Here are the campaign finance numbers, courtesy of NY State [http://www.elections.ny.gov/CFViewReports.html], for the Greenburgh Supervisor primary starting from Bernstein's nomination by the Greenburgh Democratic Party in late May and continuing through Sept. 20th (i.e., the 10 day post primary financial disclosure filing date).
Feiner: Raised: $16,838 (Feiner started campaign with $132,977 in campaign funds).
Spent: $67,760
cost per vote: $17.61
Bernstein
Raised: $58,233
Spent: $53,724
cost per vote: $25.08
For comparison, let's look again at the 2007 primary numbers also continuing through the 10 days post-primary financial disclosure filings. The 2007 campaign, however, started in early March, three months earlier than in 2013.
Feiner 2007
Raised: $52,980 (Feiner stated campaign with about $138,500 in campaign funds)
Spent: $74,416
cost per vote: $17.25
Berger 2007
Raised: $37,519 (Berger also lent her campaign $40,000)
Spent: $76,177
cost per vote: $34.75
Random comments:
1. Bernstein's $58K in fundraising is even more impressive when taking into account that the candidates in 2007 each had three extra months to solicit contributions than the 2013 candidates. Bernstein's fundraising success included the support of almost 170 $100+ donations. But, putting this success in context, Bernstein's $58K was little more than one-third of the $150K that Feiner had to work with ($132,977 in funds plus $16,838 raised). And, as he demonstrated in 2007, Feiner too can raise $50,000 during a campaign if he makes the effort.
2. Edgemont pays up: The vast majority of Bernstein's large (i.e., $100 and more) contributors listed 10583 (presumably Edgemont) and Greenburgh zip codes. This is less true for Feiner who consistently receives contributions from outside Greenburgh and especially Berger, who accumulated relatively little Greenburgh funds.
3. By continually fundraising during off-years, Feiner is able to maintain a war chest of at least $130,000: he entered both the 2013 and 2007 campaign with this a bank balance around this level. Furthermore, Feiner's not facing challengers in six years has allowed him to keep his funds largely intact while maintaining moderate levels of spending (mainly office/car expenses and charities) consistant with actual fundraising. If Feiner were challenged every two years, however, Feiner would have to change his campaign finance strategy: perhaps by requiring "team" candidates to fundraise also(it appears that Judith Beville raised and spent zero funds for her joint campaign with Paul, which suggests that she may be the shrewdest pol in town).
4. It may be a coincidence, but Feiner's per vote spending in 2007 and 2013 was consistent at about $17.50 per vote. Although Bernstein's spending was much more efficient than Berger's, neither challenger approached the "bang for the buck" that Feiner enjoyed. If Feiner targets 3,800 to 4,000 votes as a goal to win each Democratic primary, then he should anticipate spending $65,000 to $70,000 for each future primary campaign. While Feiner ended the campaign with $81,874 in the bank, he certainly has enough time in the next two years to restore his funds balance to his usual $130,000. The letter he recently distributed shows that he has already started fundraising in anticipation for 2015.
5. Bernstein acted similarly to Berger in that he allocated a huge amount of his funds (nearly $38K or about 70%) to a Washington based Democratic-party marketing company. Just like 2007 when 360 JMG collected lots of checks without showing much value for their services, the true winner of the 2013 campaign was The Pivot Group [www.thepivot.com]. When comparing Bernstein's performance to Berger six's years earlier, it does not seem that Bernstein was especially well served by his consultants and management. Bernstein could probably have saved $40K and done just as well. Of course, this was his contributors' money, so it's up to them to raise these questions.
6. Feiner does not squander contributors' money on DC firms. He also finds a way to spend less on campaign managers/consultants. Feiner's main expenses, are his usual group of vendors, like Scott Schindler, and postage and signage companies. Feiner's biggest single spending extravagence was the $15,000 in attorney's fees to challenge Bernstein's ballot petitions. While this tactic is anti-demorcratic, the risk-reward return of the strategy made it logical, as described below. If you subtract out these legal fees, Feiner spent the same amount on the campaign as Bernstein, while garnering nearly twice as many votes.
7. The Feiner team's strategy of trying to knock off candidates by ballot challenges may be as much a financial as electoral consideration. If Feiner had succeeded in knocking Bernstein off the ballot, he could have potentially saved his campaign $50,000. This potential reward was probably worth the $15,000 invested in legal costs to mount the challenge, which leads to perhaps the most eye raising campaign expense....
8. Archibald Mussington's $500 payment for "reimubursement of campaign expenses"? Mussington was the complainant in Feiner's challenges to the validity of Bernstein's ballot petitions. The round number of $500 seems somewhat puzzling as an expense reimbursement. It would interesting to see an itemization of Mussington's expenses and his invoice.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Still waiting for the final precinct breakdown for the primary and latest financial disclosure numbers.....
Nothing new: the Westchester Co. Board of Elections still has not posted the final voting numbers for Greenburgh's 81 precints and NY State has not posted the most recent financial disclosure reports.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Let's start looking at some numbers: part I
The Westchester BOE still hasn't listed the final breakdown for Greenburgh's 81 districts, but we do have some numbers we can examine to put the recent primary (and Greenburgh's democratic vibrancy) into context. According to the BOE website [enrollment books: http://citizenparticipation.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/2013enrollActive.pdf], Greenburgh has 30,882 active registered Democrats (herein "ARD"), and 58,427 active registered voters overall (herein "ARV"). Turn out among ARD in the primary was 19.4%. The BOE added some more votes to unofficial results yesterday, now giving:
NAME VOTES % votes cast % ARD % ARV
Feiner 3847 64.2% 12.5% 6.6%
Bernstein: 2142 35.8% 6.9% 3.7%
TOTAL 5989 19.4% 10.3%
For all of Feiner's presumed popularity (e.g., see Phil Reiman), it is surprising (to me at least) that only 1 in 8 Greenburgh ARDs took advantage of the opportunity to vote for him for the first time in six years. Of course, Bernstein's popularity, or lack thereof, is even more dismal as only 1 in 14 ARD's filled in his circle at the polls. OK, I admit that the last column isn't fair to the candidates: we'll never know how a general election would have turned out. But it is rather interesting to see the exact percentage of Greenburgh's active registered voters actually determine our town officials: 6.6 % is not exactly the example of a vibrant democracy - or a political mandate.
Bob Bernstein offered the breakdown for Edgemont's six election districts on his FB page last week. Edgemont, btw, has 2413 ARDs as of 2013 (7.8% of Greenburgh's total) and 4765 ARVs overall (8.2% of Greenburgh's total). So let's try to put those numbers into perspective:
NAME EDG votes % in EDG % non-EDG % EDG ARD %EDG ARV
Feiner 185 21.6% 71.4% 7.7% 3.9%
Bernstein 673 78.4% 28.6% 27.9% 14.1%
TOTAL 858
First off, Edgemont's turnout of ARD turnout 35.6% was impressive, nearly double the turn-out of 18% among non-Edge ARDs. But, and here comes the crucial weakness of an Edgemont-centric candidacy, Bernstein's bastion holds less than 8% of ARD in Greenburgh. Even a highly motivated Edgemont still only turned out 14.3% of the total vote in this past primary (858 out of 5989). (A political cynic might suggest that Paul Feiner should encourage Edgemont-based candidates to challenge him in perpetuity.)
If it matters to Paul Feiner, he'll see that his popularity in Edgemont is feeble: Bernstein actually did better outside Edgemont than Feiner did among our Southern neighbors. But should this really trouble Feiner? I suppose it might because of the implied threat of incorporation (sorry about calling it secession perviously, but hey, I'm a Civil War buff). Conversely, if Bernstein's candidacy was also intended to serve as a referendum on Edgemont's desire to love Greenburgh or leave it, the stat that he received only 28% of the votes of Edgemont ARDs hardly suggests that incorporation has a mandate. In fact, these results don't even suggest that Bernstein would automatically win an election for Emir of Edgemont, were that vote to be held tomorrow. Consequently, Feiner may have no serious, immediate worries on the incorporation front either. As further numbers and financial disclosures roll in, we'll continue this post-election analysis.
*These Edgemont numbers maybe slightly off depending on how many of the 67 votes recently added to the total by the BOE come from Edgemont.
NAME VOTES % votes cast % ARD % ARV
Feiner 3847 64.2% 12.5% 6.6%
Bernstein: 2142 35.8% 6.9% 3.7%
TOTAL 5989 19.4% 10.3%
For all of Feiner's presumed popularity (e.g., see Phil Reiman), it is surprising (to me at least) that only 1 in 8 Greenburgh ARDs took advantage of the opportunity to vote for him for the first time in six years. Of course, Bernstein's popularity, or lack thereof, is even more dismal as only 1 in 14 ARD's filled in his circle at the polls. OK, I admit that the last column isn't fair to the candidates: we'll never know how a general election would have turned out. But it is rather interesting to see the exact percentage of Greenburgh's active registered voters actually determine our town officials: 6.6 % is not exactly the example of a vibrant democracy - or a political mandate.
Bob Bernstein offered the breakdown for Edgemont's six election districts on his FB page last week. Edgemont, btw, has 2413 ARDs as of 2013 (7.8% of Greenburgh's total) and 4765 ARVs overall (8.2% of Greenburgh's total). So let's try to put those numbers into perspective:
NAME EDG votes % in EDG % non-EDG % EDG ARD %EDG ARV
Feiner 185 21.6% 71.4% 7.7% 3.9%
Bernstein 673 78.4% 28.6% 27.9% 14.1%
TOTAL 858
First off, Edgemont's turnout of ARD turnout 35.6% was impressive, nearly double the turn-out of 18% among non-Edge ARDs. But, and here comes the crucial weakness of an Edgemont-centric candidacy, Bernstein's bastion holds less than 8% of ARD in Greenburgh. Even a highly motivated Edgemont still only turned out 14.3% of the total vote in this past primary (858 out of 5989). (A political cynic might suggest that Paul Feiner should encourage Edgemont-based candidates to challenge him in perpetuity.)
If it matters to Paul Feiner, he'll see that his popularity in Edgemont is feeble: Bernstein actually did better outside Edgemont than Feiner did among our Southern neighbors. But should this really trouble Feiner? I suppose it might because of the implied threat of incorporation (sorry about calling it secession perviously, but hey, I'm a Civil War buff). Conversely, if Bernstein's candidacy was also intended to serve as a referendum on Edgemont's desire to love Greenburgh or leave it, the stat that he received only 28% of the votes of Edgemont ARDs hardly suggests that incorporation has a mandate. In fact, these results don't even suggest that Bernstein would automatically win an election for Emir of Edgemont, were that vote to be held tomorrow. Consequently, Feiner may have no serious, immediate worries on the incorporation front either. As further numbers and financial disclosures roll in, we'll continue this post-election analysis.
*These Edgemont numbers maybe slightly off depending on how many of the 67 votes recently added to the total by the BOE come from Edgemont.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Well.... that was quick: but can Bernstein beat Berger?
Some immediate post-election thoughts:
1. Feiner the Formidable: If the preliminary results stand up, Feiner's margin of victory over Bernstein (66% - 34%) will be same as his 2007 edge over Suzanne Berger. With lower turnout this time around, however, Bernstein will probably end up with at least 200 fewer votes than Berger, making this the weakest challenge to Feiner since Jim Lasser received about 30% of the general election vote in 2003 (although Lasser did receive more than 4000 votes). It will be interesting to watch the final campaign spending numbers to calculate the final cost per vote.
2. The return of Edgemont secession? Feiner had predicted very early in the campaign that he would win Edgemont, which was about the only miscalculation in his campaign. Instead, it appears that he may have taken only about 20% of the Edgemont vote, which is far less than he received in 2005 and 2007. Conversely, Bernstein may have received nearly half of his votes from Edgemont, indicating that his appeal resonated with his neighbors although not much further than their school district's borders. Of course, one of the underlying themes (or implied threats, depending on your point of view) of Bernstein's campaign was that the reasons for Edgemont to secede would be obviated by his defeating Paul Feiner. Bernstein repeated this talking point at the debate, leaving the the implication that his defeat could revive Edgemont secession talk. It will be interesting to see if Bernstein campaign, which focused on resentment against Feiner and his policies, will energize the secession advocates in Edgemont and broaden support in that community. Edgemont secession will be a disaster for Hartsdale. It would behoove Feiner to make some gestures toward encouraging Edgemont reconciliation with the rest of Greenburgh - although I have no idea how that could be done.
3. Greenburgh is Feiner-istan. By now, it should be clear that Feiner can always turn out 3500+ primary voters. I had thought that Feiner's voter turnout would suffer because he had not faced an election in six years and some of his regular supporter might have eroded in the interim. Obviously, I was completely wrong. Feiner appeared to put little effort into this campaign until the last ten days or so. His fundraising was lax and he was distracted by understandable issues. Nevertheless, Feiner won easily. Feiner's ability to rely consistantly on this level of voter turnout, combined with his financial resources, should give pause to any potential challenger in the future.
4. Wednesday morning quarterbacking: It should be obvious by now that an Edgemont-centered candidate is not going to beat Paul Feiner. (Here's some unsolicited advice: if the anti-Feiner activists are sincere about impacting the town's policies - rather than being motivated primarily by animus against Feiner - they should give up challenging the supervisor and turn their electoral efforts against the other board members, two of whom were unopposed this year). It's telling that the only challenger to really threaten Feiner during his 22 years in office came from the town's largest voting community, which sits in the town's center - Hartsdale.
1. Feiner the Formidable: If the preliminary results stand up, Feiner's margin of victory over Bernstein (66% - 34%) will be same as his 2007 edge over Suzanne Berger. With lower turnout this time around, however, Bernstein will probably end up with at least 200 fewer votes than Berger, making this the weakest challenge to Feiner since Jim Lasser received about 30% of the general election vote in 2003 (although Lasser did receive more than 4000 votes). It will be interesting to watch the final campaign spending numbers to calculate the final cost per vote.
2. The return of Edgemont secession? Feiner had predicted very early in the campaign that he would win Edgemont, which was about the only miscalculation in his campaign. Instead, it appears that he may have taken only about 20% of the Edgemont vote, which is far less than he received in 2005 and 2007. Conversely, Bernstein may have received nearly half of his votes from Edgemont, indicating that his appeal resonated with his neighbors although not much further than their school district's borders. Of course, one of the underlying themes (or implied threats, depending on your point of view) of Bernstein's campaign was that the reasons for Edgemont to secede would be obviated by his defeating Paul Feiner. Bernstein repeated this talking point at the debate, leaving the the implication that his defeat could revive Edgemont secession talk. It will be interesting to see if Bernstein campaign, which focused on resentment against Feiner and his policies, will energize the secession advocates in Edgemont and broaden support in that community. Edgemont secession will be a disaster for Hartsdale. It would behoove Feiner to make some gestures toward encouraging Edgemont reconciliation with the rest of Greenburgh - although I have no idea how that could be done.
3. Greenburgh is Feiner-istan. By now, it should be clear that Feiner can always turn out 3500+ primary voters. I had thought that Feiner's voter turnout would suffer because he had not faced an election in six years and some of his regular supporter might have eroded in the interim. Obviously, I was completely wrong. Feiner appeared to put little effort into this campaign until the last ten days or so. His fundraising was lax and he was distracted by understandable issues. Nevertheless, Feiner won easily. Feiner's ability to rely consistantly on this level of voter turnout, combined with his financial resources, should give pause to any potential challenger in the future.
4. Wednesday morning quarterbacking: It should be obvious by now that an Edgemont-centered candidate is not going to beat Paul Feiner. (Here's some unsolicited advice: if the anti-Feiner activists are sincere about impacting the town's policies - rather than being motivated primarily by animus against Feiner - they should give up challenging the supervisor and turn their electoral efforts against the other board members, two of whom were unopposed this year). It's telling that the only challenger to really threaten Feiner during his 22 years in office came from the town's largest voting community, which sits in the town's center - Hartsdale.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Will the candidates seriously discuss the Hartsdale-10530 property value crisis?
The campaign for Greenburgh Supervisor has failed to address the most serious issue facing Hartsdale/10530 home owners: the continuing stagnation in single family home values. Let's look at some charts and ask some questions:
Well, let's say there is something of a difference. According to Zillow's index 10583 values peaked in March 2008. Our neighbors (and supervisor candidates) enjoyed two more years of home value escalation before they got hit by the bubble burst and financial crisis. But look... there's been an actual recovery in 10583: their prices are already back up to the levels of Feb. 2009. Good job Supervisor candidates! OK, just for fun, let's look at our fellow Greenburgh voters in Hastings-in-Hudson, where our Supervisor insisted on holding the only debate of the campaign.
Hastings looks a lot more like 10583 than 10530, you say. Hastings stayed at its peak until about March 2008. And Hastings prices have recovered back to where they were in the summer of 2009.
Here are the questions that every Hartsdale home owner should be asking the candidates:
1. (A) As you can see above, home values in both your zip code of 10583 and neighboring Hastings have recovered to 2009 levels. Can you offer explanations to suggest why Hartsdale's home values began dropping two years earlier than 10583 and Hastings?
(B) Why have Hartsdale home values, unlike 10583 and Hastings, shown no signs of recovery, but instead have apparently leveled off at 2003 levels?
2. Can you suggest any specific policies that you, as Supervisor, could implement to assist real estate value recovery in Hartsdale?
NOTE: I know that the Supervisor has no direct control over home values, but Hartsdale is the largest single community in Greenburgh, and its homeowners deserve your serious consideration of this matter.
Look at Hartsdale. According to Zillow's Home Value index, prices peaked in April 2006. Interestingly, this was more than 2 years before Lehman Brother's failure heralded the market collapse of late 2008. But there's been a recovery, you say? Not in Hartsdale: according to Zillow's index, our home values as of July 1, 2013 have recovered to the level of.... um, well, sometime beyond the left margin of this ten year chart. Yes, 10530 single family price values are back up to ....October 2003 levels! Factor in inflation and it's even worse. Next up, the zip code of our two candidates for supervisor... 10583:
Hastings looks a lot more like 10583 than 10530, you say. Hastings stayed at its peak until about March 2008. And Hastings prices have recovered back to where they were in the summer of 2009.
Here are the questions that every Hartsdale home owner should be asking the candidates:
1. (A) As you can see above, home values in both your zip code of 10583 and neighboring Hastings have recovered to 2009 levels. Can you offer explanations to suggest why Hartsdale's home values began dropping two years earlier than 10583 and Hastings?
(B) Why have Hartsdale home values, unlike 10583 and Hastings, shown no signs of recovery, but instead have apparently leveled off at 2003 levels?
2. Can you suggest any specific policies that you, as Supervisor, could implement to assist real estate value recovery in Hartsdale?
NOTE: I know that the Supervisor has no direct control over home values, but Hartsdale is the largest single community in Greenburgh, and its homeowners deserve your serious consideration of this matter.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
To "WPEyesNEars"
Note the "rule" written at the top of the page. I'll be happy to print your comment (in which you accuse me of "drinking the Feiner Kool-aid") once you add your real name to your statement. Otherwise, your opinions have the same value as your courage (i.e., none at all).
WP: I've insisted on the name disclosure rule to keep this forum free from vitriol and the usual anonymous pro and anti Feiner blowhards and hacks who haunt lohud and daily greenburgh. I very much welcome the participation and input of a fellow uninc. Greenburgh resident of the non-Edgemont variety, but it's solely your decision whether your comments get publicly posted on this site - and that's contingent on giving your name. You didn't provide your email, btw.
WP: I've insisted on the name disclosure rule to keep this forum free from vitriol and the usual anonymous pro and anti Feiner blowhards and hacks who haunt lohud and daily greenburgh. I very much welcome the participation and input of a fellow uninc. Greenburgh resident of the non-Edgemont variety, but it's solely your decision whether your comments get publicly posted on this site - and that's contingent on giving your name. You didn't provide your email, btw.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Forlorn Hartsdale.... Alas!: UPDATE: Bernstein visits Manor Woods
Tonight's debate between Feiner and Bernstein lasted over two hours. It was a surprisingly entertaining evening with Bernstein speaking well and making his points effectively and Feiner startlingly aggressive and well-prepared with sound bites and documents. But, during these 2+ hours, guess which two syllables were never uttered by either candidate? You are correct if you guessed.... HARTSDALE. We truly are the neglected, taken-for-granted, high-tax-payers of Greenburgh. For these two candidates, whose children attend highly reputed school systems and whose families live in communities enjoying escalating property values, Hartsdale apparently does not exist. Not a single allusion to or question about Hartsdale's special double whammy of spiraling taxes and declining property values. How appropriate that the only debate in this campaign took place in Hastings-on-Hudson. Hartsdale - the community with the largest single number of voters in Greenburgh - might as well not exist. But do we have anyone to blame for this inattention other than ourselves?
UPDATE: Bob Bernstein campaigned in Manor Woods (last night, Friday, after the end of the two-day holiday) and deserves credit for putting his boots on the ground in the typically ignored Hartsdale hamlet.
UPDATE: Bob Bernstein campaigned in Manor Woods (last night, Friday, after the end of the two-day holiday) and deserves credit for putting his boots on the ground in the typically ignored Hartsdale hamlet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)