The latest totals came out tonight. According to the Montgomery County Board of Elections Twitter account, all mail ballots have been counted and they’ve started on provisionals. The entire count is hopefully going to be completed tomorrow.
The total number of mail ballot votes currently reported is 61,581. That compares to a total 63,626 returned Democratic mail ballots. My guess is that The totals now include all of the mail ballots as not everyone votes in every contest. But it’s hard to know for sure. Alternatively, there might be some provisionals in the count.
There are roughly 7000 provisional ballots. David Blair would have to win an estimated 2.9% more than Marc Elrich (assuming that all are valid counted) in order to catch up. This is possible but we’ll have to see how the count ends up.
Elrich has a smaller lead in numerical term than Blair did on election night but there are far fewer votes left to count. The share of remaining votes that Blair needs to get (assuming that no provisionals are thrown out) is now a bit higher than needed by Elrich after election night.
It’s certainly looking a lot better for Elrich than it did on election night but we’ll have to wait and see how the race ends up. It remains well within the free recount zone.
David Blair had a better day today in the count but he still trails incumbent County Executive Marc Elrich by 154 votes–a drop by 19 votes in Elrich’s lead. A total of 58,210 mail ballots have now been counted, so that leaves roughly 5,300 to count as well as all of the provisional ballots.
Today, Elrich added 5,514 (43.7%) votes while Blair gained 4,667 (37.0%)–a net gain of 847 votes for Elrich. Currently, Elrich has 35,300 votes to 35,004 votes for David Blair, so Elrich leads by 296 votes. Though enough to move Elrich into the lead, his spread over Blair in percentage terms is smaller than yesterday—a lead of 6.7% as opposed to yesterday’s 15.6%. But both leads are stronger than Blair’s on election night in either the early or Election Day vote.
Montgomery County is now reporting a total 16,730 mail ballot votes in the county executive race and the trend continues in incumbent County Executive Marc Elrich’s direction. The addition of 12,629 more mail ballot votes on top of the 4,101 reported last night has propelled Elrich into the lead.
Remember that if the Board of Elections is indeed counting ballots from earliest to latest received, this means that their composition could continue to vary. In other words, this is not a random sample of mail ballots. We’ll have to see if Blair improved among mail voters as the campaign progressed. UPDATE: At least one source is reporting that ballots are not being processed in order received. At the same time, mail ballots that have not been processed into the system can’t be scanned for votes yet and arrived later than ballots already processed.
But Blair’s advantage has, for now, been erased. The chance that Elrich once again snatches victory from Blair’s grasp is certainly looking better than both yesterday and on election night.
The first tranche of mail ballots is in and they were very good for incumbent County Executive Marc Elrich.
Going into tonight, Elrich trailed by 1,191 votes. The addition of just 4,101 valid votes from mail ballots has now cut David Blair’s lead down to 550 votes. Blair added just 1,376 (33.6%) votes to 2,017 (49.2%) for Elrich. Tens of thousands more mail ballots still have yet to be counted along with provisional ballots.
Though excellent news for Elrich, a strong dose of caution is merited. If the Board of Elections is indeed counting ballots from earliest to latest received, this means that their composition could well change. In other words, this is not a random sample of mail ballots.
Folks, like last time, it looks like we’re going to have wait to know the result.
Once again, Marc Elrich and David Blair are in a tight race for the Democratic nomination for county executive. Can Marc Elrich catch up?
The results from Montgomery County can be found on the Maryland State Board of Elections website. After election night, Blair has 28,961 votes (39.6%) and Elrich has 27,770 votes (38.0%)–a lead of 1,191 votes (1.6%).
Before I get further into the details, many are wondering which precincts have not reported yet because the page states 246 of 258 election day precincts reporting. This is a glitch. If you go to the page for the entire state, it reports correctly that results from all 258 have been tallied.
Due to the expansion of mail voting, including the addition of the ability to opt to vote by mail in every election, the number of mail ballots has ballooned considerably from four years ago. The estimate of the number of mail ballots on the Board of Elections website is far from complete because it includes only mail ballots that have been initially processed (but still not included in the vote tally).
I’m hearing that the Board of Elections guesses that they had received around 10,000 ballots more than listed on the site as of election day. Additionally, any ballots received over the next ten days that were postmarked on election day or earlier will be counted. The count also does not include ballots placed in drop boxes on election day, which I understand had heavy use, or provisional ballots.
We can roughly guesstimate that there will be around 50,000 additional ballots. That’s a lot considering that only 73,087 valid votes were cast in the race for county executive so far. Elrich needs to win 1,192 votes (2.4%) more than Blair to catch up.
Can this happen? I’d rather be in Blair’s position and leading, but it’s possible. After all, Blair led Elrich by 316 votes (0.6%) in the election day vote but by 875 votes (4.3%) in the early vote.
I can easily imagine scenarios that are good for both candidates. Mail votes often tend to follow election day votes. The mail vote might resemble the early vote since both were cast before the election. In either case, Blair wins.
On the other hand, one can also spin scenarios that are good for Elrich. Mail voters might be voters that are especially cautious due to the pandemic and especially appreciate his managing of it. They may also differ in some demographic that skews in his direction.
So maybe I was a little hasty to write yesterday that “My guess is that’s too much for Elrich to make up in mail ballots.” Though it still appears more likely than not to turn out that way, Blair’s lead is not insurmountable.
The bottom line is that we’ll just have to be very patient and wait for the votes to be counted. We’ll have a better idea of where this race is likely to end up once we know the total number of mail and provisional ballots as well as how they are trending from the first counts.
Normally, when people feel I got something wrong in a post, I hear from them very quickly. So I was a little surprised when Aaron Kraut, the David Blair’s Communications Director, contacted me to say that I got it wrong in yesterday’s post on the poll recently released by Blair.
According to Aaron Kraut, “The topline poll question cited in our press release was asked before any further questions.” This would mean that the polling results were not skewed by the sorts of priming and message testing that occurred during the poll.
I asked to see the polling results because that, after all, would quickly settle the matter. To me, as I said in the original post, it doesn’t make much sense to still be message testing at this point. Blair’s poll doesn’t jibe with a recent independent poll by Data for Progress.
The Blair campaign won’t share their polling data, feeling that they shouldn’t have to prove that something is false. They have a point and that’s why I am writing this post. The poll was done by a highly reputable polling firm. The Blair campaign is quite emphatic that the numbers they presented were the topline and not the post-message testing numbers.
As Hans Riemer’s campaign pointed out, the numbers presented by candidates often skew in their direction if only because candidates tend not to release unfavorable polls. Campaigns release information selectively, as the Blair campaign did, but everyone knows that.
More generally, doing good polling is getting more difficult. As is often said, the only poll that matters is the one at the ballot box.
David Blair recently trumpeted poll results produced by his campaign that claim he trails incumbent County Executive Marc Elrich by only a single point. They oddly left Hans Riemer out of the graphic in the blast email and press release, which present Elrich at 29%, Blair at 28% with 23% undecided. The poll was conducted by a highly reputable pollster.
Councilmember Hans Riemer’s campaign has repurposed this poll that has him in third place with 20%. They claim the poll shows Elrich falling but discount the better numbers for Blair because it came from his campaign. Their graphic excludes Blair just like Blair’s leaves out Riemer.
Except that the poll really show Blair’s weakness.
The poll was taken only after voters were primed with a bunch of messaging questions. Voters were asked questions related to Blair’s endorsement by the Washington Post and the Sierra Club combined with standard messaging. Blair’s campaign also asked negative questions about Elrich and Riemer’s longevity in office combined with a positive spin for Blair.
Priming can have large effects on poll outcomes. Beyond heavily skewing the information presented to voters, people like to please and are more likely to give an answer if they think it will make the interviewer happy. Yet even after all this priming designed to drive Blair’s numbers up and Elrich and Riemer’s down, Blair still trailed Elrich.
This message-testing poll suggests a few conclusions quite opposite from those presented by Blair as well as Riemer to a lesser extent.
First, Elrich almost certainly has a lead and quite possibly a strong one. If the Blair campaign had polling results that were at all good for him without priming questions, they would show them to us and even share the details.
These results instead suggest that Blair’s campaign is stalling despite his millions in spending. Blair’s omnipresence on television may not matter much when fewer people see the advertisements because they stream or scroll past commercials on their DVR. I have literally seen one Blair ad while streaming a YouTube video.
Second, Riemer is running uncomfortably well from the Blair campaign’s perspective. Just as the poll depresses Elrich’s numbers, it does the same to Riemer. Dropping Riemer from their graphic was hardly accidental. Blair is trying to convince people that it is a two-person race with Riemer faring poorly.
This is the logical purpose of the poll as no campaign is message testing at this late date. Campaigns have already settled on their plan and focused on execution. Other recent polls suggest that Blair and Riemer are statistically tied. My view is that Riemer has been running the best campaign of the three candidates, which would help explain why he hasn’t fallen behind Blair despite expectations and Blair’s very large wallet.
It doesn’t hurt that there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures funded by California donors on Riemer’s behalf separate from the campaign. (UPDATE: This is an anti-Elrich group that helps both Riemer and Blair.) Unlike four years ago, Riemer is the only councilmember challenging Elrich. Of course, Riemer’s campaign can’t have it both ways—the numbers understate Elrich’s support as well as his own.
Rather than convincing me that Blair is coming on strong and positioned well in the final weeks, this poll confirms his weakness.
Council Member Andrew “Real Deal” Friedson Friedson authored Question A, which liberalized the county’s property tax system to allow receipts to increase with assessments. Wall Street applauded its passage. Even progressives, who don’t love Friedson but owe him big-time for opening up the county’s revenue stream, have to admit that his Question A was the real deal.
Council Member Evan Glass Glass authored Question C, which added two district council seats and defeated the nine district Question D. Lots of wannabe politicians are going to look at running for the new seats. Every single one of them should kiss Glass’s ring and write a max-out check to his campaign account.
County Democratic Party It’s not a coincidence that MoCo voters adopted the positions of the county Democratic Party on all four ballot questions. With partisan sentiments running high and information on the questions running low, MoCo Democrats went along with their party and dominated the election.
David Blair Blair was the number one contributor to the four ballot issue committees that passed Questions A and C and defeated Questions B and D. By himself, Blair accounted for nearly half the money they raised. Whatever Blair decides to do heading into the next election, he can claim to have done as much to pass the county Democrats’ positions on the ballot questions as anyone. (Disclosure: I have done work for Blair’s non-profit but I was not involved in his ballot question activities.)
Ike Leggett The former county executive was key in leading the fight against Robin Ficker’s anti-tax Question B and the nine county council district Question D. Thousands of MoCo voters still like, respect and trust Ike Leggett.
Jews United for Justice While not having the money and manpower of many other groups who played on the questions, Jews United for Justice played a key role in convening the coalition that ultimately won. They have gained a lot of respect from many influencers in MoCo politics.
Facebook Lord knows how much money they made from all the ballot question ads!
Losers
Robin Ficker At the beginning of 2020, MoCo had one of the most restrictive property tax charter limits of any county in Maryland. For many years, Ficker was looking to make it even tighter and petitioned Question B to the ballot to convert it into a near-lock on revenues. But his charter amendment provoked Friedson to write Question A, which ultimately passed while Question B failed and will raise much more money than the current system over time. Instead of tightening the current system, the result is a more liberal system that will achieve the opposite of what Ficker wanted – more revenue for the county. This was one of the biggest backfires in all of MoCo political history.
Republicans The county’s Republican Party did everything they could to pass Ficker’s anti-tax Question B and the nine county council district Question D. In particular, they gave both cash and in-kind contributions to Nine Districts and even raised money for the group on their website. In doing so, the GOP provoked a fierce partisan backlash as the county Democrats rose up to take the opposite positions on the ballot questions and most Democratic-leaning groups combined forces to support them. With President Donald Trump apparently defeated, Governor Larry Hogan leaving office in two years and little prospect of success in MoCo awaiting them, where does the county’s Republican Party go from here?
This tweet by MoCo for Question C from a voting location explains all you need to know about why Question D failed.
Political Outsiders It wasn’t just Republicans who supported the failed Questions B and D; a range of political outsiders supported them too. What they witnessed was a mammoth effort by the Democratic Party, Democratic elected officials and (mostly) progressive interest groups to thwart them. Even the county chamber of commerce and the realtors lined up against them. Whether or not it’s true, this is bound to provoke more talk of a “MoCo Machine.” Machine or not, outsiders have to be wondering how to win when establishment forces combine against them.
Push
MCGEO, Fire Fighters and Police Unions These three unions are frustrated. They have not been treated the way they expected by the administration of County Executive Marc Elrich and they are also upset with the county council for abrogating their contracts (among other things). They wanted to show that they could impose consequences for messing with them and that was one reason why all three made thousands of dollars of in-kind contributions to Nine Districts. On the negative side, the nine districts Question D failed. On the positive side, the passage of Friedson’s Question A will result in a flow of more dollars into the county budget over time, a win for their members. So it’s a push. On to the next election.
The six committees formed to advocate for and against MoCo’s ballot questions have filed their final campaign finance reports before the general election, covering the period through October 18. Let’s see where the money is coming from.
Question B: Would remove the ability of the county council to break the current charter limit on property taxes, thereby capping property tax revenue growth at the rate of inflation. Authored by Robin Ficker.
Question C: Would add 2 district seats to the county council, thereby establishing 7 district seats and 4 at-large seats. Authored by Council Member Evan Glass. See MoCo Could Use More County Council Districts.
Here is a summary of finances for the committees for the entire cycle through October 18.
To understand why these flows of money are occurring, it’s useful to recall the genesis of these questions. This year’s ballot question fight was joined when two questions were placed on the ballot by petition: Robin Ficker’s anti-tax Question B and Nine Districts for MoCo’s Question D, which would eliminate council at-large seats and remake the council into 9 district seats. In response to those ballot questions, the county council put two of its own questions on the ballot to compete with them: Question A (a different tax limitation measure) and Question C (which would keep the at-large seats and add two district seats). It is believed by some that if two directly conflicting ballot questions pass, they will both get thrown out, though that is not 100% certain.
Once it became clear that both Ficker’s anti-tax question and the nine districts question were going to appear on the ballot, no fewer than four new ballot issue committees were created to stop one or both of them and/or to promote the council’s alternatives. In short order, many of the county’s power players took sides in an uncommon off-year ballot question war. The players’ positions are at least as interesting as the committees’ activities themselves.
Nine Districts for MoCo, the oldest of the committees, has by far the most individual contributors but 82% of its cash funding has come from the real estate industry. In its most recent report, MoCo GOP Central Committee Member Ann Hingston made 6 more in-kind contributions totaling $993, thereby providing more evidence of the links between Nine Districts and the county Republican Party. Nine Districts’ fundraising pace has slowed as they have collected just $154 since October 4.
The competing committees have rapidly closed the gap. Three groups have paid for mail: former County Executive Ike Leggett’s group opposing Questions B and D, former executive candidate David Blair’s group supporting Question A and opposing Question B and Residents for More Representation, a group supporting Question C and opposing Question D. These groups are also paying for websites and online advertising. But they got off to a late start while Nine Districts has been campaigning for more than a year.
Below are all the major players who have contributed at least $10,000 to one or a combination of these ballot issue committees.
David Blair – $165,000 Supports Questions A and C, opposes Questions B and D Businessman and former executive candidate David Blair is the number one spender on ballot questions. He has contributed $65,000 to Legget’s group opposing Questions B and D, $50,000 to his own group supporting Question A and opposing Question B, and $50,000 to Residents for More Representation, which supports Question C and opposes Question D. Blair’s positions mirror the positions taken by the county Democratic Party. (Disclosure: I have done work for Blair’s non-profit but I am not involved in his ballot question activities.)
Charlie Nulsen – $123,500 Supports Questions A, C and D, opposes Question B Nulsen is the president of Washington Property Company. On June 4, he contributed $50,000 to Nine Districts to help get Question D on the ballot. On October 13, he contributed $23,500 to Residents for More Representation to defeat Question D. Nulsen could have saved more than $70,000 and achieved the same outcome by simply doing nothing. He also contributed $50,000 to Blair’s group supporting Question A and opposing Question B.
Monte Gingery – $40,000 Supports Question D The head of Gingery Development Group has made three contributions totaling $40,000 to Nine Districts.
Willco – $40,000 Supports Questions C and D On August 5, this Potomac developer gave an in-kind contribution of $15,000 to Nine Districts which was used to pay Rowland Strategies (their campaign firm). On October 9, Willco gave $25,000 to Residents for More Representation, which is seeking to pass Question C and defeat Nine Districts. Folks, you can’t make it up.
MCGEO – $30,000 Supports Question A, Opposes Question B, Gave Contribution to Question D The Municipal and County Government Employees Organization (MCGEO) has made a $20,000 contribution to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B and a $10,000 in-kind contribution to Nine Districts. MCGEO President Gino Renne is the treasurer of Empower PAC, which gave another $5,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.
MCEA – $20,000 Opposes Question B The Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) has contributed $20,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.
UFCW Local 400 – $10,000 Opposes Question B This grocery store union which shares a parent union with MCGEO gave $10,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.
The six committees formed to advocate for and against MoCo’s ballot questions have filed campaign finance reports through October 4. Let’s see who is paying for all of this – so far.
Question B: Would remove the ability of the county council to break the current charter limit on property taxes, thereby capping property tax revenue growth at the rate of inflation. Authored by Robin Ficker.
Question C: Would add 2 district seats to the county council, thereby establishing 7 district seats and 4 at-large seats. Authored by Council Member Evan Glass. See MoCo Could Use More County Council Districts.
Here is a summary of committee finances for the entire cycle.
Nine District for MoCo, by far the oldest committee, has raised and spent the most money. It has had far more individual contributions (252) than Ike Leggett’s Vote No on B and D (30) with no other committee reporting any. Real estate interests have accounted for 83% of Nine District’s cash contributions. Interestingly, while Washington Property Company president Charlie Nulsen and the three county employee unions were major Nine District contributors in prior reports, they have not contributed any more since July. Nine District has collected contributions from leaders of the county’s Republican Party, which has raised money for the group on its website. The group has spent money on fees for Baltimore consultant Rowland Strategies, legal fees, robocalls and advertising (especially on Facebook).
Vote No on B & D, Leggett’s committee, spent $9,610 on graphic design for printing and campaign materials and $58,437 on direct mailing. So far, this is the only expenditure by any committee on mail. (Where’s my mailer, Ike?) Two other committees have collected money but not spent it and two more have collected less than $1,000.
Here are the biggest contributors to these committees and their positions on the ballot questions.
David Blair – $100,000 Supports Question A, Opposes Questions B and D The former county executive candidate has given $50,000 each to Leggett’s group opposing Questions B and D and his own group supporting Question A and opposing Question B.
Charlie Nulsen – $50,000 Supports Question D The president of Washington Property Company made one $50,000 contribution to Nine District for MoCo on 6/4/20. This was a critical boost for the group as it was in the home stretch of gathering signatures to appear on the ballot.
Monte Gingery – $40,000 Supports Question D The head of Gingery Development Group has made three contributions totaling $40,000 to Nine District for MoCo.
MCGEO – $30,000 Opposes Question B, Supports Question D The largest county government employee union gave $20,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B and made a $10,000 in-kind contribution to Nine District for MoCo. MCGEO President Gino Renne is the treasurer of Empower PAC, which gave another $5,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.
Willco – $15,000 Supports Question D The Potomac developer gave an in-kind contribution of $15,000 to Nine District for MoCo which was used to pay Rowland Strategies.
UFCW Local 400 – $10,000 Opposes Question B This grocery store union which shares a parent union with MCGEO gave $10,000 to Montgomery Neighbors Against Question B.
