With all the data about campaign finance available publicly, there have already been some good looks at the donations. But what’s fascinated me is how the money connects candidates to one another. There is more study to be done here, but unfortunately, I’m not sure I can do it until after the election. I know that doesn’t help for Tuesday
To do this I worked with a Newton resident who has a company that focuses on data visualization called PlusAMP. Their long-term goal is to make it as easy to share and collaboration on data visualizations as it is to share and collaborate on blog posts and documents.
They looked at the campaign finance data with an eye toward finding connections between the candidates. The idea is that Newton has a finite donor pool, so we should be able to see where groups start to develop. And, in fact, we do. Now, I approach this with the caveat that the donations tend to be smaller ($50, $100) and this doesn’t account for the strength of different donation amounts.
These files are large, so they’re linked rather than directly on the blog. You can see the full graph here, with the subset that focuses on Amy here and Scott here.
What you see emerge are two major orbits around the mayoral candidates. Ruthanne Fuller (on the left of the main image) has, in her orbit, Deborah Crossley, Andreae Downs, Jacob Auchincloss, Andrea Kelley, Susan Albright and Allison Leary. Brenda Noel is nearby as well, but slightly separated.
Scott Lennon (to the right) is a bit more isolated. Around him are Alan Ciccone, Franco Cedrone and Jim Cote.
Another cluster develops around Amy Sangiolo, including Brian Yates, Christopher Markiewicz, Julia Malakie, Braden Houston and Emily Norton.
None of this should come as too much surprise since we ‘re seeing a bit of a cluster based on location, but there is some based on ideals. Maria Scibelli Greenberg, for example, could be closer to Lennon based on a Ward 1 affiliation, but aligns closer to Sangiolo.
In taking a deeper dive on the data a few other interesting facts came up. Lennon had a late surge in fundraising, putting him ahead of Fuller. It will be interesting to see how this plays out on Tuesday. Also, if you remove out of state money, Lennon is clearly ahead. You can see some of that data on Google Studio, which you can find here: https://datastudio.google.com/open/0B1VQME8dfua8Z2JUanNsMkVkVUE.
A number of people donated to 5 or more candidates, which is where some of the ties come from. In general, however, those amounts tend to be smaller. We’re not seeing people dropping $1000 donations on multiple candidates. The exception being Kathleen Hobson, who donated to $1000 to Fuller and Kelley with $500 donations to Albright, Downs, Leary and Noel.
Finally, my favorite factoid is around Eli Katzoff. As a fundraising machine, he’s an island unto himself. But he has a very odd tally from New York State, thanks in part to a pair of donations. While all other donations are in round numbers, Anthony Ingoglia donated $199.99 to Eli’s campaign, while Elon Gaffin-Cahn pulled out $1.26. I’m not sure what $1.26 buys you in New York.
Take a look at the data and let me know your thoughts.
Traditional data points catch those who prefer to not be illegal, yet conforming in shared coveted values. The presupposed reportings to OCPF do not recognize actual voter sentiment but more accurately reflect voter barometric momentum.
Clearly the WGC (women of the Golden Circle) is a strong movement for base change, fairing not as traditionalist incumbency.
This election signifies exceptional philosophy, progressivism v. traditionalism.
Great analysis which explains the inside / outside dichotomy that has been discussed on this blog.
@Chuck. Thanks for this analysis. I wonder if you looked at how this data dovetailed with contributions to the YES and NO campaigns on the proposed charter.
@Bob We did not look at YES and NO. We will look into it later this week, although we realize it will only be academic interest by then.
‘As mayors come & go, the charter is here to stay’ – although this is labeled as a non partisan election, and recognizing unenrolled independents as the major voting consciousness, might there be a tracking momentum for a potential candidate running for a state position such as senator, rep, or even gov…
While only of academic interest now, here are the graphs updated with the YES and NO donations: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u7ed8i1pircr5ak/AACEQjDjml0G4EuY2Lchgkk-a?dl=0
YES is in the area of Andrea Downs, Andrea Kelley, Brenda Noel, Deborah Crossley, Susan Albright, and Ruthanne Fuller.
NO is in the area of Amy Sangiolo, Braden Houston, Emily Norton, Julia Malakie, and Richard Blazar
Here is a Data Studio link for looking at the details
https://datastudio.google.com/open/1Ltd6bIPqrh-xLNNvD6W0j3S3xZnv8WJb
Striking to me is the difference between Blazer and Noel. Clearly she has considerable support for the YES. Ironic that she is not the Ward 6 Councilor, with no line of sight to flipping that to being a Councilor At Large. I’m very interested IF and HOW she goes about connecting with residents in Ward 6
(correction) She is Now the Ward 6 Councilor
@Claire. Brenda Noel won’t be the Ward six councilor until January.
We’ve seen instances all over the city where candidates who favored the new charter were elected last week. Clearly a majority of voters were able to separate candidates from the charter better than some of the folks here.
@Greg. I was correcting my typo where I wrote NOT instead of NOW but of course I know that is effective in Jan so let me be precise WILL BE. Other than that silly correction, I stand by my observation since Noel ranked 4th in regards to contributions which is fairly intriguing given that she was running for a Ward seat