Here are some details of the Boston results. Boston is by far the largest city in Massachusetts and I’ve been tracking election results there for 20+ years. This is useful because I can really drill down into neighborhood demographics to make candidate and turnout observations, since most Boston neighborhoods can be clearly-defined by racial make-up and by historical patterns of turnout rates and candidate ideology support (liberal vs. moderate vs. conservative).
Boston numbers reinforce what we already know:
- The strongest Democratic base (non-white voters) voted very strongly for Coakley, but turnout (ie – voter excitement) was relatively low. Message to Democratic Party operative: Don’t ignore your base – Push for turnout in these communities – Democratic candidates will get 90+% of the votes here!
- Moderate-voting white voters had lukewarm support for Coakley, voters that she needed to win.
Below is a chart that summarizes the neighborhood data. Here’s link to a spreadsheet with full neighborhood details:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tM21Wvf03LSOOKZNXF6SeJA&output=html
.
| Boston Neighborhood | 2000 Census % White Population |
Current Reg Voter Count | 2010 Senate General % Turnout | 2010 Senate General % Coakley | % Point change 2010 Coakley vs. 2006 Patrick | % Point Turnout change 2010 vs. 2006 |
| State-wide Totals | 80% | 4.2 million | 53% | 47% | -8% | -3% |
| City-wide Totals | 55% | 358,882 | 43% | 69% | -3% | -3% |
|
Allston |
65% | 18,950 | 30% | 73% | -2% | 2% |
|
Back Bay |
81% | 11,343 | 42% | 60% | -6% | 6% |
|
Beacon Hill |
91% | 5,712 | 51% | 64% | -5% | 5% |
|
Brighton |
78% | 23,327 | 42% | 62% | -4% | 1% |
|
Charlestown |
85% | 12,167 | 50% | 51% | -6% | 3% |
|
Chinatown |
32% | 3,836 | 33% | 62% | -10% | -5% |
|
Dorchester – All |
28% | 67,544 | 38% | 77% | -3% | -7% |
|
East Boston |
53% | 15,406 | 37% | 54% | 0% | -6% |
|
Fenway |
69% | 10,619 | 31% | 71% | -7% | 1% |
|
Hyde Park |
38% | 19,871 | 46% | 77% | -1% | -7% |
|
Jamaica Plain |
57% | 25,950 | 51% | 86% | 3% | -2% |
|
Mattapan |
3% | 10,193 | 38% | 96% | 0% | -11% |
|
Mission Hill |
49% | 6,693 | 33% | 79% | -1% | -5% |
|
North End |
87% | 10,889 | 47% | 54% | -6% | 3% |
|
Readville |
84% | 1,846 | 53% | 50% | -2% | -5% |
|
Roslindale |
62% | 17,982 | 51% | 71% | 1% | -3% |
|
Roxbury |
14% | 27,620 | 34% | 92% | -2% | -9% |
|
South Boston |
88% | 24,567 | 48% | 44% | -5% | 0% |
|
South End |
60% | 20,46 | 45% | 75% | -7% | 1% |
|
West End |
83% | 3,541 | 41% | 55% | -8% | 5% |
|
West Roxbury |
89% | 20,358 | 61% | 50% | -2% | 0% |
Candidate Highlights:
- Coakley won Boston with 69% of the vote. Her neighborhood support ranged from 44% to 96%%.
- Coakley’s support was weakest in very-white, conservative-voting neighborhoods like South Boston (44%), West Roxbury (50%), Charlestown (51%), and the whitest part of Dorchester (52%)
- Coakley’s support was highest in the very-non-white neighborhoods (90+% non-white) like Mattapan (96%), Roxbury (92%), and the least-white parts of Dorchester (92-95%).
- Coakley’s support was also very strong in whiter, liberal-voting neighborhoods like Jamaica Plain (86%), South End (75%), and Allston (73%).
- Coakley numbers are very similar to 2006 Deval Patrick numbers (69% vs. 72%).
- The numbers were closest in the most-liberal-voting and most-conservative-voting neighborhoods, with a +3% to -3% difference. Jamaica Plain (+3%) had the most positive change for Coakley.
- The numbers were farther apart (negatively for Coakley) mostly in the moderate-voting neighborhoods. The biggest drops were in Chinatown (-10%, 62% for Coakley), West End (-8%, 55% for Coakley), Fenway (-7%, 71% for Coakley), South End (-7%, 75% for Coakley), and Back Bay (-6%, 60% for Coakley),
- Boston is a very Democratic city. The party affiliation breakdown is 57% Democrat, 7% Republican, 37% Other vs. the state-wide numbers of 37% Democrat, 12% Republican, 51% Other. The non-white neighborhoods are the most Democratic (around 70%). The whitest-conservative-voting neighborhoods are around 50% Democratic. Upper-income white neighborhoods are the least Democratic (around 40%).
Turnout Highlights:
- Boston city-wide turnout was lower than the state-wide turnout (43% vs. 53%), which is typical in state-wide elections. In the 11/2008 election, it was 62% vs. 74%. In the 11/2006 election, it was 45% vs. 56%.
- Turnout was highest in West Roxbury (61%), the whitest-part of Dorchester (54%), and Readville (53%). Many neighborhoods had about 50% turnout, like Jamaica Plain, Charlestown, Roslindale, Beacon Hill.
- South Boston, usually only a little below West Roxbury, was surprisingly low at 48%.
- Turnout was lowest in student neighborhoods like Allston (30%) and Fenway (31%), and in the least-white neighborhoods like parts of Dorchester and Roxbury (30-33%).
- Mattapan (97% non-white) was surprisingly high at 38%.
- City-wide turnout was 3% lower than the 11/2006 General turnout.
- Turnout increase was highest mostly in moderate-white-voting neighborhoods, such as Back Bay (+6%), Beacon Hill (+5%), and West End (+5%).
- Turnout decrease was lowest in the least-white neighborhoods, such as Mattapan (-11%), Roxbury (-9%), and non-white parts of Dorchester (-8% to – 11%). It should be noted that Deval Patrick, an African-American, drove turnout higher in 2006 in these mostly African-American neighborhoods.
- High-turnout neighborhoods mostly had small changes compared to 2006, like West Roxbury (0%), the whitest-part of Dorchester (-1%), Jamaica Plain (-2%), Charlestown (+3%), South Boston (0%).
Notes:
- Boston has 22 wards consisting of 254 precincts. Most other Boston election results are analyzed by ward totals. But wards don’t really reflect neighborhoods anymore. Maybe they did when the ward lines were drawn 80 years ago.
- Conservative-voting white voters in Boston should really be comparable to moderate-voting voters elsewhere. There is no real Republican/Conservative base in Boston (Republicans are 7% of all voters).
- In my previous posts about Boston turnout, % turnout calculations were based on active voter counts. These numbers here are based on active + inactive voter counts, since those are the only state-wide numbers easily available at the moment. Inactive voters are about 21% all voters in Boston, and about 14% state-wide. Calculating turnout only on active voters in more accurate since only about inactive voters vote at about 1/10th the rate of active voters (a little more in high-turnout elections, a lot less in low-turnout elections).
- Dorchester is much bigger than any other neighborhoods, so I split that into sections, with more clearly-defined racial splits.
- Here’s a spreadsheet with the raw precinct + other data:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tUBUKkiZIU9xtDhIv6qkOTA&output=html
Hi- Good data Bob. Here are a couple quick thoughts on Brown’s win.
1. There is no single reason for Brown’s win. Candidate and campaign factors, national and state factors, all played a role and it will take a little time to sort the causes out.
2. I think Brown won the votes of many people who think the Obama Administration is failing to do enough to help average people. If money and resources from the financial bailout had gone to struggling households and communities (Main St) not greedy financiers, bankers and corporate kings (Wall St), Brown’s claims to be the candidate for change would not work. Two recent polls support have documented this. See MoveOn http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html
3. Coakley made mistakes like Kerry did in 2004, losing the symbolic war to bond with average people. When Coakley and Obama attacked and made fun of Brown’s pick-up truck, they attacked an important symbol of people from the working class and reinforced Republicans’ message that Democrats don’t really understand and serve the common people but are ideologically driven.
4. Nationally, Obama’s rhetorical and procedural emphasis on bipartisanship and “reaching across the aisle” have allowed conservatism to survive. By emphasizing bipartisanship, Obama and the national Democratic Party have not made a serious attempt to define Republican conservatism as the backward negative philosophy that it is and have failed to educate Americans about its phony rhetoric and message that covers its exploitive and harmful effects on average people. also, by seeking Republican support on legislation, his proposals have not been as bold or strong as his supporters expected and he has lost support from his liberal and progressive base. See Drew Weston at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/obama-finally-gets-his-vi_b_429232.html
5. Disappointment with Pres. Obama is, for Massachusetts voters, liberals and independents, a second hit. First Gov. Patrick and now Obama. Both campaigned on “hope” and “change.” Rather than bring his supporters into the process and stay engaged with his supporters, Gov. Patrick closed his campaign organization after winning election and proceeded to take positions that were not supported by his constituents and alienated his base.
6. And so Scot Brown, a wealthy conservative Republican could run as a “man of the people” against the Massachusetts machine, against big government and elitist Democrats out of touch with real people.
7. The moral of the story? Keep your base engaged. Define your opponent and call conservatism what it is. Be bold and challenge the powerful.
Comment by Michael Fogelberg — January 22, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
As usual, excellent thoughtful analysis. Thanks Mike.
Comment by Bob LeLievre — January 22, 2010 @ 1:21 pm
Bob, thanks as usual for this careful and thoughtful analysis. I skimmed these as you sent them. Now re-reading all the updates forward, the general pattern repeats in detail at each level. Those who voted tended to vote as before, yet bigger gaps in turnout in the most critical areas.
This encapsulates all the political issues, local/national that we’re now wrestling with.
I’d also say that geographical patterns overlay Coakley’s (and the Dem Pty’s) inability to line up deep, active unity behind her from among the 3 she defeated and other key Democrats.
Scott Brown may yet prove himself a “moderate” in republican terms. If not, there’s 2012. And even before that, there’s this year. So we have some challenges and opportunities before us.
Comment by Steve Backman — January 24, 2010 @ 5:46 am
West Roxbury was actually won by Scott Brown. You designate Ward 20 Precinct 6 and Ward 20 Precinct 7 as West Roxbury — 7 is probably 70% Roslindale and 6 about 50% Roslindale.
Comment by Jim C — February 1, 2010 @ 9:04 pm
I do have 20-6 and 20-7 in West Roxbury. My master precinct-neighborhood table is from the BRA:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tUBUKkiZIU9xtDhIv6qkOTA&output=html
FYI: The 11/2009 Boston voter file has 20-6 as 89% in West Roxbury (zip = 02132, 02467) and 20-7 as 34% in West Roxbury (zip = 02132)
Comment by Bob LeLievre — February 2, 2010 @ 8:17 am
I still say Brown won West Roxbury, as you counted some Roslindale votes in your totals –
Comment by Jim C — February 2, 2010 @ 8:27 am
There are many precincts that cross neighborhood lines (as defined by zip codes), so there’s no absolutely perfect way to count candidate votes by neighborhood. My reference is a Boston Redevelopment file from the early-2000s. Roxbury / Jamaica Plain / Roxlindale / West Roxbury seem to have the blurriest precinct lines.
So it’s better to use these neighborhood numbers for comparisons – Coakley got about 96% of the vote in Mattapan vs. about 50% of the vote in West Roxbury. Whether Coakley won or lost West Roxbury by a percent or so is not so important in the bigger scheme of things.
Some day soon, I’ll try to re-calculate the precinct-to-neighborhood reference. Unless someone has a better idea, I’ll link a precinct to the neighborhood that has the biggest plurality of votes.
Comment by Bob LeLievre — February 2, 2010 @ 8:48 am
I hear you, no perfect way to do it…but by your own formula you link a neighborhood to a precinct in which has a plurality of votes. 20-7 is 66% Roslindale.
Thanks for doing this. City wide analysis is meaningless.
Comment by Jim C — February 2, 2010 @ 9:08 am
[...] his blog, Bob LeLievre, who breaks down the city’s election data into neighborhoods rather than wards [...]
Pingback by Black Ministers In Boston Endorse Warren | WBUR — October 5, 2012 @ 4:07 am