Archive for the ‘2016’ Category.

Democratic Motivation Advantage by Presidential Primary Election

image006

This graphic shows the Democratic turnout bump by recent presidential elections. It provides some indication of how the environment was. This takes a statewide measure to minimize the impact of local turnout bumps.

To no one’s surprise, 2008 was a very good Democratic year. Next comes 2016. The 2004 was what used to be considered a very good Democratic year, until 2008 came around. The 2012 election was actually a lean Republican election and similar to those during the 20th century.

What does this mean about the Eugene races. First of all, Pat Farr increased his vote share from 60% to 65% with a turnout swing against him of 11 points – quite a feat – especially considering his opponent had a first-class resume and was scandal free. Second, though you might think this would explain Mike Clark’s landslide loss for mayor, what really comes across is, despite all the bouncing of the turnout bump size, the progressive candidates for mayor didn’t cross 55% in 2004, 2008, or 2016. Mayor Piercy had no serious opponent in 2012.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division.

Methodology: The turnout bump equals the difference between the Oregon statewide Democratic and Republican turnout percentages.

Clark for Mayor Campaign Financial Timeline

image002

Clark’s fundraising and spending were nearly all concentrated near the May election date.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

Vinis for Mayor Campaign Financial Timeline

image004

Vinis’ fundraising and spending were spread out comparatively evenly from July of 2015 through the May Primary.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

Clark and Vinis Expenditures Timeline

image008

Vinis’ expenditures started earlier than Clark’s, but he caught up and passed her in April.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

Clark and Vinis Contributions Timeline

image006

Vinis’ contributions started earlier than Clark’s, but he caught up and passed her in April.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

Mayoral Undervote Pct. by Precinct

image_001

The undervote, as expected, was highest in the university precinct. However, it was relatively higher in north and west Eugene as well.

Source of data: Lane County Elections.

For a more detailed map: eugene-mayor-undervote-may-2016.

Clark Vote Pct. by Precinct

image_001

Clark did much better in north and west Eugene.

Source of data: Lane County Elections.

For a more detailed map: clark-vote-pct-may-2016.

Vinis Vote Pct. by Precinct

image_001

Vinis’ strongest area was in south-central Eugene.

Source of data: Lane County Elections.

For a more detailed map: vinis-vote-pct-may-2016

Clark v. Vinis Vote Pct. Difference by Precinct

image_001

This map has the familiar pattern of previous mayoral contests. North and west Eugene largely voted for Clark and south Eugene largely voted for Vinis.

The difference is one of degree and of inroads. North and west Eugene were not as supportive and Vinis won several north and west precincts. Compare the 2008 mayoral race: http://lindholmcompanyblog.com/?p=3482.

Source of data: Lane County Elections.

For a more detailed map: vinis-v-clark-difference-may-2016

2016 Oregon General Election Series

Starting tomorrow and continuing regularly on Thursdays will be a series presenting polling and electoral analyses of Oregon’s 2016 General Election.