Thursday, March 26, 2015

Mapping The Votes In The 46th Ward

click to enlarge
Aldertrack, the news service that keeps an eagle eye on Chicago's political scene, mapped (literally) the 18 wards that are having aldermanic runoffs.  From an email sent Wednesday:
"With the help of Northwestern University Assistant Professor Tom Ogorzalek, we've mapped out each of the aldermanic runoff wards votes by precinct from the February 24 general election. You can download the maps for free here.
As with yesterday's data, the maps work like a heat map, where you can see the runoff candidates' strongest turnouts, and also their weakest turnouts where their first round challengers were stronger. You can immediately see where each candidate's base exists and where they have more work to do."
If you're interested in subscribing to Aldertrack, the info on how to do so is here.


  1. NIMBYism!

    I find it fascinating that Candidate Crawford's core base of support is, geographically speaking, from an area with only 1 SRO while Alderman Cappleman's support comes from an area overrun by SRO's. The is the most classic case of NIMBY I've seen in ages.

    Links to the two UU maps I've referencing for the above conclusion.

  2. Ok class time to calm down and prepare for an IRISHPIRATE CIVICS/46TH WARD ELECTION ANALYSIS.

    Starting from the north and moving south let's look at how the ward voted. Precinct 22 is our friends over at JPUSA. Cappleman received a spanking in that precinct and only got 17% of the vote. That was a 200+ deficit vote out of one precinct. It hurts so good. In the runoff last time he managed to garner 21% of the vote. Interesting thing between the runoff in 2011 and the general in February the total # of votes in that precinct dropped by over 50 votes. Can you say JPUSA circling the drain? I knew you could.

    Now in precincts 8 and 20 the green color is a bit misleading. Those were big turnout Denice Davis precincts and the absolute number of votes went up over 2011. However, Cappleman won both precincts in 2011 over Phelan. My prediction is Cappleman will again win both precincts as I suspect many of the Davis voters were actually "Davis voters". By that I mean they're less likely to turn out in an election where there isn't a candidate on the ballot who they actively support. The Davis campaign did a good job of turning out those voters no matter what her "frenemies" are saying at various online sites. Considering how little money the Davis campaign had they spent a whole lot less per actual vote they received that Cappleman or Crawford.

    North of Montrose seemed to be about 30% of the overall vote.

    The center of the ward is clearly Capplecountry or in my next movie "No Country for Pander Bears". Generally speaking the total number of votes in these precincts went up from 2011 to February 2014, but Cappleman's percentages went down. In a two name race, Cappleman V Pander Bear, I would expect Cappleman's percentages and the absolute vote totals to go up a bit to get near the 2011 levels. Buena Park was around 35% of the vote.

    Now Lakeview is obviously a different animal. Lotsa that nasty orangy color there. Cappleman got crushed in precinct 5. That's new territory for him. Overall he lost Lakeview by about 150 votes and that 1 precinct was responsible for about 1/2 that deficit. Roughly 35 percent of the ward vote came out of Lakeview. I'd expect Lakeview to be a mix of nasty orangy color and lovely Capplegreen on April 7th and I suspect Crawford will carry it slightly. Boo. Hiss.

    Contrary to what my good buddy "Unknown" is saying I suspect Crawford's doing relatively well in Lakeview has more to do with Cappleman being "new" to a good hunk of that area and a 40ish Crawford simply being more in tune with the demographics of some of those precincts than a 60ish Capplemaniac. Phelan also did well in a few of the most southern precincts in 2011. I'm guessing fortyish female attorneys have more demographic appeal there than older male social workers.

    end of part one

    1. Cappleman is losing Lakeview in large part because of a decision he made 3 years ago to remove the LV2 Night Game Parking restrictions that had been in place since '88 for the entire area in and around Wrigley Field. He made this decision without any discussion, debate, or vote by those of us affected, but did so "because Tom Tunney asked him to after he was elected because it would be easier and he did so as a freshman alderman because he was asked to."

      We are well aware of who Cappleman is on the forgotten side of the 46th award over here in Lakeview, and the timing of the Town Hall Meeting Cappleman held to finally address the disaster parking has become due to that decision only three weeks before the runoff election was not lost on us.

      I voted for Cappleman to replace Schiller, but his presence in this part of the 46th Ward has been virtually nonexistent with the exception of stripping us of LV2 status because he was asked to by another alderman. To say that decision along with his lack of presence in addressing some of the issues on the other side of Irving Park are the reasons he is losing over here by a landslide. People are getting out the vote against him in Lakeview because they are very angry and are tired of being totally ignored.

    2. I have no knowledge about the LV2 controversy;although, what you're saying makes sense since he's getting clobbered in the precincts nearest Wrigley Field. That being said Crawford carried Lakeview by about 150 votes over Cappleman and even adding in the few hundred votes Davis got there that's not a landslide. It's a very solid victory, but not a landslide.

      He actually got more votes than Crawford in a few of the eastern Lakeview precincts and outright carried one. Given the numbers he will likely carry a group of those precincts on election day. Your LV2 analysis is probably at least partially right regarding the western precincts. Maybe wholly right. I was unaware of the controversy as I avoid Wrigleyville like the plague on game or concert nights

      I thought demographics and the precincts being new to the ward fully explained him getting clobbered around Wrigley. I was wrong.

      That being said I expect an upsurge in overall voting numbers and I expect that will help Cappleman in Lakeview and ward wide. I suspect the people who really really really REALLY don't like him got out to vote the first time and the "new voters" will be less likely to be avid Capplehaters. Time will tell.

      The Capplehate is powerful it is. Just like the Shillerhate was.

  3. Now the ward boundaries and some of the precinct boundaries changed a bit so this is hardly a rigorous analysis, but in general I think it's pretty close to what happened and will happen. I'm not going to spend 8 hours staring at new and old ward precinct maps to make a slightly less imperfect analysis for a rotten audience like you sad sad Uptown Update readers.

    So what does this all mean for April 7th? Make your own judgments I've made mine. Perhaps "unknown" can come back and give us his spin. I will say that Crawford is running a version of the "Yellow Dog Democrat" guide to losing a 46th ward race from 2011 with a heavier emphasis on ground game and personal contact. Crawford lacks the deeper involvement Phelan had in the ward prior to her race. Phelan developed a good number of what I would call "Phelan" voters based on that involvement. Crawford lacks any significant number of "Crawford" voters because of her lack of involvement. Oh she has plenty of "Not Cappleman" voters, but few of those dedicated folks who vote for and not against a candidate. Now in the end a vote is a vote is a vote no matter the reasoning behind it.

    Tune in on April 7th to see who got more of those votes.

  4. My insightful numbers crunching left something to be desired. Uptown north of Montrose provided approximately 43% of the vote. Buena Park provided 24% and Lakeview 34%. in the February general election.

    Outside that my analysis was damn near perfect..............sure it was. I still expect Cappleman to carry the ward north of Irving and to lose Lakeview by a bit.

    Our friends over at Uptown Uprising provided a map showing the total Crawford/Davis votes versus the Cappleman vote. I refuse to link because they've hurt my wittle feelings on several occasions. The map is actually helpful and it tells a story they like to believe. That if everyone who voted for Davis turns out and votes for Crawford AND no one else shows up at the polls Crawford will win.

    I'm going to look at 2011 to see where the votes came there as I expect the total vote count in the ward to go up a bit. Dick Simpson is predicting a fifty percent higher turnout for the runoff over the February election, but as he said no one really knows. Personally I think the higher the overall vote the better for Cappleman, but I also think that I should play the first major motion picture James Bond that hails from the USA and has a mild Chicago accent.

  5. More numbers crunching genius provided by the Nate Silver of Chicago--ME.

    Well he may be a tad better.

    First, I would like to compliment the revolutionaries over at Uptown Uprising for making this statement:

    "Amy needs to do more to mobilize low-income voters. She has flipped flopped on some things and that doesn't help.
    Like · Reply · 1 · March 25 at 4:10pm"


    It's not flip flopping, it's N U A N C E.

    Also some people may remember Uptown obsessive and Christ's messenger for Uptown JP Paulus. He's again talking about "the towers" and voting. He's only been gone about 9 years. I knew he would chime in somewhere.

    I compared the actual total votes out of Lakeview, Buena Park and N of Montrose from the 2011 runoff and the 2015 general election.

    2011 2015

    LAKEVIEW 29% 33%

    BUENA PARK 23% 24%

    N of MONTROSE 48% 43%

    Essentially with the new ward boundaries the new actual voters are slightly more skewed towards Lakeview. If you divide the ward into thirds Lakeview is Cappleman's worst performing area. He does best in Buena Park and also overperforms a bit north of Montrose based on his total vote percentage. With the additional Lakeview precincts and the loss of the precincts west of the Uptown Theater the new map is slightly more AMY friendly than the old map would have been. GO TEAM AMY!

    That being said he should still do very well in Buena Park and in a 13-14 thousand vote election come out with a 600-700 vote lead out of there. GO BUENA PARK BUNNIES!

    He should also come out of N of Montrose with a smaller vote lead. He will certainly lose JPUSA's 22nd precinct and perhaps 8,17, and 20, but he's likely to carry the other precincts even the Sheridan Park ones Littleton is so proud of. Rolling around on the ground in Finan and Rutherford dollars isn't going to help Team Amy west of Magnolia. I expect that's the best mobilization tool Cappleman could have hoped for in the western precincts.

    Even if Amy comes out of Lakeview with a 400 vote lead which is possible, but unlikely, it won't overcome the Capplemaniacs lead north of Irving.

    We still need to vote and to pester our neighbors to vote though. I was wrong about Cappleman avoiding a runoff and there ain't no such thing as perfection in this life. Except perhaps the giggles of children at the site of me dressed in a clown suit and falling off my unicycle and being run over by a herd of TEAM AMY UPRISING types on their way to the polls.

    Forget the analysis. Expect that the election will be won or lost by one vote and make sure that you or your neighbors are that one vote. Then on election night join me at the Cappleman victory party, assuming I haven't been arrested for flashing my pasty buttocks in front of wherever Team Amy is going to be at. Is it possible to flash pasty buttocks while dressed in a Pander Bear costume? I guess I'll find out.

  6. An hour ago at the People's Church forum she said she was pro casino in Chicago. Which is good. I agree with that. However, on the IVI/IPO questionnaire she said the opposite. Sun Times questionnaire she was for it.

    Back and forth. She's also seemed to complain that Cappleman and/or his supporters were distorting what she said on various issues. The main person distorting what Amy says is one Amy Crawford. Go to a funhouse hall of mirrors Ms Crawford. Walk into room alone. There you will reflections of the culprit.

    When you take one position IN WRITING on an issue and change it IN WRITING on another questionnaire and do the same thing while talking, people get a bit suspicious. Not me of course. I believe you. I think when you are talking to people who are anti something you naturally answer in the way they want to hear. When you talk to a different group that is pro something you answer in the way they want to hear. That's not dissonance. That's not prevarication. That's not nuance. You, AMY CRAWFORD, are just a people person! Cue Streisand song: "People, people who need people, are the panderiest people in the world........"

    1. It's possible that various campaign staff have filled out the questionnaires for her without making sure that they're consistent....BUT (and that's a big but) that calls into question Amy's competence in managing a staff that aren't aware of their boss' position. Either they are a bunch of renegades (which says that Amy doesn't surround herself with competent and disciplined people who have the ability to run an elected official's operations), or Amy is ineffective in communicating basic information necessary to give her staff marching orders for an effective and well-run campaign. In either instance, it doesn't speak well for Amy's ability to be effective if she ever took office.

  7. Bear,

    Amy herself is a renegade. A warrior. A leader. A railroad worker who's been working on the railroad of life all the live-long day. Let's forget that allusion to a 19th Century American folk song.

    As the campaign winds down with nine days to go I'm reminded of Shakespeare. Only Shakespeare can adequately address the situation we face. Or at least the situation I face as I try to make a pretentious comment:

    When the hurly-burly's done,
    When the battle's lost and won.

    Generally political battles are won or lost before election day. Not always though. Still got nine days to go. Perhaps something decisive will happen, but I doubt it. Really the only thing to do for most of us is to vote and encourage our neighbors to vote. I don't think the flyers are having much of an effect one way or another. Not enough people go to the debates with an open mind to make much of a difference.
    The games afoot, the die is cast and as we cross the rubicon of this election we await the judgment of the Gods and Littleton. Well perhaps in the opposite order.

  8. You know I was walking home earlier racking my teeny brain trying to figure out a song that could represent the Crawford campaign. Then it came to me like Paul on the Road to Damascus or Newton and the apple tree:

    She's About a Mover.

    Plus the video is classic. Woman standing motionless and silent in armor as her admirers see and hear what they want to see and hear and the band is obscure just like Amy was six months ago. PERFECTION.

    Well, she strolled on up to me and said,
    "Hey, big boy, what's your name?"
    Hey, hey!
    Well, she strolled on up to me and said,
    "Hey, big boy, what's your name?"
    Hey, hey!
    Well, you know I love you, baby.
    Whoa, yeah, what I say,
    Hey, hey!
    She's about a mover.
    She's about a mover.
    She's about a mover.
    She's about a mover.
    Hey, hey, hey, hey