Event Calendar
May 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>

User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
I Told You He Was No Good!
by: Rob Kailey - Jun 22
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search

Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

MT Dem Primary Analysis Post #1- Did early voting kill Gernant's chances?

by: Twohundertseventy

Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 06:38:51 AM MST


In one of the first analysis posts written on Tuesday's election, John Connor posited over at Flathead Memo that early voting might have hurt Tyler Gernant's chances.

I'm in the fortunate position to have downloaded the election returns several times during election night, so that I have some information on absentee counts (that were reported in one bunch initially) in contrast to the final results.

So, doing some actual number crunching on this, is John right? Yes, he is. While Tyler wouldn't have won without early voting either, he would have been a bit closer.

In most small, rural counties, his election day and absentee counties weren't much different, and the difference was certainly not statistically significant. Neither were they in the Flathead, where Tyler was fairly well known and campaigned a lot (and overperformed his statewide results both in the early and election day results). Or in Helena, where, I think, the electorate is pretty aware politically and therefore knew most candidates even back when the absentee ballots were sent out. The trend wasn't there in Great Falls either.

It did make a huge difference in Missoula though, where popular mayor John Engen endorsed him late in the game. He actually narrowly lost the Missoula absentees to McDonald, but crushed his opposition on election day, winning 57% in a four-way race- comparable to McDonald putting up 65% in Sweet Grass County.

In Billings, he also overperformed his early-vote total, winning a bit more than 30% of the election day vote and less than 20% of the early vote.

Roughly the same numbers hold up in Bozeman, where he won 17% of the absentees and 29% of the election day vote.

In Butte, that was canceled out by late union support for McDonald, so that the percentages stayed about the same.

If there hadn't been early voting and the absentee voters would have changed their minds the same way the election day voters seem to have done, Tyler would still have lost, but it would have been a bit narrower. I estimate that the result would have been

McDonald 36
Gernant 29
Gopher 20
Rankin 15.

But, this is an impressive result for both Mayor Engen and Tyler's GOTV team, who heavily worked Missoula in the last few days. They managed to swing the race by about 25%!
Next up- how did Gopher and Rankin influence the McDonald/Gernant race?
Twohundertseventy :: MT Dem Primary Analysis Post #1- Did early voting kill Gernant's chances?
Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email

MT Dem Primary Analysis Post #1- Did early voting kill Gernant's chances? | 47 comments
False assumption (4.00 / 1)
A lot of people assume, falsely, that those they disagree with them would agree with with them if only they had more information.

270 seems to think that those who voted for McDonald did so prematurely.  If only they'd waited until they learned more about Gernant!

I looked at most of Tyler Gernant's e-mails, his blog, and his website.  I also looked at similar statements from Dennis.  Frankly, I didn't see a big difference on major policy points.  But I know and like Dennis, so I voted for him.

I learned all I could about Gernant before voting for his opponent.  I don't like to have my vote characterized as rash and ill-informed.

I didn't make any assumption in that post. (0.00 / 0)
I just posited that Tyler Gernant did better in the election day vote than in the absentee vote, which implies that he had some late momentum that was cut short by the fact that most ballots had already been mailed back before he started to climb up in voter support.

I do think that some of those who voted absentee for McDonald would have changed their vote to Tyler Gernant. I do not make any observations on if that would have been a good thing, or why they would have done it, I just observe that it would have been the case, most likely. That's because among their peers who waited to vote until election day, Tyler did have a stronger showing.  

[ Parent ]
And frankly, I'd be surprised to learn that even 25% of the voters (0.00 / 0)
in this primary did their homework like you did. The people who might have changed their vote are probably those that only recognized McDonald's name on the ballot and just learned of the Gernant campaign.  
[ Parent ]
I would have to say that this would be true IF no candidates knew about early voting (0.00 / 0)
but they all knew that people like to vote early, so they all planned their campaigns accordingly.
[ Parent ]
Tyler obviously didn't, or he would have rolled out the (0.00 / 0)
Engen endorsement earlier. Bad move on his part.

But- I'm not saying in this post that Tyler should have done better or that he was robbed of a better performance or anything like that.

I'm just saying that the primary would probably have had a different result on July 8 and that the general assumption that pretty much everyone had- that Tyler had momentum- wasn't wrong.  

[ Parent ]
I see what you are saying, but since candidates have no control over the early vote and election dates (0.00 / 0)
I feel like we can't blame the dates on their success or failure. : )
[ Parent ]
I don't think... (0.00 / 0)
Rasmus is "blaming." I think he's illuminating. Certainly there's a lesson here for candidates mulling future primary runs.
[ Parent ]
More specifically... (0.00 / 0)
...I don't think Rasmus is arguing against the system of absentee balloting. If anything, he's saying Gernant muffed his campaign somewhat by not strategizing around the absentee dates.
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Also... (0.00 / 0)
Rasmus wasn't commenting on the choice of McDonald over Gernant. There are good, legitimate, and reasonable reasons to opt for McDonald, and he may, in fact, be the better candidate -- and I say that as a guy who endorsed Gernant.

The big question after this primary -- as far as I see it -- is why this race wasn't close. I think most of us assumed it would be a squeaker, especially in the last week or two when Gernant seemed to have momentum.

Still, Rasmus, the effect of election-day voters favoring Gernant may not have translated into changed ballots from McDonald to Gernant, but may be the effect of undecideds swinging heavily in favor of Gernant in the last hours of the election. You'd have to do some kind of post-election polling to see how strongly for the candidates the absentee voters were, versus the election-day voters, but I'd guess the undecideds or weak supporters were much fewer among the absentee voters than among election-day voters.

Not sure if your calculations take that into account...

[ Parent ]
Except that , we have no proof that there were people (0.00 / 0)
who were undecided or decided at the earlier point.  Nor do we have proof they decided early and stuck.  there is no polling data that shows either.  
[ Parent ]
Where is the (0.00 / 0)
consideration that Missoula Cnty turnout was only 20.47%, the lowest in the state?  Wasn't banking on Missoula the vote killer?
you're absolutely right... (0.00 / 0)
Extremely low Missoula turnout was a Gernant killer...and also begs the question, why?
[ Parent ]
In my opinion (0.00 / 0)
Gernant's main appeal was to the MTV demographic who tend only to turnout in numbers when there is a rock star like Obama in the contest. His buzz words and trite talking points rung hollow to a more engaged older voter looking for both substance and demonstrated CV of accomplishments.  
[ Parent ]
you mean why did gernant bank on missoula? who knows (0.00 / 0)
and honestly, you'd have to ask him.
[ Parent ]
It's not there because it's nothing special. (0.00 / 0)
Missoula always has low turnout. Historically, Missoula's contribution to the Democratic primary electorate has been between 9% and 14%, averaging at nearly 12%. This time, it was  13.8%, almost at 2008 levels, and 2008 was the record so far. (since 1992, which is how far back I'm looking)
[ Parent ]
So why (0.00 / 0)
taking what you say as fact, wasn't it arrogant youthful naïveté to defy history by shaping a campaign strategy to appeal to the civically disinclined?
[ Parent ]
Looking at the final numbers, I don't think there was (0.00 / 0)
any path to victory for Tyler's campaign short of either possibly a hard-on negative campaign with a Mobster ad, getting an endorsement by a statewide officeholder or finding another McDonald scandal.

And I think focusing on Missoula in the last days was a good move, his vote share there went up from the low thirties to the high fifties. If he'd been focusing elsewhere, he might not have had that surge. It was just too little, too late.  

[ Parent ]
"Another McDonald scandal"? (0.00 / 0)
What are you talking about?
[ Parent ]
Nothing in particular. I'm just speculating on what (0.00 / 0)
could have won the election for Tyler, and one of the only things that I can come up is some scandal surfacing. Or an endorsement like.. whatever, Denise Juneau or so.

Short of that, he couldn't have won no matter what he did.  

[ Parent ]
Your words matter! (0.00 / 0)
When you said that Tyler might've won by "finding another McDonald scandal," you clearly implied that there were scandals on top of which one more might've made a difference.  Now you're saying that you meant "nothing in particular" my the statement.

That's utter crap.  

[ Parent ]
IMO, 'finding' another McDonald scandal implies that he (0.00 / 0)
didn't know of any.  
[ Parent ]
you know there wasn't another scandal (0.00 / 0)
or the repubs would have used it already.  the defense atty thing wasnt that great.  they don't have anything, because it doesn't exist.
[ Parent ]
Yeah, probably not, but you never know- for any candidate (4.00 / 1)
that's running for office, not just for McDonald. Case-in-point: Blumenthal. Also disagree that the Repubs would have used it necessarily, they could have saved it as an October surprise.

But yeah, there probably is nothing.  

[ Parent ]
Bad thought (0.00 / 0)
Would the Republicants have touted "another scandal" if they really wanted McDonald to win?  I'm thinking not.

A prediction:
We know that scandals don't have to be real.  They can be fabricated at the drop of a hat.  So, the key to political success is to avoid any ammunition for the other side.  Dennis Rehberg has turned that into an art form.  How many debates did he have with French?  With Otjen?  None?  Typical.  The debates he has with his opposition are always based on party identity, and always geared to venue.  He panders to ideology, knowing that his supporters believe ideology trumps fact.  Always.  He will lie based on audience, well documented in the liberal blogs.  He will change stance at the drop of a question.  Well documented ion liberal blogs.  And he will avoid any factual conflict at all.  And then he will win.

Here's the real prediction. Dennis Rehberg will campaign on listening to the common man, when he hasn't done it for ten years.  He will be promoted and lauded for that by the press and alternative media, with the absence of any critique that he hasn't listened to the common man in 10 years.  He will, in speaking, contradict himself at least twice, and lie more times than any can predict.  And none of it will matter.  Because ideologues, just love the idea of an advocate even if they haven't any clue what they love about that advocacy.  Dennis Rehberg is a richie rich supporter of white male privilege, and that's what the ideologues really truly and dearly love.  He will lie to them profusely, and it won't matter because it will allow them to lie to themselves.

The Rehberg camp will go negative first; I'm expecting within another month.  But it won't be Richie Rich doing it, and it won't be critically examined.  When that is questioned, and it will be, the response will be that McDonald went negative first by questioning the actual stances and votes of Dennis Rehberg.  You see the disconnect, I'm sure.  IOKIYAAR.

Yes, the drunk ass dirty stain on the toilet paper wins this in a landslide.  "The Left" will pat themselves on the back because they took out another DLC tool, who wasn't a progressive, wanting progress and all.  The right will stupidly crow about their awesome victory over the "arrogant lefties".  (To the dim like those in conservoland, that would be ironic.  And it will happen.)  

And the great cycle of life continues.

If their is one thing we might learn from this escapade in idiocy, it is what Rehberg's intentions are for 2012.  That will be worth a look.

[ Parent ]
In terms of listening to the people (0.00 / 0)
ECW points to a Daily Interlake article that doesn't shine too positive on Tester and Baucus while giving plaudits to Rehberg:  http://www.dailyinterlake.com/...

The New York Times reported this week that to avoid angry voters, "many Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions. The recommendations were clear: Hold events in controlled settings - a bank or a credit union, for example - or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects."
*

Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both Democrats, have been doing all the above in their recent visits to the state. But in Northwest Montana, they have conspicuously avoided holding wide-open forums with the public in recent months.

The Baucus and Tester camps can certainly and fairly argue that the senators have had busy schedules, interacting with constituents in a variety of ways.

Tester, for instance, distributed an e-mail update on his activities this week, which included playing "Taps" on a trumpet at Fort Harrison cemetery, attending a recent gathering of top officials on conservation issues in Ovando, and attending an export seminar in Billings.

But the largest gatherings the two senators have held in Northwest Montana recently have been visits with select groups and invitation-only roundtable discussions.

By obvious contrast, Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg has held scores of open forums over the last year, inviting friend and foe alike to attend.

 
If the media sees Rehberg as "listening" while Dems hide, what is the angle here?
[ Parent ]
Thanks for breaking the comments (0.00 / 0)
Yet again, Craig.  And the post at ECW has jack-all to do with what's being discussed here.  I read those things, ya' know.  And they often don't overlap, but you idiotically think that they do.
[ Parent ]
I apologize for that. (0.00 / 0)
That was not my intention.  As to being "idiotic" I was responding to your statement:
Dennis Rehberg will campaign on listening to the common man, when he hasn't done it for ten years.
Again, I ask if the media sees Rehberg as "listening" while Dems hide, what is the angle here?
[ Parent ]
I already stated it, plain and clear. (0.00 / 0)
IOKIYAAR
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure (0.00 / 0)
what that means, but, if it's anything like BOHICA, it can't be good.
[ Parent ]
one positive about mcdonald (0.00 / 0)
he apparently is not afraid to attack rehberg perhaps because he knows that the repubs will be merciless toward his campaign. THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

this looks it is shaping up to be a battle between two evil men. much like the movie. some old fashioned politics between two men with nothing to lose. (integrity-wise that is) or is it another movie?.....
DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

[ Parent ]
If I were advising (0.00 / 0)
Rehberg I would say look hard at the vote totals and think even harder about alienating anyone through a hardball campaign. It would make McDonald look sympathetic. What is there to accomplish, given the primary results and the low turnout in the general, by attacking McDonald even if he starts it? Don't swing at a pitch in the dirt.  If a batter misses it's still a strike.  If he hit's it, it doesn't count.  

If I were advising McDonald, I would say refine your messages with substance that will appeal to conservative and moderate Montanans likely to vote and WHO voted for Schweitzer. There's gold to be mined if you know where to look. Punching Rehberg with the nasty stuff, given the mountain to climb to make up the vote disparity, is a waste like punching a pillow.  

But then again I don't expect to be consulted.  

[ Parent ]
Chill out, Turner. (0.00 / 0)
Words matter but so does the attitude with which they are approached. And for the record, some folks consider defending the mob to be a "scandal".  You can bet your ass that the Rehberg camp will.
[ Parent ]
50's? (0.00 / 0)
I thought his % was 42.03 in Missoula Cnty.  He collected only about 1100 more votes than McDonald.  Now, did "no coal" help or hurt Gernant?  Did "yes to coal" help or hurt McDonald?

[ Parent ]
You know better than that, Craig (0.00 / 0)
Without adequate exit polling (which almost never happens in a state primary in Montana) it is impossible to know the answers to your questions.
[ Parent ]
I asked the question (0.00 / 0)
because I remembered reading this http://helenair.com/news/state...

A majority of Montanans favor large-scale energy development in the state, whether it's coal or alternative power sources like wind, a Lee Newspapers poll shows...

The poll asked Montanans whether they support large-scale coal development in the state, despite concerns by some that it will contribute to global warming.

Sixty-six percent said yes, while only 23 percent said they would oppose coal development. Eleven percent said they weren't sure.

Support for such plans was especially strong among those who consider themselves Republicans, by a margin of 86 percent to 11 percent. Democrats, however, were evenly split on the idea, with 41 percent both for and against.

Schweitzer seemed to understand that statistic. I believe his popularity is still about the same number. It appears McDonald came to see the political wisdom of coal development. Gernant opposes coal without qualification.  Of course, this has only to do with the politics of the issue as measured by voter importance, and not the underlying environmental polemics.  

[ Parent ]
Have you actually read the diary? (0.00 / 0)
The whole point was that his election day total was much higher. He got something like 30-33% from the absentees, and almost 60% in the election day vote.

Also, there's no way to say how the coal issue played out. My bet would be that it didn't play out at all, I'd be fairly surprised if 5% of the primary voters could have told you who had which position on the issue.  

[ Parent ]
To be honest, 2hundert70 ... (0.00 / 0)
I think that's completely beside the point.  There is no way to know the answer to Craig's questions.  I think it's likely that a lot more than 5% of Democratic primary voters know the position of the candidates on coal.  But the real question, as it is in any primary, is "can this person beat the other guy?"

In the absence of exit polling, there's no answer to be had.  But if you want to look at the right question, don't look at coal stance, except as a demotivator for voting in the first place.  

[ Parent ]
Of course. (0.00 / 0)
As to what voters did know, there was this from the Montana Conservation Voters: http://www.mtvoters.org/newsro...

At a recent candidate forum at the University of Montana, McDonald said unequivocally that he supports coal mining in Montana's Otter Creek area, stating "I have been very much in favor of developing all of our resources; coal should be a big part of it." Gernant responded, "I thought I was in a Democratic primary, but it sounds like I'm running against Sarah Palin. McDonald is using the same rhetoric to describe his energy policy that Sarah Palin used to describe her backward-thinking ideas for America's energy future."

Everyone here seems content that McDonald and Gernant were 95% similar on the important issues.  Coal was one issue where they disagreed.  What was odd was how Gernant was anti coal but favorable towards burning biomass for energy.  

[ Parent ]
Effect of early voting (0.00 / 0)
Parties and campaign like early voting because it allows them to "bank" votes and concentrate their resources on those who vote later or on the Last Day of Voting (what we called Election Day before we switched, without much debate, to Election Month). But I think early voting favors the better known. Gernant, whom I endorsed, was not as well known as McDonald, so it was in his interest to have voters wait as long as possible so that he would have the chance to change their minds. In a close election, that might have made the difference. McDonald, by contrast, had every incentive to lock down his vote as early as possible.

Now, my hypothesis supposes that some who early-voted for McDonald were not diehard supporters, but folks leaning his way simply because of name recognition, and who voted early as a convenience to get the election out of the way. I have no idea how big that cohort is, whether it's a null class, or if it's possible to know. But I think it exists. There are three classes of voters: the members of the choir, who must be encouraged to vote; the unrepentant and irredeemable, who must be ignored; and those who can be saved, a group that includes those who can sing but are still humming a tune that does not lead to salvation. The longer a campaign has to minister to these souls, the more souls that campaign will save. That's why I believe that early voting favors incumbents and the initially better known.

Would Gernant have prevailed had we still had just Election Day? I doubt it, but I do think the election would have been closer.

In the meantime, I look forward to obtaining more data on the election and will revise my conclusions when warranted.

[ Parent ]
It's not good. (0.00 / 0)
IOKIYAAR stands for 'It's OK if you are a Republican'.  It stands for a national blind spot in the media, and many, too many, on the left.  It really is a very willing BOHICA, and you're helping, Craig.

Rehberg's skill at avoiding conflict has nothing to do with Baucus or Tester.  Not one thing, except those who want to build the narrative that Rehberg will challenge Tester two years from now.  That would be you, Craig.  And here's the fun part, to me.  Rehberg knows that he is nothing but a poseur.  That's how he keeps getting elected to the House. I explained that very thing.  But the Senate is a different ballgame.  If none of you folks who watched Burns lose learned nothing, you did learn this:  You can't avoid conflict in a Senate run.  Richie Rich frat boy v. Montana Dirt Farmer.  Bring it.

Wrong Rob - (0.00 / 0)

It'll be a popular State Representative running against Harry Reid's 'Yes Man' if Denny decided to go after Tester.

If that happens, I can't wait to see the video's of Tester telling lie after lie during his campaign against Senator Burns. I especially like; "Quite frankly, I don't support earmarks, period." and then voting for record numbers of them.

I'm told though, that the Montana Dems are telling him not to run again, because their opinion is that he's not re-electable.

[ Parent ]
Wulfgar is right (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
MT Dem Primary Analysis Post #1- Did early voting kill Gernant's chances? | 47 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!
    		•
     
    Powered by: SoapBlox