MT Dem Primary Analysis Post #2- The influence of Gopher and Rankin and everything else.

by: Twohundertseventy

Sat Jun 19, 2010 at 12:59:01 PM MST

Anyway, today I read the last couple of posts over at Flathead Memo, and saw the graph posted by James Conner under the headline 'Where Gopher won big, Gernant lost big'.
But is that true? Well, obviously it is, but it doesn't seem to be a huge surprise. When four candidates compete for 100% of the vote, it's no surprise that one candidate does badly where another candidate does well. The bigger question is, were the candidates disproportionately hurt in the counties where Melinda Gopher did well, or could James just as well have written a post titled 'Where Gopher won big, Gernant, McDonald and Rankin lost big'?

I'm not really interested in the question if Gopher hurt Rankin, but we can look at her influence on the Gernant/McDonald race by introducing the new metric 'Gernant TwoWay vote'- which is eliminating Gopher and Rankin votes and is defined as Gernant%*100/(Gernant%+McDonald%).

If we build a scatterplot for Melinda% and Gernant TwoWay vote, it looks like this:

There doesn't seem to be a particularly good relationship, and indeed, if we regress Gopher's vote share (and a constant) on Tyler TwoWay, it is insignificant (p-value .29).
That means that Gernant didn't lose particularly badly compared to McDonald where Gopher did well.

We can perform the same analysis for Sam Rankin of course, here's the scatterplot:

And here there IS some weak relation between the variables, with Gernant doing slightly worse where Rankin was doing well (upper left corner).
It's not too strong either though, the p value is .11 (which means that there is the chance of this occuring by chance is 11%- 5% is considered good enough to draw some conclusions by most statisticians, 11% is not). The coefficient of Rankin% is -.41, which basically means that for each percentage point Rankin got, Tyler lost .4% to Dennis McDonald in the two-way vote.

Some more analysis suggests why that may have been the case: Dennis McDonald was doing very badly in places where a lot of people identify their ancestry as 'American'- Gernant was doing okay with them, Rankin performed very well there. That suggests that if Rankin had not been in the race, those people would probably have gone for Gernant over McDonald. BTW, 'American' (or, as we could also dub it, white trash) is the only variable of even some predictive value for the vote share of Sam Rankin- he did not well with them, McDonald in turn did. But apart from that I'm at a loss as to why Rankin did as well as he did- and that almost everywhere, from Missoula over Big Horn to Garfield.

'American' identifiers, for what it's worth, tend to be disproportionately Republican, White and without health insurance.
They just aren't a huge enough voting group in Democratic primaries (in Montana at least) to swing the election alone though, which means that Gernant would most likely have lost in any case- with Gopher and Rankin in the race or without them. He might have picked up more of their votes than McDonald would have done, but not by such a prohibitive margin that he could have closed in- a two-way election might have resulted in a 56-44 McDonald win.

Anyway, we're not only interested in the influence of Gopher and Rankin on the race, we're also interested in which demographic groups Gernant and McDonald had their strengths.

Mulling the Democratic US House race

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 11:30:05 AM MST

But the vote totals for Melinda Gopher and Sam Rankin, and the lower than expected total for Tyler Gernant, are surprises. Gopher and Rankin were running soapbox candidacies on a shoestring. I expected each to receive around five percent of the vote. And I expected a much closer race between McDonald and Gernant.

What happened? Two things, I think.

First, I believe that early voting hurt Gernant. His campaign gathered steam during the last half of May, but by then a lot of Democrats, the ones who reject the idea that they have a responsibility to keep their minds open until the campaign ends, had voted - and a lot of them voted for McDonald. Early voting almost always helps the initially better known candidate.

Second, most Democrats understood that none of the Democratic candidates had an ice cube's chance in a blast furnace of beating Rehberg. That provided an opportunity to cast a protest vote against the Democratic establishment, which was represented by McDonald and Gernant.

Your guess is as good as mine, folks. In any election that gives Sam Rankin 16 percent of the vote in a four-way race, you've got to scratch your head. It's not random -- that's only a few points lower than you'd expect if all Democratic primary voters cast their ballots randomly. It's not cross-over voters: Republicans actually had a race in the US House, and a lot more disputed and contentious legislative primaries. (Not to mention county commissioner races.) A protest vote, as Connor suggests? That assumes the voters are very well informed -- they'd have to know who the "establishment" candidate is, and who the outsiders were -- and thinking strategically.

Let's be frank, people. This is the second year in a row that Montanans in large numbers picked irrational candidates in the primary. In 2008, it was Driscoll and Kelleher. And that time around, we blamed new voters turned out for the Clinton-Obama brouhaha who were uninformed about the down-ticket races and lost in the blizzard of candidates on the primary ballot. But this year, turnout was low, and the US House race was the showcase event. Was it really a conscious decision?

(Note that Republican voters, on the other hand, supported Dennis Rehberg nearly unanimously, despite warnings that we were facing an "anti-incumbent" tidal wave.)

Why did Sam Rankin nearly beat out Tyler Gernant? Why did the Democrats of South Carolina nominate an unemployed veteran living in his mother's house to run for Senate?

Who the h*ll knows?

I'm waiting for Rasmus to explain.

Congratulations Dennis McDonald!

by: Montana Cowgirl

Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 22:03:21 PM MST

Kudos also to the hard work put in by Gernant and Gopher.  

Vote for Tyler Gernant for U.S. House of Representatives

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 08:17:18 AM MST

So...after all of that, I suspect you, like me, will come to the same conclusion: Tyler Gernant is the best candidate for US House, and he deserves your vote in the impending primary.

Dennis McDonald and Melinda Gopher also good candidates, of course. McDonald's a stand-up guy, a real mensch, and has served the Democratic party faithfully and well for years. And Gopher's record as an activist is exemplary. She's a fighter, absolutely dedicated to the causes she believes in.

But I'm endorsing Tyler Gernant.

There are a number of considerations. First, his policy portfolio is right on, as he's campaigning around a green economy - absolutely crucial on so many levels. Environmentally, it's the best chance we have of dramatically reducing carbon pollution while preserving our way of life. Economically, it's a chance - and a short-lived one, at that -  to rebuild the country's manufacturing base. Politically, it's a golden opportunity to unite labor and environmentalism towards a common cause. Gernant is also campaigning around pragmatic, progressive financial reform that would make taxation fairer for working- and middle-class Americans, while reducing our nation's deficit. He's the only candidate in this election that speaks to the problem of Montana's young people leaving the state -- even as they'd prefer to stay -- to look for work, benefits, and affordable living, which is an issue that's resonates strongly with me on a personal level...

And he's in favor of a Constitutional Amendment protecting privacy! Which is cool.

But to be honest, there's not much difference between the Democratic candidates on policy. This isn't like the Republican primary, where the future of the GOP lies in the hands of the voters tomorrow. Dennis McDonald, for example, does support the Otter Creek coal venture, unlike Gernant; and Gopher emphasizes more than any other candidate using the office to work with and provide more aid to rural communities and communities in poverty. But all three candidates generally share the same values. And then there's Rankin who...well...does want to slash Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Which brings us to a second consideration: how is Gernant as a political candidate? And, here, Gernant wins hands-down over any other House candidate of either party. There's nobody, of either party, who works harder. Nobody. Period. He's been at this thing for, what? Over a year? Relentlessly hitting the phones and raising funds, relentlessly traveling the state and talking with voters. His campaign is slick, his videos are professional, the whole effort is mature and serious and ready for prime time.

Compare that to, say, Dennis McDonald's lackluster fundraising and his lack of verve required of a legitimate candidate expecting to take on a long-time and deep-pocketed incumbent. If he struggles to ward off Jimmy "the Weasel" Fratianno questions from a College Republican with hand-held video, how's he going to beat off the crippling negative campaigning from the Republican Party's varsity squad? Still McDonald, at least, raises money and understands how to run for office, which is more than you can say of Melinda Gopher, who entered the race late, has raised next to no money, and went negative, wildly lashing out against the other candidates, the party, and EMILY's List, among others, and squandered her opportunity to challenge Gernant and McDonald to match her passion for economic justice. And Sam Rankin, well, he's John Driscoll 2.0 with weirder politics.

Tyler Gernant is an excellent candidate and can win this race in November. And given his understanding of the political process and his campaign skills, I have no doubt he'll have the energy,  single-minded determination, and patience to do battle and prevail in the US House of Representatives on behalf of the people of Montana.

Gernant for Congress.

Democratic US House candidates: Melinda Gopher

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Jun 02, 2010 at 09:56:18 AM MST

Melinda Gopher:

Her Act Blue page...Campaign website...her blog...her HuffPo articles...Twitter feed...and she's on Facebook.

Bio: Melinda is a paralegal and writer living in Missoula. She "..worked in the non-profit sector as a volunteer for 25 years and has traveled the state in the capacity of a civil rights advocate and coordinator of fair housing work."  She also was involved in educating the public on "address[ing] cyanide mining in Montana," worked on "tourism initiatives," and helped create the visitor's center at First People's State Park.

Issues: (from her website) Gopher vows to help create a "high technology corridor" based on green energy. She also vows to promote wind energy, "reorganize and prioritize CDBG block grants" to promote job creation in urban and reservation areas of Montana, support the distribution and use of medical technology to reduce health care costs, and "restore long sought Chippewa sovereignty recognition in Montana." Gopher also wants to reform our tax code, closing corporate tax loopholes and closing tax havens, and extending tax relief to working- and middle-class families.

Blogs:

Melinda Gopher on Left in the West and 4 and 20 blackbirds...

Articles:

Melinda Gopher Not Afraid to Speak her Mind: "Having only a fraction of the campaign funds raised by two of her Democratic rivals, Dennis McDonald and Tyler Gernant, Gopher is counting on a wave of fellow Native Americans, women and youth to rally behind her and 'reach every corner in the state' in the coming weeks.

"Blunt, outspoken and unafraid to criticize her opponents and top Democratic elected officials, Gopher is campaigning her own way.

"'I won't go with the party line,' she says. 'I will do what's best for Montana. I will do my own evaluating of an issue, and I'm not beholden to anybody.'"

Melinda Gopher, Blackfeet/Ojibwe, eyes US House Seat: "She tells how her father, Robert Gopher, borrowed money for gas from a relative so he could drive from Hill 57, outside of Great Falls, to Helena to testify at the 1972 Constitutional Convention. He successfully advocated for inclusion of this clause, which made it into the Montana Constitution: 'The state recognizes the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indians and is committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural integrity.'

"'That's how that became a state law because someone chose to make a difference,' Gopher said. 'When I start to feel a little discouraged, I think of that example. My dad wasn't from any organization. He wasn't part of an organized effort. He was a citizen. That's the whole concept of one person making a difference.'"

Democrats Running for the House
Melinda Gopher is seeking the State of Montana sole Congressional seat in the US House of Representatives

Video below the fold...

Gopher answers questions

by: Jay Stevens

Thu May 27, 2010 at 07:11:55 AM MST

I like this:

...I will advance Montana as a high technology corridor of the north-built on the state's potential as a wind energy resource. The combination of wind, solar, biomass,and geothermal present great opportunities to build a sustainable, high tech economy. The problem is Montana lags greatly in high tech investment-coming in last in the western U.S. I will create a federally sponsored effort to attract more high tech investment to our state.

I will work to secure federal seed grants to high tech and clean energy start-up and existing companies for this specific purpose and aim it at building Montana's capacity. I want to see a new effort at entrepreneurship in our state based on this approach. I will approach this by linking private, public, business, government and tribal efforts in a comprehensive effort to ensure our state leads the region and nation in a collaborative outcome to achieve a high tech economy build on green, renewable energy.

The sad state of the Democratic House primary

by: Jay Stevens

Mon May 03, 2010 at 13:17:37 PM MST

Yeah, McDonald looked unready for this race. But then that video was shot on October 26, 2009, and I suspect that was the first he had ever encountered that line of attack. If this happened today - after McDonald had his say on the matter - I'd say the candidate McDonald was cooked.

Thoughts:

For starters, hand it to the GOP. It's sticking. It's got to the point that even Democratic challengers are piggybacking on it. And it's got to be considered in the "electable" arguments that always rear up this time of the primary race.

For another, it's interesting that Rehberg et al went after McDonald so soon. They've been building this narrative for months. Not sure what that means. Maybe they saw him as the biggest threat. Maybe they just slammed him as soon as they got the idea.

And lastly, it's a sad state of affairs when this is the biggest story of the primary so far. In the next couple of days, I'll investigate the candidates and report back...hopefully we can do something more substantial before the primary, too.

Have to say - I'm completely undecided on this race.

Which reminds me: in the past, we've had advocates for primary candidates write posts here on Left in the West. This year is no different. If you want to write something up about McDonald, or Gopher, or Gernant - or about any primary candidate - sign in, write a diary, and I'll promote it. If you have questions or want me to look over your post before you submit it, email me...

Fundraising Analysis of the 2010 Democratic Congressional Primary Race

by: Montana Cowgirl

Sat Apr 24, 2010 at 17:46:10 PM MST

Here are the most recent Democratic congressional candidate fundraising totals based on the FEC reports as of April 24, 2010:

Dennis McDonald (D) $139,261
Tyler Gernant (D)  $103,014
Sam Rankin (D)  $8,639
Melinda Gopher (D) $ 0

Of the candidates, the top recipient of in-state contributions was Dennis McDonald, while the top recipient of out-of-state cash was Tyler Gernant, according to Open Secrets.

They report that McDonald raised twice as much in-state money as Gernant. That's more money from actual constituents who will be represented by the winner of this contest, people who care the most about its outcome.

It says something that McDonald has more money, but where the money comes from also speaks volumes.  

MT-AL: Gopher kicks primary to life

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 07:10:39 AM MST

Gopher accused McDonald of manipulating "state party strategy to position himself for this race"; suggested that he, as chair of the state Democratic party "underfunded" 2008 Democratic House candidate John Driscoll; that, although unpopular with rank-and-file Democrats, is receiving the "lion's share" of donations because of his "skin color and gender"; and said he's "unelectable" because of the GOP narrative around his legal work in California.

For me, Gopher jumped the shark on this post. For starters, it showed gross ignorance about state politics - how can you accuse Dennis McDonald of orchestrating a 2010 run at the House by denying state party funds to 2008 House Democratic candidate, John Driscoll, when Driscoll refused to take any money for his campaign? Or refused to campaign, for that matter? (And Gopher isn't even sure if Driscoll was a Republican or Democrat in that race.) Driscoll's leisurely run at Rehberg's seat was one of the most irresponsible campaigns I've ever witnessed, a wasted opportunity at extricating a do-nothing regressive Republican from Montana's sole House seat - but all of the blame lies on Driscoll, none on McDonald.

Sure, McDonald may have positioned himself for this race - but that's how you win party nominations. Working for the rank-and-file wins you support from the rank-and-file...and their donations. Race and gender may have played a part in fund-raising, but Denise Juneau showed you can raise money and win contentious primaries if you do the work and you're a quality candidate.

Yes, Ms. Gopher, wouldn't it be great if ideas were the only currency in an election? But until that day, you still need to do the groundwork to raise money and win votes. Otherwise your beautiful ideas will have to shine on the sidelines.

Whatever. Here's Pete Talbot's lovely summation of the three House candidates:

So who gets the nod? The inspirational, refreshing and candid Ojibwe woman [Melinda Gopher] - who's underfunded and not well-connected (outside of tribal politics) and is a party outsider? The other new face - the policy-smart, well-organized and politically savvy candidate with a potentially great future in Montana Democratic politics (but has a less than passionate campaign thus far) [Tyler Gernant]? Or the established, out front, Montana rancher who is the best known and may have the best demographic appeal but, is also considered a party insider (and has received the most press, both positive and negative)? [Dennis McDonald]

Yup. That's pretty much it.

Melinda Gopher Joins Congressional Race

by: Matt Singer

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 09:36:45 AM MST