Orthodox Pundit: News & Political Analysis

Instead of Weakened, Assemblyman Hikind Exits the Race Emboldened

2014-11-05T06:00:00.004-08:00

Below are yesterday night's results in Assembly District 48, where Dov Hikind trounced his superly-funded opponent. It was quite clear - besides maybe for his opponent him-self - that Hikind is favored to win. Still, his opponent's backers' goal was to weaken him considerably. Instead, he finished emboldened by the results.

With 99% in, Assemblyman Hikind received 12,031 votes (78.44%) versus 3,306 (21.56%) for his opponent. Looking in the specific areas, Hikind won every ED, besides ED69, where Caller picked up 8 votes to his 6 votes.

If a half million dollar (the final tally will only be public after the last post-elections filings, and it may end up way higher) - together with a sweetheart, although-totally unrealistic, plan appealing to the pain of thousands of families, coupled with quasi support, attacks on Hikind's ardent and vocal support for the Israeli settlement movement - only chipped away less than 5 of what a Tischler-sort candidate would pick up in Borough Park, it speaks volumes of the support the Assemblyman has in Borough Park, and of the united front that coalesced behind him, in recognition of his major achievements in Albany and in the district.

One of the Assemblyman's clever moves was to unite all communities to fully and strongly support him, instead of following the old text books of only courting a few believed to dominate the political landscape in Borough Park. This is actually characteristic for Hikind, who isn't only concerned with the established powers, but is here for every community and individual in need of assistance. And it worked. The starkest example is the Satmar Zalanite faction in Borough Park. This fast growing community, that will soon have one of the largest Mosdos in the area, organized like never before in support of the Assemblyman, and turned out a large amount of voters.

Emboldened and strengthened, Assemblyman Hikind will hopefully be able to achieve even more results for his community.

Assemblyman Hikind wishing the Satmar Grand Rabbi Mazel Tov, at the Chasuna of the Rebbe's grandchildren at the NYS Armory in Williamsburg

Assemblyman Hikind at the wedding, together with NYS Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, Congressman Jerry Nadler, Assemblyman Lentol, Councilmembers Jumaane Williams and Mathieu Eugene (Councilman Steve Levin standing behind Nadler)

Assemblyman Hikind with Councilman Chaim Deutsch to his right

Results Per ED

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Williamsburg Hasidic Community turned out close to one percent of the vote for the Cuomo-Hochul ticket

2014-09-10T19:40:00.000-07:00

Rabbi David Niederman: “We thank the Thousands of Voters who Turned out to the Polls, Bringing Out Among the Highest Turnouts to Support Governor Cuomo, Lt. Governor Candidate Hochul, and Senator Marty Dilan, in a Relatively Low Turnout Primary”

Williamsburg – The Williamsburg Jewish Community did it again. They proved that they appreciate elected officials that are responsive and attentive to the community, by turning out in relatively high numbers in yesterday’s primary, and presenting an overwhelming united voice to support Governor Cuomo, Lt. Governor Candidate Hochul, and State Senator Marty Malave Dilan.

“I want to congratulate Governor Cuomo, who is dedicated to assisting all New Yorkers; Lt. Governor Hochul, who visited with us last week to listen to the resident’s needs; and of course State Senator Dilan, whom we are fortunate to be a part of his constituency. I also want to congratulate our long-time friend former- Councilman Erik Dilan, a son of our dear Senator, who won the democratic primary in the 54th district, and a number of others who had a nice showing in yesterday’s primary,” said Rabbi David Niederman.

“I thank the thousands of voters who turned out to the polls to support Governor Cuomo, Lt. Governor Candidate Hochul, and Senator Marty Dilan, in a relatively low turnout primary,” Rabbi Niederman added. “We also welcome and congratulate Nick Rizzo for his election as the Male Democratic Leader for the 50th Assembly district, and we are looking forward to work with him and all our elected officials.”

The Williamsburg Hasidic Community turned out close to one percent of the entire vote for the Cuomo-Hochul ticket in Tuesday’s primary.

(Press Release)

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Yesterday's NYC Democratic Governor Primary Results, Ranked Per Percentage Results in Each Assembly District; Governor received 92-95% of Hasidic Vote

2014-09-10T11:45:00.001-07:00

The bottom chart is a breakdown of the margins that Governor Cuomo carried in the each of the NYC Assembly District, sorted from Highest to lowest.

When looking at the strongest Hasidic districts in Williamsburg, Heyward St. and Clymer St., Govermor Cuomo carried 92 percent and 95 percent respectively, far stronger than in any Assembly District (See Chart). As noted, on election day, the Zalanites in Williamsburg were the only ones running a strong Election day operation for the Cuomo-Hochul ticket, and they delivered these results in a low turnout primary.

Results in Strongest Hasidic Williamsburg Poll Sites, Heyward and Clymer

NYC Results Sorted by Assembly Districts

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

NYC Dem Primary Lt. Gov. Result; Zalanites Reaffirm their Blocvote, While Aranites Mainly Sit it Out

2014-09-09T21:44:00.003-07:00

Hasidic Williamsburg EDs Turned out the Highest number of Jewish votes than any other Orthodox area for Lt. Governor Candidate Kathy Hochul, (2,408 - although only about half of the district is Orthodox - vs. 1,942 votes in entire Borough Park Assembly district 48 which is overwhelmingly Orthodox) reaffirming Hasidic Williamsburg's highest turnout in Dem Primaries. This time, only the Zalanites had a turnout operation, while Aranites are obviously tired of lagging far behind so they just mainly ignored the elections.

Below are the results for the Lt. Governor Primary, as of Election night after midnight, for all New York City Assembly Districts:

Reported HOCHUL WU

AD 41 95% 2259 930

AD 42 89% 3012 1452

AD 43 90% 4194 1866

AD 44 99% 1913 3282

AD 45 98% 2021 976

AD 46 97% 1734 885

AD 47 99% 741 501

AD 48 99% 1730 650

AD 49 99% 507 371

AD 50 94% 2492 1537

AD 51 91% 1426 1376

AD 52 97% 3262 7065

AD 53 98% 1975 1335

AD 54 82% 1476 653

AD 55 89% 3088 1027

AD 56 97% 3243 1567

AD 57 99% 3884 3928

AD 58 77% 3381 842

AD 59 98% 3239 896

AD 60 64% 2794 862

AD 64 96% 850 695

AD 65 99% 1945 2175

AD 66 99% 1812 4236

AD 67 89% 2677 4061

AD 68 95% 2558 1258

AD 69 94% 3294 5489

AD 70 92% 3474 1926

AD 71 93% 4424 2968

AD 72 93% 2794 1933

AD 73 71% 1637 1984

AD 74 99% 2517 3227

AD 75 99% 2228 3308

AD 76 72% 2497 2606

AD 77 94% 2257 857

AD 78 90% 1684 672

AD 79 99% 3096 1092

AD 80 96% 2579 981

AD 81 83% 3773 2346

AD 82 97% 3832 1347

AD 83 98% 2801 706

AD 84 92% 1817 551

AD 85 67% 1217 369

AD 86 95% 2005 787

AD 87 76% 1993 655

AD 23 93% 1586 734

AD 24 98% 2412 1455

AD 25 99% 2180 1712

AD 26 85% 3398 1830

AD 27 98% 2199 1175

AD 28 98% 1713 1371

AD 29 95% 3967 1299

AD 30 96% 1437 1031

AD 31 98% 2035 543

AD 32 96% 3752 1029

AD 33 96% 4196 1388

AD 34 95% 1036 809

AD 35 99% 1403 648

AD 36 95% 931 1087

AD 37 96% 1233 1056

AD 38 99% 894 475

AD 39 99% 876 746

AD 40 97% 1786 1535

AD 61 97% 1442 889

AD 62 99% 632 348

AD 63 99% 1003 614

Total 93% 148243 10000

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Current Results of Dem Governor Primary in NYC by Assembly Districts; Zalanites Reaffirm their Blocvote, While Aranites Mainly Sit it Out

2014-09-09T20:58:00.001-07:00

Hasidic Williamsburg EDs Turned out the Highest number of Jewish votes than any other Orthodox area, (2,408 vs. only 1,942 in entire Borough Park Assembly district 48) reaffirming Hasidic Williamsburg's highest turnout in Dem Primaries. This time, only the Zalanites had a turnout operation, while Aranites are obviously tired of lagging far behind so they just mainly ignored the elections.


	Reported	ZEPHYR R. TEACHOUT	ANDREW M. CUOMO	CREDICO
AD 41	92%	648	2475	126
AD 42	72%	999	3024	156
AD 43	85%	1253	4544	263
AD 44	99%	3051	2130	135
AD 45	89%	479	2363	143
AD 46	75%	565	1568	75
AD 47	84%	219	735	46
AD 48	99%	479	1942	128
AD 49	99%	215	662	40
AD 50	94%	1467	2737	94
AD 51	91%	1098	1771	143
AD 52	97%	6629	3587	175
AD 53	98%	903	2623	178
AD 54	74%	292	1747	128
AD 55	82%	504	3677	216
AD 56	97%	1039	3557	202
AD 57	99%	3272	4588	245
AD 58	59%	363	2744	102
AD 59	98%	578	3538	152
AD 60	44%	269	2456	124
AD 64	96%	597	916	63
AD 65	99%	1630	2515	137
AD 66	87%	3285	1507	92
AD 67	73%	3016	2573	91
AD 68	90%	721	2854	137
AD 69	90%	4716	3577	165
AD 70	87%	1389	3644	167
AD 71	88%	2239	5554	265
AD 72	80%	852	3874	216
AD 73	55%	1359	1474	38
AD 74	99%	2858	2872	130
AD 75	95%	2759	2381	85
AD 76	44%	1182	1534	36
AD 77	94%	350	2888	183
AD 78	73%	193	1540	94
AD 79	90%	394	3787	237
AD 80	57%	269	1580	45
AD 81	79%	1845	3914	189
AD 82	87%	805	4233	179
AD 83	91%	277	2825	90
AD 84	85%	242	1910	107
AD 85	58%	148	1160	75
AD 86	91%	250	2659	197
AD 87	62%	213	1787	90
AD 23	93%	513	1763	117
AD 24	98%	822	2478	151
AD 25	99%	917	2972	157
AD 26	81%	1372	3742	183
AD 27	98%	787	2575	108
AD 28	98%	1137	1933	104
AD 29	95%	714	4546	182
AD 30	96%	771	1662	112
AD 31	98%	297	2303	63
AD 32	96%	567	4184	152
AD 33	96%	753	4868	210
AD 34	95%	629	1263	72
AD 35	99%	364	1682	70
AD 36	95%	1010	1043	42
AD 37	96%	909	1410	84
AD 38	99%	325	1068	53
AD 39	99%	501	1166	54
AD 40	97%	661	2698	142
AD 61	81%	646	1272	54
AD 62	99%	315	656	24
AD 63	96%	444	1045	72
Total	87%	70365	162355	8185

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Casino Results: A Tale of Two Languages, Used as a Gamble Hedge

2013-12-15T21:09:00.000-08:00

During the past campaign season, the Orthodox community's position (or non-position) on Proposal 1 - authorizing gambling casinos in the Catskills and other upstate areas - produced conflicting and confusing reports on the community's stance. With the results in, it leaves no doubt on how the Orthodox communities voted on the issues, and it reveals how outsiders are often in the dark on who and what is getting the community's support due to language barriers. In our case, the results proof that a specific community led two opposite, but simultaneous campaigns, using the bilingualism to their advantage, to try to play it safe internally and externally.

The gambling issue was seen as an important plebiscite to the Orthodox community. The former Borscht Belt, a destination for Hasidic families and campers during the summer months, is the area to be mostly touched by it. During the years, the Orthodox newspapers decried earlier plans for Casinos in the region where tens of thousands spend their summers in Sullivan County.

Despite that, when the question came to the voters this time around, the community's political leaders were mostly silent during the months leading up to the elections.

Less than two week before the election, it seemed for a brief moment that the community will organize against the casinos. Three major Yiddish papers - including the Zalanite Der Yid, the Aranite Der Blatt, and Di Tzeitung - had lengthy articles describing why casinos are detrimental to the Orthodox community, and they called the community to vote down Proposition 1. The reports of a Yiddish campaign against the casinos, first reported by Albnany's State of Politics, drew the ire of local Monticello officials.

The Aranites, running camps in Sullivan County, quickly backtracked. The Monticello Supervisor erroneously said that Der Blatt "doesn’t represent the Satmar (Hasidic) community." Obviously, someone tried to mislead him on that. Rabbi Moishe Indig, a representative of the Aranites, had another dubious excuse, that the “article” was actually an advertisement. (To be clear, both articles looked like writings that were sent in ready to the papers and lacked any official names or groups behind the anti-Casino campaign. These papers consistently print articles received from outside groups, but they are different than paid ads, and their publication is usually seen that the content is in line with the respective group's leadership's views). According to the regional Times Herald Record: "Indig offered his community’s support for the referendum." It also quoted and Aroni Camp Manager, David Weiss, that he's “fully supporting” the referendum.

Later, Indig posted an op-ed in English declaring that "We Are Not Fighting the Gaming Initiative Nor Should We" fight the casinos, and he dispelled arguments why the casinos is bad for the community's summer enclave. Reading the article, one quickly realizes that English is not Indig's first language (neither is it mine, and you probably realized it from reading my blog - LOL), neither is it the first language of most of his targeted audience. Still, this article never made it into Yiddish, neither was it - or the the essence of its arguments - ever published in the Aranite community's official mouthpiece, Der Blatt, where it would have reached its supposed targeted audience. This is indicating that his post was intended for a different audience.

Word on the street had it that the Governor's staff reached out to both Satmars and other community leaders to convince them not to oppose the casinos. While we couldn't confirm it, it's clear that Governor Cuomo supported Proposal 1 and his staff worked for its passage.

For whatever reason, one thing is clear: The campaign against the casinos disappeared from all the above-mentioned three leading Yiddish newspapers's issues published during the week before the elections. Der Yid and Di Tzeitung totally ignored the topic. Even more, an edict, signed by various Rabbis from various communities, including prominent Dayanim of both the Satmars and others, was published in the Hamodia, but it didn't appear in the Yiddish papers, which is highly unusual.

Der Blatt was the only one of the three editorializing on Proposal 1 in it's last issue before the election - the one that usually sets the tone for the readers how to vote. A confusing, rather satirically, op-ed (In Yiddish, of course, as are all the articles in this newspaper) stated in the opening paragraphs that how to vote on the proposal is a an issue to be decided by Rabbinical authorities. The Op-Ed went on to give a 'lay-man's argument' why the casinos may do the community a favor, by forcing all Orthodox Jews to flee the Catskills, hence, sparing numerous families the huge expenses of the annual migration to the region. It is like saying let's allow crime to overtake the city, so we are forced to settle in cheaper upstate regions. If it did argument had an effect, it reinforces all the dire warnings of the nay-sayers that Catskills will turn uninhabitable for Orthodox Jews should the casinos gain approval. The article concluded that everyone should follow their Rabbinical authorities on how to vote on the matter. The only public Rabbinical stance that I know of is the above edict (Indig is not an ordained Rabbi, neither is he holding any spiritual position - it's customary for Orthodox Jews involved in politics or other communal roles to be titled Rabbis despite lacking the credentials).

In the wider Orthodox community, the Agudas Israel Leadership was also silent on the referendum, as far as I can say (they always stay out from politics, but a referendum, especially this one touching on spiritual issues, could have been an exception). The Hamodia, in an editorial a day before the elections, urged it readers to vote No. Otherwise, the paper mostly ignored the issue and covered it from a neutral perspective.

The political leadership in Williamsburg, where election day turnout was only half of what it already produced in election with strong internal competition, would have benefited from a strong anti-Casino campaign to drive up turnout. Spreading the Rabbinical edicts, coupled with warnings against perceived threats to their summer enclaves, could have driven up turnout to the Velazquez-Dilan proportions, where about 9,000 turned out to vote in the Orthodox areas. (Incidentally, the upstate camps were the major issue in that campaign, driving up the turn-out to record levels). On the other hand, the leadership's silence on the Casinos dismayed community members. I heard quite a few grumbling against what they saw as the leadership's betrayal of the community's interests and values.

With the community's political organizers silent on the issue, an ad hoc campaign moved in, with leaflets and posters announcing the rabbinical edict to vote 'no' on proposal 1. Still, their campaign was no match to community's experienced GOTV machines.

To sum it all up - most Orthodox groups, including the zalanites - decided to stay out of the campaign. By being neutral they may have displeased some of their own people, and perhaps the political forces behind the casinos. The Aranites, on the other hand, used a different approach, by employing a bilingual, bi-positional campaign. Indig and Weiss led the English campaign to placate their upstate political allies etc., while in Yiddish, Der Blatt's mixed signals comforted their community members. Thus, they hedged on the gambling issue. It may have paid off, given that proposal 1 passed with a strong majority, far larger than the voting power of all Orthodox communities. Thus, it's highly unlikely that post-elections the officials supporting the casinos cared how the Orthodox actually voted. Rather, they appreciate the professed support that they were offered before the elections.

With that background in mind, lets examine the results:

The vote tallies show out that Orthodox voters - were they in Borough Park, Williamsburg, Rockland County or in Kiryas Joel - who expressed their choice on Proposal 1 resoundingly voted no. On Proposal 1 it was a tale of one community.

In Borough Park's Orthodox election district (EDs), the Board of Elections unofficial results show that 7,847 voted no, versus 1,648 (82.6 vs. 17.4); In Williamsburg's Hasidic areas, it was 3,502 nays, vs. 644 yeahs (84.5 vs. 15.5); In Kiryas Joel, where the Aranites are in the majority and at their lowest point carried over 55 percent of the vote, an astonishing 96.4 percent - 3,687 votes - were nays, vs. 3.6 percent, a mere 139 yeahs. Kiryas Joel's results even beat these of New Square - a village that is legendary for it's almost 100 percent unanimous vote - where 452 voted no vs. 31 yes (93.6 vs. 6.4). New Square's impressive results also trail Monsey's Orthodox results (we only counted the Ramapo EDs stationed in two polling sites in Viznitz schools, lacking the time an familiarity to identify all Orthodox EDs), where 95.1 opposed the proposal vs. 4.9 supporting it.

The above results, as mighty as they are, don't tell the whole story. The community's political leaderships' staying mum had an impact on numerous voters skipping proposal 1. In Williamsburg, for example, the turnout was dismal, turning out less than half than than it might have produced with a strong anti-Casino campaign. In addition, almost a quarter making it to the polls sites (1,293 voters, 23.7 percent skipped proposal 1). In sum: The non-campaign may have reduced the no votes by almost 5,000.

All other areas had higher turnout due to local heated races, but the non-communal position resulted in a high percentage of voter ignoring proposal 1. In Borough Park 24.3 percent - 3,046 - skipped proposal 1; In Kiryas Joel over two fifths - 2,830, 42.5% - skipped the race. The number of skippers is even more staggering in New Square, where the overwhelming majority strictly follows the instructions from the top how to vote or not to vote. There, 80.6 %, 2,006 voters, left that question blank; The Monsey EDs that we examined had the lowest numbers of skippers, 14.6 percent (520).

Conclusion: It is clear that the official silence had an impact on reducing the community's awareness and interest in the proposal, but on the other hand, the results show that there was no drive to support the proposal, as some tried to present to outsiders. In fact, the aranite stronghold produced the lowest numbers of yes from all the Orthodox area we examined. Still, their tactic may have reaped benefits, by relieving whatever pressure they had during the election season. I doubt that these upstate officials are looking back to the elections results, after the proposal passed with a close to 400,000 votes lead, dwarfing the Orthodox community's voting power.

Bonus Casino Result: Brooklyn Heights is On One Page with Hasidic Williamsburg

Proposal 1 was voted down in Southern Brooklyn's districts 44, 45 (narrowly), 48 (Borough Park), 50 (Williamsburg), and surprisingly in Assembly District 52 (check out results here). The last district is made up of Brooklyn Heights and neighboring areas, and is considered to be the most liberal district in the borough. During the recent redistricting process, some of Brooklyn Heights opposed bunching a larger portion of the 50th Assembly district in the 33rd council district, expressing fears that the higher number of Hasidic voters will inhibit their liberal voting pattern. I find it amusing that on casinos, the liberal Brooklyn Heights voted the same way as the neighboring Hasidic portions of the 50th Assembly district. It looks like that the NY Times editorial board (Brooklyn Heights is considered one of the few places where their opinion still carries weight), and the rabbinical edict - though driven by different reasons and principals - created here another tale of one district.

BTW, Assembly district 52's turnout was almost double than the average Brooklyn District. 30,784 voted there, versus and average of close to 16,500 in other Brooklyn Districts. That number is much higher than any other NYC assembly district. Before the primaries, the NY Times questioned the notion that the districts, "outsize image as a liberal Eden" has a high voter participation, stating that: "Turnout is relatively strong but not astonishing." In the general election, though, the numbers show that Brooklyn Heights still produce the highest number of votes and far more than the average district.

Casino Results chart for Orthodox areas
Sources: For the Ramapo results, broken down into EDs, click here; Orange County didn't post their detailed results yet, so we attached below the certified lists we obtained. NYC doesn't publish the results by EDs, and we only obtained the unofficial results, attached below.

Casino BoE Lists

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

DA Race: A Starker Tale of Two Communities; Endorsements Carried Williamsburg, Didn't Matter in Borough Park

2013-12-02T07:34:00.000-08:00

The further I analyze the detailed results of the past general elections, the numbers gets more boring and redundant. I already prove the weight of the leading Williamsburg endorsement - of Rabbi David Niederman, head of the Zalanite-dominated union - that resulted in about three quarters of the votes going to Bill deBlasio in the general elections, versus Borough Park where deBlasio lost despite having all the official endorsements. Still, after tabulating the results of the Brooklyn DA race in these neighborhoods I decided to revisit the subject, as this is an even starker example how much an endorsement-switch mattered in Williamsburg, and how little it changed the results in Borough Park.

The Brooklyn DA race was rare for producing two elections between the same candidates in less than two months. Incumbent Charles Hynes was defeated in the September primary by DA-Elect Ken Thompson, but went on to the general election as a republican candidate. In both Orthodox areas, Williamsburg and Borough Park, the establishment (or most of it in Borough Park) was behind Hynes in the primaries, and switched to Thompson in the general elections. In Williamsburg, the switch totally turned around the election results, while it hardly made a dent in Borough Park.

Hynes - who was backed in the primary by the Brooklyn party establishment - enjoyed the unanimous political support in Williamsburg, and almost unanimous support in Borough Park. In the latter, Assemblyman Dov Hikind - who lacks any political operation and hardly sways voters, as far as recent election results can tell - sided with Thompson, but Councilman David Greenfield pulled out all the stops for Hynes.

Hynes carried both Orthodox areas with mega-landslides. He won Borough Park by over 76 percent of the voters picking a candidate for DA, versus less than 24 percent for Thompson. In Williamsburg, Hynes picked up an astonishing close to 82.5 percent, versus Thompson's 17.5 percent. (These percentages are of the voters in the DA race, and excludes those who turned out to vote but skipped the DA race. A large number of voters skipped the race altogether. For the breakdowns of all who turned out to vote in that election, see here).

In the general election, the Williamsburg endorsements landscape made a u-turn - all political factions jumped to the Thompson camp. Similarly in Borough Park, David Greenfield and the large communities switched their endorsements to Mr. Thompson.

In Williamsburg, the results followed the endorsements, making a 180 degree turnaround. Mr. Thompson picked up 74 percent of the vote in the Orthodox EDs, versus 26 percent for Hynes. It shows the strong influence of the community endorsements in Williamsburg.

Not so in Borough Park. Hynes, without the official endorsements still picked up an astonishing 71.3 percent of the Orthodox election districts, versus 28.7 percent for Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Greenfield, when announcing his switch to the Thompson camp, cautioned that he didn't think his endorsement would swing overwhelming numbers of voters. He was understating its uselessness. It hardly switched 5 percent of the electorate.

Actually, when looking of the net gain/loss in votes, Mr. Hynes expanded his lead in Borough Park by over 75 percent, thanks to the almost-double turn-out over the primary. In the primary his BP advantage was 2,721 votes over Thompson (3,967 vs. 1,246), and it grew to 4,801 in the general (8,033 - 3,232), a net gain of 2,080 votes despite losing the 'powerful' endorsements. In Williamsburg, on the other hand, the switch of endorsements meant a net gain for Mr. Thompson of 6,653 votes, going from losing the area by 4,654 votes (5,913 for Hynes 1,259 Thompson), to winning it by 1,999 (3,086 Thompson, versus 1,087 for Hynes). I have yet to find another person who can so quickly and easily switch over such a high and concentrated number of votes as Rabbi Niederman does repeatedly. (Note: this is not the whole story. Williamsburg turnout in the general was less than half of what it reached in more galvanized elections and it was only 55 percent of the primary. This bloc, when it turns out is maximum, can be double as strong).

Some may explain away part of the non-movement to Thompson in Borough Park to the fact that a lot of voters may have perceived Geenfield's endorsement as only nominal, and not as vigorous as earlier he opposed and railed against Thompson in the primary. I doubt that this could have been a real factor, especially since most of the electorate isn't as politically tuned in and they take endorsements on their face value.

Moshe Friedman, a political operative from the Greenfield orbit who nevertheless often acts independently, led a charged pro-Hynes anti-Thompson Yiddish campaign in these two communities. Discussing the results, he chose to focus on the number of voters who skipped that race altogether. Some 23 percent of voters didn't choose a DA candidate in Williamsburg (in BP, some 10 percent failed to choose a DA campaign). He points out that during the general election the anti-Thompson campaign wasn't focused on the candidate, but on those who try to tarnish the community who tried to own that candidate, and he thinks that a hefty size of the electorate were concerned of these people which led them to skip that race.

I don't know if we can reach too much into the skippers, given that almost 14 percent didn't choose one of the main candidates in the mayor race in Williamsburg (they may have turned out to vote for a lesser-known candidate to make a statement or to vote on proposition one - We plan a separate post on the proposition results. Stay tuned; In contrast, in the primary, only some 4 percent didn't choose one of the better-known democratic candidates.). A less than 10 percent further decline for a candidate down the ballot may not be out of the norm. I, for one, think the candidate's repeated commitment to treat every community fair and just, and not to try individual case based on libels against communities, was reassuring to the overwhelming majority.

Below see the Board of Elections unofficial results for Assembly District 50 and 48, and further down, the charts compiling the results in of the Orthodox election districts in these ADs.

DA Unofficial BoE Results 48 and 50

DA Charts AD 48 50

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

A Tale of One District: Chaim Detusch's Victory Crossed Demographics

2013-11-24T13:17:00.002-08:00

Update 12/4: The Board of Elections just released the certified results. Davidzon, with all the ways to spell his name, received 1,434 write-ins, which is neatly in the middle of my estimate of between 1,000-2,000 vote. Even if we are to credit him all the 214 attributable write ins - which we should clearly not - he's till only at 1,648. Deutsch's margin of victory, meanwhile, rose to 2561. So it's clear the Mr. Deutsch would have won without the write-in campaign, as I assumed before. The attempt to credit all unrecorded votes to Davidzon - by a guy who exhibited a clear bias in the race all along, and is obviously reeling from his defeat - is silly, as I noted below that each council race has unrecorded votes of people who didn't care for that down-ballot race (Updated 12/5: The mentioned post was later changed, in an about-face, but it's still disingenuous).

Furthermore, even when we add up the total of all Russian candidates, including Oberman, Lotovsky, and Davidzon's write-ins, Deutsch is still ahead by 67 votes. Only when adding the unattributed ballots he comes up shy by 147. It's illogical to assume that most or even half of the votes for the other Russian candidates would have gone to Storobin without another russian choice on the ballot. A lot of these voters clearly dislike Storobin and probably would not vote or would have voted for Deutsch in the absence of a russian choice. To sum it up, the raw numbers confirm that Deutsch would have carried the election in a 1-to-1 match-up with Storobin.

Update 12/10: My friend and prominent Blogger Gatemouth posted a long piece on this issue, and the debate between me and Kornbluh, and concludes that: "Anyway, the votes are in and Orthodox Pundit, whose analysis is very similar to mine, has been proven right, and Jacob Kornbluh has been proven dead wrong." The debate also continued in the comment sections of his post, and Kornbluh backtracks even more, without admitting that he does so.

Below is the original article, posted on November 24:

A review of the unofficial Board of Election results for the 48th council district obtained by OP shows that Chaim Deutsch did relatively well in the the Russian areas of the district against David Storobin. Thus, his victory should be mostly credited to his strong appeal throughout the different groups in the community.

During the recent redistricting process, Council District 48 sounded like the Balkans of Brooklyn. Orthodox Orthodox Jews criticized its redrawing to create a super-Russian district, and some thought that only Russian has a chance in that district. I was told that this was the reason why Frank Seddio supported Kagan in the primaries. During the elections I often found my-self lonely when arguing with twit-pals that Chaim has a shot in that district against a Russian candidate (here is one from a former pal with whom I recently had a fallout, because of this...). Even those giving him the benefit of the doubt, only based it on splitting the Russian vote.

Chaim, for his part, led a clever and tactical campaign. As a guy who is well-known and appreciated by the various demographic groups in the district - thanks to his benevolent endeavors through the Shomrim and his dedication while on the staff of Councilman Mike Nelson - Chaim didn't gave up on any community, as he didn't take the Orthodox for granted.

His every-community-is-in-play strategy was evident during the campaign, when Chaim very careful not to base his campaign on pitching one community against another. Of course being one of their own played well within the Orthodox community, as did the support of the Rabunim, but this was not the centerpiece and it was done very quietly. For example, on primary-eve - in the late night hours - I posted an earlier version of this article that hi-lights that the Orthodox deserve to have a second Councilman. Shortly thereafter I was emailed by someone involved to remove it (I complied). Chaim also didn't role out endorsements for his candidacy in noisy press conferences, the show of force that we got accustomed to in other Orthodox campaigns. I would like to believe that he took my advice on the virtues of a humble campaign to heart, but I rather think that he didn't want to be seen with mostly Orthodox or non-Russian supporters.

On election night, Chaim reaped the results, when surprised everyone when beating his Russian opponent by 2,359 votes, receiving an absolute majority, 54 percent, of the total vote. His wipe-out in the Russian areas didn't happen. Chaim won a similar 54 percent in Assembly district 45, with a strong Russian electorate (last year a Russian Orthodox Jew, Ben Axelrod, was only a couple of hundred of votes shy from defeating Assemblyman Steve Cymbrowitz in a primary). That district delivered the most votes - over 45 percent of the total in the whole council district. Although he lost the 46th Assembly district, represented by the only Russian-legislature Alec Brook-Krasny, he received 37.5 percent there versus 50 percent for Storobin. In the primary, Ari Kagan beat him there almost 4-1 in the primary, and Igor Oberman received double his votes in the democratic primary. (Chaim lost another Assembly district, the 59th, where Storobin got 100 percent of the vote - one vote...)

Chaim carried other districts by much higher margins, pulling over 57 percent in the 41st assembly district which delivered a third of the overall vote, and with 70-80 pervent in the 42nd and 48th assembly districts' small areas overlapping with the 48th Council district/

Chaim's widespread appeal throughout the district is obvious. Of course it's also the credit of his opponents knack to make arch-enemies outside and within in his own community, some of whom even resorted to child labor to defeat him (just kidding, my friend, I know Dybbuk enjoyed it...).

There was another factor contributing to Chaim's easy victory, which is Gregory Davidzon's write-in campaign. Davidzon's feud with Storobin goes back some time, and his candidacy was believed to be a way to shave off Russian votes from Storobin.

Was this the key to Deutsch's victory? It's very unlikely.

The Board of Election results doesn't yet include the write-in tallies, and even when it will, Davidzon allies argue that it will not show his real number because a lot of write-ins will be tossed away on technicalities. Still, they argued, it served the purpose of chipping of these votes from Storobin. But lets't if that theory is possible to hold.

According to the current unofficial count, 2,558 - 13.27 percent of all who turned out to the poling - haven't voted for any Council candidate of the ballot, meaning that they are possible Davidzon write-ins. Some of these voters just ignored the council race (it happens allover - e.g. in neighboring 44th Council district about about 6.5 percent skipped the council race). Still, it seems obvious that a majority of the non-recorded votes were Davidzon's, given that the percentage of the non-votes rises with Storobin's strength, rising to 20 percent in the 46th district. The lowest percentage of non-recorded votes is in the 42nd, where they make up 3.42 percent. Let's assume that the anything above some 3 percent of the turned-out not recording a vote are Davidzon voters. This would give for Davidzon almost 2,000 votes, and even if all would go to Storobin Deutsch would still win.

These number is very generous. On the other hand, the results doesn't include absentee ballots, and it is very thin on other paper ballots. When more papers will be added, it may shrink Deutsch's lead (Storobin previously 'mastered' the absentee process) and Davidzon may get a bunch of new write-ins. After all, it's unlikely that Davidzon should reach the number of Chaim's margin of victory, but I think he received between thousand and two thousand votes. David Storobin should be ready to pay up for his bet, once the votes are certified.

Chaim victory is one of a post-identity political area, as is Chaim a post-identity public servant who caters to all with dedication and compassion. It's well-deserved.

Council district 48 vote results breakdown per Assembly district

Results for Council district 48th by Moshe Y Friedman

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

A Tale of Two Communities: Mayoral Results in WIlliamsburg and Borough Park

2013-11-20T22:31:00.000-08:00

"On Tuedsay, of all the Orthodox neighborhoods, Mr. de Blasio had the best showing by far in Williamsburg's Hasidic areas, as clearly shown on the election results map," I wrote in a prior post. I based it on the colored election result maps showing Borough Park and other Jewish areas with a number of red districts, while Williamsburg was all blue, and the preliminary review of the maps' numbers showed Mr. deBlasio winning strongly in the area. Still, I didn't know at the time how wide of a gap it was between the Mayor-Elect's showing in these two Hasidic areas. After weeks of begging, a friend obtained for me the Board of Elections unofficial results broken down by EDs. And it shows that the gap is much larger than what I have imagined.

A quick review of the numbers in the Orthodox election districts in these two areas show a tale of two Orthodox Communities:

In Williamsburg Mr. de Blasio received over 74 percent of the casted mayoral votes in Jewish EDs, and over 72 % in the almost-exclusively Jewish EDs, versus over 23 and 25 % for Mr. Lhota respectively. In other words, Mr. deBlasio's Williamsburg showing is identical (or even a bit better) of his showing citywide.

In Borough Park's 48th Assembly district, though, the results are completely different. Mr. Lhota got over 55% of the votes in the Orthodox EDs, versus under 40% for Mr. deBlasio. Lhota's results there where 2.5 times his results citywide. Bill deBlasio could have had the support of all communities and activists in Borough Park, he may even have represented pockets of that area, yet a majority of the voters still pulled the levers according to their own instincts.

(The Williamsburg EDs were identified through the voters' lists, while Borough Parks are based on a number cruncher who is closely allied with Councilman David Greenfield who identified to me these EDs as Orthodox after the primaries. The heaviest Hasidic EDs in Williamsburg are based on a metric I used after the primary. Also some of the EDs were moved to different polling locations than in the primaries, but their boundaries haven't changed. Here, they are still listed with the primary locations. I didn't update them, given that this is irrelevant to the current topic).

This is especially revealing, given that deBlasio won these same Borough Park EDs in the democratic primaries, getting about 1/3rd of the votes versus a quarter who went to Bill Thompson, while he was beaten in Williamsburg 2 to 1 by Bill Thompson. But to anyone who is acquainted with the political scene in these two neighborhoods, the explanation is obvious. The legendary dominating bloc-vote in Williamsburg - dominated by the Zalanites but it includes most other communities, and is led by Rabbi David Niederman - endorsed Mr. Thompson in the primary, while in the general elections it endorsed Mr. de Blasio.

In Borough Park, on the other hand, endorsements doesn't matter as much. In elections that draws general attention, they will rather vote according to their political leanings - which are overwhelmingly conservative - than what the Shul poster instructs them to do. Even in local elections, a strong tendency to vote independently of what the leaders say was recently evident.

BTW, the primary night results in BP is interesting for Mr. Thhompson's relatively strong showing. He received 1,763 votes in the Orthodox EDs, versus 2,223 for the front-runner Mr. deBalsio. While Mr. Thompson enjoyed the backing of Assemblyman Hikind, a number of elections in recent years demonstrated that the Assemblyman doesn't have a GOTV machine or much of influence on the majority of the voters. On the other hand, de Balsio received the most communal organized support in the area. He was endorsed early on by Bobov, Belz, and in the 11th hour by the Satmar Aranites - the three group who are perceived to be the most politically organized.

Meanwhile, Mr. Thompson enjoyed the support of the still developing communities Bobov-45, and the Satmar-Zalanites joined their parent-community in Williamsburg to side with Thompson. I have yet to hear from any other large community supporting Thompson. (In Flatbush-Midwood, he enjoyed the warm support of powerhouse Chaskel Bennet and he carried the Jewish areas there, but Bennet's turf is mainly Flatbush). His strong showing is in no small part the credit of the Satmar-Zalanites and Bobov-45, showing that they are increasingly establishing themselves major political forces in the area.

This demonstrates again that the strongest unified bloc vote is to be found in the Hasidic Williamsburg, where the leaders of the community - , sways the community's votes like no where else, and when he joined the de Blasio camp, the community instantly lined up to follow him.

The results prove another another lesson concerning turnout that is reinforced all too often. When the Aranites decide to compete at the voting boots by endorsing a different candidates, it drives up the turnout in Williamsburg like nothing else. In the primaries, the number of only democratic voters in the Jewish EDs were close to 8,700, versus only 55 percent of all registered in the general elections - 4,850.

In case you are interested: Eric Salgado received 219 votes in Borough Park's AD 48's Orthodox EDs, under 2 %, and in Williamsburg he had 60 votes, over 1 percent. Jack Hidary out-polled Salgado in the whole AD48, pulling 324 votes on 2 party lines, versus Salgado's 241.

The BoE unofficial results for AD 48 & 50

2013 Mayor results AD 48 & 50

Charts of the results in the Orthodox EDs in Borough Park and Williamsburg

Charts Mayor 48 & 50

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Picking Winners and Losers Part 2: Aronim and Zalis

2013-11-07T07:06:00.000-08:00

This is continued from part 1, dissecting a Real Winners and Losers list.

Aronim
According to that list: "Aronim - The minority chasidic sect in Williamsburg pulled off big victories yesterday. They took a risk in an early endorsement for Bill de Blasio for Mayor effectively shutting out their rival Zalis form the de Blasio world."

"Early endorsement," seriously? How early? "They took a risk," how risky was it? Their endorsement was made September 4, with less than a week to the primary election, (unusually late for these endorsements to be made, especially given the fact that it is traditionally publicized in the community's weekly, but the late endorsement meant that it missed the last edition before the elections), and only after de Blasio was trouncing all his opponents in all the polls for more than a week. If anything, they were risk-aversive to an extreme, and it proofs that the only principal that matters to them is how strong one is in the polls. That strategy may help them win lists, but no political good-will.

He goes on that the Aroni endorsement is "effectively shutting out their rival Zalis form the de Blasio world." What is this suppose to be: a prophecy? Actually, just last week the same blog posted a statement of Mr. deBlasio reacting to the Zali endorsement for the general elections. “I am honored to have the support of the Satmar community, as well as so many others,” said de Blasio. “I plan to work together with them as Mayor..."

But one shouldn't be surprised of this. If the author's facts about the near past are so skewed, what is to expect of his predictions.

Wow: three lies in one sentence. This guy is a genius. Of course you have to label that "real."

And what is the supposed Aroni victory: "shutting out their rival Zalis form the de Blasio world." This goes to proof what they stand for: Nothing on what they gained. Just shutting out others. Fortunately, there is no basis to the claim that their goal materialized. If anything, the record proves the opposite.

And what about Bobov?

The writer continues to explain the Aroni win: "Along with the powerful bloc vote of the Bobov community in Boro Park they played a big role in racking up huge number for Councilman David Greenfield’s victory over his lying competitor. Keep an eye on this new Satmar/Bobov alliance. Observers noticed that they seem to be moving in tandem these days."

Here, they share their win with Bobov. I think it's the first time that YW so prominently displays Bobov as a voting power, and they really had a huge turnout this time around, versus the no-show Aronis. They certainly deserve a heading as winners, yet YW credits the whole win of this purported alliance to the Aronis. Goes to show that he's pushing the Aroni agenda, and knowing that it will be too much of a joke to declare them as the voting power in BP, he tries to peg them and hitch-hike on Bobov's strong political organizing, by creating a non-existent alliance.

Zalis

On the other hand, the Zalis prove again - during both, the primaries and general elections - that their endorsements deliver.

At the primaries, Bill Thompson had his best numerical showing in their Assembly district 50, thanks to winning the Hasidic election district 2-1.

A day after the primaries, that same writer said this about one his declared "real" winners:
"Sure their Mayoral candidate, Bill Thompson is on the ropes, but he won their neighborhood overwhelmingly." (Okay, this group was supporting one of the few candidates actually ending up winning after receiving huge amounts of PAC dollar directed by David Greenfield). This statement, for $ome rea$on, doesn't apply to the Zalis.

On Tuedsay, of all the Orthodox neighborhoods, Mr. de Blasio had the best showing by far in Williamsburg's Hasidic areas, as clearly shown on the election results map. For $ome rea$on, the supposed "Aroni-Bobuv alliance" didn't affect those in top of the ballot in BP. It goes to show again that Rabbi Niederman is the address to gain the largest solid bloc of voters, versus in other areas where voters are splintered an don't follow their community leaders as much.

Williamsburg election results - solid blue

Notwithstanding the actual results, that blog had this to say this about the Zalis.

"Zalis - It’s not easy to drop from power so quickly but the Zalis appear to have done just that. Since Vito Lopez’s fall from grace, the Zalis no longer have anyone to advise them or protect them. Maybe that’s why they stuck with Bill Thompson when everyone else went with de Blasio, maybe that’s why they granted Joe Hynes a last minute meeting and threw out pashkevils on Aroni supporters of Hynes who went on to a historic defeat. Maybe that’s why they were the only mosod who refused to endorse Greenfield for re-election. Maybe that’s why they need to start looking internally for new political leadership before they become completely irrelevant."

Does anyone see here why the Zalis lost Tuesday night?
Did something happen to Mr. Lopez on Tuesday? Did they stick with Mr. Thompson for the general election?

He throws out an accusation about Paskevilin by the Zalis against a Thompson supporter.

Fact of the matter is that the guy leading Mr. Hynes' campaign within the Jewish community is of the Aroni camp and is very close to David Greenfield; he attacked Garry Schlesinger on Twitter with the same accusations made on these pashkevilin. So, if I would had to guess who threw them out, I would pick on him. Still, the writer decided to blame the Zalis. Can someone explain this, beside some agenda?

Furthermore, the racist Yiddish ads against Mr. Thompson, were placed by an official aide to Councilman David Greenfield. Still, Greenfield happened to end up in the winner's column, although attacking a Mr. Thompson supporter seems to be a clear-cut losing proposition. This is suspended for further clarification.

On Election night, Mr. Thompson graciously embraced Rabbi Niederman. So, I guess the writer knows better what Mr. Thompson really thinks than him-self.
The only thing in this in-cohesive paragraph related to Tuesday night, is the "Maybe that’s why they were the only mosod who refused to endorse Greenfield for re-election." I don't know what's behind this, if this is true, and if the Zalis in BP usually do formal endorsements. But to declare someone a loser for a non-endorsement? This shows that the blogger serves to someone's totalitarian agenda, and this is why the Zalis were thrown into this loser column. Given the persistent reports that Greenfield worked against the Zalis in Williamsburg, I would have viewed an endorsement as a real loss. Sticking up for your-self, if they had, is just decent human nature.

Bottom line: The Real "Real Winners & Losers"

Zalis / Niederman - Winners
They prove again that they are the largest solid bloc vote, being the only ones in the Orthodox community delivering a resounding victory for Bil deBalsio.

On Primary night they where one of the few Thompson strongholds, again proving their reliability and cohesive voting pattern - a scarce commodity in the current age, and politicians know that it pays to gain it. Given Mr. Thompson's weakness elsewhere, their powerful bloc was noticed by pundits and politicos citywide as one of the few Thompson islands, and they were declared winner by the NY Times (oh, it didn't say "real...).

Steve Levin won resoundingly in the primary, and the Aronis where scared out from endorsing his opponent, knowing that it will end with a Zali blowout. This is after leading an anti-Levin crusade during four years, and after he was threatened by the "race of his life," by the real-list author's predecessor.

Aronis - Losers

They kept back their endorsement in the primary until the 11th hour (in the process, they promised it to Christine Quinn, only to betray her), when the winner was clear already, proving that they are unreliable and the only way to win their vote is to win without them. Bil deBlasio would have avoided a runoff without their votes.

The election maps showed that they were outgunned once again 2-1, and it was widely noticed.

In the general elections, their boasting that they can deliver in Borough Park fell flat, with Bill deBlsio trailing Lhota, versus in Williasmburg, where the Zalis support resulted in his strongest showing of any Orthodox neighborhood.

During the primary they attacked relentlessly Mr. Levin, but didn't have the guts to walk the walk and oppose him, reinforcing that when you win the Aronis won't oppose you, and when you lose, they won't support you.

This post - as any other post on this blog - is meant to be real.

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Picking Winners and Losers: David Greenfield and Chaim Deutsch

2013-11-07T06:41:00.003-08:00

A particular blog released a "real winners & losers" list. An occasional reader may wonder what the "real" stands for. Are all the other stories unreal? But those who frequent these particular lists, will easily realize that this "tradition" isn't about reporting who actually won and lose in a particular cycle. Rather, it's about 'choosing winners and losers.' For instance, there are two particular names that you know in which column they will end up, regardless of the results. Other names will lend in the column based on some short term interests.
I, for one, never published such a list. Readers asked me for such lists, and others sent me suggestions, but I never got into this business. The reason: most of the times everyone with vested interests has wins and losses, and you can magnify whichever you want to paint your own picture. Sometimes, as in this particular list, the spins are really absurd. Let's walk through several of them in a series of 2 posts. Here is the first:

David Greenfield
Anyone reading this list several times knows that this one is set in stone. David Greenfield is always a winner (as is Dov Hikind a loser), and in the rare occasions he's not, at least his former group or staffer makes the list.

Here is part of the reason why he won now:

"David Greenfield - Greenfield’s few enemies banded together in a shockingly dirty effort to defeat him. They found the perfect candidate – one who would be happy to spread any lies they asked him to spread and bankrolled his effort with over $100,000. Not only did they fail, they actually excited Greenfield’s supporters giving Greenfield the largest margin of victory of any candidate last night – a whopping 83%!"

Wow, David won against a serial loser. I mean, we all thought he's losing... Yes, he fared strong, but this wasn't surprising. He basically held to his ground. I'd call this a draw. And he had "the largest margin of victory of any candidate last night – a whopping 83%!" Largest of whom? Brad Lander, Carlos Manchaca running the first time, Steven Levin, all won much stronger - with over 90 percent.

And here is the cream of the cake:

"Bonus: Greenfield was the first frum politician to endorse Chaim Deutsch – first on his radio show and then in an op-ed he penned Monday for Hamodia."

Whoever followed this race saw the overt obstacles that Greenfield was placing to the Deutsch candidacy, out of wanting to be the only Orthodox council-member or for some other reason. Here are some examples:

* Those fighting that Orthodox portions of the district shouldn't be sliced and diced blamed Greenfield for torpedoing their effort, while the above-mentioned "real" blog tried to shift the blame on the Aguda;

* On July 18, Geenfield lashed out against Chaim Deutch on his radio show for allegedly chickening out of a debate on his show, saying that while he'd endorse him for leading the community safety patrol... since he doesn't want to debate the issues, "I lost a lot of respect for him... If you cannot come on the air, you really should not be elected to any office in this land."

* Afterwards Greenfield refused to endorse Chaim Detuch in the primary.

* The PAC believed to do Greenfield's bidding supported Ari Kagan against Chaim Deutsch;

* Jacob Kornbnluh - who is believed to follow Greenfield's orders declared Scavo the "frontrunner" in the primary, in a laughable report clearly aimed at splitting the non-Russian vote in order to defeat Deutsch (he didn't say in the headline it's for "real", so maybe this doesn't count...).

* While reluctantly endorsing Deutsch (if we can call this vague language an endorsement), the Sephardic Community Federation, once chaired by Greenfield and it is widely believed that he still calls the shots there, endorsed Deutsch's opponent David Storobin.

* YWN - the site that has a close relationship with Greenfield for years - reported an endorsement for Storobin by a previous unknown group, and a response by a second unknown group, in what it seems to be an attempt to confuse voters or ridicule the newly-minted but powerful FJCC which supported Deutsch.

And the list goes on.

To declare Greenfield winner in this race, couldn't be further from the truth, and it shows that it is all wishful thinking and pushing agendas.

Bottom Line: David Greenfield, the "real" list author and the blog hosting him, are clear losers in #CD48

Bonus: Greenfield and Thompson Fallout
Talking of Greenfield, he went down very low during the primary in attacking Ken Thompson. While he subsequently endorsed him, it's far from certain that Mr. Thompson - and his powerful supporters, Hakeem Jeffries and co., the new powers in town - forgave him for the personal attacks, ~~especially given the reports that his staffer later placed the racist Yiddish ads against Hynes.~~ This is suspended for further clarification.

This may well come back to haunt Greenfield when trying to assemble the necessary votes for the plum position he angles for in city council. Other factors that may work against him, are: he will no longer be the only standard bearer of the Orthodox community in council; his attacks on Mr. de Blasio during the primaries; his fight with the progressive caucus in the 38th Council district race.

The final verdict, how big the Greenfield losses will be as a result of the current election cycle, is still to be written in the coming months.

To be continued in next post.

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Mazel Tov! Decades-old Affront to the Orthodox Community Corrected by the 48th District Voters

2013-11-05T21:32:00.001-08:00

As the results trickle in, past mid-night, Chaim Deutsch is now well ahead of his opponent David Storobin, to represent the 48th Council District, with a lead of over 2,500 votes. With that, a decades-long affront to the Orthodox community will be corrected, by doubling the Orthodox representation in City Council.

The Orthodox Jewish population today amounts to 3.99% of the NYC population and around 5% (and according to at-least one analysts 7%) of it's democratic primary voters. Still, the Orthodox representation in the City Council is less than 2 percent.

Now, of course you can't have each sub-group represented exactly according to its population size, but in our case our representation was higher and was deliberately lowered two decades ago to the benefit of minority communities. During most of the 1980s and in the early 1990s Southern Brooklyn had two Orthodox Jewish representatives: Susan D. Alter and Noach Dear. During the 1992 redrawing of the City Council districts, large Orthodox populations of these districts where bunched into one district, eliminating one Orthodox seat.

At the time, the late and legendary Rabbi Moshe Sherer AH decried the elimination of the second Orthodox district as "an absolute affront to New York City's Jewish community, and particularly its Orthodox Jewish community."

This year - with the Orthodox communities far outgrowing its 1980 population - the Redistricting Commission had ample opportunity to right the decades-old wrong against the Orthodox community. Instead, it doubled down, by further slicing and dicing the 48th council-manic district where the Orthodox community had a good shot to elect one of its own to the City Council.

“This proposal is unfair and will reduce the voice of the large and growing Orthodox Jewish community and its representation in City Hall. These lines are harmful to southern Brooklyn’s Jewish community. That’s why I am calling on the Districting Commission to reject them," the only Orthodox City council representative - reelected to night by a huge margin despite a heated campaign against him - David Greenfield, said in a statement referring to the newest map.

Fortunately, the 48th district voters doubled the community's representation in city council. Chaim will undoubtedly serve all constituents equally and whole-heartedly, and he never wanted this race to be fought or won on religious or ethnic identity. Still, as a bonus, Orthodox Jews in NYC will benefit from doubling its representation in City Council, with another member who lives their live and breaths their issues, after it was halved twenty years ago. I thank the voters of the 48th Council district for that.

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Post Mortem of the Williamsburg Primary Elections Results: Zalanites Reinforce 2-1 Showing

2013-10-01T16:43:00.001-07:00

I finally got the Board of Elections primary results broken down by election districts, and I can now analyze the turnout of Hasidic Williamsburg, the clear bastion of Orthodox democratic primary votes and the home to one of the - perhaps 'the' - strongest concentrated bloc votes in the city.

There are few surprises. As usual the Zalanite candidate - Bill Thompson - bested the Aranite-supported Bill deBlasio by a margin of 2-1 in the virtually exclusive Hasidic poll sites on Heyward Street and Clymer Street. In Heyward it was 2008 for for Thompson vs. 1099 for deBlasio - 62.5 versus 34.2 %, with the rest for the other candidates. On Clymer it is 1,016 (64%) for Thompson, versus 490 (30.8%) for deBalsio.

In other poll sites, the electorate is more mixed, with a higher percent o non-Jewish voters. Given deBlasio's strength with the non-Jewish voters of the area - he ran close to Thompson with Black and Latina, and had a massive advantage with the yuppies and reform minded liberal gentrifies of the area, the two other demographics who are making up significant percentage of Williamsburg poll sites share with Hasidim - deBlasio naturally fared better there than in exclusive Hasidic areas.

In order to find the strongest Hasidic EDs, one can look on the other races where all Hasidim endorsed and voted for the same candidates. Scott Stringer and Daniel Squadron were unanimously endorsed by all Hasidic factions for their respective races. Squadron ran against Letitia James, a woman of color who was representing ares included in our study area. She naturally ran strong in areas outside the Hasidic confines and won citywide, but in Hasidic areas she was trounced 40 to 1. In order to find the stronger Hasidic EDs, one can use the Public Advocate race as a yardstick. When compiling all the EDs where Squadron bested James by 10 to 1 (James received about a 3rd of the votes outside the Jewish area. On can assume that in areas where she received 10 percent, had about 30 percent non-Jewish votes), Thompson received 4,436 votes, versus 2,672 - 59.5 percent versus 35.8.

Some have thrown out different numbers without any quantification, described by even their strongest boaster as "spin." Even if one includes all election districts with a meaningful number of Hasidim, the results are 5,230 versus 3,417, or 60.5 versus 39.5 (when only counting the numbers of Thompson and deBlasio). An these results includes areas with a high number or even majority of non-Jewish voters.

The strong Zalanite turnout for Bill Thompson is illustrated in the fact that the 50th assembly district is where bill Thompson picked up the most votes from any AD citywide, and it's mostly from the Satmar areas. Also, thanks to the huge Zalanite turnout and their strong support for him, Councilman Steve Levin received the highest number of votes of any City council member. He received 13,608 and is the only one to receive more than 13 thousand votes, although many members ran virtually unopposed.

If there is any news this time, is that the Aranites passed on their promises to campaign against Steve Levin. After campaigning for years by their community to be ready to defeat him, they decided to avoid a clear embarrassment at the boots, after being trounced so many times 2 to 1 by the Zalanites. They even hesitated and pushed off their endorsement for Mayor until a day before Rosh Hashanah, too late to be published in their last weekly-official mouth-piece before the elections where these endorsements are usually announced. In the end they decided to go with the clear winner. This shows that the "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" policy may have ended, at least for now.

All in all the Zalanites lead held and was possible stronger than usual, given that the general turnout was stronger versus the last two off-primaries, and they needed a stronger showing even in their strongest districts to overcome the higher number of other voters whom the Aranites are claiming as their votes. On the other hand, it seems that total Hasidic turnout have been lower by 5-10 percent (it was on both sides, given that some Thompson voters were also non-Hasidic, but the aranites saw a larger percentage drop). The hi-holidays may have been a factor, coupled with the subdued campaigns on both sides, lacking the galvanization of earlier races, as may it be a result of the trend that the higher the general interest is in an election the lower is the hasidic turnout, perhaps because they have lesser chances to make the difference in the election, versus local election where the community can single-handedly anoint a winner.

Below are the BoE results for Mayor and Public advocate broken down in Election districts for AD 50 & 53 (the latter has one large Hasidic ED).

For the excel Charts, click on the link to download.

AD 50 Mayor and PA Results

Chart of the election results in Hasidic EDs

AD 50 Results

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

UPDATED 9/29: The Brooklyn DA race in Borough Park and Williamsburg

2013-09-17T20:18:00.000-07:00

UPDATE & POSSIBLE RETRACTION: The Board of Elections certified results, posted on 9/28, shows far higher turnout in the republican mayoral primaries than what was shown on the NY1 election results map. This may explain most of the non-recorded votes in Borough Park, but not in Williamsburg. If the public counter includes republican voters, this turns my assessment of the Borough Park results on it's head, I have to admit. See more in the article.

In last Tuesday's democratic primary, the Brooklyn DA race shaped out as the most contentious one in Orthodox neighborhood, particularly in Borough Park, where it developed as the latest proxy fight between Councilman David Greenfield and Assemblyman Dov Hikind.

David Greenfield skipped from endorsing in the mayoral race and in the public advocate races - where, from reviewing his twitter timeline while the field shaped up and from other clear indications, he had clear favorites: his colleagues Speaker Quinn and Letitia James - and poured all his efforts in the DA race. He lobbed a charged attack against Ken Thompson that was widely questioned , and he tweeted that Hynes' “opponent would target Jews. Don’t walk, run to the polls on 9/10!”

In Williamsburg, Hyne's was endorsed by both voting bloc, but the larger one, the Zalanites bloc that have turned out 2/3rd of the voters in predominant Hasididc EDs, announced its endorsement in the 11th hour, a day before the elections.

Hynes' supporters flooded the voters with Yiddish literature to convince voters that he's their best choice and warn them against Thompson, while the Thompson camp shot back with its own ads, repeating Hynes' statements against the community.

On primary night, Greenfield tweeted that the results are "shaping up to be another big loss for Assemblyman Dov Hikind in Boro Park." I was interested what the results really were, and I finally got the numbers.

In Borough Park - in the 48th assembly district's EDs that are mostly Jewish, according to a chart I received from political operative close to Greenfield and the Hynes camp - Charles Hynes picked up 57 percent, 3,967, of the recorded votes. Ken Thompson received 18 percent, 1,246 votes, while 1,746, 25% voters, skipped the DA race altogether. A Hynes backer tells me that the total number of voters includes republican party members who weren't able to vote in the Hynes primary. ~~I didn't count them district by district, but it seems that merely 200 voters turned out to cast a vote in the Republican primary. This brings down the non-voter to 23 percent.~~ The certified results posted by the Board of Elections actually show that 1,276 votes in AD48 were republicans. 663 voted for Joe Lhota, 512 voted for John Catsimatidis. If this is included in the public counter total, it eliminates most of the skippers and hugely increases Hynes' and Greenfield's votes.

While it is a decisive win for Hynes, it still shows that about 40 percent of those who walked or 'ran' to the polls weren't convinced to pull the lever for DA Hynes.

The results are very similar in Williamsburg, where Hynes had unanimous official endorsements. In the districts with a significant percent of Hasidic voters (in Assembly district 50 and one from Assembly district 53 that votes in a Hasidic Williamsburg polling site), Mr. Hynes received 5,913 votes, 62 percent, versus 1,259, 13 percent, for Thompson. 25 percent of the electorate ignored the DA race. The number of republican voters in Williamsburg or negligible. According to the BoE certified results, 335 votes casted in AD50 was for the GOP mayoral primary - 177 for Lhota vs. 133 for Catsamitidis - reducing the number of non-voters to roughly 21.5 percent. Still a huge percentage, especially when compared to BP.

Zeroing in to the almost exclusively Hasidic polling sites, the ones on Heyward and on Clymer St., the Hynes percentages are rising - to 68 and 64 percent respectively - and the percentages shrink, reflecting Thompson's strength with the neighboring minority and progressive voters. (BTW, These results are also instructive as for which EDs are mostly hasidic and which are more mixed. The aranites usually try to throw in the latter in the mix, to claim the non-Jewish votes as their's, but when both sides join to support a candidate who is facing stiff opposition outside of the Hasidic confines, the results demonstrate which EDs are pre-dominantly Hasidic).

To be sure, this number of unrecorded votes is to be expected for a down-ballot election. Actually, throughout Brooklyn almost 27 percent of primary voters skipped the DA race. Still, in the Orthodox communities, this race rivaled the mayoral race and grabbed the most interest and attention. Most Orthodox voters who skipped that race did it deliberately, I believe.

Let me also add, that Charles Hynes had the best showing percentage-wise, in Borough Park's AD44, and the took in the largest number of votes and the second highest share of the vote from Assembly district, thanks to the Orthodox support. Still, it wasn't unanimous.

One factor in the Williamsburg results is that both sides settled for one candidate. Sounds counter-intuitive? Hmmm. I had this discussion with several outsiders, if the schism in the Williamsburg electorate could have been united an turn out their combined voting powers for one candidate. I think, and history backs me up, that not.

First, unfortunately, the split galvanizes the voters and doubles the turnout (the best a candidate can hope is that both sides will come together for his race while splitting on some other race in the ballot. i.e. In the current elections, Squadron and Stringer benefited the most).

Furthermore, in races where people have strong personal opinions about the candidates, a large percentage would voter for their personal favorite, except when it turns into a referendum between the two communities, the voters will unite and vote with their base (the 2009 mayoral race is the best example for both arguments. Both sides endorsed Bloomberg. Turnout was meager and about 1/3rd voted for Mr. Thompson). The current DA results may reflect the second phenomenon. In such cases, the candidate winning both endorsements ends up getting roughly the same votes as when receiving the much-larger bloc-voter, affiliated with the zalanites.

It's is noteworthy that Councilman Steve Levin, who only received the endorsement of the Zalanites, and the Aranites are promising and campaigning for years to defeat him (though chickened out from endorsing his opponent to avoid a crushing defeat, after realizing that his opponent doesn't have the overwhelming support outside of the hasidic districts to counter the much larger Zalanites bloc), received almost as much votes as Hynes, 5,805, with a similar percentage of unrecorded votes. It reflects that fact, that sometimes a unanimously-supported candidate doesn't necessarily fare better than one receiving only Zalanite support.

Anyhow, the elections is over, and Mr. Thompson will to all likelihoods ride to an easy general election victory. Personally, I was bothered by the charged attacks during the primary season. I hope we can get past this stage, and we trust that he will work diligently for a just Justice system for all.

Below are the Board of Elections results (caution: all current results are unofficial and doesn't include absentee and emergency ballots) for Borough Park's AD 48, 50, and 53 (one of the Heyward's site is in the 53rd and is predominantly Hasidic), and after that see the charts tabulating the results in hasidic areas.

UNofficial Hynes Results for AD 48 50 53 by Moshe Y Friedman

DA Results Chart for BP and Wmsbg

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Court Validates Joseph Hayon Republican Petitions Vs. David Greenfield

2013-08-09T15:02:00.001-07:00

Justice David Scmidt ordered today the Board of Election to return Joseph Hayon as a Republican candidate for the 44th council district. Hayon is running a long-long-shot versus the democratic incumbent David Greenfield. Here is an earlier report with more details on the case.

The Judge denied Hayon's request to invalidate Greenfield's petitions for the Independence line.

Below is the order.

Decision: Hayon Versus Greenfield

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Press Release by the Ken Thompson Campaign Decries Hynes' Attacks Against Orthodox

2013-08-09T12:23:00.004-07:00

I long ago opined that the Brooklyn DA race will be a tough choice for Orthodox voters. Below is a press release sent out by the Ken Thompson Campaign for DA citing the incumbent's attacks against our community:

STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN DOV HIKIND IN RESPONSE TO CM GREENFIELD'S FALSE CHARGES AGAINST KEN THOMPSON

BROOKLYN -- The following statement can be attributed to Assemblyman Dov Hikind in response to false charges leveled at Ken Thompson by Councilman David Greenfield:

"Councilman Greenfield ought to apologize for spreading disgusting lies about Ken Thompson in the Orthodox Jewish community. Unlike D.A. Hynes, who has said that Orthodox Jews are "insular" and worse than the Mafia, Ken has repeatedly stated that he will restore confidence, and fight for safety and justice for every community in Brooklyn. With such an indefensible record of prosecuting inconsistently depending on which way the political wind blows and flip-flopping before an election, it's no surprise that Mr. Hynes and his defenders have resorted to unconscionable gutter politics to distract voters from the truth. Baseless slandering from a desperate campaign has no place in Brooklyn."

Charles Hynes (1/9/13): "I compare it to the Mafia, but at least in Mafia cases we can offer victims witness protection."

Charles Hynes (1/9/13): "That does not work in these insular communities, where it is more difficult to leave behind friends and family and go into hiding."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/brooklyn-da-calls-weberman-case-landmark-predators-article-1.1243280#ixzz2bUdyNEkg

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Methodology of Analysis of Orthodox Vote

2013-07-29T11:04:00.000-07:00

Here is the methodology I used to analyze the Orthodox Jewish democratic voting size.

Column A is the area, by borough, and further down by Zip code, grouped by its UJA defined neighborhood clusters.

Column B is the number of democratic primary voters in NYC between 2009-2012, provided by Prime NY. (Only the citywide number was made available to us).

C: The total number of Jewish democratic primary voters circa 2009-2012, identified by their surnames by Prime NY , broken down by their zip codes and grouped together by each neighborhood cluster.

D: The total population in these areas as reported in the UJA study. Note: I used the highest figure, counting all members in Jewish households. The study contains a lower number for people described as Jewish (using this number would increase the Jewish turnout versus the general population, and I tried to be conservative with my estimates. Secondly, given that the voter data includes all people with Jewish surnames, I figured that it also includes non-Jews in households with Jewish surnames, thus correlating more closely with the higher figure).

E: The total number of Jews in each area, as reported by the UJA.

F: The percentage of Jewish residents versus the general population, as given by UJA.

G: The percentage of the Orthodox within the Jewish population, as given by the UJA (except where marked and explained in end note).

H: The number of Orthodox residents in these areas, calculated via the UJA given percentages (G) and their total number of Jewish residents (E).

I: The percentage of Orthodox versus general population (as a total H versus D. This number doesn't effect the present analysis. It is still of interest, though).

J, calculates the approximate number of Orthodox voters, crediting them for a share of the Jewish vote in their area (C) equal to their percentage of the area's Jewish population (G).

K is the Orthodox democratic primary vote per capita.

I embed the analysis again, to make it easier to the explanation and study on one page. Should you want it in an excel sheet, click here.

NYC Orthodox Vote Analysis by Moshe Y Friedman

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Data Analysis (2): Borough Park Ranks Third in Orthodox Dem Votes, Lagging Far Behind Williamsburg and Flatbush

2013-07-29T10:40:00.003-07:00

This post is the second part of an analysis of NYC's Orthodox and Jewish vote, continued from here:

The largest Orthodox democratic vote, by far, may be generated from Williamsburg. 8,967 Orthodox Jews voted in the democratic primaries in the last four years, over sixty percent more than Borough Park's Orthodox vote, although the latter's Orthodox population is 66 percent larger.

Borough Park, the largest Orthodox neighborhood by far, actually falls to number 3 when counted by its Jewish democratic votes. The BP Orthodox community produced 5,555 democratic voters, versus 5,864 Orthodox democratic votes that came out from Fltabush, Midwood & Kingston, although the are only has about 61 percent Orthodox residents - 64,438 - of the 105,520 Orthodox living in Borough Park.

Williamsburg is close behind Flatbush's Orthodox population, with a community of 63,222, but produced over fifty percent more Orthodox democratic primary votes: 8,967 (and explained earlier the number is probably 15-20 percent higher). Furthermore, the largest Williamsburg voting bloc, the UJO aligned communities legendary with its delivering around two thirds of the total vote for their candidates, delivered more votes to any other neighborhood. Indeed an unparalleled voting power. One will be hard-pressed to find any other one endorsement to deliver one percent of the city's primary votes and 20 percent of the Orthodox votes, like the one found in Williamsburg.

The above 3 Orthodox neighborhoods - Williamsburg, Flatbush and Borough Park, are producing the bulk of the Jewish votes. As a matter of a fact, only 2 other Orthodox neighborhood clusters produced more than 1,000 democratic primary votes, as per our analysis: The upper West Side, 1,564; and Kew Gardens Hills, Jamaica and Fresh Meadows, 1,235. Okay, Kings Bay / Madison almost hit that mark, with 999 Orthodox votes. (Again, we use the neighborhoods as grouped together by the UJA study).

When looking at the per capita rate, Williamsburg produced 14.18% democratic votes per Orthodox resident; the Flatbush area had 9.10%, and Borough Park only 5.26%. Lower Manhattan East had the highest per capita vote, of almost twenty percent (19.91%), but its total vote was only 451. Generally, Queens had the highest Orthodox per capita democratic primary vote, when looking on the borough as a whole.

We should note that this analysis only includes democratic primary voters. It is possible that the turnout in some neighborhoods is higher in general elections, due to a larger number of registered voters in parties other than the democratic. Also, in some areas, voters interests may align more closely with the general electorate, which turns out in higher numbers in elections for higher offices, versus some Orthodox areas where turnout tend to increase in lower-rank races where the local vote is more likely to make a difference.

More importantly, Williamsburg had several hotly contested primaries during the years covered by this analysis (Levin in 2009; Restler in 2010, Velasquez and Olechowski in 2012). Although parts of Borough Park also had some locally heated primaries (Lander, 2009; Mostofsky, 2012), it only covered a smaller part of the area, or involved a judgeship, hardly a position to drive up turnout, even when it turns into an internal proxy squabble. Larger areas of Flatbush and surrounding areas where in districts of contested primaries (Jacobs, Cymbrowitz, Jeffries vs, Barron, and Mostofsky). This may explain part of Borough Park's lower primary turnout.

Still, Borough Park had two very hotly contested special elections (Greenfield and Storobin) and a conested regular election (Felder). Parts of Flabush also voted in the Storobin race, also, the Turner race included parts of the Orthodox Flatbush. These races probably tested the turnout of these neighborhoods to their maximum.

Result: When counting the Orthodox democrats who participated in an election during 2009-2012, it adds up to 7,596 for Borough Park and 7,903 for Flatbush, and parts of them are probably November-only voters. Even by assuming generously that all of them are possible primary pick-up, Borough Park still lags the Orthodox Williamsburgh - only three fifths of its size - by almost 1,400 voters; and Flatbush is trailing it by over thousand votes.

For the Study methodology, explaining the spreadsheet, please click here.

I embed the analysis again, to make it easier to the explanation and study on one page. Should you want it in an excel sheet, click here.

NYC Orthodox Vote Analysis by Moshe Y Friedman

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Data Analysis: 21% Dem Primary Voters are Jewish; Orthodox Are 5%, Over Quarter is from Williamsburg

2013-07-29T10:40:00.002-07:00

How many Jews are expected to participate in the upcoming NYC democratic primary? And how many of them will be Orthodox? The answer to these questions ranged wildly in recent months. By quantifying the number of Jewish and Orthodox voters, backed up by hard data, I hope to bring some clarity to the issue.

My analysis, detailed below, is based on Prime NY's finding that 138,227 democrats with identifiable Jewish names voted on at least one primary during the last four calendar years. Further breaking down these numbers to their respective zip codes, I presume that 31,716 Orthodox Jews voted in at least one primary, which bring their share of the total democratic primary vote to over 4.85 percent.

Zeroing in to the specific neighborhoods, the largest Orthodox vote by far - 8,967 votes, over 28.25 percent - comes from Williamsburg. Its Orthodox vote totals over 1.35 of the city's total democratic primary vote.

Let's walk through the confusing numbers out there and how I reached the numbers above.
"Jews outside Manhattan could constitute one-sixth of primary voters, according to demographers, and of that group, maybe 30 percent are from the fast-growing Orthodox population, mostly in Brooklyn," according to the NYT.

Jacob Kornbluh recently wrote that the Jewish vote "makes up 25% of the electorate, according to political consultant Jerry Skurnik from Prime New York." Okay, this doesn't really contradict the Times, since this doesn't exclude Manhattan...

Yet, in the same piece, Kornbluh cites a Marist poll in which Jews only make up 16 percent of the electorate among registered democrats. Yossi Gestetner found that in a recent Siena poll of Democratic primary voters Jews made up only 11 percent of the sample. A fifty percent disparity.

Referencing the Orthodox vote, Joseph Berger - the NY Times' Orthodox Maven - reported that: "Orthodox Jews make up 40 percent of the city’s 1.1 million Jews, according to the latest population survey by the UJA-Federation of New York." I long ago pointed out that Berger is sloppy with his numbers, so I'm not surprised how grossly misleading that figure is. Only in Brooklyn are the Orthodox 41% of the Jewish population, according to that study. In the other boroughs, they are between 9 and 15 percent. My calculation, based on the UJA study, finds that Orthodox are around 26 percent of all Jews in the city. Still, Mr. Berger's fictitious figure was recycled freely in the blog-sphere, and I haven't seen anyone pointing out such an obvious mistake.

Given the various numbers, I set out to try to quantify the expected Orthodox vote by my own, and I freely share the here the data for scrutiny and would be delighted if someone perfects the methodology.

I used two sets of data: The list compiled by Jerry Skurnik of Prime NY - forwarded by a source - of voters who participated in at least one democratic primary during 2009-2012 with a Jewish or Eastern European surname. The list is breaking down these voters by zip codes; to fish out the approximate number of Orthodox voters, I used the UJA study Jewish Community Study's findings on the size of the Orthodox in various neighborhoods. I tried to figure out their turnout and their percentage of overall the Jewish Democratic Jewish electorate.

651,458 New Yorkers participated in a democratic primary during the four year period, as per Mr. Skurnik, and 21.22 percent of them, 138,227 voters, had a Jewish or Eastern European surname indicating that they are Jewish.

(Note: this analysis omits names that may or may not be Jewish, like Green. I once found that in areas with heavy Jewish concentrations it may under-count the Jewish vote by up to twenty percent. This explains Mr. Kornbluh's report that Mr. Skurnik puts the percentage of Jewish vote at 25 percent. Still, I have no way to quantify it, so I'm sticking with the lower clearly established number. But keep in mind that it may be 15-20 percent higher, thus the Orthodox vote may also be similarly higher.)

This pegs the Jewish democratic primary turnout by 11.15 percent versus their total population (note: this is different than usual turnout figured, broken down versus eligible or registered voters. This looks on the total population); NYC's overall turnout versus it's population was 7.98 percent. When excluding the Jewish vote and the Jewish population, the remaining turnout falls to 7.40 percent. In sum, the Jewish turnout is fifty percent higher.

Citywide, Orthodox make up 26.28 percent of the Jewish community. Assuming they make up the same percentage of the Jewish electorate, that would amount to 36,326 primary votes - 5.58% of the total primary vote.

Several factors may alter the Orthodox share of the Jewish vote versus their percentage of the Jewish population. For example: A far larger percentage of the Orthodox are younger, below the voting age, than other Jewish denominations: Orthodox generally lean more to the conservative ideology, so maybe they participate less in democratic primaries; On the flip side, Orthodox are believed to be more politically organized and engaged. All in all, can we estimate the Orthodox share of the Jewish democratic vote to be equal to their percentile within the Jewish community?

To answer that, I tried another measure, breaking down the Jewish vote for each borough, and then to each community, using the same Zip Code and neighborhood groupings as the UJA Jewish census. I apportioned each area's vote, according to its own Orthodox percentiles. The breaking up to boroughs, decreased the Orthodox vote by approximately 10 percent, to 33,186 votes (5.09 percent of total democratic vote), and breaking it down to specific neighborhoods, further shrank the Orthodox vote to 31,716, or 4.86 of the general vote.

I think that based on that (especially when we include the 15-20 percent wiggle room that we have with non-identifiable Jewish names) it is safe to assume that the Orthodox democratic primary vote that is up for grabs is over 30,000, and it is about five percent of the total electorate. That isn't to say that this will amount the total number and percentage of Orthodox votes come September. It all depends on the Orthodox turnout versus the general turnout (widely expected to be around 600,000, far lower than the last open mayoral race, when it was over 785,000). So far, it doesn't look like that the Orthodox turnout will be at it maximum, but it may be too early too tell.

For a breakdown of the Orthodox turnout in specific communities, and further discussion of this analysis, and methodology, stay tuned for the second part of this analysis that is to be continued here.

For the Study methodology, explaining the spreadsheet, please click here.

Embedded is a PDF of the study (only way I could upload it to Scribd). Should you want it in an excel sheet, click here.

NYC Orthodox Vote Analysis by Moshe Y Friedman

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Updated: Will David Greenfield Face a Republican Opponent?

2013-07-23T11:56:00.003-07:00

UPDATE 7/23 9PM. Jacob Kornbluh posted court documents that Joseph Hayon filed today to enjoin the BoE from throwing him off the ballot, and to invalidate David Greenfield's petitions for the Independence party ballot. (I reposted below the court papers, with heads facing up, courtesy of Mr. Hayon).

It the court papers, filed with Justice David Schmidt, Mr. Hayon points out that the Board of Elections asked him to amend his filingon the wrong premise that his zip code on the petitions were wrong. He amended it (with the very same zip code, which is in fact correct) and listed the same volumes listed by the BoE. The board now claims that their number listed on the amended cover sheet - that he shouldn't have had to amend in the first place - was incorrect. If that is true, it's the result of two errors by the BoE.

Joseph Havyon vs. David Greenfield by Moshe Y Friedman

Below is my earlier report:

Jacob Kornbluh reported that Joseph Hayon, who was petitioning and raised funds to oppose Councilman David Greenfield on the Republican line was thrown off the ballot. I reached out to Mr. Hayon for comment, and he shared with us a letter confirming that such a decision was made, based on a wrong zip code on the petition letter. Given a chance to correct the error, Mr. Hayon amended the cover-sheet. The Board of Elections, though, ruled that the amended sheet doesn't comply with their rules.

Mr. Hayon shared with us a printout by the BoE that still lists him as a candidate, as of yesterday, which might indicate that the board might live him on the ballot. Mr. Kornbluh interprets this that the board is still giving for Mr. Hayon several days to challenge their decision.

Bellow are the Board's decisions and the latest breakdown still having Joseph as a candidate.

BoE Correspondence with Joseph Hayon by Moshe Y Friedman

BoE list by Moshe Y Friedman

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Assemblywoman Rhoda Jacobs Endorses Democratic City Council Candidate Chaim Deutsch for the New York City Council

2013-05-24T10:27:00.001-07:00

This is a press release sent out by Chaim Deutch's campaign:

Assemblywoman Rhoda Jacobs announced today her endorsement of local community leader Chaim Deutsch in his bid to represent the 48th New York City Council district, which includes sections of Midwood, Sheepshead Bay, Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach.

"I am proud to stand behind Chaim Deutsch in his election campaign," Jacobs said. "Over the years, I have come to consider him a true partner in our work to make Brooklyn a better place to work and live.

"Chaim Deutch's tireless efforts on behalf of our communities transcend differences in backgrounds or beliefs," Jacobs added, noting that Mr. Deutsch is known throughout Brooklyn for his work in forming the Flatbush Shomrim Safety Patrol and the East Flatbush Civilian Patrol Group.

Jacobs emphasized, "Chaim Deutsch has proven himself to be a committed community advocate who works to make our neighborhoods better and safer for our families, and is a well-known community activist who has experience working with diverse constituencies."

Pictured left to right: Pictured left to right: Assemblywoman Rhoda Jacobs and Chaim Deutsch.

Update: It's noteworthy that Jacobs won reelection last year in a race where many have written her off, given the overwhelming minority community in the district. She prove all skeptics wrong, demonstrating that reputation and a good campaign can overcome sectarian politics. Chaim is similarly situated with an additional advantage of having more than one opponent in the Russian community, but this may be outweighed by the lack if incumbency. In total, he's well positioned replicate her success.

Chaim Deutsch: Yes I'm In

2013-04-12T10:25:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter Chaim Deutsch just emailed, under the subject line "Yes I'm In!" Chaim - founder of Flatbush Shomrim - is running for the 48th council district, to replace Mike Nelson, under whom he served as senior aide.

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Councilman Levin: Let My People Park

2013-03-15T08:47:00.001-07:00

Council Member Steve Levin is showing a sense of humor that I haven't seen early in his career. The following is a pun-laden press release he sent out today, reacting to a Spider-Man shooting during the Passover holiday, when we celebrate our redemption of the Egypt exodus, that was forced to an end by the 10 plagues. I spotted 6 puns in the press release, and they are in bold.

BROOKLYN - Today, Council Member Stephen Levin called on the Columbia Pictures production of “Spider-Man” to pass-over filming in Williamsburg during the upcoming Jewish holiday.

“Filming of the "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" would be a plague on the streets of South Williamsburg during the sacred holiday, creating a parking struggle of biblical proportions,” Levin said.

Columbia Pictures, the producers of the Spider-Man film, plan to close off parking between March 22nd and March 27th around the Marcy Avenue Armory; they have not received the necessary permits as of yet.

Levin said, “Spider-Man is spinning a web of problems for the community. With great power there must also come great responsibility - Columbia Pictures should live by the motto that led Spider-Man to use his abilities to fight crime and respect the observance of Passover by moving up their shooting.”

Due to restrictions on driving during the observance of Passover, residents will be unable to move their cars during this time and will have difficulty finding adequate parking.

“Unfortunately, cars won’t rise on their own accord to allow room for Spider-Man and co. to shoot their film on our city streets. While we support the film industry in New York City, and know that Spider-Man is not the menace some people believe him to be, we are asking Columbia Pictures to honor the spirit of the holiday and not cause an exodus of vehicles from the Jewish neighborhood to accommodate the production.”

BTW, in another sign that Steve is loosening up when preparing for re-election, his new website looks cool http://www.stephenlevin.com/, and the councilman is asking "if you have a couple bucks to spare..."

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Councilmania: Accusation that 48th Map Intentionally Pitches Russians Vs. Orthodox

2013-01-14T16:19:00.003-08:00

The reported and believed author of the infamous Negro-hood letter that may have played a roll in the narrow defeat of an Orthodox Russian candidate, is out with a wild conspiracy that the reshaping of the 48th Councilmanic (my spell checker lightens up - yup, I have one.. - but Councilwoman Tish James and others are widely using this fitting term) district was with the intention to pitch Orthodox against Jews. A coalition between these two groups scares Speaker Quinn, Brooklyn Party Chairman Seddio among others, his theory goes.

Flashback: A journalist and political consultant, who worked with Russian-American candidates for more than a decade once said of the Russians: “They work very hard and produce lots of votes, but the parties treat them like serfs.” I guess these 2 statements are reconcilable.

The 48th took in the brunt of the critic at last week's Redistricting Commission hearing, including from the current Councilman Mike Nelson (minute 8:00), who cited Storobin and Brook-Krasny as proof that a district doesn't have to be Super-Russian to elect a Russian candidate (could have used President Obama's election as President as well). Also, Flatbush Shomrim founder Chaim Deutch (1:20), who is believed to consider a council race, pointed to his work to establish patrols in other communities as an example of the benefits of a diverse community.

The most entertaining part of the hearing, if you watch it, at 19:35. A sort of Rent is Damn Too High figure...

The conspiracy of pitching the two communities one against another isn't out of thin air. The coalition between the Russians and the Orthodox certainly caused anxiety in democratic circles after the elections of Bob Turner and David Storobin. Also, competition between the Orthodox and the Russians in redistricting was used by Gregory Davidzon (speaking at the hearing: minute 2:07) as an explanation why he dumped an Russian and supported Lew Fidler. It didn't prevented Storobin's victory, but the Republican party itself had probably did a better a job to end this coalition.

Also, I'm told by a source that there will be some adjustment in the 48th, adding some portions of the 45th, strengthening the Orthodox vote in it, though probably not as much as the most speakers would want.

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.

Williamsburg's Romney Vote

2013-01-04T12:12:00.000-08:00

I finally got the NYC presidential election results broken down into EDs. Here are some conclusions, from the numbers:

Mitt Romney won in the almost exclusive Hasidic Williamsburg poll-sites, on Heyward St., by a landslide 2/1 margin. It's strong, but not as red as some Borough Park districts. Like in Kiryas Joel, The usual conservative leanings of the Orthodox on a national level, was partly off-set by what was seen as the unfair bashing of President Obama by pro-Zionist groups.

In a phenomenon - that may be news to outsiders but not community observers - the presidential elections drew half the number of Hasidic voters that turned out for the recent obscure district leader contest. 1,708 voters pulled the levers on Heyward St. for both presidential candidates combined, versus 3,409 votes that the 2 district leader candidates netted. The NYT marveled after the DL race that the "members of the Satmar Hasidic community loyal to Mr. Lopez streamed to their polling places in numbers that made it seem as if the election would determine the nation’s president rather than the low-profile position of the district leader of a few Brooklyn neighborhoods." This was a huge understatement...

And there is something interesting about the votes South of Flushing, in the Kent Avenue poll site. Yossi Gestetner - in a post that he long ago retracted, but never took back the following - reported about a divide between old and New Williamsburg. He explained it as a generational divide between the young and the old, with the former shifting to the aranites. This assertion was based on the fact that the aranite-supported candidates did better in the poll sites on Kent Ave., south of Flushing Ave., than in the rest of the district. The Zalanites countered that these EDs have large percentages of non-Jewish voters.

The zalanite argument is now substantiated by the fact that President Obama won the Kent site by a 2/1 margin, and it's even stronger when one removes the 74th ED - a south of Flushing district that was moved from Heyward to the Kent site on September. (If there is also a generational split in general political leanings, it's clear that the younger voters are more conservative). Thus, in elections with high overall turnout, the zalanite vote will be diluted and outweighed by the general voters; but when the only elections on the ballots draw little general interest, the zalanite candidate will carry the poll-site, and increasingly so, with the growth of the Hasidic population in these Williamsburg outskirts.

No wonder that Lincoln Restler, who was defeated in the district leader race, criticized yesterday the inclusion of the South of Flushing EDs into Stephen Levin's district.

Gut Shabbos. Got a run for my Kugel... See below the chart of the poll sites including Orthodox voters, and the elections results of the 50th Assembly district broken down by EDs.

Poll Site/EDs	Obama	Romney	Total votes
114 Taylor Street	1223	567	Public Housing
61	272	76
62	458	98
63	184	86
64	61	83
65	122	78
68	116	84
71	10	62
157 Wilson Street	209	316	Public Housing
66	59	123
67	39	94
69	111	99
323 Roebling St.	421	160	Public Housing
57	239	63
58	182	97
183 South 3 Street	1161	64	Public Housing
53	243	6
54	249	12
55	110	22
52	559	24
195 Sandford Street
81	71	12
215 Heyward Street	543	1165
72	97	158
73	30	151
75	89	200
76	85	96
77	46	184
78	68	150
79	69	130
80	59	96
325 South 3 Street
56	144	15
60 Division Avenue	1091	299
48	367	72
59	346	79
60	350	89
70	28	59
70 Tompkins Avenue
80	59	96
850 Kent Avenue	631	319
74	35	118
82	35	73
83	331	118
84	154	9
85	76	1

Presidnetial AD 50

For notification of new posts, follow me @opundit.