The map is small, to fit the blog. Click the map to go to the directory to see a few others, all larger. The city's vote areas are mapped. Vote totals from Rauterkus 2001 are being matched with others, such as Libertarian candidate for US Senate, Betsy Summers, in 2004.
Other maps you'l be able to see show my votes vs. Carmine in 2001. I got creamed in Shadyside, and those areas show as white.
Posts
4 comments:
Hey y'all--important note about comparing certain election results with
(a) each other (b) other races:
In many ways, you're comparing apples & oranges. Several examples are
easy to note:
--Rauterkus May 2001 was a Primary, Summers 2004 a General (and a
high-turnout one at that).
--Rauterkus 2001 only allowed Republicans to vote for him, Summers 2004
*everyone* (although many Judges Of Elections told people that they could
only vote for candidates from their own party).
--Rauterkus 2001 had an "R" next to his name, Summers 2004 had an "L" next
to hers. While many "puristts" such as people who would be on this list
would be of the belief that that makes no difference, *all* critical
analyses of elections indicates that it *does* make a difference to many
(/most) voters.
--Rauterkus 2001 was running for Mayor, Summers 2004 for Senate (US Senate
to boot). Again, many believe that that makes no difference; HOWEVER,
serious studies of elections indicate that people have different standards
that they apply to different *types* of offices.
--BOTH races, Rauterkus 2001 and Summers 2004 (and even Rauterkus'
opponent, Carmine 2001) may have garnered large raw numbers of votes, BUT,
THOSE NUMBERS ARE STILL VERY SMALL WHEN IT COMES TO DOING A SERIOUS
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS!!!!! No, it's not *impossible* to do, but not likely
to generate accurate results.
All that having been said, if anyone can still generate some defensibel
correlation I say do so and post it to the list.
Take care,
Greg Yoest
> In many ways, you're comparing apples & oranges.
I've snipped most of your points because I completely agree that there are a lot of differences between the 2001 Mayoral Primary, 2002 Governer, and 2004 Senate elections. Still, if a given district repeatedly outperforms other districts in voting for both a given
candidate and a given party - under which he will be running this time - it seems like a good indication that the district has better potential than others to be strong this time around.
I think the generally low numbers are - as you point out - a bigger problem really. When you're talking about 6 people making the difference between a strong district and a weak one... well, statistics are a lot less useful when talking about people rather than populations.
> ...many Judges Of Elections told people that they could only vote for candidates from their own party).
There's one I haven't heard. Who's reporting this and what value of "many" do they claim to have evidence of? I wonder what they might have told me when they saw I was "not affiliated".
> --Rauterkus 2001 had an "R" next to his name, Summers 2004 had an "L" next to hers. While many "puristts" such as people who would be on this list would be of the belief that that makes no difference
Sure, it shouldn't make a difference, but who denies that it does? Or is that what you're saying?
> THOSE NUMBERS ARE STILL VERY SMALL WHEN IT COMES TO
> DOING A SERIOUS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS!!!!! No, it's
> not *impossible* to do, but not likely to generate
> accurate results.
I don't think accurate results are really the problem. I mean we're dealing with a 100% sample here. The problem is figuring out how useful the analysis is and for what.
(public poster)
Hi Chris and others,
First, thanks for the work so far.
Greg who made the objection and raised some concerns can choose to help or not in a serious way. I hope he does, and does so soon as well. This is the time to think, ponder, plan, -- and we are doing the right things. We are gathering with purpose.
> I don't think accurate results are really the problem. I mean we're
> dealing with a 100% sample here. The problem is figuring out how
> useful the analysis is and for what.
The usefulness comes in at least two different ways, IMHO.
1. I think that the data shows that most of the city is 'in play.' My campaign didn't only rely upon votes from my end of town. In the past, I ran
city wide. Got votes from Highland Park to Westwood.
Same too perhaps with the Libs. ??? Are there 'hopeless zones?' If so, they should be identified.
Going to the Hill District and asking Democrats to write me in in the Dem's primary might be fruitless. But, they might be mad as hell in Morningside
and would place a reform vote as a write in to get back at all the Dems.
This gets to one of my aspirations / dreams / tactical areas. I think we need to score some big votes in some sections of the city in the May 17 closed primary votes.
The west end is furious and ripe for change and protest votes. The WE-HAV thing can be turned to blow up in the face of the Dem party. We need to make
some public alliances and go places. We need to get onto the map in certain blocks and neighborhoods.
A base is needed. Langley, Brashier, South... that is a good start. Michael Lamb is a Mt. Washigton guy.
I think we need another friend and few zones in the east too. ??? Swisshelm Park?
2. More on the analysis can show that we are serious. We need to talk to donors. We need to prove ourselves and our capabilities. There is a wow factor to those maps. And, when we get to the check-cutting time, it is great to talk to Mrs. Jones and say she is in a "purple neighborhood" (color not really important). But, the important fact is that she knows we know and
have thought about her backyard.
We need to drive stakes and make points in each of these neighborhoods. We need to ground the campaign on a street by street basis. Pittsburgh isn't that big.
When I get out to groups, I need to know that we visited 5 churches in these zones. And, we can then re-tool for the next cycle.
So, the maps start as a benchmark. Bit of a progress report.
I have a little bit of experience in terms of direct mail and marketing. We need to take certain message to certain populations at certain times. Postcards, letters, calls to action, posters, classified ads in community papers, etc. This gets to be a process to juggle, and if we have a rich set of tools and a good deal of time, we'll make mighty headway.
That headway, with some smarts of course, will impress people. That confidence will lead to more buzz and donations.
If we can turn those six voters into six neighborhood based political picnics with lemonaid in July and August -- we are on our way. Those six need to turn to 60 on petition periods and 600 by election day and we're winning in a landslide.
Let's set the stage with quantifiable, systematic ways. Then let's go back to these places, repeatedly, with more data points, more charts, more breakdowns, more emails, more postcards on windshields --- YOU
NAME IT....
Ta.
Mark Rauterkus
Mark & Chris (& other Listers),
OK, good--glad that you've read my "objections" [word used in its neutral sense], taken them seriously, and answered them & worked them into your plans.
Specifically:
Chris mentioned that the *pattern* to look for is one where a neighborhood "repeatedly outperforms others in similar races." Fair enough, that's *exactly* what one can infer from results like these, and if you find
those neighborhoods, go for them!!!!
Also, Mark mentioned how important it is to put your energy into areas where it might pay off and--hate to use this word--ignore the other ones.
Perhaps "ignore" is too strong of a word for some purists, BUT, insofar as it is impossible to be in two places at the same time, BY DEFINITION to appear in one place and not in another is to "ignore" the other [ so long as one doesn't take the word "ignore" too strongly]. Wish you could be all things to all peop[le, but--you can't. Go to the places where you
have strength and just--well, ignore--the others. If anyone lives in those places who's committed to your candidacy and its ideas, they'll look you up, you won't have to go hunting for them.
Alright, now exactly where ARE those places???? Well, that's the matter for discussion right now, and it sounds like you've made a lot of headway on that. *I* haven't looked at the numbers, but when I do, I'll let you know what I discover and see if it agrees with your analyses.
Take care,
Greg
Post a Comment