Margin of Σrror

Margin of Σrror -

Bill de Blasio’s diverse coalition could clinch contest for New York mayor | Harry J Enten

Given New York’s ethnically divided politics, De Blasio leads the Democratic mayoral primary with historically broad support

Long-time followers of New York City politics know that the vote in city-wide elections usually breaks down along racial and ethnic lines. In this year’s comptroller race, for instance, Eliot Spitzer is winning black voters and losing white voters by a wide margin. The mayoral race, however, is a far different scenario.

The latest trio of mayoral polls puts Bill de Blasio just south of the 40% needed to avoid a runoff with likely second-place finisher Bill Thompson, who is 15pt to 20pt behind. De Blasio has made a late charge, but what’s truly surprising to me is how De Blasio is getting to 40%.

De Blasio is trying to hold together the most diverse coalition in modern history to win the Democratic primary for mayor. In the latest Quinnipiac poll (which is far from perfect, though will have to do), De Blasio is at 44% among Hispanic voters, 40% among white voters, and 37% among black voters. This is despite Thompson being black. So, given the margin of error on subsamples, we could say that De Blasio looks to be scoring equally well among all the main racial and/or ethnic groups.

Compare this racial coalition to that of the last white Democrat to win a mayoral primary, Mark Green in 2001. Green took 83% of whites, 29% of blacks, and only 16% of Latinos on his way to winning a runoff against Freddy Ferrer, who is Hispanic, 51% to 49%. The same racial divisions were evident to some degree in 2005 when Ferrer beat Anthony Weiner, in 1997, when Ruth Messinger defeated Al Sharpton, and in 1989, when David Dinkins topped Ed Koch.

Put another way, De Blasio is trying to achieve something unprecedented. A non-Jewish white candidate has not finished first in the Democratic New York mayoral primary in 44 years. De Blasio may be many things, but he’s not black or Jewish. For those us who use history as a guide, the lesson is that the only tradition that endures is the tradition of change.

Many have ascribed De Blasio’s winning coalition to the fact that he’s become the anti-Mike Bloomberg. De Blasio has run to the left in this Democratic primary – seemingly a smart move in a field crowded with competitive centrists. Yet, the data indicate that De Blasio’s edge is not necessarily down to being an anti-Bloomberg.

De Blasio is doing about as well with Bloomberg backers as he is with those who dislike the departing mayor. In a Public Policy Polling survey completed on Sunday night, De Blasio is at 37% among those who approve of Bloomberg and at 39% with those who disapprove. That matches a Marist poll conducted just a few days earlier.

My own guess is De Blasio has masterfully parlayed a mixture of biography and political positioning into broad appeal. De Blasio’s a white Brooklynite who promises to pay attention to the outer boroughs; this allows him to be competitive with moderate and conservative outer borough whites. He’s the most liberal of the major contenders: hence his backing from white progressives. His stances on policing, and astute ads featuring his biracial son, allow him to bring minorities into his coalition.

That is a team of voters who have brought De Blasio to the verge of winning the primary. The question is whether or not he’ll actually get to the magic 40%, to win outright in the first round. With De Blasio at 36%, 38%, and 39% in recently released polls, and with somewhere between 8% and 10% of voters undecided, it seems quite possible that he’ll make it – should the undecided vote break his way.

I still urge caution. In the last five competitive mayoral primaries, one of the two leading contenders received what they polled in pre-election polls but got no more. The other leading contender picked up the vast majority of undecideds. Normally, it’s the leading candidate of color who picks up the most support. The complicating factor is that Thompson is trailing among blacks by 10pt to 15pt, depending on the survey. So, who knows if history will hold?

Adding to the confusion is potential under-the-radar momentum for Bill Thompson. Thompson’s 25% in the Quinnipiac poll and 20% in the Marist survey are his two highest percentages in those surveys to date. He’s picked up 5pt in the last week per Quinnipiac, while De Blasio has dropped 4pt from 43% to 39%. If that is real momentum (and I don’t know if it is), then it could lead to a much closer election night than most predict.

Finally, there have been two instances in the past 16 years where a candidate fell short of 40% on election night yet reached it once absentee votes were counted. It took weeks before Messinger was declared to be over 40% in 1997. By then, they even held a runoff debate between Messinger and Sharpton!

De Blasio likely has got be more than 0.3pt on either side of 40.0% on election night for us to be confident that absentees would clinch it. The fact that De Blasio’s best numbers have come in the final weeks suggests that absentees may, in fact, be less likely to go for him than ballots cast on election day. That means that, unlike those who straddled 40% in years past, De Blasio is more likely to fall back, than spring forward in post-election day counts – if it’s on a knife edge.

Of course, none of this will matter if Bill de Blasio reaches 41%. If he does, it will cap a remarkable two months for the public advocate. If he doesn’t, Thompson’s likely to give him a good fight in the runoff, regardless of early polling. His favorables are as good as De Blasio’s, and Thompson has a tendency to close well.

But enough with my analysis, let’s hear what the voters have to say.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Will Weiner be a winner and can Stringer make Spitzer a loser? | Harry J Enten

The Democratic primaries for New York mayor and comptroller are warming up – with two scandal-ridden candidates in front

The latest surveys from Marist and Quinnipiac have Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer leading the mayoral and comptroller primaries respectively. But will that hold?

Democratic mayoral primary: Weiner v Quinn v the rest

For the first time in the campaign, one can easily paint a picture that would have Weiner winning both the primary and the runoff. Weiner leads by 25% to 22% over City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in the Quinnipiac survey released on Monday. It’s not the top line, however, that should make Weiner smile. It’s the fact that Quinn is in her weakest position yet against Weiner for the runoff, which will be held if no candidate reaches a threshold of 40% in the first round.

Quinn’s net favorable rating among Democrats is only +5pt. This is an amazing 50pt drop since January. It’s also a 16pt decline from just late June. Weiner, on the other hand, has a +6pt net favorable rating. That’s stayed relatively steady, if not risen somewhat, since he entered the race. Marist’s poll in late June, which had Weiner ahead by 5pt, discovered an even higher rise in his favorables.

Though Quinnipiac didn’t specifically poll the runoff, previous surveys by Marist indicated that Weiner was actually outperforming Quinn relative to their favorable ratings. So, I would guess that Weiner is probably ahead in a runoff against an opponent who is actually more disliked than he is.

Quinn’s weakness is not any personal life foible. Most likely, it’s because of outside campaigns linking her to Mayor Bloomberg, who is disliked by a substantial portion of the Democratic electorate, especially for her approval of a rule-changing extra term for Bloomberg. It will be difficult for her to unite the anti-Weiner vote in a runoff.

So Weiner, at this point, has to be considered the favorite in a runoff.

The most likely way Weiner could lose is if either current Public Advocate Bill de Blasio or former Comptroller Bill Thompson reach the runoff. They’re both polling in the low teens in the first round – well behind Quinn. But both have far higher net favorables (+30pt or more), depending on whether you look at Marist or Quinnipiac. Their problem is the same: each is relatively unknown, with about 50% of those surveyed expressing no opinion of them, per Quinnipiac, as opposed to only 20% having no view of Weiner.

Both De Blasio and Thompson will benefit from the city’s public financing system, which will allow them to get their name out there more. The question is whether they will really break through in the media. That could prove difficult given that the press will likely focus on the Weiner-Quinn dynamic, as well as on Spitzer in the comptroller race.

Thompson likely has the best chance. I believe that surveys are underestimating Thompson’s share of the black vote (he is the only African-American candidate). I still think that’s the case, but any underestimation effect would not be so great as to change the current ordering of the top line in either the Marist or the Quinnipiac polls, which have him at least 7pt behind Quinn. He’ll need to get closer than he is currently to count on any survey under-count effect putting him over the top.

All this said, New York City mayoral primaries have a tendency to break late. This is especially the case when all the candidates are relatively close together. Today’s polling isn’t necessarily predictive of tomorrow’s.

Spitzer v Stringer for comptroller

A very different dynamic is at play in the comptroller race. Spitzer leads Scott Stringer 48% to 33% (Quinnipiac), and 42% to 33% (Marist), respectively. He has a better net favorable than either Quinn or Weiner at +21pt. Do a better net favorable and a bigger lead mean that Spitzer is more likely to win?

That is one way to look at it. Indeed, I’d be the first to admit that I’m surprised that Spitzer is polling so well despite his sex scandal past. Still, I’d argue that the one-on-one dynamic against Stringer puts him at an inherent disadvantage: it’s a zero-sum game and if Stringer moves up, he’ll eat into Spitzer’s numbers. In the mayoral race, the dynamic is different: De Blasio or Thompson may be able to take votes off each other, or off either Weiner or Quinn.

Spitzer enjoys the best name recognition of any of the candidates in either race, with only 15% not holding an opinion of him per Quinnipiac. Stringer has the lowest name recognition, with 63% saying they didn’t know how they feel about the current Manhattan borough president. That low number almost certainly will not hold as the contest heats up.

While elected officials and labor unions are split as to who they support in the mayoral race, they are almost uniformly behind Stringer in the comptroller election. Stringer will have raised at least $5-6m including matching funds. The press will also likely pay more attention to Stringer in this race than to either De Blasio or Thompson in the mayoral primary, because he’s the only opponent Spitzer has. That should help Stringer boost his name identification hugely.

As Stringer’s name recognition goes up, his polling against Spitzer should as well. Spitzer is up by 35pt among black voters in the Quinnipiac poll, yet 72% have no opinion of Stringer. Spitzer leads by 20pt among Latinos, as 76% have no opinion of Stringer. The one racial group Stringer does lead Spitzer among is whites, partially because a much lower 46% have no opinion of Stringer. Among all groups, Stringer has a better favorable to unfavorable ratio. His ratio overall is a little better than 3:1, while it is only about half that for Spitzer.

This graph by Mark Blumenthal tells the story.

Stringer’s deficit by borough is directly related to how well Stringer is liked. Where he is best known and liked, in Manhattan, he is polling the best. Where he is least liked and least known, in Queens and Staten Island, he is polling the worst.

In short, I don’t think Spitzer’s lead is as strong as the top line suggests. It should fade as Stringer becomes better known. Weiner’s advantage over Quinn is more secure, but he has to look out for the better-liked De Blasio and Thompson. With public financing of candidates the rule and most voters not yet tuned in, anything can still happen.

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Will Weiner be a winner and can Stringer make Spitzer a loser? | Harry J Enten

The Democratic primaries for New York mayor and comptroller are warming up – with two scandal-ridden candidates in front

The latest surveys from Marist and Quinnipiac have Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer leading the mayoral and comptroller primaries respectively. But will that hold?

Democratic mayoral primary: Weiner v Quinn v the rest

For the first time in the campaign, one can easily paint a picture that would have Weiner winning both the primary and the runoff. Weiner leads by 25% to 22% over City Council Speaker Christine Quinn in the Quinnipiac survey released on Monday. It’s not the top line, however, that should make Weiner smile. It’s the fact that Quinn is in her weakest position yet against Weiner for the runoff, which will be held if no candidate reaches a threshold of 40% in the first round.

Quinn’s net favorable rating among Democrats is only +5pt. This is an amazing 50pt drop since January. It’s also a 16pt decline from just late June. Weiner, on the other hand, has a +6pt net favorable rating. That’s stayed relatively steady, if not risen somewhat, since he entered the race. Marist’s poll in late June, which had Weiner ahead by 5pt, discovered an even higher rise in his favorables.

Though Quinnipiac didn’t specifically poll the runoff, previous surveys by Marist indicated that Weiner was actually outperforming Quinn relative to their favorable ratings. So, I would guess that Weiner is probably ahead in a runoff against an opponent who is actually more disliked than he is.

Quinn’s weakness is not any personal life foible. Most likely, it’s because of outside campaigns linking her to Mayor Bloomberg, who is disliked by a substantial portion of the Democratic electorate, especially for her approval of a rule-changing extra term for Bloomberg. It will be difficult for her to unite the anti-Weiner vote in a runoff.

So Weiner, at this point, has to be considered the favorite in a runoff.

The most likely way Weiner could lose is if either current Public Advocate Bill de Blasio or former Comptroller Bill Thompson reach the runoff. They’re both polling in the low teens in the first round – well behind Quinn. But both have far higher net favorables (+30pt or more), depending on whether you look at Marist or Quinnipiac. Their problem is the same: each is relatively unknown, with about 50% of those surveyed expressing no opinion of them, per Quinnipiac, as opposed to only 20% having no view of Weiner.

Both De Blasio and Thompson will benefit from the city’s public financing system, which will allow them to get their name out there more. The question is whether they will really break through in the media. That could prove difficult given that the press will likely focus on the Weiner-Quinn dynamic, as well as on Spitzer in the comptroller race.

Thompson likely has the best chance. I believe that surveys are underestimating Thompson’s share of the black vote (he is the only African-American candidate). I still think that’s the case, but any underestimation effect would not be so great as to change the current ordering of the top line in either the Marist or the Quinnipiac polls, which have him at least 7pt behind Quinn. He’ll need to get closer than he is currently to count on any survey under-count effect putting him over the top.

All this said, New York City mayoral primaries have a tendency to break late. This is especially the case when all the candidates are relatively close together. Today’s polling isn’t necessarily predictive of tomorrow’s.

Spitzer v Stringer for comptroller

A very different dynamic is at play in the comptroller race. Spitzer leads Scott Stringer 48% to 33% (Quinnipiac), and 42% to 33% (Marist), respectively. He has a better net favorable than either Quinn or Weiner at +21pt. Do a better net favorable and a bigger lead mean that Spitzer is more likely to win?

That is one way to look at it. Indeed, I’d be the first to admit that I’m surprised that Spitzer is polling so well despite his sex scandal past. Still, I’d argue that the one-on-one dynamic against Stringer puts him at an inherent disadvantage: it’s a zero-sum game and if Stringer moves up, he’ll eat into Spitzer’s numbers. In the mayoral race, the dynamic is different: De Blasio or Thompson may be able to take votes off each other, or off either Weiner or Quinn.

Spitzer enjoys the best name recognition of any of the candidates in either race, with only 15% not holding an opinion of him per Quinnipiac. Stringer has the lowest name recognition, with 63% saying they didn’t know how they feel about the current Manhattan borough president. That low number almost certainly will not hold as the contest heats up.

While elected officials and labor unions are split as to who they support in the mayoral race, they are almost uniformly behind Stringer in the comptroller election. Stringer will have raised at least $5-6m including matching funds. The press will also likely pay more attention to Stringer in this race than to either De Blasio or Thompson in the mayoral primary, because he’s the only opponent Spitzer has. That should help Stringer boost his name identification hugely.

As Stringer’s name recognition goes up, his polling against Spitzer should as well. Spitzer is up by 35pt among black voters in the Quinnipiac poll, yet 72% have no opinion of Stringer. Spitzer leads by 20pt among Latinos, as 76% have no opinion of Stringer. The one racial group Stringer does lead Spitzer among is whites, partially because a much lower 46% have no opinion of Stringer. Among all groups, Stringer has a better favorable to unfavorable ratio. His ratio overall is a little better than 3:1, while it is only about half that for Spitzer.

This graph by Mark Blumenthal tells the story.

Stringer’s deficit by borough is directly related to how well Stinger is liked. Where he is best known and liked, in Manhattan, he is polling the best. Where he is least liked and least known, in Queens and Staten Island, he is polling the worst.

In short, I don’t think Spitzer’s lead is as strong as the top line suggests. It should fade as Stringer becomes better known. Weiner’s advantage over Quinn is more secure, but he has to look out for the better-liked De Blasio and Thompson. With public financing of candidates the rule and most voters not yet tuned in, anything can still happen.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Why do New York liberals support conservative Christine Quinn? | Harry J Enten

She could be the city’s first woman and openly gay mayor, but her record doesn’t line up with most progressives

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn has announced her bid to become the first women and the first openly gay mayor in New York City history. She’s widely assumed to be the favorite in the primary, which means she’s favored in the general election, too. But I have to admit, I’m surprised that progressives support Quinn so much – I’ve never thought of her as much of a liberal.

Her presumed advantage largely consists of support from liberal New Yorkers, who make up about 50% of the primary’s electorate. Quinn, per the latest Marist poll, is winning 43% of them in the primary, her best numbers among any ideological group. Those strong figures help put her at 37% overall – just three points away from the 40% required to avoid a runoff.

At a glance, this all makes sense. She’s openly gay, and was so long before a majority supported gay marriage, and long before any sort of legal unions between same-sex couples. I can’t deny that there’s something quite progressive about that.

Yet on the whole, Quinn’s positions are not liberal for New York City. She’s been an ally to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who’s defeated three Democratic candidates in a row. Nobody would call Bloomberg a conservative on social issues, though he’s certainly an economic one. Quinn, meanwhile, has almost always supported his causes. That bill that let Bloomberg run for a third term, even though voters had voted for term limits? Quinn helped usher it in. Of the 333 bills brought before the city council in 2011, Quinn and Bloomberg disagreed on only 5% of them.

To gauge her record, an academic scorecard would come in handy, but they don’t exist for New York City politicians like they do for state legislatures or Congress. There are, however, advocate group scorecards, which capture legislators’ positions fairly well.

The Human Rights Project at the Urban Justice Center (HRP) publishes an annual report of all New York City councilmembers, in which they grade politicians’ records on rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social. A high score indicates a progressive record, while a low one says the opposite. All the Republicans on the 2011 scorecard received a C or worse. The average Democratic score was a B-.

Christine Quinn received a D+ in 2011 from the HRJ, which was tied for the worst score of any Democrat on the council. The 2012 scorecard (in which she did not receive a score) described her thus:

“[Quinn] delayed hearings, stalled votes and restricted the passage of legislation … inhibiting the advancement of human rights in New York City.”

Perhaps most famously, Quinn has stalled the paid sick day bill, which would give employees five paid sick days if they work for a company with five or more employees. It’s sponsored by 36 of the 51 council members, more than enough to overcome a Bloomberg veto. Quinn, however, won’t let the bill come up for a vote. She claims “given the current economic reality, now is not the right time for this policy.”

Her Democratic competitors are in favor of the bill: Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and Comptroller John Liu recieved scored a B and A, respectively, in their last years on the city council. Both voted against Bloomberg’s extended term limits.

Not convinced by the scorecard? Look at who has endorsed Quinn. Before he passed away, former mayor Ed Koch called her a “liberal with sanity … [which is] exactly my philosophy”. Ed Koch, of course, backed George W Bush and the contentiously elected Republican Bob Turner, and lost his own bid for a fourth mayoral term because liberals abandoned him.

Quinn has also received support from the Staten Island Borough President Jim Molinaro, of the Conservative Party. For those that don’t know, the Conservative Party is a third party in New York, founded because the state’s Republicans were seen as too liberal. It was the banner under which conservative icon William Buckley ran for mayor in 1965.

So again, I have to ask: why are liberals backing Quinn?

Part of it has to be name recognition – she’s simply better known than her competitors. Even a volunteer at her kickoff event admitted:

“I don’t really know very much to be honest. I really only know about Quinn.”

Maybe Quinn isn’t the most liberal, but just liberal enough. I find that a little hard to believe, though, since whoever wins the Democratic nomination will probably win the general election with ease.

The other possibility is perhaps more intriguing: some might see the mere act of voting for a gay, female public official as a progressive statement. The Human Rights Campaign, a LGBT advocacy group, has backed Quinn, even though some have critiqued Quinn for not being liberal enough on HIV/AIDS issues. Quinn’s opponents in the Democratic primary, on the other hand, have been very strong on gay rights.

Emily’s List, a group dedicated to electing Democratic women, has also thrown its weight behind Quinn. This comes as many liberal women, from Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney to feminist Gloria Steinem, have rallied for Quinn to back the sick day bill. Steinem has even threatened to withdraw her endorsement if Quinn doesn’t bring the bill to vote.

For whatever reasons, Christine Quinn seems to have a strong hold over the primary right now. The record suggests, however, that once voters tune into the race, Quinn’s standing might not be as solid as it looks.

• Editor’s note: this article was amended to give the full name of the Human Rights Project at the Urban Justice Center (HRP) at 6pm (ET) on 13 March.

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds