Morning-after thoughts on Durham's municipal primary election

As we noted here last night, it was a good night for incumbents indeed, with Howard Clement garnering 60% and Cora Cole-McFadden 69% of the vote.

Donald Hughes is moving onto the general election, and it's a near-guarantee that Matt Drew will, too.

The results are still preliminary, with the Independent Weekly reminding us that the Ward 2 race could still change based on provisional balloting -- though the odds of my getting hit by lightning seem better, given that either Darius Little or Sylvester Williams would have to snag more than ninety out of the one hundred or so provisional votes cast (and if more than ten votes went to Clement, Drew or Sandra Howell, Drew wins.)

Here's some first-takes on the race.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The big open question going into Tuesday night was how Donald Hughes would poll against Cole-McFadden.

The Indy's coverage describes him as being "nearly giddy" over moving to the next round. But the big question for Hughes going into the November race is, how does he (or can he) get his vote total higher next time around?

Except for a 15-vote win at the NCCU student union (where Hughes' youth likely resonated well), Hughes didn't manage to best Cole-McFadden in any precinct. His closest showing was Monument of Faith Church near NCCU, but in Durham Committee strongholds like White Rock Baptist, Cole-McFadden still racked up two to three times the votes that Hughes drew.

The difference was more stark in People's Alliance strongholds; at Old West Durham's EK Powe, Cole-McFadden drew 102 nods to Hughes' 4. Even in early voting, Hughes -- who had a regular and active presence of volunteers to lobby voters -- won 212 votes to Cole-McFadden's 610.

Hughes seems to be energized to move forward. The question for the challenger is whether he can make a huge impact going into the general election... especially since we're not sure how many of John Tarantino's votes will move to the Hughes column in the general.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For the gazillionth time, the Durham Committee's political obituary will be written after this election.

On the face of things, the reaction is understandable, especially given a curious oddity in the poll results.

Both Clement and Cole-McFadden got the PA and Friends of Durham endorsements. Clement also got the Durham Committee's nod, while Cole-McFadden didn't.

But Cole-McFadden ran ten percentage points better than Clement, winning almost 70% of the vote in her race to Clement's 60%.

The wild card in all this, of course, is whether or how well the Committee's get-out-the-vote machinery was cranked up in the race. We're not sure whether the customary postcards went out or how well the local GOTV effort worked.

But the fact that Committee choice Hughes didn't win any precincts save one is one that Committee leaders may well ponder over.

Does this mean the obit is due? Hardly. What it does seem to signal is more confirmation of the (fairly obvious) theory we laid forth in March 2008 -- that last year's strong showing by the Committee in the Board of County Commissioner races was likely due to an already-record turnout of African-American voters due to the hotly contested Obama/Clinton and Obama/McCain races.

The Committee's endorsements likely played a big role last year in giving top-of-ballot infrequent voters inspiration to bubble ovals for the BOCC race. (And, incidentally, the same is true for the Independent Weekly's clip-and-save voter guides. Last year when walking the line at early votings, I saw tons of voters carrying the Committee's postcard or the Indy's cut-out.)

Will the November race be high-turnout? Seems doubtful. And that's another reason to suspect the Committee's endorsements will be weaker this round.

Of course, there's nothing really new here. This continues a pattern, it seems, in local races; last year seemed to be the exception.

But it was an exception that seemed to galvanize longtime Committee power broker Lavonia Allison, who's been an even more visible and outspoken presence at City Council and BOCC meetings in the past year.

So, no, the Committee is not politically dead by a long shot. But it's also not nearly as strong as public appearances suggest.

Which makes this perhaps the biggest story out of the election.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

How well did Frank Hyman's arguments yesterday here at BCR hold up at the ballot box?

Well, we won't ascribe motivations to precinct-by-precinct numbers, but it does look like Drew and Tarantino both polled equally well (within a couple of votes of each other) in some precincts. Both ran well in the sort of middle-class to affluent areas we might think of as Friends of Durham strongholds, like those around Cole Mill Rd./northwest Durham and down in the south Durham/Hope Valley region.

In PA-leaning districts around Duke's campus, both Drew and Tarantino drew significantly fewer votes, though libertarian Drew did significantly better than Republican candidate Tarantino in this region.

On a total-Durham basis, their vote totals were fairly similar: 725 for Drew, 771 for Tarantino, though again there's a fair variation within precincts on that.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The fact that Drew is the likely second-place winner in his ward even as Tarantino goes down to a third-place loss speaks to the interesting situation you had in Ward 2.

Drew's move to the November primary clearly shows he benefited from the presence of three other challengers in that race. Sylvester Williams, Darius Little and Sandra Howell all took similar positions on concerns over neighborhood revitalization and the current Council's approach to issues, and all three took potshots at Clement in ways that Drew -- who focused on a low-tax, low-spending message -- didn't.

Combined, all four of Clement's challengers pulled almost 40% of the vote. But the division into four challengers made a big difference.

Ironically, this is probably the best outcome from Clement's perspective vis a vis his chances for re-election. A win by Williams, Howell or Little would have likely seen that challenger pick up much of the support from the remaining two out of that troika.

It's an open question, BCR thinks, as to how many of Williams, Howell or Little's votes will end up in Drew's camp.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Speaking of Little: it looks like his very activist approach to electioneering paid off in one way, at least.

Little did exceptionally well with early voters, garnering 202 nods to Clement's 489, and easily passing his other three challengers there.

Little was a fixture outside the BOE offices on Corporation St. most days, and we figure that direct flesh-pressing and handout-handing played a role in winning some voters.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ever wonder why so much of Durham's political life seems focused on the urban core? Look at the turnout in this race.

Residents of central Durham activist neighborhoods don't just show up for City Council meetings -- they make it out for low-turnout primaries, too.

Leading precincts in this anemic (4.3% turnout) race: Watts-Hillandale's NCSSM site (10%); OWD's EK Powe site (6.9%); Forest Hills (6.7%).  So too, middle-class black neighborhoods that poll at places like White Rock Baptist (8.3%) and Shephard Magnet (9.3%), Monument of Faith church (6.9%), and the Weaver St. center (7.8%).

These activist precincts contributed one-sixth of the votes. Add in the one-stop early voters -- who probably skew towards activists themselves, motivated to get out and vote early -- and you're up to almost one-third of the ballots.

Not doing well? South Durham was quite low in spots (Creekside 1.1%; Triangle Church 1.3%; Lowes Grove 0.8%), and North Durham low-to-average generally (Cole Mill Church 3.1%; The River Church 5.4%; Edison Johnson Ctr. 2.7%.)

Comments

[Frank Hyman]

It's not possible to quantify it, but the rain plays a role in dampening turnout.

Frank Hyman

[jacob]

I wonder about the line of causation you're drawing in the final section. Are Durham politics directed at people in Central Durham because those are the people who turn out, or do we turn out because we feel more connected to municipal politics because we're the audience for most of it? Also, do you have a sense of why the two Trinity Park precincts (Watts Elementary=3.34% and School for the Arts=5.64%) were so much lower than Watts-Hillandale, Forest Hills, and OWD?

[Peggy]

Is Watts Elementary really a Trinity Park precinct? My folks live in TP but vote at DSA, while I live on the northern edge of Watts-Hillandale and vote at Watts Elementary.

While I didn't expect high turnout, these numbers are scary low to me. (I was voter #84 in my precinct at 7pm last night.) The fact that so few people have such control over our local government should either make us giddy with power or seriously concerned.

[John]

Trinity Park is very hard to gauge turnout-wise if you're looking at precincts, because it is sliced up into four precincts (1, 2, 7, 20).

Precinct 2 (Watts) also contains Trinity Heights and Walltown, Precinct 1 (Brodgen) extends over across I-85 up to Murray, Precinct 7 (DSA) extends to neighborhoods south of Main st. and 147, and Precinct 20 (County agricultural building) extends into Duke Park and Old North Durham.

[Michael Bacon]

Regarding Jacob's point, I take a third view -- both of those effects (high focus on central neighborhoods and high turnout there) are effects of a common cause: better political organization in the central precincts. For all the people in southwest and southern Durham, no political organization really penetrates there. (With the exception of the predominantly black middle/upper class neighborhoods down that direction, which are prime DCABP territory.)

[Don Moffitt]

As soon as the general election is over we should start working on overhauling municipal elections. My guess is that it cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 per voter yesterday, which is nuts. And, as Peggy pointed out, it's a little scary to have 4% of the electorate determining election outcomes. (I'm reminded, however, of the local activist who said, "I don't care how many people vote as long as they vote the way I want them to.")

Ideally we'd implement a workable "instant run-off" election, but the perception that it somehow results in a fixed election most likely cannot be overcome.

Two other options: 1) adopt Raleigh's method of having an election in October, and a run-off only if necessary in November (if, that is, no candidate in a race got 50% + 1 votes). Had we done this previously, we'd be through now. We would have voted on all four races, and with yesterday's results we would have had clear winners across the board.

In the future we might still have poorly attended elections in a run-off but hopefully we'd avoid most run-offs all together. OR 2) we could lower the threshold of votes required to a plurality, or a plurality of at least 40%. That's the threshold for nomination to the Board of County Commissioners, which in Durham Co. is tantamount to being elected. Lowering the threshold in City Council races would further reduce the likelihood of run-offs. ANYTHING that would make an election more meaningful would (hopefully) increase turnout.

If we wait to overhaul municipal elections until there are candidates, we'll wind up in the ditch again, with everyone concerned that a change will harm them more than it would another candidate.

If the media would quit writing about one or another local PAC's resurgence, then they could leave off writing about their demise as well (but then, of course, there'd be no story).

None of the local PACs (or the Indy, the Herald-Sun or the N&0) turn out votes. Period. They can and do guide votes, when their typical voters are motivated to get out on their own. So yes, in 2008, the Durham Committee had a lot of influence on the outcome of the primary, and no, so far, they haven't shown much impact in 2009, and yes, they will again some time in the future.

[Toastie]

Precinct 2 rolls contain several hundred Duke students, who only turn out for presidential elections and then move away. They fall off the rolls eventually, but there are always new ones coming on. As a result, it's difficult to ascribe much meaning to the turnout figures here.

[AFN]

Don,

Couldn't agree with you more. I was thinking about this myself yesterday. How do you propose we go about getting this changed?

A Fellow Neighbor

[Erik Landfried]

OK, this is going to sound kind of Pollyanna, and that's not something most people usually accuse me of.

To me the big story is not that there was a low voter turnout (shameful though that be) or the Battle of Those Who Received Less Than 20% of the Vote. It's that over 60% percent of those that did vote think that our current Council members are doing a pretty good job. Cole-McFadden and Clement have their share of detractors and yet they both won HANDILY in the primary and will likely win big in the general. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the competition, that's pretty impressive.

So to me the big message of the day is that Durhamites are pretty satisfied with how our City Council is doing as a whole and they are not interested in removing anyone from that team right now. Couple that with what seems like impressive results from our City Manager and I'd say this is a pretty good time for the leadership in Durham. That doesn't mean we should get complacent or that everything is perfect. But things are getting better - that's something we should celebrate once in a while.

[Durham Voter]

@ Don's Propasal.
It’s too bad that the Elections Board bungled their attempt to change the system earlier this year. They appeared to blind-side the City Council with their naïve winner-take-all proposal. A little discussion before-hand with the community would have pointed out to the Elections Board the pitfalls of that system and would have likely led to a modified proposal for a system, similar to that of Raleigh. Maybe this can be the start of that overdue discussion.