Precinct analysis: At Large 2 and 3

Lots of action, and lots of candidates in the At Large races this year. Let’s look at the two races that are going to the runoffs, At Large #2 and 3. First is AL2, in which first term CM Andrew Burks trailed challenger David Robinson after Election Day.

Dist  Robinson Rivera  Burks Gordon
===================================
A        3,644  1,475  3,533    883
B        3,419    840  6,239    332
C       12,038  2,808  5,024  1,127
D        4,294  1,228  9,250    729
E        4,647  3,339  3,761    932
F        2,263    981  1,649    438
G        8,313  1,826  6,072  1,592
H        2,484  2,593  1,836    333
I        2,111  2,655  1,963    396
J        1,813    725  1,269    283
K        4,520  1,285  4,818    575

Dist  Robinson  Rivera   Burks Gordon
=====================================
A       38.22%  15.47%  37.05%  9.26%
B       31.57%   7.76%  57.61%  3.07%
C       57.33%  13.37%  23.93%  5.37%
D       27.70%   7.92%  59.67%  4.70%
E       36.65%  26.33%  29.66%  7.35%
F       42.45%  18.40%  30.93%  8.22%
G       46.69%  10.26%  34.11%  8.94%
H       34.28%  35.79%  25.34%  4.60%
I       29.63%  37.26%  27.55%  5.56%
J       44.33%  17.73%  31.03%  6.92%
K       40.36%  11.48%  43.03%  5.13%

Though Robinson only led by a few points, he sure looks like he’s in good shape going into December. Robinson led in the Republican districts, dominated District C, and held his own in the African-American districts. In short, as Greg noted, he’s basically replicating Annise Parker’s coalition from 2009. His path to victory in the runoff is clear: more of the same, with maximal effort in C and a push for the Moe Rivera voters in H and I.

Andrew Burks also has a clear path to victory in the runoff: Maximize turnout in B and D, and hold his own in the Republican districts, which was his formula for victory in the 2011 runoff. Burks’ problem is that he’s never been good at maximizing turnout. The undervote in Burks’ At Large races is always higher than the undervote in the other At Large races. For example, this year the undervote in AL2 was 29.75%; in At Large #4, it was only 24.85%, and the next highest undervote after AL2 was in At Large #5, at 28.02%. In the 2011 runoff, the undervote rate was 8.63% in Burks’ race, 1.02% in the Jolanda Jones/Jack Christie race. In the 2009 runoff, the numbers were 19.47% and 12.63%. If Burks had approached Jolanda Jones’ numbers in B and D he would have won; in reality, he lost Harris County by nine points. If Burks can perform like Ronald Green or Brad Bradford in the runoff, he wins. If not, he loses. It’s as simple as that.

On to At Large #3:

Dist Batteau Chavez Calvert Kubosh   Pool Morales
=================================================
A        529  1,284   1,141  3,591  1,689   1,898
B      1,687  1,331   1,842  3,162  1,562   1,172
C        943  2,748   4,941  5,223  5,594   2,997
D      3,233  1,542   2,279  5,120  2,017   1,492
E        669  1,232   1,571  4,305  2,062   3,614
F        432    586     806  1,337  1,154   1,217
G        795  1,068   3,786  6,254  2,724   4,179
H        422  2,467     790  1,453  1,136   1,705
I        531  2,049     599  1,337    955   2,085
J        333    450     736  1,155    821     892
K      1,361  1,073   2,181  3,214  2,045   1,621


Dist Batteau  Chavez Calvert  Kubosh    Pool Morales
====================================================
A      5.22%  12.67%  11.26%  35.44%  16.67%  18.73%
B     15.68%  12.37%  17.13%  29.40%  14.52%  10.90%
C      4.20%  12.24%  22.01%  23.27%  24.92%  13.35%
D     20.61%   9.83%  14.53%  32.65%  12.86%   9.51%
E      4.97%   9.16%  11.68%  32.00%  15.33%  26.86%
F      7.81%  10.59%  14.57%  24.17%  20.86%  22.00%
G      4.23%   5.68%  20.13%  33.26%  14.48%  22.22%
H      5.29%  30.94%   9.91%  18.22%  14.25%  21.38%
I      7.03%  27.12%   7.93%  17.69%  12.64%  27.59%
J      7.59%  10.26%  16.78%  26.33%  18.71%  20.33%
K     11.84%   9.33%  18.97%  27.96%  17.79%  14.10%

I’ve heard some grumbling from fellow Dems about how this race wound up as a runoff between two Republicans. I get the frustration, but I’m not sure what one would recommend doing about it. There were three good Democrats in this race, and they split the vote just evenly enough to keep themselves out of the top two slots. Short of going back in time and convincing one or more of them to not file or drop out, I don’t know what else there is to be done. Shrug it off as a fluke and put this one on the priority list for 2015.

I covered some of this ground yesterday, so let me just say again that I think Michael Kubosh has the advantage going into the runoff, and his path to victory is clear. Roy Morales needs help from the Annise Parker voters, which may or may not be there for him. It’s entirely possible we could see a sizable undervote in this race. It’ll be interesting to see whether more people skip this race or the one in At Large #2. I should add that while I’ve talked about Morales trying to convince the Parker voters to support him, there’s nothing stopping Kubosh from doing the same. He’s been cast as an adversary for the Mayor, but he can make a case that he was only opposing her on issues where he thought she was wrong and that on other things they’re reasonably in agreement. The field is open, and there’s plenty of room for either candidate to move to fill the space without having to move too far.

Anyway. This one can go a variety of directions. All I know for sure is that I have no idea yet how I will vote in that race. Houston Politics has more.

Related Posts:

• Runoff precinct analysis: At Large races
• Election results: Houston
• Precinct analysis: At Large #3