I want to share information on where in the state those votes are coming from (all based on unofficial returns). These charts and maps are pretty detailed so you might need to click on the chart or map you're reading to see a bigger version.
First overall turnout:
- 2002 : 5 million voters overall
- 2004 : 7.5 million voters overall
- 2006 : 4 million voters overall
New York City (in red) 74,221 votes, 49%
Upstate (in yellow) 55,437 votes, 36%
Metro Suburbs (in blue) 22,295, 15%
For comparison here's that same breakdown of the WFP's 2002 votes:New York City (in red) 53,557 votes, 59%
Upstate (in yellow) 24,901 votes, 28%
Metro Suburbs (in blue) 12,075, 13%
And the WFP's 2004 votes:New York City (in red) 67,593 votes, 40%
Upstate (in yellow) 69,141 votes, 41%
Metro Suburbs (in blue) 31,985, 19%
Our gubernatorial vote in New York City continues to go up, while the proportion of our vote from Upstate and in the Metro Suburbs is growing (comparing 2006 to 2002) .Here's a county-by-county breakdown of where the WFP's 2006 vote came from. You'll probably need to click on this chart to be able to read it.
This map shows a county-by-county breakdown of the WFP's percentage of the vote total (so if 100 people voted and 5 voted on the WFP line that's 5%). The redder a county the higher the WFP percentage of the vote in that county.
This map goes county-by-county and shows the change of the WFP's percentage of the vote total from 2002 to 2006. The darker the county, the more the WFP percentage of the vote increased in that county.
Now it's your turn: what do you make of this information?
Technorati tags: Working Families Party | 2006 Election | Vote Row E
4 comments:
looks like things are on the up and up. Congrats!
but no topping the conservatives huh?
well, i guess there's always 2010.
what is fascinating about the returns is the outstanding progress made in all upstate counties. you have to see this county by county to appreciate this. for example why would Clinton County on the Canadian border have an increase of 300%---look at it---and there are other counties like that---it tells me that these counties are ready for us ---and we have to figure out a way to take advantage of the opportunity----these kind of results are also in nassau and suffolk-----check back later --will post a link to a spreadsheeet
The numbers fit with the overall trend of voters. Take Jim Webb and Jon Tester as prime examples. The old notions of agrarian populism are coming back. Those who run on the economic issues and are able to play down divisive (read abortion, gay marriage, gun control) "social" issues will prosper in supposedly conservative areas.
As most people will say, elections are, or ought, be decided on pocketbook issues. The WFP has a better opportunity to capitalize on this renewed populism. The Party is not bound by preconceived notions that haunt the Democratic Party.
With that in mind, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the Party began to run its own candidates. Consider WFP-only candidates in traditional republican districts in Upstate. Would they fare worse than Democrats if we put the resources behind them? They would not face the same easy social attacks Democrats face in these districts. The real question is, is it possible? Furthermore, does the Party have the structure to support such moves.
While I respect Fusion politics, we can't simply hope for the margin of victory in races. 5% just isn't enough to push a full legislative agenda in the Assembly, let alone the House.
The more the party structure is built up, the better our chances our, but do we really want to link our future with the Democrats? Or do we want to assert the Party and its own strength?
The WFP vote total was impressive. I believe that we need to get more union members into the party, because union members are more identified as "issue voters."
The problem is that a lot of labor leaders think the party is a splinter group, and will take votes away from the Democratic candidate.
Also, and more of a challenge, those labor leaders still like to remain the "big fish in the little pond," and cringe at the thought of sharing power at the table when making endorsements.
Post a Comment