Indianapolis Mayor Ballard Ignores Former Tea Party Supporters, Endorses Lugar in Race Against Mourdock

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

Given he has governed as a RINO, I guess we shouldn't be surprised by Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard endorsing RINO Sen. Richard Lugar.  Still it is noteworth that Ballard actually began his political career as part of the movement that is now known as the Tea Party, a movement which strongly opposes Lugar and supports State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Ballard has completed the sell out of those folks.  From Senator Lugar's press release announcing the endorsement.

INDIANAPOLIS (Jan. 23, 2012) - Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard this weekend endorsed U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) in his bid for re-election. Ballard made his endorsement official Saturday when introducing Lugar at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner in Wayne Township on Marion County's Westside.

"President Reagan said, 'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they have made a difference in the world, but the Marines don't have that problem,'" Ballard said. "Everyone knows I'm a Marine. But we have with us tonight a Navy man who doesn't have to wonder if he's made a difference in the world. He is making an incredible difference. That man is Dick Lugar." 

Ballard said Lugar's leadership and vision on the local, state and national level have always been "decades ahead of its time."

To see the rest of the press release, click here.

I guess next we can expect Mayor Ballard will endorse Mitt Romney.

What the Melina Kennedy Campaign Could Have Done Differently to Win the Election

The re-election of Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard was not inevitable by any stretch of the imagination.  At the end of the campaign, only 51% of the people voted for his re-election, hardly an overwhelming mandate.  The Ballard campaign was mediocre at best.  It lacked a consistency and a message.   The Ballard campaign was defensive and let the opponent define the terms of the election. Still, even though challenger Melina Kennedy had a weak opponent and plenty of ammunition to use, her campaign chose not to fire that ammunition and to instead fight the election on grounds on which Ballard could actually win.

Challenger Melina Kennedy

What could Kennedy have done differently?  Well let's start with the candidate.  Kennedy is a smart, attractive candidate.  But she's also an attorney from a big downtown law firm, an insider who had served as a Deputy Mayor in the Peterson administration.  Ballard had spent four years governing as an insider, establishment Mayor.  In a populist climate that produced both the right-wing Tea Party and the left-wing Occupy Wall Street movements, the Democrats would have been wise to have nominated an outsider, someone who had better appeal to every day working men and women angry about government handing out tax dollars to wealthy corporations.  That person would have drawn support from both Democrats and Republicans.

But while Kennedy was not the perfect candidate for the times, she still could have won, and easily so.  Let's re-examine the strategy her campaign used, starting first with the primary.

The importance of money to political campaigns is often misunderstood.  The media focuses simply on how much money is raised and how much is left.  But the HOW AND WHEN MONEY IS SPENT is every bit as important as total dollar amounts.

Campaigns have "windows" during which voters are paying attention.  Contrary to what some people think, primary competition is not always a bad thing and spending money in a primary is not always bad.  A primary, especially a primary with competition, is a window when voters are paying attention and learning more about the candidates.  With two opponents in the primary, both of whom had some name ID but lacked the resources to compete, Kennedy had the perfect situation.  She should have spent money in the primary window running strictly positive ads about herself, defiing herself without any interference by the Republicans.  By the time, the primary was over, voters would have thought her to be a terrific candidate and made it easier for her to later run "negative" ads without her being defined as negatively as she was.

Kennedy's not spending money in the primary might have seemed smart. But it wasn't.  Spending that money leading up to the primary would have been a great investment for the general election.

Mayor Greg Ballard

In the general election cycle, Kennedy should have started out positive, reminding voters of how great she is, as established in the primary cycle.  During that general election initial positive stage, she should set out her agenda of what she wants to do if elected, with maybe three bulletin points, and more detail available for those seeking it.

After that initial general election positive stage, she should have gone after Ballard on specific issues.  Don't let anyone say otherwise, a challenger who does not criticize an incumbent, especially an incumbent Mayor, has no chance of winning.  Elections involving an incumbent are a referendum on the incumbent.  A challenger does not beat an incumbent unless he or she says why the incumbent should not be re-elected. 

How should Kennedy have gone about picking issues to address?  The campaign at this stage should have hired a media or public relations outlet that empaneled a focus group.   A focus group is a group of maybe 15-20 individuals picked at random from the overall electorate.  The focus group would include Democrats, Republicans, and independents, men and women, people of all races/ethnicities and ages.  The media outlet first asks the focus group both direct and open-ended questions about the perception of the Mayor and his challenger.

Why do that?  It's because any message works better if it fits into a pre-existing perception about the candidate.  For example, there is a pre-existing belief that Ballard is a "nice guy."  While some people who have worked with Ballard suggest otherwise, a challenger is not going to be able to use a message the acceptance of which depends on the conclusion that Ballard is not a "nice guy."  It's hard-wired into the electorate that Ballard is a nice and sincere man.

The focus group, however, would have revealed pre-existing beliefs about Ballard that opened up avenues to attack.  For example, before the election, I doubt the focus group would have called Ballard a "strong leader" and likely would have agreed with the statement that he is too influenced both those people around him.  That could have been a theme that Kennedy played on when it came to selecting specific issues for telling voters why Ballard should not be re-elected.

The focus group members should have also been asked their opinion on specific issues.  My guess is almost the entire focus group would have been against the Mayor's decision to give the Pacers $33.5 million and would have been pretty animated in their feelings. To only a slightly lesser degree, I think the 50 year parking meter contract would have been an issued that stirred opposition from the focus group, especially when told (the truth) that 70% of the parking meter revenue over the next 50 years is going to a Texas company.  Same too with respect to the Broad Ripple parking garage, which taxpayers pay to build and is given away to Keystone Construction.  Finally, the CIB actual and proposed tax increases too would have raised people's ire in the focus group (Ballard proposed increasing the alcohol tax, the food and beverage tax, the rental car tax, the hotel tax, the ticket tax), especially if raised in a specific fashion and tied to more tax dollars given to professional sports.

All these issues relate to the specific theme, i.e. that Ballard is a weak leader who is manipulated by people around him.  You don't want to make the argument that Ballard is a bad guy - people refuse to believe that - but rather that he is a guy overwhelmed by the job and is dominated by people around him.  You contrast that with Kennedy, making her to appear to be someone smart and in control, someone who is willing to say "no" to the insider fat cats who dominate the Ballard administration.

At the "negative" stage, Kennedy never developed a message that fit into a pre-existing view about Ballard.  She never went after the leadership issue.  The issues involving corporate welfare which would have most moved the focus group against Ballard, went untouched by Kennedy, probably because she really isn't that against what Ballard did.  It could have also been because of WHO Kennedy received campaign contributions from.  A perfect example is the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars she received from the Simons family.  Is that money really worth it if because of it she has to take one of her best issues - the Pacer $33.5 million taxpayer gift - off the table?

Kennedy finished the final days of the campaign as she should have, with a positive message about her.  But by that time, the election was over.  She had not defined herself or Ballard.

Neither the Kennedy or Ballard campaigns had a coherent, overall campaign strategy.  That mystifies me.  These campaigns spent several million dollars yet they didn't seem to follow market-based, campaign strategies that are well-known to people in the industry.

What Mayor's Race is the Indianapolis Star Watching?; Star Falsely Suggests Kennedy Has Raised Corporate Welfare As Campaign Issue

On the front of the Metro+State section today is a summary of the candidate's positions on the issues "compiled" by the Indianapolis Star writers Jon Murray and Chris Sikich.  I assume "compiled" doesn't mean the same thing as "written" so I won't blame them for the questionable summary of the issue of Spending":

"Ballard has reigned in spending on the annual budget and found creative ways to add revenue through the sale of the city's utilities and the privatization of its parking meters.  Kennedy has taken aim at the mayor for providing the Indiana Pacers financial assistance to help operate Conseco Fieldhouse, for privatizing the parking meters and for taking money from a special taxing district Downtown to balance the 2012 city budget."

There are so many problems with this summary, it is difficult to know where to start.  The claim that Ballard "reigned in spending" is questionable, especially given his increased sports subsidies and other giveaways.  But as far as adding "revenue" through the sale of the city's utilities, that's not "revenue."  It is a one time payment from Citizen's Energy.  Further, since Citizen's Energy is a public entity WE own, that one time payment, financed by Citizen's Energy with a 30 year loan, is money WE have to pay back.  Of course, that is a fact the Star, most notably columnist Matthew Tully, never bothers to mention.

Oh, and the privatization of the parking meters.  "Creative?"  Are you kidding?  In exchange for a $20 million one time payment and an $8 million investment in new meters, ACS is getting 70% of the revenue stream from the meters for the next 50 years. Of course, the City could have bought the meters and kept 100% of the revenue for the next 50 years.  The parking meter privatization actually costs the city revenue from the meters.  Oh, and let's not forget that the Mayor's top lawyer, Joe Loftus, lobbies for ACS, another fact the Star never bothers to mention.  The only "creative" thing about the parking meters privatization was the creative lies used it to sell it to councilors.

Now let's turn to what the Star described as Kennedy's position on spending issues.  The Star claims Kennedy has "taken aim" at the Pacer $33.5 million subsidy?  Really?  In what ad has she made that an issue?  Speaking of which, in what ad has Kennedy every raised the parking meter privatization issue?   I think possibly Ballard's raiding of the downtown TIF to balance the budget (which apparently the Star thinks is "creative") was raised by Kennedy in an ad, but it was at best a passing reference only.

The summary suggests Kennedy has taken on Ballard's support of corporate welfare measures, in particular two of the most unpopular, the Pacer $33.5 million gift and the ACS 50 year parking meter contract.  Kennedy might have briefly mentioned those topics to a Star reporter or in a debate, but unless she is willing to spend money to raise those issues in a 30 second television spot, that opposition won't even register on the public's radar of what issues to consider when voting for Mayor next Tuesday.

Indianapolis Mayoral Race: The 2007 WTHR Poll v. The 2011 WISH Poll

The blogosphere has been filled with comparisons between the 2007 WTHR Indianapolis Mayoral Poll and the 2011 WISH poll on that same subject.  Democrats have been pointing out similarities between the two polls while Republicans accuse the Democrats of spin.  Where is the truth?  As oe might expect, somewhere in between.

Let's take a look at the two polls.

2007 WTHR POLL v. 2011 WISH POLL

TIMING


Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

WTHR Poll.  Was conducted between 10/21 and 10/24 with the election on 11/6. 

WISH Poll.  Conducted about a week later in the campaign season, between 10/29 and 10/31 with the election being on 11/8.

****

SAMPLE SIZE AND MARGIN OF ERROR

Both sample sizes were about the same, with identical 4.9% margins of error.

****

UNDECIDED VOTERS

WTHR Poll:  13%

WISH Poll:  22%

****


JOB APPROVAL

WTHR Poll:  50% for Peterson

WISH Poll:   62% for Ballard (poll also asked additional similar questions such as whether the Mayor was viewed favorably (65%) and whether City was moving in right direction (55%).

****

POLLING NUMBERS v. FINAL RESULT

WTHR Poll:  Bart Peterson 43, Ballard 39, Fred Peterson (L) 5
Final Result:  Ballard 50.4, Bart Peterson 47.2, Fred Peterson 2.3

WISH Poll:  Ballard 44, Kennedy 33, Bowen 2
Final Result:  ?????

ANALYSIS

Undecided Vote:  What seems to have happened in the 2007 election is that the 4% of the 13% undecided vote in the 2007 poll ended up going to incumbent Bart Peterson while Ballard picked up 9%.  Thus the ratio of undecideds going to the challenger v. incumbent in 2007 was just over 2-1, right in the ballpark of what normally happens.  What the difference from the poll and the election was that 3% of the 5% Libertarian support in the poll seems to have gone to Ballard on Election Day.  That's not particularly surprising as many Libertarians reported abandoning Fred Peterson as a candidate and supporting Ballard, who openly courted Libertarians.  In fact, that 3% Libertarian support for Ballard made up almost the entire winning margin.  In 2011, if there is a similar 2-1 break on the undecideds, then Ballard receives 51% on Election Day and Kennedy receives 47%, almost a duplicate of the 2007 election result.

Favorable Rating of Incumbents:  This is pointed to as a difference between 2007 and 2011, namely that in 2007 Peterson was unpopular and people were unhappy with the direction of the City, while in 2011 Ballard is popular and people are happy with the direction oft he City.  While there is some truth to that, it appears to be exaggerated.  See below Job Approval and Right Track/Wrong Track discussions.


Melina Kennedy

Job Approval:  In 2007, the WTHR poll asked about Peterson's job approval. It came back at 50%.  In 2011, a job approval question was asked about Ballard and the result was 62%.  (The WISH poll has a question as to whether Ballard is viewed "favorably," a question I didn't see in the 2007 poll.  That 4% difference could be viewed as people personally liking Ballard while not being happy with his job performance.)  The difference between 50% and 62% is not huge, though I would point out in a bid for undecided voters a slight difference might be all that matters.

Right Track/Wrong Track:  What I did not see in the reporting of the 2007 poll was a right/wrong track question.  Pundits are claiming that in 2007 things were seen as being on the wrong track while now it is on the "right track."  But the 2011 right track poll numbers was only 55%.  Since Peterson received 50% approval rating, and voters were personally angry about him over tax increases, I think it quite possible that a 2007 right track number could well have matched the 2011 one of 55%.  While I originally thought this was a major difference between 2007 and 2011, and possibly a reason Ballard might do better than losing the undecided voters 2-1, I'm now convinced the difference between the two election years has been exaggerated.

The Negative Campaign:  Kennedy has been criticized as running a negative campaign.  Many people point to that as the reason she's behind in the WISH Poll.  But the fact is in the WISH Poll only 10% of the people cited a dislike for Kennedy as a reason for saying they were voting for Ballard, while 11% of the people cite being against Ballard as a reason for their preferring Kennedy.

Basically, in a two way race involving an incumbent, there are four ways of voting:  voting for the incumbent; voting against the incumbent; voting for the challenger; and voting against the challenger  Challenger Kennedy simply cannot win by only saying why people should vote for her.  An incumbent election is a referendum election. She has to say why people should not vote for Ballard.  Kennedy's problem thus far is that she failed to be specific enough in making the case against Ballard. 

Turnout:  Ed Treacy may be a complete failure when it comes to PR, however, he receives an "A" when it comes to turnout.  Treacy wasn't chairman in 2007.  I would give the Democrats a 5% election day advantage just because Treacy is such a master at turnout. 

Republicans would be foolish to expect a 2007 style turnout, where significant numbers of Democrats stay home and Republicans go to the polls.  That unusual 2007 turnout is the reason why the Republcians won the council.  Democrats are going to turn out in much better numbers in 2007. While it is quite possible Ballard wins, he is unlikely to have much if any coattails.  There will be ballots all over the county where the voter casts a vote for Ballard and for Democratic council candidates.  The at-large races are "default" races, races where people fall back on voting their party because they really don't know the candidates.  While large expenditures that candidates such Angel Rivera are making can influence those races, it is typically an influence of only a few points at best. The numbers are the numbers.  With Marion County Democrats having a 10% advantage in 2010, a great Republican year and 20% in 2008 which was not a great Republican year, I'd be shocked if any Republican at-large candidates win.    But Ballard, as a high profile candidate, could beat the Democratic baseline.

WISH Poll Oddities:  There were things about the WISH poll that seemed rather odd.  Although the 2011 WISH poll was conducted nearly a week later into the campaign season than the 2007 WTHR poll, the number of undecideds was significantly higher in the WISH poll versus the WTHR poll, 22% to 13%. Given the poll is a week later and given that challenger Ballard was a complete unknown in 2007, while challenger Kennedy ran a high profile, well-financed race for prosecutor in 2006, one would think the number of undecided voters at this stage would be smaller than the number in 2007.

Another thing that is odd is that even though Ballard has a 62% approval rating, his poll number was only 44%.  That is an 18% difference.  In the 2007 poll, Peterson's approval rating was 50% and his poll number was 43%, only 7% difference.  Given Ballard's approval rating, one has to be stumped why he isn't polling higher.

Also, it is hard not to overlook that 44% number in the WISH Poll.   Any time an incumbent polls under 50%, that is considered to be a sign the incumbent's campaign is considered to be on life support. Ballard is not only below 50%, he is significantly under that magic number.   Normally incumbents below 50% are that low because they are unpopular, which is why the challenger normally picks up most of the undecided voters.  While normally I think it would be extremely difficult for an incumbent to gain 6% of the undecideds, the fact is there are so many undecided voters according to the WISH poll and since Kennedy has not made a strong case against Ballard, I think it is possible that the undecided voters will break enough for Ballard to win the election.  A 50-50 split of the undecided voters is an Abdul pipe dream.  A 2-1 split in favor of Kennedy is more likely and that split would make Ballard the winner of a close election.

Last Four Days of Campaign:  Kennedy has four days to do a lot of work.   The problem is she did not complete the task of defining Ballard,  i.e. making the case for why Ballard should not be re-elected.   I have been preaching for awhile that Kennedy needs to be specific in her ads.  Instead of making general allegations about sweetheart contracts, she needs to go after Ballard for the Pacers $33.5 million giveaway, the ACS 50 year parking meter contract, the Broad Ripple Parking Garage giveaway, the $100 North of South project.  The problem is that defining one's opponent has to be done early enough in the campaign so the campaign can double back to positive ads for the last few days.  I am skeptical Kennedy has the time to do that.  I do believe though the election for Mayor is going to be much, much closer than people have been led to believe by the media coverage of the WISH poll.

Here is a link to the WTHR story on the 2007 polling result and a link to more specifics on the poll.  Here is a link to the WISH story on the 2011 poll.

The WISH-TV Poll and Why Republicans Should Fear that 21% Undecided Number

Too often the media treat election polls as a way of measuring the score of the political game, with the focus being on the spread between the candidates.   When the media begins to look at other aspects of the poll, focus is often switched to the margin of error which reporters inevitably get wrong.  A 5% MOE means that either candidate's polling number can be off 5%.  Thus a candidate would have to have more than a 10 point lead to be outside the margin of error if the MOE is 5%.

In the poll at hand, what is surprising is not so much the 11 point lead, but that Ballard is well below 50% at 44% and an incredible 21% of the electorate is undecided.  In a race involving an incumbent, undecided voters almost always break heavily for the challenger.  If the undecided voters break 75% to 25% for the challenger Melina Kennedy (which is actually a fairly conservative estimate given what happens in other incumbent elections), then the race is 49.25% to 48.75% in favor of Ballard.

I read a number of articles discussing how undecideds break in incumbent elections, all which confirmed this phenomenon.  Here is a snippet of one of the reports:

In races involving incumbents, most "undecided" voters usually break strongly in favor of the challenger. This is because most incumbents begin the election campaign with nearly universal name recognition, while challengers lag behind primarily because voters simply don't know who they are or what they stand for. Additionally, if a high negative rating is present, that is a clear sign that the incumbent has limited upward mobility. Therefore, the "undecided" column is generally comprised of voters who have reservations about the incumbent, but don't have enough information about the challenger to comfortably commit their support. An incumbent who is running under 50% is always vulnerable, even if he holds a 12-point lead.



Melina Kennedy

Most sophisticated political observers understand this dynamic, but there are still plenty of hacks in the media who don't. Rather than giving poll results their proper interpretation, too many reporters and news outlets continue to report them like football scores -- placing all the emphasis on the size of the "point-spread." This is particularly true among media outlets that do not subscribe to polls and do not have access to a professional analysis and interpretation of survey results. Too cheap to pay for the information, these news organizations rely on second-hand sources (condensed wire service accounts and campaign operatives) to acquire partial top-line numbers and report the "score." In a situation where an incumbent leads 48%-36% a week before an election, it is not uncommon for the challenger to eventually win 51%-49%. Still, the headline or lead story will scream "Governor Jones leads by 12-points in re-election bid."

...

The most famous study of this phenomenon was included in an article written by Nick Panagakis, a member of the National Council on Public Polls, which article appeared in the February 27, 1989 edition of The Polling Report:

How will undecideds vote on election day? Traditionally, there have been two schools of thought about how undecideds in trial heat match-ups will divide up at the ballot box. One is that they will break equally; the other, that they will split in proportion to poll respondents who stated a candidate preference.

But our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

The 155 polls we collected and analyzed were the final polls conducted in each particular race; most were completed within two weeks of election day. They cover both general and primary elections, and Democratic and Republican incumbents. They are predominantly from statewide races, with a few U.S. House, mayoral and countywide contests thrown in. Most are from the 1986 and 1988 elections, although a few stretch back to the 1970s.

...
In 127 cases out of 155, most or all of the undecideds went for the challenger:

DISPOSITION OF UNDECIDED VOTERS

•Most to challenger....127

•Split equally.................9

•Most to incumbent.....19

Mayor Greg Ballard

The fact that challengers received a majority of the undecided vote in 82% of the cases studied proves that undecideds do not split proportionally. If there were a tendency for them to split proportionally we would see most undecided voters moving to incumbents, since incumbents win most elections. Similarly, even accounting for sample error, it's clear from the chart above that undecideds do not split equally.

For poll users and reporters this phenomenon, which we call the Incumbent Rule, means: Incumbent races should not be characterized in terms of point spread. If a poll shows one candidate leading 50% to 40%, with 10% undecided, a 10-point spread will occur on election day only if undecideds split equally (i.e. a 55% to 45% outcome). Since most of the 10 points in the undecided category are likely to go to the challenger, polls are a lot closer than they look.  50% to 40% is likely to become 52% to 48%, on election day. If a poll is a mirror of public opinion, think of an incumbent poll as one in which objects are closer than they appear. (Emphasis added.()

An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing. Final polls showing losing incumbents ahead are accurate. The important question is whether results are reported with an understanding of how undecideds decide. (My emphasis.)

...

Why do undecided voters decide in favor of challengers? It seems that undecided voters are not literally undecided, not straddling the fence unable to make a choice ? the traditional interpretation. An early decision to vote for the incumbent is easier because voters know incumbents best. It helps to think of undecided voters as undecided about the incumbent, as voters who question the incumbent's performance in office. Most or all voters having trouble with this decision appear to end up deciding against the incumbent.

The exceptions we found to the Incumbent Rule help support the theory on why this happens.

Many challengers who did not get a majority of undecideds were recent or current holders of an office equal to the one they were seeking. Voters were equally or more familiar with the challenger's past performance in a similar office, so the challenger assumed incumbent characteristics. Other exceptions include well-known challengers or short-term incumbents.

There is an interesting pattern in the polls where most undecideds voted for challengers. In 98 of the 127 cases (77%), the incumbents' final polls standing was plus or minus four percentage points from the actual election result. The most frequent result was two points gained by the incumbent over the final poll preferences -- 24 cases in all.

In 41 cases, or 32% of the 127, the incumbent ended with less than his stated poll percentage. This means that about one in four of all 155 polls actually overstated the incumbent's percentage.

Of the 127 challengers who gained more undecideds than did incumbents on election day, 78 gained 10 or more points over their stated poll percentage.

Making allowances for factors stated above, most polls appear to estimate support for the incumbent. All or most undecideds end up with the challenger regardless of the size of the undecideds.

...
The overwhelming evidence is that an incumbent won't share the undecideds equally with the challenger. To suggest otherwise by emphasizing point spread or to say that an incumbent is ahead when his or her percentage is well under 50% leads to election day surprises.

While a strong majority of the 21% undecided voters should go to Kennedy, one thing that militates against that movement is the fact Ballard does not have high negatives.  It is very unusual that you see a poll in which an incumbent doesn't have high negatives, is said to be doing a good job, yet is well below 50%.  So while most incumbents are topped out in their support by negatives, in this case Ballard actually does have some room to add undecided voters.

This points to the validity of my view that, contrary to the claim Kennedy has been too negative, rather the challenger has been not nearly aggressive enough in going after Ballard and driving up his negatives.  In particular, Kennedy should have hit Ballard on specific issues where he has taken very unpopular positions such as the Pacer multi-million dollar taxpayer giveaway and the 50 year ACS parking meter contract.  The problem for Kennedy is that political strategy dictates that you define your opponent early, topping out his support, then you finish the campaign with a positive message to sweep up the undecideds.  That is a lot of work for Kennedy to do with not much time left on the campaign clock.

WISH-TV Poll Shows Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard Up 44% to 33% Over Melina Kennedy; 21% are Undecided

WISH-TV reports that Mayor Ballard is leading in the Indianapolis Mayor's race 44% to 33%. The most astonishing thing about the poll is that 21% of the voters reported being undecided, which is extremely unusual this late in the game and especially when there is an incumbent.  I'd be curious to know how many of that 21% are African-American voters.  One thing I saw from polls in my northwest Indianapolis house race in 2000 is that African-Americans poll as independents or "undecided" but when they vote, they vote heavily Democratic despite what they tell posters.

The poll of 400 voters has a margin of error of 4.9%.  The 11 point lead is just over a point outside the margin of error.  This is often misreported by the media.   The MOE refers to error on either side of the numbers, so the race is in favor of Ballard anywhere from 49-28 to 39-38 (rounding off 4.9% to 5%.)

Another interesting feature of the poll is that it showed early voters heavily favored Kennedy.  The Democrats under Marion County Chairman excel at turnout.  I would give the Democrats a 5 point edge just on the ability to turn out voters.

An election featuring an incumbent Mayor, is a referendum on that Mayor.  When details of the poll were reviewed, it is clear that one area Melina Kennedy has failed thus far is linking the Mayor to his unpopular policies.  I believe Kennedy made a mistake in failing to raise such things as the Pacers multi million dollar giveaway, the 50 year parking meter contract and the Mayor's overseas junkets. She needed to be specific about those things Ballard has supported that make voters angry when you raise them.  Instead Kennedy has pulled punches, only willing to criticize Ballard in a general manner on that front.   Undoubtedly the reason why is Kennedy is part of that insider establishment that has benefited from Indianapolis corporate welfare culture and she doesn't want to alienate that establishment should she win.  

Time is extremely short.  If Kennedy wants to be Mayor Kennedy, she needs to make clear to voters that Ballard has run the city as a card-carrying member of the establishment and she will be a different type of Mayor, someone who puts the people instead of the insiders first.  There is not much time left to make that case.

Can a Re-Elected Mayor Ballard Work With a Significant Democratic Majority on the Indianapolis City-County Council?

Working with Democrats is not something Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard has excelled at during his four years.  A Republican legislator told me the story how early on he had advised Ballard that, in order to get his agenda through the General Assembly, Ballard should have personal meeting siwth the then majority Democratic leadership in the House, especially House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Crawford.  Later that legislator asked Ballard if he had met with Crawford.  Ballard responded that his advisers who had told him not to have the meeting.  The legislator was dumbfounded.  Ballard did not seem to understand the importance of working with Democrats, especially since they had a majority in the House and controlled the committees.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

During his first term, Mayor Ballard's initiatives have passed the Indianapolis City-County Council due to advisers and council leadership arm twisting any Republican councilors who balked at supporting the Mayor's initiatives.  The Republican council caucus has been remarkably cohesive, even though some of the votes - such as the CIB tax increase, parking meter deal, and Pacer giveaway - surely caused some Republican councilors to hold their noses while voting.  Still, when a Republican would defect, Ballard was always able to pick up a Democratic vote or two to offset the defection. 

Democratic councilors report to me that Mayor Ballard has made no attempt to build relationships with them during the past four years. There is no communication between Ballard and Democratic councilors.  The only exception appears to be Democratic councilor Jackie Nytes who is not running for re-election.

If Ballard is indeed re-elected, it is almost certain he will face a strong Democratic majority on the council.  It's unlikely the 2007 turnout will be duplicated, a turnout which allowed three Republican at-large candidates to win. The Democrats should sweep those four seats.  That alone gives the Democrats a 16-13 majority. Then you have three Republican councilors - McHenry, Scales and McQuillen - in Democratic majority seats.  (McHenry's seat, in particular, is now more than 60% Democrat.)  It's not a stretch to say that 2 of those 3 will probably lose.  That would make it 18-11.  Then you have Republicans like Council President Ryan Vaughn, Susie Day, Ben Hunter and Marilyn Pfisterer who are all in competitive districts and could lose.

Meanwhile the Republicans have a shot at only one Democrat, Dane Mahern, who is in a marginally Republican district on the near south side of Indianapolis.

If the Democrats were to take out Vaughn, Day, Hunter or Pfisterer, it's possible that the Democrats could have a veto-proof majority on the council.  While it is unlikely the Democrats will get to 20 seats for that to happen, it is certainly possible.

If Mayor Ballard runs ahead of the county's Republican baseline vote, which I expect at this point, he could end up being re-elected with a strong Democratic majority on the council.   How would a Mayor Ballard deal with the Council Democrats?    Can Ballard change spots and become the type of politician who can work across the aisle to put together bipartisan coalitions for his agenda?   Or would Ballard use executive orders and entities like the Metropolitan Development Commission to work around the Council? 

I have not seen much to suggest that Ballard has the personality to schmooze councilors on the other side of the political aisle.   I am afraid if divided government is the result of next week's election, we will see more policy and projects bypassing the purview of our elected council.    It is a dangerous trend that is certainly not confined to Indianapolis municipal government.

The Tea Party, the Occupy Crowd, and the Indianapolis Mayor's Race

With a complete lack of independent polling, both campaigns are pointing to results showing their candidate ahead.  Mayor Greg Ballard claims to be in the lead by 12 points in a GOP poll and Melina Kennedy by 2 points in a Democratic poll.  While both campaigns say the polling is recent, the poll results sound exactly like those the parties were touting some five weeks ago. 

Frankly, I don't buy either camp's claim.   Most likely the campaigns at this point are just doing tracking polling which, while good at showing how candidates are trending, are not good at predicting the result on election day.   I would guess though that the race is likely to be very close.   The irony is that it did not have to be.

As we count down to the election, we are witness to tea party and occupy movements all across the country.  While seemingly different, they are are both rooted in a growing populist movement which gains more influence in the major parties every day.  People on the left and right are tired of elected officials using the tools of government to make their rich friends richer.

Ballard may well have been the first tea party candidate.  But having won in 2007, Ballard immediately rejected his populist roots and became the consummate insider or at least someone willing to take orders, without question, from insiders. His opponent, Melina Kennedy, has been willing to stick a proverbial toe in the populist political pool, but little more than that.

Both Ballard and Kennedy seem oblivious to the growing anger working men and women have toward their government officials and the fortunes being amassed by those in the private sector at the expense of taxpayers.  Ballard could have spent his time in office tapping into that populist angst, leading a movement against the establishment policies of his predecessors.  If Ballard would have taken that course, he would face only token opposition in next week's election instead of an extremely well-funded, high profile opponent.

With Ballard absenting himself from the populist movement, the field was wide open for a Democrat  to swoop in and take advantage of the populist angst as reflected in the tea party and occupy movements.   If Kennedy would have ran as a populist, Ballard's chances of a second term would have been slim and none.  But Kennedy's roots and inclinations are also with the establishment. 

Thus, in the race for Mayor we are left with two establishment candidates who do not appear to understand the angst of the average Indianapolis voter who see their tax dollars continually handed out to the downtown elites and corporate insiders, money that liberal populists would like to see go to schools, libraries, public transportation, etc. while conservative populists would like to see remain in the pockets of the taxpayers.

Yes, next week's election will probably be close. But it didn't have to be.

Why I Think The Polls Show Indianapolis Voters Are Trending to Kennedy

There has been no independent polling done in the Indianapolis Mayor's race and there probably won't be any before the November 8, 2011 election.  That is probably because of the high cost of polling and the fact that newspaper outlets like the Indianapolis Star are struggling financially and simply do not have the money to pay for a poll.  It has also become increasingly difficult to conduct scientific polls in an age where people no longer have cell phones and caller ID and voice mean people don't pick up the phone unless they know the caller.

Campaigns though have to do tracking polling in order to gauge what message is working.  Tracking polls, which only poll a few people every day with older results rolling off the poll, are not designed to give an accurate big picture of the race, but rather are done for the purpose of showing what message is moving (or not moving) the electorate.

Since we do not have access to these campaigns' internal polls, I can only guess where things are heading.  There are two reasons I think things are heading in challenger Melina Kennedy's direction.

First, the commercials the candidates are running have changed.  Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is running a sharply negative commercial on challenger Melina Kennedy, while Kennedy has a new commercial out that is a 100% positive piece.  The fact Ballard has gone negative signifies to me that Kennedy's attacks on Mayor Ballard's record has caused the Mayor's numbers to fall.    The fact Kennedy has gone back positive to me signifies she in the last stage of the classic positive-negative-positive challenger campaign strategy.

Second, as noted in the story below, Kennedy's post-election report fundraising has taken off, far outpacing the Mayor's. Kennedy's contributors are movers and shakers in the City who have decided to place a bet on the challenger.  Many of those people have access to inside information such as the tracking polls of the campaigns and they are betting on Kennedy.

Then again, I could be wrong and Ballard might be comfortably ahead.

Indianapolis Power Brokers Begin to Bet Heavily on Melina Kennedy to Win; Challenger Outraises Mayor Ballard $204,000 to $76,263 in Large Contributions Reported in Last 11 Days

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

Melina Kennedy

Under Indiana law, candidates receiving large contributions ($1,000 or more) after the deadline for pre-general election reports (25 days before the election), have to report those contributions in a supplemental-large contribution report within 48 hours.   These last minute, large contributions are usually the power brokers in the City trying to "bet" on the winner.  

A review of supplemental reports reveal that the big bets are starting to go to Melina Kennedy.  Since October 18th, Kennedy has outraised Ballard in large contributions, $204,000 to $76,263.  That is about a 2 1/2 to one advantage. In the reports filed in the last four days it is even more significant.  In the reports filed 10/26 to 10/29, Kennedy reported raising $156,500 in large contributions while Ballard reported $46,263.

Here is an itemization of those reports, including in parenthesis the largest contribution for that period when it is significantly large:

Kennedy
10/28:  $81,500 total (including $30,000 from John Gregg for Governor Committee and $25,000 from the Victory 2011 PAC)

10/26  $75,000 (including $19,000 from Commit to Indianapolis PAC)

10/24:  $6,000

10/21:  $18,000

10/19:  $16,000 (including $15,000 from UAW Victory Fund)

10/18:  $1,000

Ballard
10/29:  $6,000

10/28:  $12,000

10/27:  $8,263

10/26:  $20,000

10/25:  $4,000

10/22:  $16,000

10/20:  $8,000

10/18:  2,000

Former Lt. Governor John Mutz Ignores Reality, Cites Mayor Ballard's "Courageous Leadership" in Dealing With the Capital Improvement Board

Getting caught up on my reading after a busy week.  I picked up a copy of the October 24-30 edition of the Indianapolis Business Journal as I was intrigued by the on-line teaser that former Lt. Governor John Mutz had written that Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard had showed "courageous leadership" in how he handled the crisis with the Capital Improvement Board.

Former Lt. Governor John Mutz

Indeed that's what Mutz said in the article, believe it or not.  Here's a portion of the article:

There is no better example of courageous leadership in the past four years than Ballard's handling of the financial crisis facing the Capital Improvement Board....
...
This mayor, this Marine, didn't blink.  He didn't play the ever-popular political blame game.  Instead he resolved to protect the tens of thousands of jobs that exist because of the activities in these buildings.

Really, John?  As I recall, Mayor Ballard, who promised to avoid conflicts of interest , made one of his first appointments of Barnes & Thornburg Partner Bob Grand to preside over the CIB.  Grand represents the Pacers.  The Pacers demand for millions for operating costs was on the CIB's table almost from the beginning.

The CIB's mismanagement was and still is the stuff of legend.  Every week came changed number on the Board's financial situation.  When the CIB went hat in hand to the Indiana General Assembly for a bailout, the Board had included in the CIB's deficit an annual giveaway to the Pacers of $15 million...even though the CIB had never taken the first vote on the subject.  The Board is filled with appointees who have conflicts, people with direct and indirect financial interests in the activities of the CIB.

Mayor Ballard could have held the CIB accountable.  He could have demanded that the Board stop the creative accounting practices designed to make the CIB appear in the black or red depending on the CIB's particular political agenda of the moment. Ballard could have demanded that the CIB open its books and account for its mysteriously and constantly changing financial picture.  Ballard could have demanded that the CIB stop wasting taxpayer money and reign in the corporate welfare.  But what did Ballard do, what "courageous act" did he take to straighten out the CIB?  Ballard did nothing.  He asked for zero accountability, zero change in how the CIB conducted its business.

But that's not entirely true.  Ballard did do something. He came out for tax increases.  Lots of them.  Ballard came out for an increase in the Marion County food and beverage tax to go to the CIB from 2% to  2.5%.  Ballard wanted to increase the state liquor tax, a proposal that went nowhere.  Ballard successfully lobbied for the legislature to give the City the power to raise the hotel tax, the car rental tax and the ticket tax.  The Indianapolis City-County Council, with Ballard's people twisting Republican arms, used its authority to raise the hotel tax, giving us the highest combined sales and hotel tax in the country, not exactly a selling point for tourism.

Ballard originally asked that Colts and Pacers participate in the CIB bailout since it was their sweetheart deals that caused the CIB's financial difficulties. But at the first sign of the teams' opposition to any financial contribution, what did the "courageous" Ballard do?  He surrendered faster than a battallion of French soldiers facing a solitary Panzer tank. A year or so later, Ballard was, at the request of the CIB, making the Pacers' sweetheart deal even sweeter, agreeing to give the Pacers $10 million a year to operate a taxpayer-owned building for which the Pacers already gets to keep 100% of the Pacer and non-Pacer revenue on.  This was despite the fact the Pacers had no leverage whatsoever to leave the city.

Where did the revenue come for the Pacers gift which amounts to $33.5 million over three years?  Ballard diverted property tax revenue of average, hard-working Indy residents, struggling through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, to the billionaire Herb Simon, the owner of the Pacers.   Yes, our property taxes are being used by Ballard to fund the Pacers' operations. 

Thanks to the lockout by NBA owners, including the Pacers Herb Simon, more of the Pacers' season got cancelled tonight.  Has the "courageous" Ballard stood up and demand that Simon return our tax dollars the team is taking to not play at Conseco Fieldhouse?  Absolutely not.  Ballard's response is that the Pacers can keep OUR tax dollars.

I have only been able to barely scratch the horrific financial fiasco that is the CIB.  Ballard did not show "courage" in his handling of the CIB.  He showed a complete and utter lack of leadership.

Mayor Ballard Cites Failed Navistar Clawback as Evidence of Holding Companies Like Litebox Accountable for Tax Breaks

Listening to WIBC on the way home tonight, I heard Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard respond to the Litebox fiasco with assurances he would hold the company accountable for the jobs that were promised.  Ballard cited the example of his making a company pay back $5 million when it failed to live up to its job promises.

Mayor Greg Ballard

Ballard is talking about Navistar.  A decade or so ago, Navistar had received an $18 million abatement.  In 2009, the company laid off 1,000 employees. At that point Navistar clearly owed the City of Indianapolis $23 million under the contract.  In a bizarre move by City Legal, the case was settled for a mere $5 million.  City Legal Attorney Jonathan Mayes trotted out the bogus explanation that it was being settled for such a low amount to avoid legal costs.  Of course, City Legal's attorneys have fixed salaries and it was merely a contract interpretation matter, not one likely to result in years of litigation.   There simply was no reason for the City to give away $18 million of the $23 million it was owed.

But the story didn't end there.  In July 2011, Navistar offered to hire 250 more people and again asked for a tax abatement.  The City eagerly handed one over, even though the company had stiffed the City on $18 million in a previous deal.

If that is what Mayor Ballard thinks is holding a company accountable for not living up to job committments, Lord help us.

Tully Misses the Mark ... Again, Suggests Kennedy Follow Fool-Hardy Campaign Strategy

Indianapolis Star columnist Matthew Tully pens a column today suggesting that Melina Kennedy is doing something wrong by going negative, i.e. pointing out Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard's record.

Indianapolis Star Columnist
Matthew Tully

From a campaign perspective, Tully could not be more wrong.  It would have been extremely irresponsible of Kennedy to not point out why people shouldn't vote for Ballard. After all, the election is a referendum on Ballard. The problem is not that Kennedy has been "negative," the problem is she hasn't been nearly as aggressive as she should have been in attacking Ballard's record.  For example, Kennedy should be going after the parking meter deal, the Pacer deal, etc. Instead she only will address Ballard's persistent corporate welfare giveaways very generally.   Giving the populist, anti-corporate tide sweeping the country, Kennedy has (had?) a perfect opportunity to decry Ballard's turning over his administration to profiteers.

I don't like that term "negative" campaigning. It implies you're doing something wrong when you're doing what you're supposed to do as a candidate. The question is whether the attacks are accurate and whether personal issues are avoided.   For the most part, I think the overwhelming answer as to Kennedy's campaign is "yes." It's not like she pulled the stunt that was pulled on behalf of Kostas Poulakidas against Councilor Christine Scales, the fake postcard from Florida.  Now that is gutter politics.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised about Tully.  He has not uttered one words against the pay-to-play culture of Indianapolis politics and decries anyone who even raises the subject.  In his column he talks about how great deputy Mayor Mike Huber is.  Huber was the architect of one of the most lopsided deals in Indianapolis history, the parking meter contract which will result in the giving away of 70% of our parking revenue for the next 50 years.  Just because Huber is good at convincing councilors to sign off on sweetheart, corporate welfare deals that screw over taxpayers and mortgage the future of this City does not mean he warrants praise.  After all, wasn't Al Capone good at his job too?

If Kennedy loses it won't be because she went "negative" (like Ballard hasn't been negative?) but because she failed to be aggressive enough in pointing out how Ballard turned his back on the people and the populist values he campaigned on in 2007.

Thoughts on Last NIght's Mayoral Debate

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

Here are my thoughts after watching last night's mayoral debate on Channel 13 between Mayor Greg Ballard and Melina Kennedy:

• Anyone who says that Mayor Ballard won, either on substance or style, is wearing rose-colored glasses and not being objective. 
• Having said the above, if you factor in Mayor Ballard's much lower expectations (think of a golf handicap) then possibly you could judge the two candidate's performances as being even.
• Mayor Ballard does not respond well to criticism.    Whenever Kennedy threw out criticism Ballard immediately took the bait, addressing the negative without ever turning it back into a positive.
• I think the Kennedy campaign has made a mistake in not being more aggressive early on attacking Ballard's record.  He might well have had a meltdown.  Even though they haven't been very aggressive, Ballard seems all too willing to go on the defensive and let her criticism define the issues.
• Kennedy landed a blow when it came to tax and fee increases.  Ballard had the authority to say "no" and he never did.
• Regarding the former, Kennedy makes a mistake when she lets Ballard focus only on the business fee increases.  Ballard supported a hotel tax increase (giving us the combined highest hotel and sales tax in the country), a rental car tax increase, a ticket tax increase, an alcohol tax increase, an increase in the food and beverage tax and an extension of the wheel tax. 
• Kennedy mentioned the $33 million for the Pacers, I believe within the context of the priorities Mayor Ballard.  The comment got kind of buried.  She should emphasize that point more because the Mayor is extremely vulnerable on the issue of misplaced priorities.



Melina Kennedy

• The most blood of the night was drawn on an exchange about the parking meters.   Kennedy received a privatization question and used it to attack Mayor Ballard's ACS 50 year parking meter contract.  Ballard responded that people like the modernized meters and that, besides, we can get out of the contract every 10 years.  Kennedy correctly pointed out that the Early Termination provision in the contract is a farce, that the penalty to exercise it is so excessive that it can never be used.  (Actually the $20 million penalty is only one of the contractual conditions that make the Early Termination provision impossible to ever be exercised.) 
• It would have been great if Kennedy was able to also work in the figure 70%, as in the fact the City is giving away 70% of the revenue in the contract.  Also she should have called him out on Mayor's talking about modernization as justification for the 50 year contract.  The City could have purchased the meters ourselves for about $8 to $10 million and kept 100% of the revenue for the next 50 years.  Instead Ballard mortgaged the future of our city for a small upfront cash payment.
• Kennedy continued to pound the issue of education.  I am all for using the Mayor's bully pulpit to try to improve education, and in particular IPS, but I still think education is one of the Mayor's few strong areas.  I can only assume there is polling supporting this line of attack.
• Mayor Ballard really waffled when it came to the question about the comprehensive smoking ban.  From listening to him, youwould have thought his position supporting what amounts to about a 99% ban isindefensible.  He offered to "compromise" on the issue.  Isn't a compromise on the smoking ban already in place?  What's wrong with letting a bar owner, where only adults are allowed in, decide whether to have smoking?  That's a solidly pro-freedom, Republican position.  Yet Ballard seems uncomfortable with it.

I have never seen a major election like this where there is absolutely no independent polling just a little over four weeks out.  My guess is a poll would probably show Mayor Ballard up by about 10 points, though that's strictly a guess.  I still think on Election Day Kennedy will win though I would increase Ballard's chances to getting close to 40%, up the 30% or so I previously pegged the odds at.   I just don't think the Democrats have defined Ballard as they should have given the ammunition he's given them over the past four years.   Marion County though is a solidly Democratic county, even more so than it was in 2007.  Even in 2010, a great Republican year, the baseline favored Democrats by 10 points.  It's hard not to give the edge to Kennedy, especially when considering that Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy is an expert when it comes to turnout.

About Those Indianapolis Mayoral Polls

A recent campaign poll showed Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard up 12 points. Melina Kennedy's campaign though recently released one suggesting she is up 2 points on the Mayor.

What's the difference?  There is a lot of focus on margin of error.  While that's too complicated to explain here, I would note that the larger the sample size the less the margin of error.  Also, the media misreports margin of error when they say a lead is outside or inside a margin of error.  Actually a 4 point margin of error means both candidates numbers can be off 4 points on either side. Thus there a candidate would need a 9 point lead to be outside a 4 point margin of error.

But the bigger error by far in these types of campaigns is the sample selected to poll.  If Democrats want a poll favorable to them, they poll more Democrats.  If Republicans want a poll favorable to them, they poll more Republicans.

WISH-TV reporter Jim Shella claims to have seen the two polls and provides some insight into the sample used in both polls:

 I was permitted to review both polls and found that the major difference, aside from the head to head numbers, is in the breakdown of Republican and Democratic voters in the polling samples. Democrats believe they have a 10 point advantage in terms of party identification by voters in Marion County. Republicans think the Democratic advantage is only 4 points.

So the poll showing Ballard ahead by 12 points only polled 4% more Democrats than Republicans, while the poll that showed Kennedy up by 2 points polled 10% more Democrats than Republicans.

In 2008, the baseline numbers in Marion County favored the Democrats 60-40, i.e. 20 points.  In 2010, the baseline numbers, in the midst of a huge Republican year, favored the Democrats 55-45.

Looking at those baseline numbers, I would have to question any poll that bases its sample on the Democrats only having a 4% advantage on registration in Marion County.  Obviously the edge is substantially bigger than that.  Even a 10% advantage estimate might be too low.

Mayor Ballard's Campaign Foolishly Attacks Melina Kennedy on Tax Issue, Opens Mayor Up to Challenge for His 140 Tax and Fee Increases

Further confirming the suspicion that the race has tightened, the campaign of Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard released a video attacking Melina Kennedy on taxes.


First, the Ballard campaign gets the facts wrong.  Kennedy was not Deputy Mayor when the county option in come tax was increased.  But besides getting the facts wrong, I have to question the boneheaded campaign strategy of Mayor Ballard attacking Kennedy on taxes when it is probably the single issue he is the most vulnerable on. During his term, Mayor Ballard has supported raising 140 taxes and fees and reneged on his campaign promise of repealing Mayor Peterson's 's county option income tax.

When the political wisdom of Ballard's tax/fee increased was questioned during his tenure, Ballard supporters assured doubters that come election voters will make distinctions between who pays certain taxes and that the fee increases were justified.  Of course campaigns, conducted in a sound bite atmosphere, do not allow time that sort of education of the voters.

Now that Ballard has set Kennedy up on the issue of taxes, expect her to spike the ball. I expect that Kennedy will release a powerful response ad blowing away Ballard on taxes.  I can imagine the ad now. The ad shows Ballard making a campaign promise to repeal the county option income tax.  The commentator notes that Ballard did not repeal the tax and instead support 140 tax/fee increases.  The ad freezes on Ballard ( an unflattering photo), while a list of the tax/fee increases scroll over Ballard's frozen face.  It would be a devastating spot.

The fiscal conservatives who worked for Candidate Ballard's election in 2007 have almost all long ago jumped off the Ballard bandwagon.  But the betrayal of fiscal conservative principles that caused those former supporters to stop supporting the Mayor is not yet well known to the average Marion County Republican voter.  Once Kennedy starts hammering on those issues near and dear to fiscal conservatives' hearts, including Ballard's tax/fee increases and endless giveaway of taxpayer dollars on corporate welfare schemes, the Mayor's support with Republicans begins to crumble.

Indeed it is with Republicans that Ballard is the most vulnerable.  The Mayor does not have a fiscally conservative record, not even close. If Kennedy makes that fact an issue in this campaign, Ballard's critical GOP base will begin to erode.  If on November 8th, 20% of the Republicans vote for Kennedy because of Ballard's liberal fiscal record, the Mayor will be seeking other employment come January 1st.

Democrats Release Poll Result Showing Melina Kennedy Overtaking Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

Melina Kennedy

Jon Murray of the Indianapolis Star reports:

The Marion County political parties have been keeping a lid on their ongoing polling results in the Indianapolis mayor’s race, but a new result today was too good for the Democratic Party to keep to itself. A “strategic memorandum” sent by Chairman Ed Treacy to the media (and presumably some party supporters, given the solicitation for donations at the end) touts the poll’s finding: Democratic challenger Melina Kennedy is at 40 percent support among likely voters, vs. 38 percent for Republican Mayor Greg Ballard and 21 percent undecided. Earlier today, during my interview with Treacy about another topic, the delivery of these results had made Treacy more confident than ever that Kennedy’s victory is all but certain.

But there are some important caveats to this poll: First, Treacy’s release doesn’t specify the margin of error, though surely it’s greater than the 2-percentage-point difference between Kennedy and Ballard. So the best that can be said is that Kennedy and Ballard are about even, by this poll’s finding. Also, this was a poll commissioned by the Marion County Democratic Party. It was conducted by Riggs Research Services locally; I know very little about the firm, which doesn’t seem to have much of a footprint on Google. Whether its polling has any bias, I don’t know — though Democrats say shop leader Jim Riggs’ polling was scarily accurate in many local races last year, in a few cases underestimating Democrats’ support in a few contests in his September 2010 survey. (Details of the mayoral poll: 403 likely voters were interviewed Tuesday and Wednesday. The party’s release did not provide information about party association of those polled but says the sample was geographically and demographically representative.)

To see the rest of Murray's piece, click here:

Marion County Republican County chairman Kyle Walker is quoted in the piece as saying that the Mayor has a "double digit" lead.  That too raises questions. There is a huge difference between 10% and 25%, yet both are "double digits."  So what does he mean by "double digits?"

My guess is the status of the race is somewhere in between where Walker and Treacy suggest it is.  One thing that makes me think the numbers have moved favorably for Kennedy is the thus far lack of aggressiveness of Kennedy in attacking Mayor Ballard's record, i.e. the so-called negative campaigning, a term I am not fond of in that context. Although Republicans leaders say Kennedy has been negative, the fact is she has barely scratched the surface of a compare and contrast campaign that one would think a challenger has to run against an incumbent mayor.  Kennedy seems to be coasting in her campaign, rather than scrambling trying to make up a huge deficit.  That spells trouble for Ballard.

I expect that the Mayor still has a lead, but that the lead has shrank.  If so, Kennedy will have achieved an advance on the Mayor while barely firing a shot. What happens when Kennedy brings out the big political guns, shooting the three plus years of ammunition Mayor Ballard has provided in supporting politically unpopular policies?

The State of the Indianapolis Mayor's Race

Events that happened just five days apart may prove to be the turning point in the Indianapolis Mayor's race.


Democratic Mayoral Candidate
Melina Kennedy

Last Thursday the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) endorsed Democratic mayoral candidate Melina Kennedy.   GOP spinmeisters like Abdul Hakim-Shabazz attempted to dismiss the vote as irrelevant, or even a positive development for the Mayor Greg Ballard.  The reasoning is that since the FOP voted to offer legal assistance to officer David Bisard accused of killing someone while driving drunk, the organization should not be taken seriously in its endorsement.

But in fact that same FOP endorsed 19 Republicans out of 26 council candidates.  That same FOP had a history of endorsing Republican candidates for mayor, including Greg Ballard in 2007.  Police officers tend to stick together and are very politically active.  When you count in their families and friends who are influenced by those police officers, they make up a significant voting group. 

Make no mistake, Ballard's loss of the FOP's endorsement is significant, a message that those police officers do not have confidence in his leadership and especially not that of his despised public safety director Frank Straub.  In about 48 hours, the Kennedy camp had turned the FOP endorsement into a nice commercial discussing public safety.

Over the weekend, Mayor Ballard was able to bask in the attention afforded 9/11 celebrations.  But by Monday, the Mayor and his Republican allies were back inflicting wounds on themselves.  This time the issue was popular early voting, in particular establishing satellite locations on the north and south sides of the city.

The Mayor had reversed positions, now opposing early voting at satellite locations.  But Ballard was content on letting County GOP Chairman Kyle Walker and GOP appointee to the Election Board, Patrick Dietrick take the heat for the unpopular position.  But Democratic Clerk Beth White was having none of that.  She made it clear that it was the Mayor's choice, and the Mayor took the bait on the issue, announcing publicly his opposition to early voting.

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard

The media coverage of the episode made Ballard look he wanted voters to be inconvenienced and to suppress turnout, highly unpopular positions for a candidate to take, especially one facing the voters in just two short months.  But that "earned media" aspect of the issue is just the first prong of the Democratic strategy.  The second is paid media.  You can bet the Kennedy folks are working on a spot addressing the Mayor's opposition to popular early voting, including his flip-flopping on the issue. 

Speaking of TV commercials, thus far the Ballard commercials appear unfocsed. They contain a dizzying array of images, occupying the screen for an average of less than one second.  During the commercials, Ballard, in his own voice, throws out sound bites on a wide assortment of issues.  The spots aren't horrible, but they are not very good either.  The lack of a coherent campaign strategy is evident in the commercials.

Kennedy's commercials are much more polished and visually appealing.  They employ a professional voice over artist as well as contain far few video cuts than the Ballard commercials.  Usually just one issue is addressed.  On the Kennedy's commercials a strategy is emerging:  spend about five seconds taking a shot at Ballard on some issue and spend the rest of the time talking about how she would handle the issue differently.

Although Republicans suggest the five second bites criticizing the Mayor constitute "negative" campaigning that is out of line, the fact is the election will be almost completely a referendum on the incumbent.  As a challenger, Kennedy has to tell voters why they shouldn't re-elect Ballard.  The fact that the Kennedy hasn't even scratched the surface on the negative stuff available to go after Ballard on suggests to me the Kennedy camp is fully confident of where they are in the polls.

What political junkies should look for is not when Kennedy goes "negative" (again she has to tell voters why they shouldn't re-elect the Mayor), but when Ballard starts attacking Kennedy.  That is a sign the Ballard campaign is concerned its lead is slipping away.

What Does a Lack of Campaign Polls In the Indianapolis Mayor's Race Mean?

Democratic Mayoral Candidate
Melina Kennedy

Campaigns that raise and spend millions of dollars devote a significant portion of that money to polling.   Polls by these big-time campaigns are sometimes kept tight to the vest, while at other times released to help fundraising efforts, rally the troops, or for other strategic purposes.

Here we are less than three months away from the Indianapolis mayoral election and neither side has released polling information. The only hint there has been polling is Mayor Ballard supporter Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, who suggested that the Ballard people had polling showing him with a "double digit lead."  Double digits could mean 10 points, which frankly at this point would be a very poor lead by the Mayor.  Ballard needs to be up 20-25 points at this time.  His policies undoubtedly poll much, much worse than does the Mayor.  When the Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy and Democratic candidate Melina Kennedy start connecting Ballard with those unpopular policies, Ballard's numbers are going to sink like a rock.  Ballard needs a sizable lead to overcome that onslaught.

Mayor Greg Ballard

Why is neither the Ballard or Kennedy camp releasing poll numbers?  The obvious answer is that neither side is happy with the numbers.  Undoubtedly that "double digit" lead Abdul says Ballard has is not 20 points or more.  If it were it were 20 points or more, Abdul would have described it that way instead of "double digit."  The poll also would have likely been released to bolster Ballard's fundraising and dampen Kennedy's.   But if the poll shows a 10-15 point lead at this point, that would be a warning sign to Ballard's supporters and especially his financial backers. They would expect his lead to be bigger than that.

Kennedy, on the other hand, suffers from unrealistic expectations about her candidacy.  In solidly Democratic Marion County, many of her supporters expect her to easily win this race.  If she releases a poll showing Ballard with a 15 point lead or higher, then concern about her chances might increase so much as to dampen her fundraising and volunteer support.

Given Kennedy is running against an incumbent mayor who has rarely been challenged in 3 1/2 years, it is unrealistic to expect that she would be ahead or even close at this point.

Where is the polling less than three months out?  Well the lead is obviously not big enough for Ballard or small enough for Kennedy for those campaigns to release polling information.  My guess that means Ballard is up by 15 points.