Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Voter Registration Effort Favored Stone

When I first learned that the 50th Ward had 578 new voters on the rolls for the April run-off election, I thought that this would benefit Naisy Dolar. Dolar had been involved in efforts to register new voters for ICIRR in the past few years. This had been an early emphasis of her campaign. But precinct by precinct totals suggest that efforts by Jewish groups and Ald. Stone's precinct captains were more successful than anything Dolar's campaign might have attempted.

2007 saw Jewish groups begin to refocus on voter registration. Young people who recently turned of age and new residents were sought out and registered. People were reminded of the importance of voting. Voter history was used to remind infrequent voters that there was an upcoming election, and that their vote was important. These efforts clearly paid off.

But voter registration was not confined to the Jewish areas. Precinct 13, which has a highly transient population, was the biggest contributor to the increase in voters, and gave Stone a bigger net increase over February results compared to Dolar/Brewer's vote. This seems to be the pattern throughout the ward. In the seven Red precincts, each of which saw more than 20 new voters registered between February and April, only one (Pr 22) saw Stone with a smaller increase than the February Dolar/Brewer vote. In these precincts, there were 192 new voters register, 242 more voters turned out, 272 more for Stone and only 99 additional voters over the Dolar/Brewer total.


21+ New Voters (Red): 13, 25, 22, 40, 18, 11, 2
16-20 New Voters (Dk Green): 5, 19, 44, 34, 1, 26, 10, 41, 28, 24
11-15 New Voters (Light Green): 33, 17, 23, 43, 32, 37, 45, 8
6-10 New Voters (Light Blue): 42, 16, 30, 6, 31, 36, 29, 35
0-5 New Voters (Yellow): 39, 15, 27, 9, 12, 4, 21, 3, 20, 14, 7, 38

Ten precincts, represented by the Dark Green, saw voter registration numbers increase by 16-20 new voters. These precincts saw an increase of 177 new voters, with 197 more voters than February, of which 216 more votes went to Stone and 131 more went to Dolar (above the Dolar/Brewer February number). Out of the Red and Dark Green areas, Dolar only won two precincts (13 and 22).

It is also interesting to observe that it appears that everyone who could be registered in Winston Towers is registered.

Labels: , , , ,

22 Comments:

At May 02, 2007 9:29 AM, Anonymous p.t. baer said...

I don't see how you can continue to ignore the Aftab vote in your analysis. Aftab received 548 votes, too many to ignore given Stone's 661 vote margin of victory. The Aftab voters didn't go away and it looks like the majority of them remained in the opposition column, although I have no way to verify that.

Let's take your red precincts. You say that turnout in those precincts increased by 242 of which Stone received 272 and Dolar 99. You're short by 129 votes--the number Aftab recieved in February.

It's the same in your dark green precincts. You report that turnout increased by 197 of which Stone received 216 and Dolar 131. Again, you're short by 150 votes--the Aftab vote.

If you stop ignoring Aftab and compare Stone to Stone and Opposition to Opposition (Aftab, Brewer and Dolar), you'll see what I think is a much more interesting picture.

Again, take your red precints. Turnout increased by 242. Stone's vote increased by 272 and the Opposition vote decreased by 28. (One of us is off somewhere by 2 votes, but I won't worry about that right now.)

Similarly, in your dark green precincts voter turnout was up by 197 votes. Stone received an additional 216 votes and the Opposition vote declined by 16. (Again, one of us is off by 2 or 3 votes, but that doesn't diminish the point I'm trying to make.)

In the red and dark green precincts the combination of increased voter registration and an aggressive get out the vote operation clearly favored Stone. Votes generated from new voter registration alone were enough to ensure Stone's victory--a strategy I think none of us would have predicted.

 
At May 02, 2007 9:30 AM, Blogger Hugh said...

Stone did I better job of registering new voters between Feb & April, I could believe. But again, sorry, your method of demonstrating this is suggestive but hardly conclusive.

> the Dolar/Brewer February number

Creeping into your posts lately are some flimsy running assumptions:

* All Feb Stone votes went to Stone in April

* All Feb Dolar votes went to Dolar in April

* All Feb Brewer votes went to Dolar in April

> 192 new voters register, 242 more voters turned out

The increase in turn-out Feb to April is not necessarily due to new registrations.

> This seems to be the pattern throughout the ward.

New registrations tended to occur in precincts that went for Stone, OK, not surprising, more voters period went for Stone, more precincts period.

> 2007 saw Jewish groups begin to refocus on voter registration.

You would have had a stronger post if you had documented this effort better: dates & places, this flyer mailed to all members of this congregation, this bus left from this synagogue on this date, this reminder from the podium at this meeting, etc.

> everyone who could be registered in Winston Towers is registered.

How did you measure this?

 
At May 02, 2007 9:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You all continue to ignore that the fact that the election is Over!! You can analyze all you want Stone Won. It doesn’t matter anymore Its Over. The vote won’t change,And you keep beating your heads against the wall, LOL.

 
At May 02, 2007 10:10 AM, Anonymous Rose said...

p.t.baer:
I agree with you. I live in 22nd precinct and I've seen Aftab and his friends registering new voters in my precinct. I also heard that he is planning to run for a committeeman next year.

 
At May 02, 2007 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who cares???
Its History.
It's Over
We got Stone 4 more Years !!!
You can't change history.

 
At May 02, 2007 10:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From what I have seen here you have Aftab, Brewer, and Dolar running for committeeman.
I put my dolar on Brewer.

 
At May 02, 2007 10:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rose said, "I also heard that he[Aftab] is planning to run for a committeeman next year."

Democratic or Republican?

 
At May 02, 2007 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said, "You can analyze all you want Stone Won."

And, "Who cares??? Its History. It's Over"

Anon, ever hear that cliche about not learning from history? Analysis is how we learn from this election to prepare for the next.

 
At May 02, 2007 11:26 AM, Blogger Hugh said...

> I don't see how you can continue to ignore the Aftab vote

good point

once again today you lump Dolar & Brewer together, because it makes your conclusions look better

Well, Brewer endorsed Dolar, but Aftab endorsed Stone

so why not be fair and compare Stone/Aftab vs. Dolar/Brewer?

 
At May 02, 2007 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Anon:

"You can analyze for 4 years till the next election. Have Fun!!! LOL
Beat your heads against the wall, and come up with the negative. Stone pulled it off and no matter what you all say not all Brewer fans voted for dolar. I know I didnt. Brewer was the better candidate between the 2 and dolar just wouldnt have cut it for me, thats why I went for Stone.

 
At May 02, 2007 12:45 PM, Blogger Jay said...

I don't know what to make of Aftab or his voters. Aftab did endorse Stone, so it is probable that some of his voters went over to Stone. Some of his voters undoubtedly went to Dolar. But I'd bet that their splintering also included a sizable number who didn't vote in April. I don't know how to account for that.

 
At May 02, 2007 1:00 PM, Blogger Hugh said...

Yet you are sure how to handle Brewer's Feb votes - they are all automatic Dolar votes.

Whether you intent to or not, it reads like a bias that you deprive the Dolar campaign of credit for their efforts Feb-April, yet you portray Stone as a master politician: his gains Feb-April were due to registrations & GOTV.

 
At May 02, 2007 1:39 PM, Blogger Jay said...

I don't know why you are being so defensive or jumping to conclusions (for me?), Hugh. If you add Aftab's February vote to Dolar's and Brewer's, you find that Dolar failed to equal that total by 116 votes.

I've said repeatedly that there is evidence that not everyone who supported Brewer in February ended up voting for Dolar in April. I think that, given the anecdotal evidence we have, it's better to conclude that the Dolar campaign mobilized at least hundreds more than the 432 net gain in April over the Dolar+Brewer vote. I am trying to encourage people to come to their own conclusions, but you seem eager to provide me with mine.

It seems to me that Dolar turned out all the votes she could or can. She and her campaign should be proud of the work they did. They had every advantage (except possibly Aftab's endorsement), something I doubt anyone will be able to duplicate against Stone. And she lost. Noonan did a great job. We can see that.

 
At May 02, 2007 2:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just told you I was for brewer not for dolar

 
At May 02, 2007 3:57 PM, Blogger Hugh said...

> These efforts clearly paid off.

> ... precinct by precinct totals suggest that efforts by Jewish groups and Ald. Stone's precinct captains were more successful than anything Dolar's campaign might have attempted.

> I am trying to encourage people to come to their own conclusions

???

 
At May 02, 2007 11:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hugh
I hate to burst your bubble, but it was not only the jewish votes. Look along Devon, Stone picked up a bunch of votes from the muslims as well. Aftab votes did not go to dolar. There was a good turn out from the asian community in that area for Stone.

 
At May 03, 2007 6:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

the misericordia precinct went heavy for stone, no manipulation there though.

 
At May 03, 2007 10:02 AM, Blogger Hugh said...

> Stone picked up a bunch of votes from the muslims as well.

> There was a good turn out from the asian [sic] community in that area for Stone.

May I ask, what is your source for these statements?

Our Board of Elections does not report results by race or religion. Voting is private as far as I know. You are speculating. You are inferring how a voter voted and their race and religion from where they live.

 
At May 03, 2007 11:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NO
Hugh
You have brought in race and religion, by referring to efforts by Jewish groups. There was a big push from the Muslim community for Stone. Where were you?? Source for these statements is privileged & private as you know... I cannot say sorry... Do your homework as dolar should have done and went to the debate. She let many voters down by not showing. Being a Brewer supporter we were hoping she would show. It didn’t hurt Stone by not showing but Dolar could have benefited by it. Who knows?

 
At May 03, 2007 11:26 AM, Blogger Hugh said...

East of California, west of California...

Jews voted this way, Muslims voted the that way, Asians voted the other...

top secret sources...

Ultimately, this slicing & dicing of the result along ethnic lines is speculation. Barring fraud, no one knows what happened in the voting booth. Stare into the tea leaves long enough and eventually you'll see whatever you want.

But beyond the ambiguity of these efforts, it is harmful to our neighborhood to the extent that it reinforces longstanding myths. The Myth of the Invincibility of Bernard L. Stone. The Myth of Chicagoans as Racial Voting Blocks. No need to discuss issues when the only thing that really matters is: will West Rogers Park voters ever cross racial lines, right? No reason to look at the incumbent's record. No point in debating. Platforms don't matter.

This discussion has gone way beyond the actual information available to us and is now well into the realm of serving only to shore up the traditional racial divisiveness that has served the incumbent for decades but was nearly toppled.

 
At May 03, 2007 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"NO, Hugh. You have brought in race and religion, by referring to efforts by Jewish groups."

In Hugh's defense (which he doesn't really need from me), it was js who raised the issue and made the assumption you're objecting to. Hugh was only quoting from the original post, although I admit the format is sometimes confusing.

 
At May 03, 2007 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hugh
nearly toppled, But NOT !! LOL

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home