Light rail on Richmond: did it move votes?

I meant to write recently about Charles Kuffner's provoking posts on whether rail on Richmond had a large affect on the race, but now that Rod Sallee has also written about the same topic in the Chron, I think I'll finally get around to writing about it. [I thought that's because the Texans-Raiders game is boring you?--ed. Yup, could be that too.]

Here's Kuffner's conclusion, about the effects of opposing light rail on Richmond, as both Republicans John Culberson and Martha Wong did, arguing that voters had approved a Westpark line, not a Richmond line:

Bottom line, plain and simple: Opposing rail on Richmond is not a winning issue in the neighborhoods that will be affected by rail on Richmond. The people who live there do not vote for anti-Richmond rail candidates. Say it loud, and say it often.
I don't agree with his conclusion, as he seems to suggest that people switched away from Culberson/Wong, because of their stance on light rail on Richmond.

Sallee's conclusion:

Hot opposition to rail on Richmond flared red in the Nov. 7 election, but a Houston Chronicle analysis of the vote suggests that outside the most vocal neighborhoods the passion drops off.

If you're interested in this, I suggest perusing the data that Kuffner assembled. He did a top-notch job. With that said, I definitely lean closer to Sallee's conclusion.

Here's my thesis, based on the data assembled by Kuffner: rail on Richmond did not affect very many votes in either the Wong or the Culberson race. Except for a few votes that Culberson probably picked up among Richmond's business owners (who don't necessarily live in the precincts that Kuffner cited), it doesn't look to me like light rail switched more than a couple percent either way. And of course, there is theoretical support for the idea that those who oppose rail on Richmond are more likely to be single-issue voters than those who support rail.

In looking at the Culberson data for 04 versus 06, it shows that Culberson lost about 5-6 points in the Montrose precincts and then loses less as it goes westward to where Culberson stayed even or even improved in Afton Oaks. The Wong data shows similar effects, only a point or two more shaded to the Dems.

If light rail on Richmond was such a high-profile issue that affected people's votes (as Kuffner seems to contend), then how come Martha Wong did worse than John Culberson in these areas? John Culberson is much more highly identified as being anti-rail on Richmond than Martha Wong is. So that's another strike against the idea that rail on Richmond is a proximal decision in voting.

In drawing his conclusions, it seems to me that Kuffner heavily undervalues how bad a year this was for Republicans. [See, eg, Kuffner's comment, "In fact, Wong lost support in every single precinct that contains Richmond Ave from 2004 to 2006. There is no "other hand" for her here." It doesn't matter whether the box switched. What matters is whether the box would have switched if rail on Richmond weren't an issue. Chances are that in 2006, this box was going to switch, because it was a bad year for the GOP.] The horrible, horrible political climate for Republicans accounts for most of the 5% swing right there. Then, especially in the case of Wong, it should hardly be a surprise that Republicans lost lots of votes in Montrose. I don't think that voters in Montrose were choosing Ellen Cohen or Jim Henley because of either's stance on light rail.

To test my hypothesis, I wanted to find the close precinct in Montrose for which Kuffner didn't gather data. It's the best thing to a control that we'll be able to find in political statistical analysis. The main Montrose precinct, 34, is contiguous to two of the precincts Kuffner cited: 39 and 123. Based on my thesis, I expected that the main Montrose precinct (where light rail was not really an issue) would essentially show the same drop for Culberson/Wong, only perhaps slightly exacerbated by 1%ish, since it is more Montrose. So, I checked the results for precinct 34, which I subsequently found to be in CD7 but not in HD134. In 2004, Culberson got 27.4% of the R/D vote, while in 2006 Culberson got 19.8% of the R/D vote. So, Culberson lost about 7.5%, which I believe is a little worse than he lost in the other Montrose precincts averaged together. So, there's some statistical support for my thesis.

My bottom line analysis: Culberson might've actually gained votes from being anti-rail on Richmond, but it's not more than a couple percentage points either way. As for the Wong race, I don't think it affected the race much either way, so in that, the headline to the Sallee article ("Rail didn't decide Wong-Cohen race") is correct.

Posted by Evan @ 12/03/06 06:41 PM

 
 

Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry



Comments

I don't agree with his conclusion, as he seems to suggest that people switched away from Culberson/Wong, because of their stance on light rail on Richmond.

Right. That's a plausible enough hypothesis, but there's really not enough data to test the hypothesis properly. The model he puts forth is underspecified, and therefore subject to large error.

In drawing his conclusions, it seems to me that Kuffner heavily undervalues how bad a year this was for Republicans.

EXACTLY. That's one of the potentially explanatory variables that is simply not taken into account, resulting in an underspecified model.

Kuffner offers interesting, fun speculation, but speculation is about as far as a person can go.

Posted by kevin @ 12/03/06 07:34 PM


Kuffner offers interesting, fun speculation, but speculation is about as far as a person can go.

Yeah, I agree. I probably should've done a better job of labeling this as speculative. Nonetheless, I do strongly doubt that pro-light rail was a proximal factor in folks voting switch, and I think the data shows somewhat more support for my position than for Kuffner's.

Posted by evan @ 12/03/06 07:40 PM


Add Comments

No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.