What broad message can we take away from our closer-than-expected mayoral race, our all-incumbent City Council election results, and our two challenged seat School Committee results?
For me, the outcome confirms my policy preferences. The city wants zoning that allows more opportunity to build multi-family housing with modestly-sized units by right, especially around — not just in — our village centers and near — within a 15-minute walk — transit. Also, more protected bike lanes, get rid of slip lanes, and adequate funding to repair the city’s tennis courts, starting with Weeks Field.
What did you divine from the results?
I take from it something similar as I do the results in Boston-people want to be inspired toward something, compelled by what’s possible, excited by what COULD be. Platforms don’t engage and/or energize people when they are centered on all the things we reject. It’s so very easy to criticize and edit- it’s much harder to imagine and implement vision and that is what inspires!
i would say the voters of Newton are largely satisfied with the status quo, hence no incumbents losing. Whatever the status quo means. The mayor’s race was relatively close, but that wasn’t really surprising in light of September. I think Amy Sangiolo might have done better if she had started earlier and had more time to develop her rationale for running, but most incumbents end up winning re-election.
Sean, I know you expected a landslide win for Fuller but this wasn’t a closer-than-expected race to me. Fuller is polarizing and not all that well liked among many Northside residents. This played out similarly to 4 years ago. My takeaway is that Fuller has had a whole term to build these bridges but it’s not happening.
I disagree with Sean’s analysis; candidates with the same positions on issues like zoning had radically different results on election night. If voters’ united concern was “zoning that allows more opportunity to build multi-family housing with modestly-sized units by right, especially around — not just in — our village centers and near — within a 15-minute walk — transit”;
In Ward 3 at-large, why did Pam Wright get more votes than Andrea Kelley and why was Meryl Kessler SO far behind despite running an incredibly cohesive and professional campaign?
Why did Julia Malakie beat Jim Cote with a margin of 1,500 to 1,000 votes?
Why were John Oliver and Tarik Lucas the top vote getters?
At the same time, the majority of the reelected incumbents do align with Sean’s vision to some degree. I think, though, that the huge disparity in results of candidates that were very much aligned when it comes to development points to a simple conclusion: voters don’t care about zoning and development as much as many believe, at least not as their top issue, and most voters don’t vote for pro- or anti- development slates.
Why did Lisa Gordon and Rena Getz fail while Pam Wright, who ran on the same slate and on the same issues, win her race overwhelmingly?
Why was Meryl Kessler the lowest vote getter in an at-large council race after Al Ciccone despite the success of every incumbent that was aligned with her?
Why did Kevin Riffe lose Ward 1 by over 200 votes despite John Oliver and Tarik Lucas having won it handily back in March?
Outside of Village14 and some Facebook groups, most. voters. don’t. vote. for. development. slates. Most voters also don’t vote on development and zoning as their priority, or at least enough don’t to create a huge inconsistency in results. I hope this election was a wakeup call to the candidates that slates, at least based on development policy, do. not. work.
MMQC,
Fair. I accept your observations. What shocked me was the difference between the preliminary results — where all the dynamics you correctly observed were true — and the general.
@Sean – I think that really comes down to turnout. I think also for whatever reason Amy was more successful at driving up her margins than Ruthanne – there’s a precinct in ward 3 where she won by a single vote in September but was close to a hundred votes ahead Tuesday night.
An interesting note I had with the Mayoral race is a place like Newtonville which the Mayor hailed as a development success story, gave her a higher percentage of the vote compared to 2017. Though the places currently undergoing those changes had the opposite reaction (Lower Falls, Upper Falls, West Newton Flats). On the other hand, pro-development candidates did not see the same positive margins the Mayor did in Newtonville, but saw similar negative margins in LF, UF, WNF.
I think think it’s probably also true that bullet-voting was more prevalent on one side vs the other. re: Oliver/Lucas, not sure that an 11k total is that impressive considering that there were over 20k voters total. I’m sure many voters faced with an unopposed candidate just fill in the circle or skip, don’t think about it at all.
But agree, the results are not super clear except that it was a good year for incumbents. My basic takeaway is that voters are open to changes to zoning (perhaps near transit and reduced parking minimums), but have a strong resistance to completely rewriting it from scratch to eliminate single-family. And also that not everyone votes on zoning, there are plenty of other issues like schools, roads, pandemic response, senior center, etc.
It would be great if someone could create a map of shift vs. 2017 by precinct!
@Sean, I don’t see a mandate here. Among incumbents, Oliver outperformed Leary by over a thousand votes, Wright outperformed both Kelley and Kessler, and Lucas got more votes than Albright. Among the challengers, Getz and Gordon both got more votes than Kessler. And, the mayoral race was not exactly a landslide for the incumbent.
I agree with those who say that zoning and affordable housing are not atop most people’s agendas. Though I personally favor zoning reform and affordable housing, my guess is that the vote would break in favor of the status quo if these issues ended up driving the vote.
I’d be curious to see the mayoral breakdown among families with school aged children.
The CC election results reflect the [proposed/discussed/analyzed] zoning ordinance changes getting pulled off the table earlier this year. The SC election results reflect how difficult it is to defeat an incumbent SC member: it’s a citywide race requiring ground game and name recognition, plus voters generally don’t like school-bashers, so a challenger needs to thread a very tight needlehole of not being too negative while also making a case to vote out the incumbent, which is hard. In the Ward 6 SC race, the winner had enormous local name recognition for someone who hadn’t previously held office, plus a stellar resume and a dedicated group of parent supporters, and still only won 54% of the vote vs. his opponent who looked and felt much like an incumbent due to all his endorsements and ground support.
I think the biggest reason Kessler lost was the focus on her husband being a developer.
For me, the biggest disappointment was that two open School Committee seats didn’t have contested races. At a time when many people are unhappy with the schools and the performance of the School Committee, why did those wards not have more than one person willing to step up and serve?
Meredith: because the two incoming SC members in those Wards are excellent, and their neighbors knew that.
Wasn’t it three school committee seats? Wards 1, 2, and 8?
Muffin – you’re right, including Ward 1. I was aware of potential credible challengers in Wards 2 and 8 that considered running but ultimately decided against it, while as far as I know that didn’t occur in Ward 1.
@Muffin – sorry about that. I’m a statistician – I can crunch numbers but not count, apparently. 🙂
Echoing Meredith, the results suggest that no single galvanizing issue led to any particular result. If, as has been suggested, numerous parents were furious about the allegedly slow transition to in-person classes, then why didn’t the insurgents sweep both school committee races? If development was so central to this election, then why did some “Preservationists” run strongly while others fizzled out?
I also disagree that the mayoral race was that close. Amy ran a strong, clean race and is an excellent public figure, in or out of office. May she long participate in local politics! But Ruthanne held her own across the board and even garnered approval for her response to the Covid crisis, in and out of school, the criticisms notwithstanding. If the incumbent was so disliked and distrusted, then how did she win decisively when faced with a first-rate challenger?
On the CC results, I agree with Mary – development and zoning are not top priority for many voters.
On SC results, here is my take. Parents were not happy with the SC and wanted change. We had excellent candidates running in all 3 uncontested races. While a contested race is better – and all three told me that they would have preferred a contested race, I am happy with what we got. In the ward 7 race, many people felt that while Kathy has her weaknesses, ultimately, Valerie was not the right person to replace her. I know many who struggled to decide how to vote in this race. But, at the end, just could not go with Valerie. Her Trump donations didn’t help, either.
In Ward 6, Shawn was viewed as essentially the incumbent candidate. Being endorsed by Ruth Goldman and the NTA in this environment was probably a drawback, not a selling point. I also felt that, instead of listening to what parents were telling him concerned them about NPS, Shawn concentrated more on Dem party talking points. So, it made him seem out of touch. Paul listened, and focused on the issues outlined by parents. The result, therefore, was not very surprising.
OK I don’t know how to make a map of swings but I calculated on a spreadsheet.
Precinct with greatest % swing against Fuller: 4/2 (-14.3%)
Precinct with greatest raw vote swing against Fuller: 3/2 (-212)
Precinct with greatest % swing in favor of Fuller: 1/3 (+27.05%)
Precinct with greatest raw vote swing in favor of Fuller: 1/1 (+329)
Overall turnout dropped by almost 4500 votes
Ward 1 swung substantially in favor of Fuller
Ward 2 swung modestly in favor of Fuller
Ward 3 swung both ways (precinct 2 against, 1,3,4 in favor)
Ward 4 swung against Fuller (except 4/4), but by less than Ward 1 swung for her
Wards 5,6,7 showed little change
Ward 8 little change except 8/2 which swung towards Fuller
Considering Lennon is from Ward 1 and Sangiolo is from Ward 4, this should not be a big surprise overall. The story of the election is probably that Sangiolo couldn’t capture enough Lennon voters from Ward 1. If Sangiolo had the same margins in Ward 1 as Lennon it would have basically been a dead heat.
North of Mass Pike Fuller did considerably better this time around.
Link to spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HHIv7rlqYXHOm0lRLsEYfV3HckpZKkJnCt9HXrwNn1A/edit?usp=sharing
Since approximately 7 out of 10 eligible voters didn’t vote, it suggests a degree of apathy and a lack of attention to local issues. This surprises me given the year we had, with NPS and especially if one is an NPS parent.
Re: density / zoning, I’d bet many are unaware of the various proposals floating around and if they are aware, of how to think through the pros/cons for density and against. Bruce C on another post commented that density is more of a topic for v14 and other blogs versus voters. Possibly, but I think more people would care (and get out and vote!) if they better understood what was happening.
For me, it’s pretty clear that voters said the status quo was just fine by them. Most voters are happy with the state of the city, and re-elected incumbents across the political spectrum.
However I thought it was a disappointing showing for the Mayor. I would say that was a combination of the typical anti-development vote, combined with displeasure with the handling of the schools through COVID, and the corrosive effect of negative campaigning by Save Nonantum and others.
“For me, the outcome confirms my policy preferences”
this entire thread in a nutshell
I can’t grasp why Bryan declares, as if the thought were self-evident, “However I thought it was a disappointing showing for the Mayor.” The first time around Ruthanne Fuller won by 340 votes, this time by over 1500. Given the often tribal nature of American politics, this margin is substantial, especially as her opponent is a well-respected person of substance and former city councilor.
Exactly. And following a year and a half of pandemic (and counting). It is a stellar victory.
60 percent of one-third (of total register voters) is hardly a resounding declaration of, “what the City wants.” It’s like asking, “what’s (group du jour’s) favorite cut of beef,” when 7 of 10 polled are vegetarians.
While there some new pseudonyms here on v14, it’s primarily it the same set of commenters (although some pseudonyms are thinly veiled commenters who previously used their real names). We’re just debating amongst ourselves.
I honestly wonder what issue would be important enough to get Newtonians off their arses to vote. An override maybe?
@Bob – Suffice it to say that after a 55-40 win in the preliminary and with the advantages of money and incumbency, I thought that was a surprisingly close election.
I never vote on issues for city council because you don’t know what the future holds. Each person I vote for brings a different skill set/talent to the table: environmental experts, architects, landscape architect, transportation expertise, traffic experience, financial expertise, etc.
I also look for people who can get to Yes without endless discussions of how many angels can fit on a pin. The number of hearings for several projects in the past few years has really been too much. I blanked a few folks who held up votes because some minor issues hadn’t been resolved. It strikes me that a bit of ego got in the way of things.
The number of people who vote on the issues discussed at zoom/house parties is minuscule. I have never discussed zoning with any individual in this city who was not on the city council.
As for the school committee, the candidate who had the interest and knowledge of the building based educators lost. Voters missed that it wasn’t some amorphous leader out in union land who supported Shawn-it was the people in the school buildings who teach the children in this city. It would have been nice to have one person who isn’t so focused on just the central office and admin on the school committee. NPS custodians were very disappointed as well. But Shawn has a bright future and a very full life at home and at work, so all is well. The Ward 6 winner will have to figure out how to rebuild broken bridges with people whom he’ll have to work with. He’s not the CEO of NPS so it will be more complicated than he might expect.
As for the three uncontested races – It’s a shame when the committee has people arrive who haven’t been in contested races. Over many years, we’ve had too many members who’ve not had contested races. I chalk it up to parents being too busy to take on the added responsibility. Kathy Shields was in a contested race for the first time this year, and many more people know her and her perspective on the schools now. I see that as a huge positive.
Matt Lai: I doubt you’d have been saying that if Amy won, or if your slate of candidates had won. You certainly didn’t say that when John and Tarik won the special election… I seem to recall when the special election occurred it was a major change, sign of what the city wants, etc., etc., etc.
This is the system we have. Old people vote in larger numbers. Young people vote in smaller numbers. Parents seem to have short memories.
Bryan, I thought Amy ran a very good race, but you can’t draw any conclusions from the preliminary. I wasn’t surprised at all by the fact it narrowed.
One thing I was surprised at was how little impact Save Nonantum had on the election. They couldn’t get Kevin Riffe elected. Alison Leary did just fine too. And if I read Garry Miller’s useful analysis correctly, Mayor Fuller exceeded her vote totals in Ward 1 in the last election. Save Nonantum certainly brought out a few hundred extra votes in the one section of Ward 1 that Kevin Riffe won, but he barely won Ward 1-1, and lost Newton Corner handily. I really thought Kevin would win, largely because I overestimated Save Nonantum’s influence. Either that, or folks were turned off by their tactics, even in Ward 1. Maybe folks could see with their own eyes that the Festa and Santa and such were not in danger of being shut down by the city council, and that Nonantum wasn’t in danger from the city council. Or maybe Maria Scibelli Greenberg was seen as an excellent Ward councilor who took constituent services seriously. Maybe some combination of the above. But for an election that was supposed to showcase their power, they just couldn’t drive the votes on election day when it wasn’t a special election.
I do wonder what happened to everyone telling us to buckle up, change is coming. Because the exact opposite occurred…
As for the Mayor race, I thought Amy’s election challenge was good for Mayor Fuller, Amy pushed her to do new things and the city felt more active the last six months. Let’s keep that momentum going. Mayor Fuller now has 4 more years and a very large piggybank with the ARPA funds to get things done around the city. I hope she builds the Senior Center, rebuilds the Gath Pool, renovates the fields, and continues to repave the streets. Let’s finish repairing the schools too. This is a time for leadership and moving the city forward. Borrowing costs are still at an all time low. Let’s rebuild the city.
@Figgy-
A+ for analysis with a good dose of motivation. The only suggestion I can offer on top of what you’ve said is that somewhere in these projects I sincerely hope the Mayor and planning can find a way to give a little nod to Newton’s famous, classic, fruity chewy cookie the Fig Newton. (Fig Newton Playground perhaps…)
Lisa P.
Thanks! And LOL. I have always thought Newton should play up its cookie connection a bit more, sort of like Somerville does with Fluff. But I think more folks like Fluff than like Fig Newtons. And if I was Mayor I’d offer to throw a party and rename the Newton Centre playground the FigNewton Playground by Nabisco if they’d fund a new splashpark. You could have the water spray from a giant fig newton! (or maybe not, someone on the blog will be more creative…)
I’m sure someone would object, but it would be hilarious. And very good for the kids to splash in.
Or maybe the Gath pool becomes the Nabisco Newton Cookie pool! Pools are shaped like fig newton’s anyhow.
Just to clarify Ward 1 vs Nonantum. Nonantum is precincts 1 and 4 (roughly). The mayor still performed poorly there, but her percentages were better than 4 years ago and thus the net margin improved significantly (about a 660 vote swing in total). Precincts 2 and 3 are more Newton Corner and the mayor won both precincts after losing both 4 years ago (swing about 450 votes).
If there is any impact from Save Nonantum (against the mayor at least) in this election it’s hard to discern. Turnout in Ward 1 was down significantly (-710 votes). The mayor’s total net gain vs 4 years ago across the whole city: 1135 votes. In Ward 1 alone she gained a net of 1102 votes.
Hope this helps!
I think that Irene nailed the school committee situation. I was quite concerned about Kathy’s re-election as an incumbent, but the alternative choice was too negative and risky. Most people just sat that one out. However dissatisfied parents were with the school committee, I’m willing to wager that most of the anger was against the superintendent and his team, and that couldn’t be changed in this election. This new school committee will be better liked.
Garry, thank you for correcting. And very interesting to know. Appreciate that unlike the rest of us you actually spent the time to do this. Very informative.
Ok folks, I’m going to bed. Offline for a few days very likely. Enjoy the weekend, don’t forget to fall back and gain an hour of sleep.
The spreadsheet link is open and available for all to view. If I made an error let me know! I made it from the mayor’s perspective so shifts favorable to her are in green and those against her are in red. Where she is under 50% of the vote it’s in red and where it’s above the numbers are in green (apologies to opponents of the mayor. It’s just to make it easier to see changes, honest!). Negative numbers for turnout are also in red.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HHIv7rlqYXHOm0lRLsEYfV3HckpZKkJnCt9HXrwNn1A/edit#gid=0
This was submitted last evening around 8:30PM, but went to Village 14’s SPAM. I’m reposting:
I actually agree with Bryan. Turnout helped Amy, and had there been the turnout of four years ago it’s not clear that Fuller would been re-elected.
Amy ran a good campaign, but I don’t think she did enough to energize more people to vote in her favor.
To me, Fuller will behave as if she’s been validated. I couldn’t disagree more. It’s easier to win in a low turnout vote, and without critical news reporting to put a spotlight on her weaknesses and areas that disappointed. Democracy dies in darkness, and save this blog and some occasional Globe reporting, Newton news reporting is pretty dark. Imagine if the Tab David Cohen dealt with was still with us today.
For me, the schools, how they were “managed” during Covid, the lack of vision for closing the learning gap created, the continued employment of David Fleishman are huge issues. It’s not just our kids, it ties to the values of our homes. If the schools decline so will our housing values and tax base. Nothing from this Mayor gives me any hope for a change in trajectory. The next 4 years will be more of the same, and even though 54% of our voters didn’t seem concerned, I am.
Honest question – why do I hear so many people castigating Mayor Fuller for the problems with the schools during Covid and so few calling out the 8 elected School Committee members. The mayor is only one vote; the School Committee members are supposed to be having discussions and proposing policies and making decisions. The School Committee renewed Fleishman’s contract.
The mayor couldn’t do anything, NTA was too powerful at that point.
Thank God this is not the case now.
Margaret, the Mayor is the top city leader. She may be just one vote on the SC, but her voice and her opinion is very important and can steer the rest of the committee. People were looking for leadership at that time of crisis, and the Mayor simply could not be bothered. It was super frustrating.
Yes, there was a total leadership void from the Mayor’s office and our children and families deserved better. She could have set higher standards, demanded accountability. She’s far more than one vote. If a Mayor says she’s lost confidence in a superintendent, then that superintendent is toast. She was conservative when we needed bold, overly cautious when we needed to follow the science. Our kids suffered in ways we’ve yet to fully appreciate. The voters of this city seemed not to care this election. They should. This Mayor could have changed things entirely, but she was completely ineffective, a non force.
@Irene – I’m not saying the Mayor handled it well. I’m saying there are 8 School Committee members, any one of whom could have stepped up and provided leadership. It’s on them that none of them did.
If I’m part of a project group at work, I’m expected to do my job whether or not another group member is doing theirs. I would not expect to be given a pass. If anything, the rest of us would come together to get the job done. That’s what I expect from my elected SC members, and if that doesn’t happen then the blame for not stepping up belongs to them.