Eugene Mayoral Candidate Net Favorability Trends

image004

Vinis gained consistently during the campaign. Clark never seemed to gain ground. This differences appears to have been a key driver in the final result.

QUESTION: I am going to read the names of some people. Please tell me whether you have heard of each. IF HEARD OF … Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of ______ IF FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE: Is that strongly or somewhat?
RANDOMIZE ORDER
1. Mike Clark
2. Lucy Vinis

METHODOLOGY: 200 live telephone interviews of City of Eugene likely 2016 Primary voters were conducted on each of February 8-9, April 4-5, April 18-19, and May 2-3, 2016. The margin of error at the sample median for each survey was plus or minus 7%.

Eugene Mayoral Candidate Name Familiarity Trends

image002

Vinis’s name familiarity started very low and gained through the campaign. Clark started high and gained somewhat. His name familiarity remained higher than Vinis’ throughout the campaign. This implies that something else led to Vinis’ victory.

QUESTION: I am going to read the names of some people. Please tell me whether you have heard of each. IF HEARD OF … Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of ______ IF FAVORABLE OR UNFAVORABLE: Is that strongly or somewhat?
RANDOMIZE ORDER
1. Mike Clark
2. Lucy Vinis

METHODOLOGY: 200 live telephone interviews of City of Eugene likely 2016 Primary voters were conducted on each of February 8-9, April 4-5, April 18-19, and May 2-3, 2016. The margin of error at the sample median for each survey was plus or minus 7%.

Oregon Republican Secretary of State Primary Trend

image012

Richardson started with a massive lead and never looked back.

QUESTION: If the Republican Oregon Secretary of State Primary were held today, would you vote for: Dennis Richardson or Sid Leiken? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?

METHODOLOGY: These results are based on three surveys composed of live telephone interviews of likely Oregon Democratic Primary voters. A survey of 200 was conducted April 5-6, 2016. The margin of error at the sample median for this survey is 7%. Two surveys of 400 were conducted April 25-26 and May 9-10, 2016. The margin of error at the sample median for these surveys is 5%.

Comparing Farr and Clark Vote Percentages in North Eugene

image008

This graphic compares the percentages in City of Eugene precincts that are in the North Eugene County Commissioner district.

Farr’s percentage equals the Clark percentage plus the other candidates’ percentages plus more than a tenth of Vinis’ percentage. Farr beat Clark by double digits in every precinct where both were on the ballot.

Clark’s 53% in these prime precincts was also clearly not enough. Earlier posts showed that he made few if any inroads into the Piercy coalition. This graphic shows he significantly underperformed in among the Torrey coalition.

This could actually be worse than it seems. Since Vinis had to win over south Eugene voters while Farr’s opponent, Tony McCown, could create a north-Eugene-specific message, one would expect Clark to receive a higher, not a lower, percentage of the voters than Farr. This pattern has been borne our over time, such as in 2000 and 2008.

Source of data: Lane County Elections

Disclaimer: Lindholm Company provided in-kind and at-cost materials for the Farr campaign.

Distribution of Mayoral Vote Pcts. by Precinct

image004

This graphic ranks Lucy Vinis’ net percentage over Mike Clark in the 2016 Mayoral Primary for each of Eugene’s 31 precincts. It is a good way of presenting the geographic concentration of voting.

Several things stand out. First, this confirms the result in the last post. Vinis, like Piercy, won by winning big in a relatively small part of the town. Vinis won a number of precincts by nearly 60% while Clark only won one by more than 30%. Second, rather than a nearly continuous line there is clustering and a break. Ten precincts gave Vinis a margin of 50% or better. On the other hand, less than half a dozen precincts gave her a win by between 0% and 30%. Finally, there is little clustering in the Clark precincts. They form a nice continuous line.

It is worth noting that this overstates the margin of Vinis’ win. The precincts Clark won tend to be larger.

Source of data: Lane County Elections

Methodology: The margin equals the Vinis percentage minus the Clark percentage.

Eugene Mayoral Vote Percentages by Ward

image002

This post looks at the geographic distribution of the Clark and Vinis votes for Mayor of Eugene in the 2016 Primary.

To a large extent, both candidates won where they were expected to win. Vinis won in the south Eugene wards (1, 2, and 3; Brown, Taylor, and Zelenka, respectively) and Clark won in the north and west Eugene wards (4, 5, and 6; Poling, Clark, and Evans, respectively).

The two remaining west Eugene wards were narrowly won by Vinis: neither candidate received a majority. Ward 8 (Pryor) continues to be the swing ward that any pro-business candidate has to win. Clark did not. Ward 7 (Syrett) is now clearly competitive. This has been appearing for some time. It’s interesting that the Chamber of Commerce chose not to contest this ward.

However, all this is not enough to explain Vinis’ wide margin. She did that by winning south Eugene by very wide margins and by keeping Clark’s vote under 60% in all three of his key wards..

Source of data: Lane County Elections

Map of Eugene Wards: http://www.eugene-or.gov/2636/Large-Ward-Map

Oregon Republican Governor Primary Trend

image010

As one would expect the tracking shows Alley with a slight lead in April before the campaigns hit full gear and rapidly losing ground to Pierce during May.

QUESTION: If the Republican Oregon Governor Primary were held today, would you vote for: Bruce Cuff, Bob Niemeyer, Bob Forthan, Bud Pierce, or Allen Alley? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way do you lean?

METHODOLOGY: These results are based on three surveys composed of live telephone interviews of likely Oregon Democratic Primary voters. A survey of 200 was conducted April 5-6, 2016. The margin of error at the sample median for this survey is 7%. Two surveys of 400 were conducted April 25-26 and May 9-10, 2016. The margin of error at the sample median for these surveys is 5%.

Recent Eugene Area Net Partisan Swing Margins

image002

This chart goes over the swing margins in some recent contests. The idea is that not every district is created equal. In particular, it’s pretty easy for a Democrat to build up a big margin in Eugene. Similarly, it’s relatively easier for a Republican to win in rural Lane County than in Eugene.

Farr’s margins, despite facing an incumbent in 2012 and an opponent with a long resume in 2016, were the largest of the group.

The standard swing in the state legislature or in other areas of the state is under 10%.

Source: Lane County Elections.

Methodology: Based on vote percentages at election and the corresponding voter registration figures. Equals the net margin ahead of principal progressive opponent plus the Democratic minus Republican registration margin. Green indicates a win and red indicates a loss.

Recent Co. Comm. Vote Percentages

image006

Pat Farr in 2016 received the highest vote for county commissioner in the past five years.

Source: Lane County Elections

Note that Pete Sorenson was unopposed in 2016 so was not included.

Eugene Mayoral Race Key Demographics

 

 

 

 

image014

The primary determinants of support in the Eugene Mayoral election polling were first party and second the date of the poll. Clark did better among Republicans and Others and Vinis did best among Democrats. Clark steadily consolidated the Republicans as Vinis did the Democrats.

QUESTION: If the Eugene mayoral election were held today, would you vote for: Mike Clark, Bob Cassidy, Stefan Strek, Lucy Vinis, or Scott Landfield [ROTATE NAMES]? IF DON’T KNOW: Which way would you lean?
NOTE: Landfield not included on Feb. 8-9 survey because he had not yet announced his candidacy.

METHODOLOGY: 200 live telephone interviews of City of Eugene likely 2016 Primary voters were conducted on each of February 8-9, April 4-5, April 18-19, and May 2-3, 2016. The margin of error at the sample median for each survey was plus or minus 7%.These were then pooled into a single large sample of 800.