Deprecated: mb_convert_encoding(): Handling HTML entities via mbstring is deprecated; use htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or mb_encode_numericentity/mb_decode_numericentity instead in /var/www/html/wp-content/plugins/super-cool-ad-inserter/inc/scaip-shortcode-inserter.php on line 37
WARNING! SERIOUS POLITICAL WONKERY ALERT!
I’ve already done a discussion about what this week’s special election in District 2 says about the city’s political direction. But it seems like there’s a possibility Georgia Blotzer, who lost to Theresa Smith in that contest, may take another shot in the primary. Certainly some bloggers are hoping so. And as the Pittsburgh Comet’s Bram has noted in a couple places, the fact that Smith had the Democratic endorsement should be less of a factor in the May primary. (In the special, only the endorsed Democrat can run as the Democrat; everyone else has to run as independents.) No doubt that’s something Blotzer is weighing.
So I got curious: What’s the track record of city councilors who win in a special election … and have to run again in a regular primary a few months later?
There’s not a ton of evidence here, but if you’re a Blotzer partisan, the track record is not encouraging.
In a 2001 special election for district 4, for example, Jim Motznik won a special election in February, winning less than half the vote in a 4-person field. (Motznik was NOT the endorsed Democrat in that race — Anthony Coghill was.) In the regular primary that spring, he won with 60 percent of the vote. This time around, he had the endorsement AND the power of (short-lived) incumbency, and he improved on his special-election performance.
In February of 2003, Lenny Bodack won with, like, a quarter of the vote. This was a six-person race, with Bodack — the endorsed Democrat — narrowly besting Mitch Kates and Nancy Noszka. A couple months later in the May primary, Bodack won a second time, again squeezing out a narrow victory facing only Kates and Noszka.
What does this tell us? For one thing, it shows that Lenny Bodack was, from the outset, one of the weakest candidates to hold a council seat in recent memory. But we already knew that. Taken together, though, the two races suggest the difficulty of reversing a special election result only a few months later.
In fact, the 2001 race should be the more worrisome precedent for Bltozer — and for anyone who thinks the party endorsement was the decisive reason for Smith’s win. In district 4, Motznik didn’t even get the endorsement for the special. Yet he was able to win and increase his margin just a few months later.
To the best of my knowledge and recollection, those are the only council races in the past decade where a special election in the winter was followed by a regular primary in the spring. Two races isn’t a lot of evidence to go on, since there are so many unique factors at work in any race. Bodack’s wet-rag campaigning style, for example.
So let’s consider a different case: the 2006-7 campaigns for city council district 3. In May 2006, Jeff Koch won a special election — as the endorsed Dem in a field of 8 — to fill out the remainder of Gene Ricciardi’s term. A year later, Bruce Kraus toppled Koch in a regular election, winning by 10 points.
That precedent is a bit more hopeful for Blotzerians. But it may be the exception that proves the rule. Koch only narrowly beat Kraus the first time around — had it not been for spoiler Bruce Krane peeling off a couple hundred votes in the South Side Flats, Kraus could have won. And a whole year had elapsed between the two races … plenty of time for Koch to pile up a track record, and for voters to decide whether he was the guy they wanted. Obviously, the answer was “no.”
By contrast, Blotzer, got trounced by a two-to-one margin this week. And as others have observed, there’s little sign she wore out a lot of shoe leather reaching out to the district. Seems a little late to be starting now. And the one advantage Blotzer did have — a clear edge in fundraising at the start of the campaign — will likely evaporate. Smith, as the incumbent, can count on some extra support that hasn’t shown up in finance reports so far.
And when Smith next goes before the voters, she’ll have none of the disadvantages that sometimes go with incumbency. Unlike, say, Jeff Koch, she’ll only have been in office a couple months when she goes before voters a second time. She’ll almost certainly have the endorsement again, which means voters will have to have a damn good reason to oppose her. It’s hard to imagine that happening when Smith won’t have done much more than measure the drapes in office.
Coming out of the special election, Smith looks much stronger than Bodack or Koch did. I try not to make predictions, but I don’t see much reason to think Blotzer will be able to turn this around in May.
This article appears in Feb 5-11, 2009.
“but I don’t see much reason to think Blotzer will be able to turn this around in May.”
That’s truth.
I told Jeff Koch that he needed to do something big, like open the closed indoor-ice-rink on the South Side, if he would hold onto his seat. He didn’t. He hardly said anything on council. But mostly, Koch was elected as Bob O’Connor came to power. This was Bob’s time. A year and a few months later, Bob was gone. This wasn’t Bob’s town any more.
Furthermore, in the 8 person special election, March 14, all 7 of the candidates pulled against Kraus. In May, more than a year later, it was 1-on-1. Koch didn’t have running mates then.
PS: The indoor ice rink is still closed and a wasted sink in the neighborhood. And, now South Side Hospital is closing too. But hey, Pittsburgh as a domestic registry now with six couples signed up and saving $15 per year on the purchase of their swim pool tags, if they even buy them.
Potter:
The endorsed democratic candidate in a special election ALWAYS wins (except for Motznik). There’s only one dem candidate and that’s the one just about everyone will vote for. There is such a low turnout for special elections and those who turn out are people who vote for the established candidate.
The best chance for anyone to beat the endorsed candidate is in the primary. Therefore, I do think Blotzer absoutely should run. Not four years from now.
The primary will have a significant increase in voter turnout–people who will have never heard of Smith. I think it puts both candidates at square one.
If all the reformers get together and unite behind Blotzer, get real about her outreach to neighborhoods, get serious about voter turnout, and make the field to just her and Smith, then I think she has a real chance of pulling out a victory.
Elaine —
I agree that the endorsed candidate has an almost insurmountable advantage in a special election. (I’ve said this before, but I think it’s the one place where “the machine” really DOES have the power people ascribe to it.) Like I said, I don’t like to make predictions — so an impassioned GOTV effort could produce a different result this time. But that’s an intangible thing whose value is hard to estimate … whereas my point here is that all TANGIBLE evidence suggests Blotzer is going to have a tough time.
But hey, I’ve been wrong before.
“And as others have observed, there’s little sign she wore out a lot of shoe leather reaching out to the district.”
These “others” (one or two committee members and one or two anonymous Internet commenters I think exhausts the set) overstate the case if it’s put like this. The Blotzer campaign went out and attained visibility, and picked up some key contacts (which it obviously did not capitalize upon by Feb 3).
But to take the concern in proportion, I think there is definitely some realization that ‘shoe leather’ is not defined by door knocking alone — there are those all-important fish fries, for example.
“These ‘others’ (one or two committee members and one or two anonymous Internet commenters I think exhausts the set)”
>>> Well, look. If I were in the Blotzer camp, I sure wouldn’t worry about a handful of online folks. I WOULD be troubled that in numerous precincts in the 20th and 28th wards, my candidate finished dead last, behind even the Republican. It’d be a much better sign if Blotzer were a strong second-place candidate across the board.
The Republican party is a major, name-brand party. Georgia was an Independent. This was a very low-information election, even by prevailing standards.
It’s certainly cause to take notice, but it’s far from alarming.