Lindholm Company Blog

 The urban vs. rural split evident in the statewide results by county for Measure 67 is clearly visible in Lane County. There is a high correlation between the vote for measures 66 and 67 at the precinct level.

For a more detailed map: large-lane-county-m67

The support for Measure 67 falls much more along the lines of liberal vs. moderate/conservative in the Eugene-Springfield metro area. There is a high correlation between the vote for measures 66 and 67 at the precincct level.

For a more detailed map: large-lane-metro-m67

The demographic areas of the Eugene-Springfield metro which are most comparable to eastern Multnomah County, were relatively more opposed to the measures.

Source of precinct geography: Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Source of election results: Lane County Elections.

The urban vs. rural split evident in the statewide results by county for Measure 66 is clearly visible in Lane County.

For a more detailed map: large-lane-county-m66

Unlike in the Portland area, the support for Measure 66 falls much more along the lines of liberal vs. moderate/conservative in the Eugene-Springfield metro area.

For a more detailed map: large-lane-metro-m66

Source of precinct geography: Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Source of election results: Lane County Elections.

In general, Portland and neighboring areas were the most supportive of Measure 67 and the more suburban and rural areas of the Tri-County region were the most opposed. The pattern is highly correlated with that of Measure 66.

For a more detailed map: large-tri-county-m671

In general, central Portland was the most supportive of Measure 67, but the support was not consistent throughout the area. The pattern is highly correlated with that of Measure 66.

The strong support from eastern Multnomah County for both measures 66 and 67 is interesting. There is a wide mix of demographic groups supporting both measures.

 For a more detailed map: large-tri-county-portland-m671

Source of precinct geography: Metro. Source of election results: Clackamas County Elections, Multnomah County Elections, and Washington County Elections.

In general, Portland and neighboring areas were the most supportive of Measure 66 and the more suburban and rural areas of the Tri-County region were the most opposed.

For a more detailed view: large-tri-county-m661

In general, central Portland was the most supportive of Measure 66, but the support was not consistent throughout the area.

For a more detailed view: large-tri-county-portland-m66

Source of precinct geography: Metro. Source of election results: Clackamas County Elections, Multnomah County Elections, and Washington County Elections.

As has been noted in earlier posts, the strongest support for Measure 66 came from the northwest part of the state.

For a more detailed map: large-statewide-m66

The support for Measure 67 was highly correlated with the support for Measure 66. As has been noted in earlier posts, the strongest support for Measure 67 came from the northwest part of the state.

For a more detailed map: large-statewide-m67

Source of election return data: Oregon Secretary of State.

The Republican turnout rate was five points (4.86%) better than the Democratic turnout rate. This is about as good a turnout as Republicans could reasonably expect.

For comparison, during the past twenty years, the best general election year was when Republicans had a 4.4% edge in 1994; the year Republicans took back Congress after 40 years. Going further back in time gets complicated because of the growth of independent voters and the changing demographics of the two parties on a national and state level act to guarantee a Republican edge.

Given the healthy Republican turnout advantage, there are several inferences one can make:

1. The Republican grass roots Get-out-the-vote (GOTV) is, if not equal to or better than, at least reasonably comparable to the Democratic grass roots GOTV. The Republicans certainly did not lose this round of GOTV.

2. The victory of the two tax measures would have been much greater at almost any other time in the past decade or more assume that the measures and the campaigns were the same. However, one can reject the measures being the cause. The temporary income tax increases in 2003 and 2004 both failed. Therefore, these measures were won by the campaign: either the money advantage or a messaging advantage, or both.

3. This kind of turnout advantage reflects the size of the Republican advantage the national polls are observing. This is likely to translate into Republican votes later in the year because support and opposition to measures is much more malleable than partisan support.

This research is based on an analysis of the voted list and the eligible voter list for the January 2010 Special Election.

Source of data: Oregon Secretary of State.

This graph represents turnout by party and by voter category.

Turnout generally increases as vote propensity increases. High propensity voters turned out in high percentages. New voters, though, turned out more than low propensity voters.

Also, except for “new voters,” Republican turned out in higher percentages than Democrats in every past-participation category.

Finally, Democratic turnout was relatively low. For given categories based on past participation, they generally turned out at lower rates, and except for “new voters” never at higher rates, than non-major-party voters.

In general, one should be careful of perceptual biases of three-dimensional graphs. However, since the lessons of this one are so clear, the importance of those caveats are minimized.

New voters are those who registered since March 2009 and were not previously registered somewhere else in Oregon.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.

Voters are grouped by their vote propensity. How many of the past four primaries and generals (2006 and 2008) they voted in or if they were new voters.

Very high propensity voters, who voted in 4 of the past 4 primaries and generals, voted the  earliest. All other categories lagged significantly. Interestingly, new voters, 0/4, and 3/4 voters were clustered together above 1/4 and 2/4 voters. This is unusual. Usually there is a relatively consistent rank ordering from, earlier to later, 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 1/4, 0/4, and, latest, new voters.

This graph represents the share of those who eventually voted who had returned their ballots by the date indicated. All ballots were returned by Jan. 26.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.

The major party members voted earliest. Minor party and non-affiliated voters, “Other Party,” voted later.

This graph represents the share of those who eventually voted who had returned their ballots by the date indicated. All ballots were returned by Jan. 26.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.

Voters can be divided into three groups. Those aged 60 plus voted earliest, those aged 45 through 59 voted next earliest, and those voted 44 and younger voted latest.

This graph represents the share of those who eventually voted who had returned their ballots by the date indicated. All ballots were returned by Jan. 26.

Sources of data: Oregon Secretary of State; Labels and Lists of Bellevue, Washington. The analysis is entirely by Lindholm Company, LLC.