Vote Reveals A Racially Divided City

by Thomas MacMillan | Nov 7, 2013 2:14 pm

(62) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Campaign 2013

At first glance, the final results of Tuesday’s mayoral election looked strikingly similar to those of the 2011 mayoral election: A tight race with a 45/55 citywide vote split. A deeper look at the numbers reveals that New Haven neighborhoods were far more polarized this time. Two years ago, petitioning candidate Jeffrey Kerekes had a surprisingly strong showing against incumbent Democrat John DeStefano in the general mayoral election after the two participated in a four-way Democratic primary. The two candidates were separated by only 10 percentage points. This year, petitioning candidate Justin Elicker also surprised people with his strong showing against a longtime, well-known, better-funded endorsed Democrat, Toni Harp, in the general mayoral election after the two participated in a four-way Democratic primary. Percentage-wise, the outcome was almost identical to 2011’s. But while Kerekes and DeStefano ran relatively closely in each of the city’s 30 wards in 2011, the 2013 election saw a marked increase in the number of landslide ward victories. The numbers portray an increasingly polarized city. While the city as a whole split fairly close to evenly between the candidates, on the ward level many neighborhoods showed an overwhelming preference for one candidate or the other. In 2011, only four wards had a margins of victory of 30 percent or greater. In 2013, the margin was 30 percent or greater in 23 wards. Four wards had margins of 70 percent or more. If you consider the margins not as a percentage, but in terms of the number of votes cast, the contrast is even starker. In 2011, only two wards had margins of victory of over 200 votes. In 2013, 20 wards had 200-plus margins of victory. The average margin of victory per ward in 2013 was 20 percentage points higher than in 2011. And in number of votes cast, the margin more than tripled. That’s partly because there were far more votes cast in 2013 than in 2011: 15,457 in 2011, 20,769 in 2013. Elicker, who lost Tuesday’s election, earned more votes than DeStefano did in 2011 when he won reelection. Another way to interpret the change: In 2011, two white men were vying for the mayor’s office, which meant that the candidates’ race and gender were less of a factor. In this year’s contest, between a white man and a black woman, race or gender may have contributed to the polarization. (The race saw many other issues raised, as well, including the difference between “insider” and “outsider” politics as well as personal attacks on Harp and her family.) Of the 10 wards with the highest margins of victory, the top seven were black or Latino-dominated wards, and went for Harp. That includes Newhallville’s Ward 20, West River’s Ward 23, and the Hill’s Wards 3, 4 and 5. As in the primary, Elicker couldn’t find traction in black-dominated neighborhoods. Harp, meanwhile, didn’t win over white voters in Morris Cove and was outpaced in Westville and on Elicker’s home turf in East Rock. This chart shows the number of votes cast for each candidate in each ward in 2013. Elicker found his largest landslide victories in Ward 10, which he represents on the Board of Aldermen, and in Morris Cove’s Ward 18, which is largely white. Comparing the 2013 and 2011 ward-by-ward vote counts reveals one simliarity between Elicker’s results and those of Kerekes and DeStefano: The three men all had Wards 18 and 25 as their top two wards in terms of votes won. (Note: This is not a perfect comparison, because since 2011, ward redistricting changed the boundaries of many wards to varying degrees.) Neither Kerekes nor DeStefano, however, relied quite as heavily on 18 and 25 as Elicker did. Ward-by-ward breakdowns show that Kerekes and DeStefano ran relatively close in most of the city’s wards. Their votes were relatively spread out among the wards. Elicker garnered nearly a quarter of his total votes in Wards 18 and 25 alone, outpacing Harp in those two wards by crushing margins. Unlike for Elicker, Kerekes, and DeStefano, Ward 18 didn’t even make Harp’s top-10 list of most supportive wards. And Ward 25 was down at number eight on her list. Harp instead lit up Dixwell, Newhallville and Beaver Hills, among other areas. Wards in those three neighborhoods were among the five that delivered her the most votes Tuesday. They didn’t play as large a factor in the 2011 mayor’s race. This map shows New Haven by race, based on census information, by way of the University of Virginia. General Maps Same As Primary Harp’s voter turnout map shows the role that Newhallville’s Ward 20 played in her win, along with the broad support she found citywide. Both Harp’s and Elicker’s general election turnout maps look similar to their primary election turnout maps. And the map of ward majorities won by the candidates was exactly the same in the primary as it was in the general. The two candidates’ turnout maps are also fairly similar to those of their running mates, the candidates for city clerk. Smart dominated in Wooster Square’s Ward 8, the area he represents on the Board of Aldermen. All the maps share similarities with the overall voter turnout map, of course. Westville’s Wards 25 and 26 and Morris Cove’s Ward 18 had high turnout, as usual. Wards 19 and 20 had proportionately weaker showings than they did in the primary. (Those wards had contested aldermanic races in the primary, but not in the general election.) Voter turnout was again low in the Hill and in Fair Haven. Harp’s campaign ran roughly as efficiently overall as it did in the primary, when she raised $43.32 per vote. As of Oct. 27, Harp had raised $503,496, including money raised in the primary. That amounts to $44.35 raised per vote. If you factor in the $58,000 that AFSCME put into the race, it goes up to $49.46 per vote. Elicker gained efficiency between the general and the primary. He raised $49.95 per vote in the primary election, and just $32.76 per vote he earned in the general election.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: TheMadcap on November 7, 2013 2:30pm Great data NHI! But jeez, every election, Fair Haven(particularly ward 16 which is fully in Fair Haven) and The Hill’s turnout is dismal. Newhallville(ward 20 specifically) is continuing though with higher turnouts compared to a few years ago becoming the norm for them.

posted by: anonymous on November 7, 2013 2:32pm I disagree. It’s amazing that both candidates did so well citywide. Voter turnout was up by 30-40% everywhere, not just in certain wards. Looking nationally, other cities are far more polarized. There are quite a few precincts in NYC where one candidate received over 98% of the vote, and the precincts there are twice the size of our Wards. Compare Wards with caution, because of factors like homeownership rates and resident age (wildly different by Ward) and the fact that Ward boundaries dramatically changed between 2011 and 2013. One would expect turnout in 25, 26, and 18 to be far higher than the city as a whole because those areas are predominantly homeowners, black and white.

posted by: Anderson Scooper on November 7, 2013 3:04pm @T-Mac, Great number-crunching, but gosh what a horrible, sensational headline. Your analysis would be much better-served to focus on tax burdens. A fiscally more conservative Elicker won handily in the wards where taxes soared following the 2011 revaluation. Harp won hands down in those wards where taxes were flat, or even fell, following the reveal. (There also is likely a significant correlation between high rates of home ownership, and Elicker votes.) Certainly, a Harp administration is a scary proposition to many New Haveners, but little of it has to do with race. And that the black community went so strongly for the twenty-year black incumbent is no great surprise. My guess is that Toni personally knows more than half of the people that voted for her. If anything the divide in town is between the patronage wing of the Democratic Party, and the Unions, and those of us who aren’t getting their bread-and-butter from the government or Local 34 & 35. Someone has to pay for the great salaries and superior benefit packages, and the property tax burden which they generate has moved beyond staggering to pretty much outrageous. Fwiw.

posted by: P Christopher Ozyck on November 7, 2013 3:07pm It would be helpful to see racial breakout by neighborhood . By Income and education would also help too. I think skewing this analysis to solely to race is inflammatory . Race and gender did play a role , but the “why’s” people voted came down to higher minded issues.

Canvassing in the lowest return section of fairhaven showed me one reason why turnout is low. A large % simply don’t live there anymore. What strikes me most is the high turnout in newhallville. I am so impressed what Latoya Agnew and others did there.

posted by: robn on November 7, 2013 3:14pm A very sad and disturbing correlation between election results and ... a) identity politics

b) money spent But I guess that’s the world we live in.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 7, 2013 3:28pm Through my years of pouring through election data, this is my biggest observation….. In every election, the Top 10 wards for voter turnout have the same voting power as all the voters in the other 20 wards. These top ten wards DRIVE the Election, and always select the winner. These wards also directly correlate with the Elicker leaning Blue/Purple Wards in the “WARD PERCENTAGE WON” Chart, above.. The Harp Machine played the ‘potential’ in the minority turn-out wards, and, of course it worked. Add the Union involvement, and it’s a perfect storm for a power shift. .

posted by: FacChec on November 7, 2013 4:20pm This presentation of charts and graphs shows the diligence and deliberate time put into the effort to summarize the vote and identify where the vote originated. In as much as the heading suggest;

“Vote Reveals a Racially Divided City”.

I cannot disagree more. Without performing a statistical analysis based on exit polling, it is impossible to make that conclusion. However, in wards or neighborhoods that are believed to be dominated by a particular race, such a comparison could well be drawn. In FAC, according to the 2010 Census, of the 129,779 population in the city, 41,230 identified as white, 43,332 indentified as black, and 35,591 identified as Hispanic or Latino. However, in the important category of voting age population over 18 years; 37,307 are White, 31,173 are Black and 23,936 are Hispanic or Latino. Clearly, the white population is the majority race in both total count and those over the voting age of 18. This simply means that the white population is the older population. For voting purposes. “In this year’s contest, between a white man and a black woman, race or gender may have contributed to the polarization”. I agree, but that does not mean the vote showed a racially divided city. It would be difficult to support that contention without exit polls supported by some preceding knowledge of the racial makeup of a given ward. Of 72,278 eligible to vote, only 21,120 or 29% actually voted, of that number, many of the pie charts show the white vote was dominate, but divided, making it more unlikely to determine a racially divided city. Nevertheless a good job Tom.

posted by: grounded on November 7, 2013 4:26pm There’s no data in the world that could answer the one question about New Haven’s racial politics that keeps me up at night: Imagine the unions had convinced Marty Looney, rather than Toni Harp, to run for mayor. And imagine that Marty Looney, rather than Toni Harp, had taken that union support, taken those tainted suburban campaign donations, benefited from AFSCME’s mailers, rejected the absurd contention that New Haven is the next Detroit and beaten Justin Elicker 55/45 in the general election. Would East Rockers be pulling their hair out, griping about how their only option now is to just leave town?

posted by: ELMCITYPROF on November 7, 2013 4:44pm Interesting analysis but the replies to this article and an earlier article about Harp’s victory and African American women are even more interesting. I love when people decry “identity politics” whenever someone suggests that the racial or gendered identity of a candidate holds some resonance in their lives. The reality is that identity politics is an inherent part of the democratic process. People just like to pick and choose which identities matter while judging others for their choices. Whether your identity is as an “East Rock resident” or as a “homeowner” your membership in those groups holds significance to how you view issues and evaluate candidates. It’s ridiculous to denounce low voter turnout on the one hand and then chastise people for the substance of their votes on the other. Even more ridiculous to assume that the ONLY reason minority voters preferred Harp was because they shared the same degree of melanin. Rather, shared membership in a particular group may heighten voters’ expectation that said candidate will be more aware of and sensitive to their interests. One only need to consider how the increased presence of women in Congress led to greater attention to issues such as domestic violence, employment discrimination, and equal pay.

posted by: Pardee on November 7, 2013 4:47pm In the 18th ward, the lies our alder spread about Justin closing our firehouse had an impact on voters. Morris Cove has a lot of senior citizens, and they were frightened at the thought of their first responder being shut down. Their disgust at his willingness to play political games at their expense motivated many to vote. He is lucky that his candidacy was uncontested—this time.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 7, 2013 5:08pm And remember, it’s easy to call RACE about this Race, but it is really about socio-economics….

posted by: TheMadcap on November 7, 2013 5:14pm Another thing about people mentioning identity politics. Identity of course plays a role, but some people act like if people are solely voting for someone they vehemently disagree with on everything aside from their race or gender or religion, which isn’t true at all.(otherwise black Republican candidates would be able to get more than ~5% of the black vote against white Democrat candidates) Especially in regards to New Haven. Here’s a shocking fact, if you voted for Justin Elicker, you mostly agree with Toni Harp. If you voted for Toni Harp, you mostly agree with Justin Elicker. They’re both liberal Democrats.(or liberal Democrat turned independent if you’re still mad about that). It’s not like the choice was between Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio.

posted by: robn on November 7, 2013 5:15pm ECP, <i>“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” MLK Sense the irony?

posted by: Atticus Shrugged on November 7, 2013 5:15pm Anyone who does not find this data disturbing is most likely lying to himself or is okay with the role of race in politics. It is fairly obvious that wards 18, 25, and 10 are predominately white wards. Let us not be afraid to admit that race did play a role in politics and admit that racism is here to stay. Though it can be argued that if Senator Harp were a white male, the race would have had the same breakdown by wards - it is highly unlikely. The DeStefano v. Kerekes data demonstrates relatively as much. Therefore, the only question I’m left to wonder is whether we almost would up with the lesser qualified candidate as mayor elect because people can’t see past race.

posted by: robn on November 7, 2013 5:22pm AS, I find it disturbing that by mentioning “white wards” you appear to interpret this data solely as white against black racism.

posted by: Martha Smith on November 7, 2013 5:40pm I agree with Anderson Scooper regarding this article’s terribly sensational headline. Race was a factor in this election, but so were union, party, and neighborhood affiliations. Note the location of Toni Harp’s senate district on the western side of town where she also had strong support.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&num=200&start=6&msa=0&msid=101574801870020185912.000464dd7ec164d14658d&ll=41.357742,-72.916946&spn=0.249966,0.524597&z=11 I know people who voted for Toni Harp mainly because of loyalty to her gained by a long history as her constituent. Likewise, many of Justin’s supporters stood with him because of his work as alderman in the East Rock neighborhood. Race was just one of many factors in this election, and it’s disappointing to see it highlighted in your sensational headline.

posted by: Samuel T. Ross-Lee on November 7, 2013 5:59pm ElmcityProof: Well said/written. robn: I soooo wish that people would stop taking that quote out of context. Or using it out of convenience.

posted by: anonymous on November 7, 2013 6:04pm Atticus: I can’t tell you how many upper class white suburbanites have told me they were around this week to knock doors for Toni. That counteracts the narrative here. The election was about the candidates’ stands on issues, the organizing machines and corporate money behind them, and their name recognition and experiences. With public financing, no PACs or contractors and a $370 cap, Elicker taped nine fingers behind his back but still got half the vote. Many white voters went for Toni, and Elicker pulled a respectable number of votes in Wards with virtually no whites but with many homeowners and people who want responsive government. Next election will be different, as you suggest with the hypothetical Looney run, and Harp’s coalition likely to fracture very quickly if New Haven history is any guide. I don’t think Looney would have fared better than Harp, nor would his coalition last any longer if he were elected.

posted by: Atticus Shrugged on November 7, 2013 6:04pm Please note, if you voted for Elicker or Senator Harp, it doesn’t mean that YOU are racist or voted for either candidate because of his/her race. However, to disregard the data is the reason why race relations in the U.S. are as bad as they are (please not that whites and blacks view race relations very differently: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90414) The desire to blame union influence does not hold up because the unions won their elections by wide margins. Indeed, whereas the race of Smart and Smith contained only black male candidates, the vote broke overwhelmingly for Smart despite the sensationalized absentee ballot scandal. As for neighborhood affiliations, Senator Harp has carried the predominately white ward 25 by large amounts every senate election - though this is likely because she is unopposed in the general election. Race is the most apparent divergence and driver of votes in this election. Ultimately, the mayor is mayor of New Haven, not just the black or white parts. However, it appears that when two candidates of different race search for office, how they get there will be in large part determined by their race.

posted by: robn on November 7, 2013 6:14pm Identity politics and racism are related, but two different things. White suburban canvassers and the black voters they may have canvassed are connectoed but are also two different things.

posted by: Champ358 on November 7, 2013 6:29pm Some of the most shrill anti Harp posters, who used personal attacks and not policy differences, are some of those who now claim that race is not the issue. Seriously????

posted by: Ravenclaw on November 7, 2013 6:37pm I can only speak directly for my neighborhood (I live in Ward 10, East Rock). Nobody I know voted based on race. Most of us voted for Justin because he has been an outstanding alderman, has good ideas, is scrupulously honest, and seems to have what it takes to be a great mayor. Many of us were also concerned over Ms. Harp’s apparent lack of ideas early on (she got better with time) and the ethical issues surrounding out-of-town big-money donors who hold City contracts, etc. Are there neighborhood in New Haven where people vote preferentially for candidates who look like them? Probably. @FacChec: According to your figures, Whites are not the majority. Whites are a plurality of the voting-age population, but as for the total population - not even that. @Grounded: Want the simple answer? Here it is: YES. Believe it or not, people really are concerned about the corruption of civic life.

posted by: HewNaven on November 7, 2013 6:43pm I actually think the title of the article is accurate as long as you complete the sentence. “In 2013, when confronted with the choice between Elicker and Harp, the city appears somewhat (not absolutely) racially divided.” similarly… “When given a choice between Kerekes and Destefano in 2011, the city did not appear to vote along racial lines, and oh yeah that was two white men running against each other.” I guess if you put it like that no one would read the article. But that does seem more objective.

posted by: westville man on November 7, 2013 6:49pm The hypocrisy of whites when it comes to race is alive and well. We whites have been voting for white politicians for 250 yrs now. We Irish love us some Kennedy. We Italians love us some cuomo and we jews certainly luv us some Lieberman. So why is it “identity politic” or news at all when some black folks do the same? I voted for Elicker but the argument can be made that Harp was more qualified in many ways than Justin. And if some black folks liked that Toni is a black woman and an historic figure, good for them. I support them fully on that. We whites do it all the time and use other “reasons” why we did so Stop the hand-wringing & the hypocrisy.

posted by: Samuel T. Ross-Lee on November 7, 2013 6:59pm As far as I’m concerned, Westville Man just SHUT DOWN this discussion about Identity Politics. Great Comment Mr. Man!

posted by: FacChec on November 7, 2013 7:35pm @Ravenclaw: I agree with your data point regarding…

“Whites are a plurality of the voting-age population, but remember a plurality is a value of plus one.

You said:

“But as for the total population - not even that”.

I said that the data was derived from the 2010 Census. In the category of race, the white race was counted at 55,228, black or African American was tabulated at 45,938, clearly in the race category whites dominate the count. The numbers change for both groups of race when the category of ethnicity is viewed: there the Hispanic& Latinos are counted at 35,951. Because the census bureau allows HP&L to also list themselves in the race category, 90% of them listed themselves as white, and 10% as black. As a result the racial category of white and black became over represented. Therefore, to compensate, the Census Bureau added a category of race Not HP&L, which resulted in a much accurate count of white only and black only. So, after deducting the ethnicity of HP&L, the official count of white only is 41,230 and black only as 43,332. As a final result white count went from 55,228(race) to 41,230(white not HP&L).

Black count went from 45,938(race to 43,332(not HP&L. But as I said in my earlier post that in terms of voting (over 18) whites still holds the majority (based on race and ethnicity counts). 37,307 are White, 31,173 are Black and 23,936 are Hispanic or Latino.

A majority is plus 1.

A plurality is plus 1. Sorry for the data drive, but that is what race and ethnicity identity entails.

posted by: HewNaven on November 7, 2013 8:13pm I would argue that voting based SOLELY on “identity” is absurd and that is what upsets people of every race. Voting should be a matter of prioritizing the campaign ISSUES. Westvilleman is right, its awesome that people can identify with Harp, why wouldn’t it be? The problem is, if that’s the ONLY consideration for choosing her, then that voter would be missing a lot. And, of course I would say the same for anyone foolish enough to vote for Elicker because their identification with him was all that mattered. These were two very distinct candidates running very different campaigns, so to suggest that race was all us voters considered is grossly over simplifying the election results, and is insulting to a voter’s intelligence.

posted by: beyonddiscussion on November 7, 2013 8:21pm This was the nastiest mayoral election I’ve seen. The New Haven Register used this language in its election wrap-up: “Elicker was ahead…but that changed when the rest of the black wards were tallied.” Black wards? That’s accepted terminology for print media? It’s a disgrace. The personal attacks on Harp and her family were a disgrace. I get that Elicker thought that to win he had to destroy the reputation of one of the most popular and accomplished elected officials in recent New Haven history. But after declaring it was all about the issues, Elicker dredged up every piece of trash he could. I think Kerekes did a service to the city by his campaign. By contrast, I think the city is much more divided and more polarized because of Elicker’s campaign.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 7, 2013 9:04pm Champ 358, I hate to tell you this, but if you want to characterize the negative

RACE STUFF, just look at the behavior of the Harp Supporters at the debate. Actions speak louder than words….. On election day, I saw both nastiness at my poll, from my Union Connected Alderman, and nastiness on downtown streets,, from hired thugs from the Harp Campaign seeking extra votes .. Though despite all of that focussed nonsense, I still think this Race is beyond Race, yet that is the ‘foil’ of the moment in the power grab…. And it worked…. Who is the next group of people to be exploited in the name of Pollitics???? You tell me. This whole story is about exploitation, period.

The story of America…...

posted by: Semi Semi-Dikoko The year is 2013! An election outcome rationalization solely based on race is deplorable. After all we, respond to candidates’ electoral pitch and agendas, (when clearly formulated, as some candidates do), differently. And it is not necessarily along racial lines inasmuch many within our communities are more likely to vote keeping in mind the pocketbooks, the tax bill, the cost of the kids tuition, etc. Those are considerations more likely to align with socio economic standing rather than along racial lines. The same census data extensively used here to support the framed argument also comes with a plethora of related sources and surveys that provide data on poverty, Income levels, homeownership, and so forth. One can think of several data sets that can be used: Employment status, Health Insurance Coverage, (to name but a few), can and could have been taken into account or at the very least explored. For, they are apt at reflecting alternative probable correlation with socio economic standing. After all, one of our challenges, as an integrated society, is still the prevailing disparity of norms of socio economic achievements across the mosaic of our communities. The rushed focus and simplification limiting the whole analysis to a race based identity rationale is regrettable for what could have been a great analysis otherwise.

posted by: JMS on November 8, 2013 3:17am Great data… quite a break down. I for one could give a crap what color any candidate is. I voted for Elicker because ultimately I believed he has greater personal and political integrity (and I still do). I really don’t care what color he is or if he’s a muppet or a walrus. If a candidate proves to be more qualified in my assessment I will vote for them. But I also like what Westville Man said. I have no problem what so ever with voters identifying with Toni Harp because she is a strong and successful black woman. There is a lot to celebrate there and her election is a great historical event also worth celebrating in that sense. And in no way is this meant to trivialize, dismiss or invalidate such a voting incentive but I would only add that I do wish ALL voters would study every election and candidate more closely so that “identity” would be less of a factor. And lastly I continue to be disappointed in the poor voter turn out in the city. Is it just plain apathy? Not sure. My ward (25) and a handful of others seem to come out with strong numbers on a regular basis but the overall turn out city wide is pretty depressing. It’s almost like elections never truly reflect the will of the city if only a fraction of the population bothers to go to the poles. At least it feels that way to me.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 8, 2013 3:38am Champ 358, I will now put the last nail in the ‘Racial Coffin”. In looking at years of election data, it really made me wonder if there were real voters in these wards with 8% historic turnouts—these wards also being the poorest wards in the city. I thought maybe people had left, died, had there voting rights taken away due to incarceration….., or if they were just a product of old voter roles In these wards, their was no signs of life out there for politics. However, all of my half-baked theories fell fast when looking at the two Obama Presidential elections . Record Turnouts—In excess of 60% in this seemingly disinterested wards. Let’s call Race on it, just like we are supposed to.

But Don’t Fall for that One…... It’s not about Race—it’s about a following a proven Formula. The Formula maximizes exploitation—Race, Religion, Sexuality, Wealth, pick the variable, and run the computer model….

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 8, 2013 3:51am I would like to see the ‘MEDIAN INCOME BY WARD” Graph. Then we can talk.

posted by: yim-a on November 8, 2013 8:47am But, of more significance, for the future of New Haven, is the close correlation between poverty and race. Why this exists and how to change it is the challenge for the next generation of leaders. I’m not convinced our new Mayor knows how to take on this challenge. She is an expert on funding and providing social services, not revitalizing neighborhoods and implementing innovative solutions to stubborn problems.

posted by: ElmCityVoice on November 8, 2013 9:00am It’s too bad that this blog has morphed into a mean spirited rant between a few dozen (maybe less) people who really don’t like each other. “I’m right, you’re an idiot.” “No, I’m right, you’re the idiot.” I think we can agree this is playground bullying. If we’re all politically astute and care equally about New Haven, can we call a moratorium on bashing Mayor Harp and help her reach out to those who feel left out? The election is over. Toni Harp will be leading New Haven for at least two years. Can we agree to tone the rhetoric down and help her lead? What are the issues that are unrelated to “election” issues. Some of them are quality of life, jobs, schools, higher education, green infrastructure to preserve the future of our city, neighborhood and downtown development and so on. As an English teacher, I often have to tell my students to leave the “I” out of the discussion. This blog is all about “I”. Can we try to change it to “we”? If we don’t, it’s going to be a long, two year.

posted by: robn on November 8, 2013 9:48am In this election I had the distinct pleasure of voting for a strong qualified black woman AND Justin Elicker (my choice for city clerk was Sally Brown). Sadly, because of the bizarre practice of limiting write in candidates to pre-registered candidates, one can’t actually write in any choice of candidate. Before backers of same day voting get off their high horse they should consider looking down upon this sinister practice as well.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on November 8, 2013 10:36am This is not about A Racially Divided City.This is about the stranglehold of the corporatist plutocracy. By keeping people focused on rooting for one team or the other, the behind-the-scenes rulers ensure their invisibility and power.The genius of the plutocrats is to create theillusion of political choice in elections.

posted by: EastRockIndependent on November 8, 2013 12:11pm I agree with Semi-Semi. Lots of interesting data here but the analysis is too simplistic. From a stats perspective, talking about margins/percentages w/o raw numbers is misleading. Total votes tell a different story. 49.9% of Justin’s votes came from only 7 wards: 7, 9, 10, 18, 19, 25, & 26 (4,704 of 9,416). Meanwhile 89.66% of Toni’s votes came from 25 wards: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (10,179 of 11,353). How different would the result look if working-class black and Latino voters turned out at equal rates as whites? Based on the trends we’d probably term this a landslide, rather than focus on Justin’s “surprising” performance - which implies that the city is basically split and that Toni only won b/c of “the machine” My point is not to assert one side is more driven by race than another, but rather to suggest the incompleteness of any conversation about race & voting that doesn’t account for income inequality and systematic disenfranchisement (i.e. structural racism, not interpersonal racism). Toni’s coalition reflected the diversity of the city. Even in wards where she was roundly defeated she garnered significant support—for ex, she lost w.25 over 2-to-1 but got 461 votes. Her worst single performance was in Ward 10, where she still got 194 votes. Who were the voters that got behind her in those places, and why? (Tom: find & interview them. That’d be interesting!) People of color and white people are not monolithic communities. There are many reasons these groups fragment and break the way they do toward specific candidates. That said, there are clearly deep divides - but these are driven by the situation each community finds itself in and the threats each feels they face. I hope we can all find moment of sanity to take a hard look at this and talk with one another about what we’re each going to do to bridge these gaps, before the haters try to tear us apart yet again.

posted by: mstratton on November 8, 2013 12:30pm The notion that New Haven is a racially “divided” city is not borne out by these election results. If this were true, Obama would not have won decisively in all of New Haven’s wards including westville, east shore and east rock. It is also not borne out by what happened in the more integrated wards of the city. For instance in ward 19 which is essentially half white and half black, elicker won handily among all constituencies. There are approximately 1100 white voters and 1000 black voters, the tally was approximately 600 elicker to 250 harp. The same can be said of ward 13, 17, and 26. There were many who voted for toni because they were excited (rightfully so) about the first female black woman becoming mayor. Thats not racism. That is pride. We have much work to do in this city to overcome misunderstanding between races and classes. This election should not be used by NHI to further alienate all of us from each other especially when both candidates worked hard to address real issues and avoid race baiting. Its unfair to Toni to make her election appear to be based on race rather than experience, and its unfair to Justin to make it appear that his voters were only white. They were not. they crossed all ethnic and racial divides.

posted by: Atticus Shrugged on November 8, 2013 12:32pm I agree with Elm City Voice about toning down the rhetoric. With regards to race, it appears that many people may not be willing to accept or do not realize their own social biases or at the least admit that they exist in others. Though the headline might be “sensationalized,” the data is data. And yes, Senator Harp overwhelmingly carried the “black” vote and Justin overwhelmingly carried the “white” vote. That does not mean that people did not vote for candidates who were not their own race. Of course they did. To those who say race does not matter, please take an implicit association test: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html. Perhaps you will learn something about yourself or others. With regards to those who say that it is 2013 and racial politics is garbage, I beg of you to consider Mayor Joseph Maturo (and yes, he won re-election) and the East Haven police department scandal. Race is a part of the American fabric, the least we can do is try and have an honest conversation about it.

posted by: mstratton on November 8, 2013 12:39pm One final comment. The areas where Toni won the biggest were the union and traditional democratic strongholds. The Hill has powerful dems in Perez (5), Jackie James (3) and Andrea Jackson Brooks (4), and Clyburn with big time union support and one of the best constituent service alders is in 20. These were very tough areas for a reform minded independent to make up any ground. The areas where the party and union control is weaker went with elicker (10, 19, 25, 26, 17, 18). The exciting thing about this election missed by NHI is the large voter turnout in independent minded areas. Constituents are waking up from a long sleep and are becoming engaged. This will be the legacy of 2013. Political monopoly by groups taking advantage of apathy is over. Malloy, Lemar and certain alderpersons have made a political miscalculation by assuming New Haven voters would sleepily elect their candidate. They are all facing major challenges for sure come 2015 unless they find a way to be inclusive in moving this city forward.

posted by: HewNaven on November 8, 2013 1:24pm Toni’s coalition reflected the diversity of the city. Even in wards where she was roundly defeated she garnered significant support—for ex, she lost w.25 over 2-to-1 but got 461 votes. Her worst single performance was in Ward 10, where she still got 194 votes. Who were the voters that got behind her in those places, and why? (Tom: find & interview them. That’d be interesting!) Some people seem to be forgetting that Toni Harp was the top-ranked, endorsed-candidate, and a clear FAVORITE in this competition. Why are we bragging about her getting a handful of votes in Ward 10? The bigger story is that an independent, reformer, and UNDERDOG came from way behind and almost won the election! And similarly, I’d like to hear from black and latino voters in Wards 2, 6, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 28, etc. (i.e. racially diverse wards where Elicker still did well). I’d like to see some balance to this narrative that only whites supported Elicker and vice-versa. Its pretty disgusting and not at all healthy for this community.

posted by: robn on November 8, 2013 1:51pm I wish I could agree with Stratton but I don’t. This election wasn’t apathetic, but its wasn’t neccesarily energetic by national standards. Census data says that 100,000 of out 130,000 pop is voting age so that means that the turnout of voting age population was @22%.

Yes we did have a 30% better turnout than last time and that’s laudable but in the last few presidential elections records show the national average turnout of voting age population is @55%. In other words, we need to double the turnout of this election to be close to the national average for federal elections.

posted by: Ravenclaw on November 8, 2013 2:20pm @FacChec Sorry, but a majority is not the same thing as a plurality unless there are only two groups to be considered. A majority is not +1, it is any number greater than 50.0% of the total. A plurality is any number greater than any of the other groups. But when there are three or more groups, that can be well under 50%. The data you cite are a case in point. 37,307 + 31,173 + 29,936 = 98,416. Even if we ignore members of other groups, a majority would be 49,209 - and none of the three groups is anywhere near that figure. Plurality, yes: majority, no.

posted by: FacChec on November 8, 2013 2:39pm @Ravenclaw on November 8, 2013 1:20pm What ever..

How ever you want to justify your point of view is immaterial to the FAC of the matter. In response to the heading that the vote showed a racially divided city, my point, supported by factual documentation, suggest that the charts and graphs do not justify such a finding. If you want to stay in the weeds over majority/plurality, that is your choice. #out>>>>>.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 8, 2013 3:08pm But Robn, Turnouts for Local Elections NEVER match the Turnouts for National Ones. Part of the game is keeping everybody’s eye on the wrong ball… The last time a local election beat this turnout was 1993, which had 21,200 voters. This was Destefano’s first term. :Looking at 24 years of Historical Data, Here are some breakdowns…. Daniel’s Era (1989-1993)

Largest Turnout—1991 —Daniels vs Einhorn(R)—29,749 votes

Average Turnout 1989-1993 — 25.245 Voters For each of these years, there was a Republican Opponent, who, received, on average, 8200 votes. Einhorn received the most, 13,063 Destefano Era—1995-2011 Largest Turnout- 2001 - Destefano v. Schiavonne(R)—18.965 voters

Average Tunrout 1995-2011—14,305

1995-2001—17,007

2003-2009—11,540 For the years there was a Republican Opponent (and Nominating Petition candidates), 1995-2001, and average of 3,293 votes were cast against Destefano, Where did 10,000 active, local voters go in the last quarter century? The fact is Justin Elicker got more votes than any opposition candidate in the past 22 years. What a giant victory. If we cannot make significant changes on a local level, we are in for a world of hurt, people, so starting looking around at what’s going on in your own backyard ......just like Dorothy said in the Wizard of Oz.

And look out for the man behind the curtain…..

posted by: Gabe_Winant on November 8, 2013 3:09pm Anyone else disturbed by the fact that an incoming alder actually thinks that there are more and less “independent minded areas”? And that—surprise!—the “more independent minded areas” are in East Rock and Westville, and voted for him and Justin Elicker? And—next surprise!—that none of this has anything to do with race or wealth, just some randomly distributed group of people’s capacity, or lack thereof, for independent thought? Folks, racism isn’t just something that individuals do. (Anyone who actually studies the subject knows this.) It’s in the structure of the society, which means unless you are *actively* combating it, you’re participating in it and propagating it. And actively combating it does not mean having a black friend, or voting for a black candidate, it means organizing to build power and intervene against the institutional structures of white supremacy: joblessness, mass incarceration, disenfranchisement, etc. You can be perfectly well-intentioned and still thoroughly complicit in the unmistakable divisions along lines of race and class that affect our community. But to deny the reality of those divisions, and their importance for our public, collective decision-making, is simply to endorse the permanence of white supremacy. The way racism reproduces itself in our institutions is through people who imagine themselves to be “color-blind.”

posted by: anonymous on November 8, 2013 3:46pm Gabe, I agree with your general point about the importance of race/class/background—which are one of many issues in governance, along with organizational influence, money, and managerial competence. But what’s wrong with saying some areas of the city have “more independent” voters? Those areas do appear to have significantly more voters (voters, not necessarily people) who have recently moved to the city, and are as of yet unaffiliated with a large organization like UNITE HERE that has recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of outside money to, as their leader publicly put it, control all of City Hall (even though its mission is to represent workers). These voters are “more independent” only because they do not currently identify with the Democratic Town Committee (DTC) approach. As you may or may not recognize, the DTC is completely closed off to these sorts of people, is hand-picked by party insiders to achieve a predetermined result, and completely not transparent in any way. My observation is that it is stacked with people of extreme class and power privilege, particularly Yale graduate students, homeowners, and union organizing staff. These privileged people have immense capacity for independent thought and they have chosen to use it to exclude people. But they are not “independent” voters. Because of these facts, the legitimacy of the DTC has rightfully come into serious question, particularly among those voters who lean left. The DTC has done nothing to address poverty conditions in the city, which continue to worsen, and they have actively supported policies that make things worse in order to curry political favors. The “more independent” voters are of all different backgrounds and races. It is no surprise that they would support transparency and public financing over political party elitism. They might not know what the DTC is yet. I think that you are reading too much into the Alderperson’s words.

posted by: yim-a on November 8, 2013 4:37pm And, not to be too much of a stickler for details, in terms of true, scientific statistical significance, the colorful excel graphs have no validity. None. Nada. But provocative journalism, for sure.

posted by: robn on November 8, 2013 4:58pm BH, The racial makeup of the wards is anecdotal and observational. However, the authors conclusion about increasing polarization of voters in wards is quite statistically clear and illustrated in graphs 1 and 2.

posted by: TheMadcap on November 8, 2013 5:43pm @Robyn Of that 100,000 though, you have to assume at the least 10 or 15,000 are undocumented people who took part in the census and felons who while actually being able to vote think they can’t vote.(felons in CT and most states can in fact reapply to vote, but most people around the country seem to think once you’re a felon you can never vote) @Hew

Justin didn’t almost win, I wish he had, but he didn’t. Harp’s victory was a clear margin, a 51-49 race would’ve been almost winning. It was however a pretty strong showing(acknowledged by Harp as well), much stronger than a lot of people were expecting.

posted by: yim-a on November 8, 2013 5:43pm Robn. Statistical significance, in terms of analysis of voting patterns as a function of race. You would have to create a very intricate and perhaps suspect spastically model to establish a correlation between race and voter preference based on the colorful data presented above.

posted by: robn on November 8, 2013 6:01pm BS Good point so to put things into perspective I went back to the last national election and used the Nutmeg state and votes per population as the metrics. CT voter turnout in 2012 national election as a percentage of registered voters = @74%

NH voter turnout in 2012 national election as a percentage of registered voters = @63% …sounds OK so far but… CT voter turnout in 2012 national election as a percentage of population = @1,600,000 out of @3,590,000 = @45%

NH voter turnout in 2012 national election as a percentage of population = @49,000 out of @131,000 = @37% Source

http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/lib/sots/electionservices/electionresults/2012/document9b_2012_vote_stats.pdf New Haven had relatively lower turnout than the rest of the state then…I’m not going to calculate the whole state but let’s try last week for us and surrounding towns… Voter turnout in 2013 municipal elections as a percentage of population New Haven = @22,000 out of @131,000 = @17%

East Haven = @7,700 out of @29,000 = @27%

Hamden = @11,650 out of @58,000 = @20%

Guilford = @5,950 out of @22,000 = @27%

North Haven = @4,920 out of @24,000 = @21%

Milford = @11,900 out of @56,000 = @21% Source

http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?a=3179&Q=534608&PM=1 So I concede to you that maybe we don’t have to double our turnout to match our neighbors, but if the most highly contested election in 20 years still leaves us with 4-10% lower turnout than our nearby neighbors, we’ve still got a problem and its nothing to crow about.

posted by: Eddie on November 8, 2013 6:27pm You have to love the fact that anon still refuses to use ward-level vote returns to draw any conclusions regarding Elicker’s lack of support from black and Latino voters, while he willingly infers which candidate received more “independent voters” based upon some imaginary criteria that suits his political biases. He exercises ultimate caution about inferences that do not support his political agenda. And yet he throws caution to the wind to make inferences that do support his political agenda. During the election, I worked in ward 3 at the polling station. I would have never thought to characterize any of the voters there as being captured by the DTC. They all had minds of their own and honestly came to their own voting decisions. They voted using the secret ballot free from any coercion. This is true of voters in every ward of the city. But perhaps if anon was there he could have proven me wrong by pointing out all the voters who depend on someone else to do their thinking. Maybe he has acquired a magical hat that allows him to make these judgements. It is deeply troubling that an elected alder chooses to divide our community into abstract, imaginary, and yet alienating categories such as independent minded or free thinking voters and areas. Individuals have different political priorities. They have different ideas about how to achieve political change. They are free to try to persuade each other. They are free to contest each other in elections. Yet, people deserve a modicum of respect that requires we view them as individuals who have come to their own conclusions honestly. I know this may come as a surprise to our newly elected alder, but free thinking will not cause everyone to agree with him. Indeed, most recently a majority of (free thinking) voters came to a different conclusion about who would best serve as mayor.

posted by: Wikus van de Merwe on November 8, 2013 6:28pm @atticus My result was: “Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for African American compared to European American.” So does that validate my vote for Elicker and opinion that Toni was a bad choice for our mayor?

posted by: robn on November 8, 2013 10:35pm What’s amazing about this thread is that both Harp supporters and Elicker supporters are simultaneously arguing that race mattered and did not matter in order to justify their various takes. My Bottom line; the dramatic voter turnout increase in primarily black neighborhoods during both Obama elections and the Harp election indicates race mattered to them. Primarily white neighborhoods consistently voting heavily for Obama and then Elicker indicates that race doesn’t matter to them.

posted by: jimjoebob on November 8, 2013 11:01pm With or without these charts, I can’t believe that anyone could seriously believe that New Haven *isn’t* racially divided. Certainly this is also true for the US as a whole, and indeed for the entire planet, but I find the division particularly striking in New Haven because of the wide wealth disparity between whites and non-whites here, and the degree to which neighborhoods are segregated by race. Division does not necessarily guarantee unremitting hostility and conflict, though. Hope is A Thing, and the future is unwritten. I voted for Elicker, but I wish Harp all the best. May she pleasantly surprise all of us and bring meaningful and positive changes to our city. I do wish, though, that everyone in this city (and the country, and world) would educate themselves on the basics of racism—its history, and how it operates today. Then we would see fewer absurd comments like Ravenclaw’s “Nobody I know voted based on race.” Well, of course not—it’s thankfully rare these days for a white person to say, “I can’t vote for so-and-so because of their race; I’m going to vote for the white person instead.” That’s (usually) not how racism works—rather, it’s part of our history, our culture, the structure of our society. So maybe no one in the majority-white wards “voted based on race”, but they did vote based on their life experiences, and racism is bound up in all our lives just like oxygen is part of the air that we breathe. The idea that we can all magically “rise above” our history by throwing around a couple of out-of-context MLK quotes and averring, “Hey, I treat everyone equally, I have lots of non-white friends/colleagues/relatives/etc” is absurd. We’ll only rise above racism when social equality is actually achieved—and I hope we can all see how far we still are from that. Maybe if the Harp administration can make some progress on inequality in education, unemployment, and quality of life in every New Haven neighborhood, we’ll be closer to that happy day.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 8, 2013 11:54pm Robn, I will have to dig through a pile of papers to find ward totals for the first Obama Presidential Election. I remember some real surprises. I think it is more important to put New Haven in context with it’s own voting history, rather than taking that comparison elsewhere, Here is where we are.

posted by: beyonddiscussion on November 9, 2013 3:23pm The bottom line as I see it: John DeStefano and his organization dominated this city for 20 years. Two years ago, a coalition came together and took complete control of the Board of Aldermen away from him. Now 2 years later, the voters have spoken and endorsed the progress made by that coalition by reelecting them all and voting in the mayoral candidate that coalition endorsed. The opposition was well-funded and had many influential supporters, but the coalition held. We have change in the Mayor’s office. Hope the threats and nastiness can now come to a halt and we can all get fully behind our new Mayor and her team.

posted by: Bill Saunders on November 10, 2013 3:09am Unfortunately Beyond Discussion, When the BOA votes in that new Ballotf Provision #2, giving the Union Led “Coalition” a majority decision over Mayoral Appointments, it will be the last slippery slide in New Haven Politics. I’m selling some bonds to build a Waterpark on Long Wharf?

You In????

posted by: Ravenclaw on November 10, 2013 3:01pm Of course, in the short term the smart thing for a political machine in trouble is to choose candidates who have a strong personal appeal to large groups of people whose real interests are not served by the machine. That way their votes can be captured on the cheap. It’s how the Republican Party captured the working-class Christian White males of the South and Midwest. You can do the same with other demographic groups. Long-term it may cause serious trouble (think Tea Party), but who really thinks long-term?