-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: URGENT: Checking Shade statement from Thursday
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:18:55 -0500
From: Mark Littlefield
To: Gardner Selby <wgselby@statesman.com>


I think your data is correct. 

In the last 15 years, there are two examples of candidates coming back from a vote deficit of more than 4,316 votes.  Spelman in 1997 was 8,813 votes behind and Kim in 2005 was 7,771 votes behind.

In the last 15 years, there is one example of a candidate coming back from more than 13.48% points back and winning.  Spelman in 1997 was 14.97% points behind.  Kim in 2005 was 13.11% points behind - just .37% point difference from Shade position in 2011.

Several is more than one, I think.

You may have to call me to clarify this next point.  You say that only two candidates have added more than 4,136 votes between their general tally and their runoff tally.  That is true, but I think it to be irrelevant. 


If 32,007 votes were cast in May 2011, how many do you think will vote in June?  Whatever number you think that is - Randi or Kathie will need 50.1% of that number to win the runoff.  If you think that 100% of the ballots cast in May 2011 will return in June, then yes Randi will need to find 4,317 votes to win.  I do not think turnout in June will be 100% of May's.  I think it will be less, history indicates as much.  

If the June turnout is 55% of May's, then the winner will need at least 8,802 votes to win.  If turnout in June is 67% of May's, then the winner would need 10,722 to win.  I think in order for Randi to win she needs as high a turnout as possible, but it is impossible to predict what that number is going to be right now.  I think Randi will need to find more votes in the runoff, but it is hard to know exactly how many she will need.  I was not there, but from reading the release i did not see where Randi said anything about this.  Maybe she did.  My advice to Randi was to find as many old and new votes as possible.  

Griffith in 1996 increased her vote total.  Spelman in 1997 increased his vote total.  Alvarez in 2000 got almost 700 votes less, but still won.  Kim in 2005 increased her vote total and still won.  All of these are candidates that finished second in the first round in the last 15 years and won runoffs.  Shade could win by not increasing her vote total at all.  I do not think that would be likely, but I also do not think she will need more than 4,137 votes to win.   If we knew exactly how many people were going to vote and who exactly they were going to be, none of this would be as much fun.