2014 Federal Primary Analysis

Those who miss my web presence should not assume this piece augurs any sort of imminent return on a regular basis; it merely is an indication that I cannot let a bunch of election returns go by without a little analysis.

On Tuesday, the NYC Board of Election certified its results in the this year’s Federal primary leaving me a relatively small and largely insignificant bunch of data to analyze; but the fact the fact that most of the races involved were jokes doesn’t mean there was nothing to be learned from the data. 

So, here now, a few observations about the 2014 Federal primary;

But first some small caveats:

There has been, amongst sophisticated analysts, a strong and understandable temptation to compare results in this year’s Federal primaries to those which occurred two years ago. And the most sophisticated amongst us have also not resisted the temptation to compare such results by Assembly District.

Normally, this would be a matter of comparing oranges to oranges. Both Assembly district and Congressional district lines were changed in 2012.

The problem is that, in the last Federal primary, the Board of Elections used the preexisting Assembly lines, and not the new ones, to organize its election districts. This was largely a matter of timing, and the smart move under the circumstances, but it means that the data for 2012 uses the 2002 Assembly Districts rather than those created in 2012.

In most of the districts relevant to this year’s primaries, the changes are not really that significant—the greatest changes come in Queens—but while comparing this year’s 71st Assembly District results to those in 2012 (as one pretty good analysis does)  is not quite an oranges to apples comparison, it might be said to be comparing a Mandarin orange to a Mineola tangelo.           

Another caveat is that the Board of Elections data is AD by AD and I did not do any ED by ED analysis (although I gazed at maps of such analysis where they existed), so my conclusions are not really always that conclusive.

And now that I’ve laid my caveats in a row, I will take license to violate them whenever I deem it convenient.

So, first the marquee race:

13th Congressional District:

To be fair, using the initial unofficial data, Angel Falcon of the National Institute for Latino Policy (NILP) has already done a pretty impressive analysis of the election. Go. Read it. Now.

A very wise consultant friend had this to add about the NILP analysis:

But they, and others now, are burying Adriano too soon. He will beat Jackson easily (districts is less than 10% Black) and after that happens, he'll start running for Congress again. In a field of 3 or more real candidates, he has great shot of winning.

 Unless Feds finally connect the Martinez-Castro-Rosa dots.”

But flaws aside, the NILP piece sure beats this piece of crap by Gerson Borrero.

The same friend comments:  

“Borrero is really a clown. 

He leaves out that Linares & Luna ran against Espaillat for Council in 1991, that Luna supported Murtaugh against him & that Linares opposed Schneiderman, with Joe Bruno's support.

 He is also wrong when he writes that Espaillat said he wouldn't run for Senate if lost to Rangel in 2012,

 And that's not even mentioning that few Dominican pols against Espaillat had as much to do with Rangel winning as the woman who got 500 votes.”

Any, let me add as follows.

Last time there were 43,269 votes, this time 50,019. 

Last time Rangel got 44.34% and Espaillat 41.83%.  Great White House Hope Clyde Williams had 9.86%, Joyce Johnson 2.35% and Craig Schley 1.38%. 

This time Rangel got 47.58% and Espaillat got 42.94%. Next Great Thing Hype Michael Walrond got 7.90% and Richie Soto’s pointless attempt at a drain candidate, Yolonda Garcia, got 1.19%.

Rangel’s margin pretty much doubled.

Last time’s Manhattan totals were Rangel 44.58% and Espaillat 41.10%. Williams got 10.46%, Johnson 2.24% and Schley 1.40%.

This time Manhattan went 48.43% for Rangel, with Espaillat getting 41.63%, Walrond got 8.61% and Garcia 0.98%

Last time in the Bronx, it was Espaillat 46.99%, Rangel 42.67%, Williams 5.67%, Johnson 3.14% and Schley 1.23%. 

This time, it was Espaillat 51.03%, Rangel 42.35%, Walrond 3.56% and Garcia 2.53%.

Unfortunately for Espaillat, the impact of the Bronx in this district is amongst the things which have been overhyped. Espaillat almost doubled his prior Bronx margin and it mattered not the least. Rangel almost doubled his prior Manhattan margin and it was dispositive.

Last time the Bronx accounted for 12.45% of the district’s primary votes; this time it accounted for 13.94%.

 As in 2012, looked AD by AD, the race was competitive almost nowhere.  

Last time out, Rangel rampaged through Central Harlem’s 70th AD, 60% to Espaillat’s 20%, with Williams taking 15%.

This time Rangel took 61% to Espaillat’s 20%, with Walrond taking an impressive 17%.

Perhaps Walrond would be better off looking at the Harlem Assembly or Council seats rather than one in Congress.

Rangel once again did his Puerto Rican daddy proud in East Harlem. Last time he rampaged through the 68th AD 64% to Espaillat’s 19% and Williams’ 12%. This time, Rangel took 63% and Espaillat 26%. Walrond got 9%.

Those who thought Melissa Mark-Viverito was a powerhouse in her home base should note that, in her own 2013 primary her 68th AD percentage was 42.51%.

Last time in the 69th AD’s racially diverse Manhattan Valley and similar turf, Rangel took 52% to Espaillat 26% and Williams’ 16%.

This time, Rangel took 57% and Espaillat 35%. Walrond took 6%.

I think this raises an interesting question about the white vote I’ll discuss after reviewing the rest of the data.

Last time, in Espaillat’s base in the Inwood/Washington Heights based 72nd AD, Espaillat took 78% to Rangel’s 17% and Williams’ 3%.

This time, Espaillat took 73% to Rangel’s 24%. Walrond took 2% and Garcia, the supposed drainer of Espaillat’s Dominican vote, took 1%.

But while Yolonda Garcia’s impact on Espaillat’s home base may have been de minimus, one cannot help noticing that Espaillat’s margin against Rangel went down from 61% to 49%.

That’s a 12 point hemorrhage. This cannot be explained by Garcia, and it cannot be explained by the relatively minor changes in the AD’s lines.

Perhaps this is part of a phenomenon I noted last year when few others took notice, that Dominicans in Upper Manhattan were the one group in the City whose turnout in the “voting by invitation only” Public Advocate runoff closely matched the turnout in the initial primary, and that the votes cast revealed a significant operation being run by Dominicans outside the control of Adriano Espaillat:

 THE DOMINICAN ASCENDANCY:  The most remarkable rates of retention of votes between the primary and general election were in the Dominican stronghold of Northern Manhattan.


Squadron, supported by local powerhouse State Senator Adriano Espaillat, retained 63.17% of his primary vote in the runoff in AD 71. In Espaillat’s home base, AD 72, Squadron’s runoff vote was 100.31% of his vote in the initial primary. The vote was so high in AD 72 that the overall runoff turnout was 74.74% of the primary turnout—an extraordinary number.


But that last number did not owe solely to Espaillat, and Espaillat had better be looking over his shoulder, because evidence indicates there is a new jefe on the block.


The 71st has a black Assemblyman and a substantial black vote, and James won it both in the primary and the runoff, but her retention rate of primary votes there, 76.10%, indicates that she had the support of committed locals in the Dominican community who were as effective as Espaillat’s in running a vote pulling operation.


In the 72nd, this was also the case, but even more so. James’ rate of retention of her primary vote in the runoff, 153.77% is so monumental that it dwarfs even Squadron’s extraordinary number—this was just not happening anywhere else in the City.


Moreover, James’ impressive runoff showing meant that the 72nd was one of the few ADs in the City with a different victor in the runoff than the primary.


Now can someone tell me who it is that Espaillat is supposed to be worrying about?

So maybe Gerson Borrero isn’t such a clown after all.

Last time, in the racially mixed 71st AD, where Washington Heights Dominicans cohabitate with West Harlem blacks and Hudson Heights whites, Espaillat took 47% to Rangel’s 40% and Williams’ 10%. It was really the only place in Manhattan last time where the race was close.

This time, it was even closer, but the winner changed. Espaillat took only 45%, while Rangel took 47%. Walrond took 7% and Garcia less than 1%.

Espaillat went from a seven point victory to a 2% defeat, a hemorrhage of nine points, probably at least partly owing to what I suspect is a growing alternative power base among anti-Espaillat Dominicans.  

Turning to the Bronx, last time Rangel won the 77th AD (majority Latino in population, but– largely due to the immigrant nature of the Latino population–last represented by an African-American—the seat is currently vacant) 63% to Espaillat’s 27%. This time, Rangel won 60% to 34%; the decreased margin may be due to an increasing level of Latino citizenship and political participation.  

 Last time, in the  80th AD, where the vote is mostly Puerto Rican, Rangel won 61% to Espaillat’s 28%. This time, he won 55% to 38%. The slice in Rangel’s margin may also be due to the slow but sure ascendancy of Latino immigrant groups who, unlike Puerto Ricans, cannot vote in NYC the day they arrive here. 

In the more established Dominican areas, the story was different.

Last time, Espaillat won the 78th AD 56% to 35%; this time he won 58% to Rangel’s 35%. Supposed Dominican drain candidate Yolonda Garcia got 2%.

In the 86th AD, last time Espaillat got 72% to Rangel’s 24%. This time, Espaillat took 64% to Rangel’s 32% (no doubt, there’s a story to be told about that slide in Espaillat’s margin, but I’ve no idea what it is). Garcia took less than 1%.

Like last time, only in the 81st AD, which has a significant white vote, was there anything in the Bronx resembling a real race.

Unlike in Manhattan, where most white political support, both this time and last, mostly went to Rangel, the local white political establishment in the 81st AD was once again strongly in Espaillat’s corner, and Espaillat won here.

Last time out, Espaillat took 48% to 40%, with Clyde Williams taking 9%. This time, Espaillat took 53% to Rangel’s 41%. 

As in their last race, Rangel beat Espaillat handily among black voters; in fact, it is striking how poorly Espaillat did in black areas against an incumbent who remains scandal scarred wounded meat and stripped of his once formidable power.

In Manhattan at least, as was also true last time, it appears that black voters who wanted to send a message to Rangel, sent it by voting for someone other than Espaillat. Last time, it was Clyde Williams; this time, it was Michael Walrond, who got nearly as many votes in Central Harlem as Espaillat, and did notably better among black voters than Williams (who more than made up for it by showing an appeal to white voters that Walrond could not duplicate).

In fact, Espaillat’s showing in places like Central Harlem was so poor that one is probably not crazy to posit that most of the Warlord’s voters there, if forced to choose between Rangel and Espaillat, would have voted for Rangel.

Even more striking, as it was last time, is Espaillat’s weakness among non-Dominican Latinos, especially, but not exclusively, Puerto Ricans. 

Then there is the white vote. Last time, after the election, a friend wrote:

Sam Hudis: If not for Clyde Williams, Espaillat would have won easily.  

Gate: I'd have to see where his vote came from to agree with that conclusion. If it came from Central Harlem, I would have to disagree–if it came mostly from whites–a different matter.  

Sam Hudis: We'll see when the results by AD are published, but I suspect Williams got a lot of his votes from anti-Rangel whites.

But the results revealed something somewhat different:

The answer is Williams got votes both from whites and from Manhattan blacks.

For the reasons already outlined, I think Williams’ black votes came from Charlie Rangel’s hide.

The white votes are a different matter. First a caveat—I did not do an ED by ED analysis, so my conclusions are not really conclusive.

I note though that in the three ADs with a significant white vote, Rangel got between 40% and 52% of the vote. It seems unlikely he could have done so while getting blitzed among whites.

Further, in those ADs, Espaillat managed between 26% and 48% of the vote, meaning his appeal to the voters in these areas was hardly overwhelming in comparison to Rangel’s.

While I think that, unlike in the black areas where Williams did well, the 10% to 16% of the votes Williams managed in areas where there was a white presence would have broken in Espaillat’s favor, rather than Rangel’s, I don’t think it would have done so by any overwhelming margin.

Since Williams’ black vote would probably have broken for Rangel, I do not believe that Williams’ presence cost Espaillat the election.       

This time, in the three ADs with a significant white vote, Rangel got between 41% and 57% of the vote. Further, in those ADs, Espaillat managed between 35% and 53% of the vote. Clearly, the white vote split between the candidates, with its winner in each neighborhood determined by local factors, and with no one anywhere winning the white vote overwhelmingly.

This time out, without Williams’16%, Rangel’s percentage in the 69th AD went up five points, while Espaillat’s went up nine points, for a net Espaillat gain of 4% . In the 81stAD, without Williams’ 9%, Espaillat went up five points and Rangel went up one point, for a net Espaillat gain of 4%.

In the 71st, without Williams’10%, Espaillat lost two points and Rangel gained seven, a net Rangel gain of nine points, but I think logic demands we attribute that to Rangel gains amongst anti-Espaillat Dominicans.

In fact, I’d guess Espaillat probably got a lift of 3-4% in the 71st, owing to white voters who’d previously backed Williams, but lost something like 12% of the vote here from fleeing Dominicans, as he did in the 72nd, altogether netting him the 9% loss of support he suffered in the 71st AD.

So, to finally and conclusively answer Mr. Hudis, the loss of 4% in ADs with significant white votes that Williams cost Espaillat last time could not possibly have translated into a 4% loss of support for Espaillat district wide. Williams did not cost Espaillat the election last time.

As to the also-rans, I repeat that Walrond should set his sights lower; the result I’ve noted indicate he might have a future in Central Harlem as long as it remains a black majority community.

Concerning Yolonda Garcia, everything I predicted about her previously came to pass:

Garcia is another Richie Soto candidate  with no money, who will get on the ballot and do nothing to win. Since there are no other races on the ballot, everyone will already know who they are voting for for Congress before they get to the polls, and no one will have heard of by that point, so the votes drained from Espaillat will be severely limited.http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/hispanic-candidate-jumps-race-rep-rangel-seat-article-1.1754168

Bottom line: Dominicans alone could not win this race for Espaillat, and Puerto Ricans consider Rangel a Boricua, even if Rangel does not embrace this identity himself. 

And now for the undercard races:

 5th Congressional District:

In 2012, ethically challenged incumbent Greg Meeks got just over 2/3rds of the vote in Queens, in a fragmented, four way field, taking 67.41%. Joseph Marthone, arguably Meeks’ most pathetic opponent, took 8.13% in that race. Those interested in both Meeks’ ethical problems and Marthone’s substance, such as it is and was, can use this link to learn more.

In a just world, Meeks would be considered a pathetic joke, but this year he was “challenged” for the second time by Marthone, who, even in an unjust world, remains a laughing matter.


Last time out, I spent pages going on about Marthone’s wretched website. Those in the mood for a laugh should check out this year’s model.   

Marthone is best described as “possibly delusional, though probably harmless.” 

Last time, the protest vote divided against three sure losers. This time, Meeks took 79.26% of the vote to Marthone’s 19.43%.

This means that over half of those revolted enough about Meeks to cast non-Marthone protest vote against him last time could not bear to vote for Marthone this year. This year, Marthone increased his vote by 11.30% over his 2012 percentage, but Meeks increased his 2012 percentage by 11.85%. 

In the district’s small Nassau portion, it was even worse. Last time Meeks managed 50.24% to Marthone’s 18.59%. This time, head to head, Meeks took 76.15% to Marthone’s 22.18%. In others words, the 32.17% of the Nassau vote last time which went to other protest candidates, divided 25.91% to 3.66% in Meeks’ favor, meaning that Meeks took the Nassau votes of the other 2012 protest candidates by a margin of about four to one.

Mr. Marthone may perhaps want to reevaluate his future in politics.

Of note?  

Last time, the district contained portions of five Assembly Districts represented by white people. Of those, two were carried by white candidate Mike Scala. Meeks got 43% in those ADs, Scala 34% and Marthone 9.95%

This time around, the ADs were heavily redrawn, but there were still five represented by whites. Like last time, some of these those ADs contained significant number of black voters, as well as other non-whites. They went to Meeks 65.86% to 32.71%, proving Meeks’ standing among non-black voters is significantly lower than it is among African-Americans.

In fact, Marthone will be heartened to learn he carried two of these ADs. He won the 28th AD 18 votes to 17 and the 38th AD 51 votes to 47 (with one vote going to the equally repugnant Al Baldeo).   

7th Congressional District:

Last time out, Nydia Velazquez faced a real opponent with money in the bank and some significant facts on the ground and beat her real opponent and two fringe candidates in something of a romp, winning just under 58%, while Councilman (as he was then) Erik Dilan got just under 35%, a margin of almost 23%.The two fringoids took most of the balance.

This time, opposed by one fringoid, Velazquez took just over 80% to just under 19% for Jeffrey Kurzon, an egomaniacal lawyer specializing in headline grabbing frivolity and bundling money from the young and entitled, who failed to articulate any cognizable rationale, beyond This is the moment for a new generation of leaders who will stand up.” 

Apparently, a district populated largely by low income Latinos and Asians cannot be trusted to represent itself and needs the guidance of someone of superior breeding who graduated from Phillips Exeter. 

For some reason, Kurzon, who previously had some success raising money for others, had none raising it for himself.   

Could it be because he was less appealing to his friends than was Barack Obama?

Confronted by the curious, Kurzon’s former law partner, Jesse Strauss, a Velazquez supporter, could not even bring himself to say something like “Jeff’s a smart guy with his hear in the right place, and might make a good elected official, but Nydia is by far the preferable choice.” Strauss’ refusal to say one kind word about Kurzon speaks volume about at least one of them. 

Further, Kurzon’s campaign appearances convinced even Nydia’s sworn enemies that she was the preferable alternative.

Kurzon couldn’t even get his campaign poster right. It said only “Vote for Jeff”

Jeff Who? For what?

Most voters never found out.

If Kurzon sent out one piece of mail, I never got it, and I’m a super-prime voter.

Velazquez responded by spending her free time riding her bicycle around Carroll Gardens, Red Hook and Gowanus, usually by herself. Her campaign manager couldn’t even convince her to bring her left over posters from last time up from the basement.  

As a result, the 2012 primary vote of 29,845 dropped this time to 9,507, less than 32% of the prior total. 

Anyway, the district really breaks down into five distinct sectors.

Last time in Manhattan, Velazquez got nearly 76%, while Dilan got just over 6%, with Dan O’Connor’s Chinatown “I speak your languages” strategy yielding him nearly 14%.

This time Velazquez took over 80% in Manhattan, while Kurzon got to just under 19%.  

Last time in Queens, Velazquez won nearly 64%, while Dilan got just over 20%.

This time Velazquez won nearly 74% in Queens, while Kurzon took nearly 26%. 

As good or better than a dead dog.

Brooklyn is actually three races.

First there is East Brooklyn, comprising the district’s portion of four ADs (53, 54, 55 and 56). While there is a growing Yuppie/Artist/Hipster sector here, some clusters of black voters and various Asians, as well as some Hasidim, this area is basically the heart of Latino East Brooklyn, and it comprises the base of both Velazquez and those once considered to be her worst enemies, including Vito Lopez. .

 Last time in East Brooklyn, Velazquez took just under 51% and Dilan a bit over 44%.

This time Velazquez took nearly 85% in East Brooklyn, while Kurzon took just under 14%.

The second Brooklyn race was in Hasidic Williamsburg.

 The 7th CD’s portion of the 50th  AD is Hasidic by a healthy majority, and the 7th’s Hasidim overwhelmingly live in the 50thAD (which, in addition to Williamsburg, includes most of the 7thCD’s portion of Hasidic Bed-Stuy). 

Last time, the Hasidim were divided, with the minority Aroni Satmar faction backing Velazquez and the majority Zali Satmar faction (and its allies among the Pupa and other sects) backing Dilan.

It was a blood battle for both sides to show their supremacy, and a good deal of money was expended on both sides. In the end, 10,091 votes were cast in the 50th AD in the 2012 Congressional primary and the vote was Velazquez 3,774 (37.40%), Dilan 6,206 (61.50%) with the fringe boys taking less than 1% between them.     

This time, though no money was spent, both sides backed Velazquez, and both sides apparently thought they had little to prove, and yet, they did prove something.

Nydia took 87.51% to Kurzon’s 11.49%, which might be said to prove both sides delivered.

But on the other hand, what they delivered Velazquez was 701 votes to Kurzon’s 92. The vote here dropped from 10,091 to 801. Less than 8% of the votes cast in this area in 2012 were cast in 2014, compared to 44% in the rest of the district.  

This means that in 2012, the Hasidic area accounted for 33.81% of the district's primary votes, while in 2014 it accounted for 8.43%.  

Now, to be fair, some of this might be attributable to reapportionment. For instance, in 2012, the 7th CD’s portion of the 50th AD included a large non-Hasidic ED in the Lindsay Park complex, which is now included in AD 53.

But, in the end, it is fair to say that that the Hasidic turnout in 2012 was less than 10% of what it was two years before.

The third Brooklyn race was for the rest of the District’s Brooklyn portion: the Brownstone belt, Latino and Asian Sunset Park, and a small ethnically mixed area of Borough Park.

Last time, the vote in the rest of Brooklyn was nearly 83% for Velazquez, with Dilan taking 6% Dan O’Connor 6% and George Martinez about 5%.

This time, Velazquez got just over 76% in that area, to just over 23% for Kurzon.

This was the only area of the district where Velazquez’s percentage dropped from 2012. Last time, it was her best area; this time it was her second worst (Queens was her worst).

It is also the district’s whitest non-Hasidic area and its most yuppified. Kurzon clearly had some cultural commonality with many of these voters that Velazquez’s 2012 opponents did not share. In the brownstoney 52AD, which comprises most of these votes, Velazquez dropped from 84% to 73%, with Kurzon getting just over 26% of the vote. 

With virtually no one paying attention or pulling votes here, and relatively few Latinos here to vote for the Latino over the Anglo out of ethnic pride, this was the area where Kurzon’s mostly word of mouth campaign was primed to have the most impact. I would argue that it augurs little more than that, though Velazquez might want to spend some time pondering whether it does.

Still drawing 76% while doing nothing is probably nothing to be ashamed of, right?

3rd Congressional District:

This is the GOP primary for the right to lose to Steve Israel.

Establishment candidate Grant Lally, best known for being defense lawyer for the Queens GOP’s indicted Vice Chair, called his  GOP primary opponent, Tea Party loon Steve Labate, a “two time loser,” even though it is Lally rather than Labate who’s previously lost two races for Congress (until now, Labate only lost one).

Despite (or perhaps because of) Lally’s Queens connections, he lost the district’s small Queens portion, taking just under 49%, while Labate took just under 51%.

Labate carried ADs 24, 26 and 40. Lally won ADs 27 and 33. They tied in AD 25.

Labate also carried Nassau County by 52/48, but Lally’s 55/44 victory in Suffolk helped him carry the day, 50.38% to 49.12%.

5th Congressional District:                                             

South Bronx Congressman Jose Serrano survived a challenge from Sam Sloan by a close shave, winning only 84.36% to Sloan’s impressive 8.19%.

The race was interesting for a number of reasons.

The first was Sloan, a candidate with a CV so strange that his old party, the GOP, used to go to the trouble of knocking him out of races (like one against Ed Towns), even though they didn’t have anyone else who wanted to run.

The GOP also took the trouble to knock Sloan out of last year’s Mayoral Primary, even though he had no chance of winning, just for the sake of not having to endure listening to him during the debates.

For hours of fun, please visit Sloan’s website. I can’t say I’ve read everything, so it is possible there is something stranger there than Sloan’s fascination with an island where women are alleged to rape men. 

Great fun can also be had gazing at Sloan’s Wikipedia page,  in which we learn that  Sloan is the last non-lawyer to argue before the US Supreme Court and has written an  extensive lexicon of Khowar, a language spoken in Chitral, Pakistan. Sloan had a minor role in a commercially produced film, Mahjong horoki, that later became a video game, Mahjong Hōrōki Classic.  He is now primarily a publisher of books and DVDs about chess, go and other subjects.

Sloan has been married three times. Sloan's second wife was a native of Chitral (Pakistan) and together they had a daughter. Sloan and his wife soon separated and Sloan left New York for Virginia with the child, leaving her in the care of a Virginia couple, while his wife returned to Chitral. Sloan was subsequently locked into a child custody struggle, which lasted several years, with that Virginia couple, over his daughter. In 1991, in an attempt to regain custody of his daughter, Sloan was arrested and subsequently convicted of attempted abduction of the child, spending 18 months in a state prison.

In  2007, Sloan filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to overturn the results of the 2007 United States Chess Federation  election, and alleging that more than 2,000 obscene "Fake Sam Sloan" newsgroup postings prior to the election had been made by a rival candidate.

In 2008, posts appeared on USENET, apparently placed by Sloan, claiming that some of his websites had been closed down by law enforcement in Amherst County, Virginia, apparently because Sloan listed the home addresses of parties involved in his long-running, but moot, child custody dispute involving his now adult daughter.

In 2010, Sloan (not for the first time) ran for Governor of New York, facing off against Warren Redlich and former madam Kristin M. Davis for the Libertarian nod. Sloan, by his own admission, is not popular within the Libertarian Party of New York and did not expect to win the nomination. Sloan eventually lost the nomination to Redlich. Despite his failure to secure the nomination, Sloan was the first to submit petitions to the board of elections with the Libertarian Party name, which, since the party had no ballot status, would normally have given him the nomination. However, because his petitions failed to contain anywhere near the requisite 15,000 signatures, the nomination went to Redlich. Prior to the November elections, Roger Stone, Davis's campaign manager, claimed that Sloan fed him information that Stone passed on to a group entitled "People for a Safer New York," who created a flyer falsely labeling Redlich a "sexual predator.”

In 2012, Sloan sought the Libertarian nomination for President.  In November 2013, after being knocked out of the GOP primary, Sloan ran for Mayor as the candidate of the War Veterans Party and he received 166 votes

Undaunted by his loss to Serrano, and all the other ones, Sloan is now challenging Andrew Cuomo, Zephyr Teachout and Randy Credico for the Democratic nod for Governor, and his running mate for Attorney General is the equally interesting Aniello Grimaldi.

Hope springs eternal.

The other interesting matter is the votes attained by write-in candidates.

Adriano Espaillat got 360 write-in votes (2.94%); Charlie Rangel got 216 (1.76%), Michael Walrond got 30 and Yolonda Garcia got 1. In all, 622 votes were cast in the 15th AD for candidates in the 13th Congressional District, a total of 5.07% of the vote. In all, 914 write in votes were cast in this primary (most of the rest unattributable), a total of 7.45% of the votes cast, nearly as many as received by Sloan.  


As I’ve noted before:

One of the most interesting aspects of switching to paper ballots and giving every voter a pencil is that the number of write ins has increased..”

And ever since this phenomenon has manifested, I’ve had great fun noting the results, after every election.

But in the 2013 Mayoral primary, the voting machines came back, the pencils disappeared and the fun subsided.

That year, there were 691,801 votes cast in the Democratic Primary for Mayor and only 281 write in votes.

By contrast, this year in the 15th CD, there were only 12,264 votes cast, but there were 914 write-in votes. In the four Democratic primaries held in June, only 81,529 votes were cast and 1,318 were write-ins.

Give the people a pencil and they will write.

So, in addition to the extraordinary results in the 15th, what are the other write in votes of interest in this year’s primary?

Well, in addition to the 15th  CD, Espaillat was also the top write-in vote getter in the 7th (9 votes) and the 5th (5 votes). In the 13th, where Espaillat was actually on the ballot, Grace Meng and Robert Jackson topped the list (with 3 votes apiece).

Michael Walrond also got a vote in the 7th.

In the category of wasted votes, because write-in for candidates already on the ballot are not added into their totals, Michael Walrond got one in the 13th and Jose Serrano got two in the 15th (though one may have been intended for his son), 

There were also votes for the notorious; Ruben Wills got two votes in the 5th and Malcolm Smith and Shirley Huntley each one. Vito Lopez one vote in the 7th.

In the “slumming” category, Bill Clinton, Bill DeBlasio and Scott Stringer each got a vote in the 7th. Chuck Schumer got one vote in the 15th.

In the “attempted comeback” category, John Liu got one vote in the 7th. In “the don’t know where they live” category, Eliot Engel got one vote on the 13th.

The 7th also featured a battle of the Dilan family as Erik (3 votes) edged out his mother Debra (2 votes) and his dad Martin (also two votes).

Finally, a non-write-in observation: of the 82,278 votes cast in the City in its five 2014 Congressional primaries, 50,019 were cast in the Rangel/Espaillat primary, an astonishing 60.79%.