then ask for an apology and ask for the fight to be with him or her. I would have to guess that the letter writer was Emily Kreider herself, or a campaign organizer -I'm asking only because that would make sense I guess. I'm not sure who else would be in a position to write such a letter if not those folks or the person offended him or herself.

In any case, I appreciate your pointing it out. It doesn't represent the behavior of someone I knew 14 years ago. That's about all I can say. I would certainly hope that there was more to it, but if not, well, I can understand why people might get upset and be moved to write.

Does anyone know what the result of sending the letter was??

Anonymous said...

I saw what happen that day and as far as the letter it was from the person that runs this blogg.

Jill said...

oops. :) Well - Bonobo I believe knows I respect her. If that is the case, and she believes the person that relayed the original story to her, well...that's a very tough thing to believe - but I am not under any circumstances saying that it couldn't have happened. It's hard to believe, but, you know - anything's possible. It saddens me to believe it.

Maybe in a private email bonobo might tell me more, but please, do not feel that I'd expect that. Again, if it really was David's wife, and it really happened as described in that letter, I'm pretty unnerved. Maybe some day I'll hear the whole story too. Very unfortunate - for everyone.

Thank goodness for memories. Wait until you get really old - then all you have left are the best ones, if you're lucky.

openmind said...

I do take seriously criticism that can be substantiated, such as Goodman's negative ads and their content. Anecdotal stories, however, don't have much weight, especially if you don't back them up with names. It's almost as if you're passing notes back and forth in school.

I know you're not a professional journalist, but at least stick to some basic rules. First should be that you print factual stories that can be backed up (like your amazingly detailed graphs and analyses). Great blog by the way.

billybob said...

openmind......the story can be backed up. But One thing is for sure, I can understand how the stress of the past months would push someone to act that way.

bonobo said...

OpenMind,

First of all, thanks for the compliment. Second, I appreciate your concern about verifiability. I thought long and hard about repeating the story that I heard, because although I had no reason to distrust the source, I couldn't personally verify it, and the subject of the story was not running for anything. That's why I didn't identify the subject any more specifically than 'someone with a personal connection to' David Goodman, I explicitly stated that I didn't witness the events, and conditionalized my response on the truth of the story. I also specifically focused on the element of the story that I felt concerned me- namely yelling at a campaign volunteer when I was the only one doing negative campaigning.

Because I didn't name names and posted it as a letter addressed to an individual rather than as a reporting of fact, the story pretty much died then and there.

From my point of view, I heard a story, and it got me a bit ticked off. That's what I said, and I can verify and back up that I heard a story, and you'll have to take my word for it that I was ticked off.

Having said that, it was not my proudest blogging moment, but it's there in the archive. If people want to re-hash the story now, y'all go ahead, but I'm pretty much done with it myself.