Over the last few days, we have been discussing how voters are targeted and we have looked at a better way to mobilize voters using the Chavez, Escobar and Fenenbock race as an example. Today, let us look at six random voters picked from a voter score ranking generated in the El Paso Voters APP.
The methodology is simple, from the highest scoring voters in our data set, select the four random voters who voted in the 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016 General Elections, i.e., the elections in November. Add to that two additional random voters from the bottom of our data set.
Keep in mind that our data set sample is too small to derive a statistical analysis from, but for the purposes of building an example of a psychographic profile for each of our examples, it should suffice.
Before we get into the details, there is a general belief among the campaigns in the El Paso that their targeted lists should be created from the Primaries, with one, or two general elections sprinkled in. There is also the notion that the Obama election was an anomaly in that it mobilized unlikely voters, so many of the local political consultants tend to ignore the 2008 primary.
For our purposes, I believe that the general elections are more accurate in predicting the likelihood that a voter will cast a vote in March. However, I am also including the voter scores for the primary elections from 2008 on forward, as well, so you can see them.
The first obvious psychographic element that most would likely want to know is the propensity for the voter to vote Democrat. In El Paso, most of the voters, identify themselves as Democrat with others voting, on-and-off in both primaries depending on the circumstances of the election. Therefore, we can safely assume our sample is strongly Democrat.
There is also an ongoing debate about whether the Bernie Sanders faction in El Paso will come out and vote. They will, and they will vote for Veronica Escobar because they are driven by the single-issue of seeing Donald Trump impeached. As such, they see Escobar as the one they need in Congress.
That said, here are the psychographic profiles on our sample voters. The information is derived from the data available in the APP.
Voter Number 1 is a 71-year-old female. She lives in zip code: 79938 She has one 48-year-old female living with her that has a 20% voter score, and a 22-year-old male who has not cast a vote in any election he is eligible for. The 48-year-old is employed and owns the home where the 71-year-old lives. The house is valued at $95,000. The household income is estimated to $40,000, based on the 48-year-old’s income and a pension for the 71-year-old.
Voted in:
Primaries: 2008, 2010, 2014 & 2016
November: 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 & 2016.
Voter Number 2 is a 22-year-old female. She lives in the 79936 zip code. This voter scored a 100% on all three voting profiles, primaries, general and lifetime. There are two other voters in the household. One is a 25-year-old male and a 20-year-old male. The 20-year-old male is a student at UTEP. Both household members have not voted in any election they were eligible for.
The female voter is a Registered Nurse employed at a local hospital. She earns approximately $63,000 a year. She graduated from UTEP in 2017, having been selected to the University Honors Program in 2014, and 2015. She graduated with a Bachelor of Science in May 2017. She became a registered nurse in August 2017.
The home where she lives is worth about $84,477 and was purchased by a male individual in 1998 who is not a Texas registered voter.
Voter Number 3 is 68-year-old male who owns his own home in the 79936 zip code area. The house is worth about $110,848 and was purchased in 2011. This individual has no other registered voters in his household. He voted in the 2008 and 2016 primaries and in all the November elections in our sample.
Voter Number 4 is a 77-year-old female who only voted in the 2016 November general election. She lives in the 79904 zip code, along with 50-year-old male. The male voted in each of the November elections in our sample. Both voters appear to be religious advocates and live in a property owned by a religious organization in the 79904 zip code area. The property is valued at over $3 million. The male voter was involved in the benefits for partners controversy in El Paso in 2011.
Voter Number 5 is a 25-year-old El Paso police officer who graduated the police academy in 2016. He has a dormant Twitter account (2015) to which he never posted anything to. He also has an old MySpace account that has no activity in it. He lives in the 79924 zip code area. He earns about $42,000.
There are two other voters in this household, the 28-year-old, who graduated from Andress, works at Walmart and only voted in 2008. There is also a 56-year-old female who voted in four out of the last five November elections, missing the election of 2014.
The house is owned by the 56-year-old female and is valued at about $110,430. It was purchased in 2000.
The police officer voter voted in the 2016 primary and in the 2012, 2014 and 2016 November elections.
Voter Number 6 is an 82-year-old female, who lives with her 85-year-old spouse. Their home, in the 79930 zip code area, is worth about $75,745. It was purchased in 1992.
She voted in all four primaries, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 and only the 2010 and 2012 November elections. The 85-year-old male voted only in the 2008 November election.
None of our sample has a criminal record and no bankruptcies or other civil records appeared on their profiles. None have active social media footprints.
On Monday, I’ll share with you the results of my analysis of the voters that cast votes in the last five November elections and share with you an analysis that demonstrates that a low-funded, lone-horse candidate can mobilize enough unexpected voters to force a run-off in the Chavez-Escobar-Fenenbock race, contradicting the assumed results.
