Page 1



Iman Salehian M. Shin | D. Ward Geography 7, 1G Fall 2013

Devised for: Democratic Candidate, Joe Bruin

The following report surveys population data (2010 US Census) and precinct-level election results from the 2012 General Election (Statewide Database) to devise a field strategy for Democratic Candidate Joe Bruin’s campaign.

Salehian / 604.001.502





Data: US Census Bureau

Map 1


Salehian / 604.001.502


Data: US Census Bureau


Map 2

Total Number of Votes Per Precinct 2012 General Election

Map 3


2012 General Election

Salehian / 604.001.502

Voter Turnout Per Precinct

Map 4

(con’t on next page)


Salehian / 604.001.502

2012 General Election

Map 5

2012 General Election

Map 6


Salehian / 604.001.502

2012 General Election

Map 7

2012 GENERAL ELECTION: ANALYTICS Cristina Garcia (D) Vote Count: 91015 Vote Share: 91015/141305 = 64.41% Patricia A. Kotze-Ramos (R) Vote Count: 35647 Vote Share: 35647 /141305 = 25.23% Note: Unaccounted votes and vote share can be traced to secondary Democratic candidate, Tom Calderon, though he was not listed within official records for the 2012 General Election (Statewide Database).


The following lists include cities and/or neighborhoods that Joe Bruin should target for intensive campaigning, as well as which cities and/or neighborhoods Joe Bruin would be advised to avoid. See below for a map of the locations included in lists. Maps of precincts within the district that our candidate should target and avoid can be found on the following page.

TARGET Bellflower - Bellflower houses a population of Democratic and swing-voters that exhibited high voter turnout in 2012. The Democratic vote share is relatively high, but can stand to be improved. Concentrating our efforts here will serve to further bolster Democratic vote. Montebello - This Northern precinct’s population falls within ideal voting age and is situated between precincts with strong Democratic voting patterns. Campaigning here may boost voter turnout, which needs improvement. Downey - This precinct exhibits a comparatively lower difference in vote share (between 22 - 43%), and a Democratic vote share generally above 56%, falling within Democratic Gain’s definition of swing voters, making it an ideal campainging target. Norwalk - While most of this neighborhood falls outside of our District, its potential for improved turnout and budding Democratic lean merit campaigning efforts.

AVOID Cerritos - We strongly urge the Joe Bruin campaign to avoid Cerritos entirely. It includes precincts that exhibit the strongest Republican voter turnout, indicating that this neighborhood houses the unpersuadable Republican base vote and would be a waste of valuable campaign resources. Commerce - While this Northern precinct’s Democratic voting tendencies may lead one to believe it makes a suitable precinct for targetting, its relatively low voter population count does not justify campaign resource expenditure in this area.

Salehian / 604.001.502



Map 8



Salehian / 604.001.502

Map 9


Map 10

A description of our strategist’s methodology and rationale. Our field strategy’s main aim was to identify where intensive campaigning would most effectively encourage non-voters to register for our party and entice swing voters. Endeavoring to mimic President Obama’s ‘ground game’ strategy, in which the Obama campaign strategically promoted “getting out the vote” and registering new voters (The Guardian), we focused on geographic electoral and demographic data, including party registration (vote counts and vote shares), voter turnout and voter population distribution. In order to properly understand the methodology behind our Field Strategy, one must first consider our target demographics: the democratic base and the swing voter. This singular goal allows one to understand our demographic and electoral maps as a cohesive unit, with each map better allowing us to prioritize the most efficient allocation of campaign resources. Beginning with our demographic maps, one observes that we mapped both general population totals (Map 1), as well as populations already of voting age (Map 2). While similar to Map 1, Map 2 essentially ensures that the Joe Bruin campaign is not erroneously drawn to population precincts with high percentages of children- a potential waste of campaign resources. Maps 3 and 4 offer a general overview of voting trends and voter turnout in the 2012 General Election. These maps represent especially important data in that low voter turnout holds rich potential for winning new votes. Relatedly, Maps 5 and 6 inform us of existing party loyalties, further refining our identification of target precincts. Of particular interest to our campaign is District 58’s clear North vs. South binary in voting trends. The District’s northern half is dominated by Democratic votes, with Democratic vote share spanning 66 to 100%. The District’s central region, however, evidences Vote Share differences closer to 0% (See: Map 7), a smaller difference that implies that the voting in this region is neckand-neck. We considered this overarching trend especially notable for the Bruin campaign in that it indicates regions of swing voters, a demographic emphasized in our target maps. Turning our attention to the specifics of our strategic maps themselves (Maps 9 and 10), one finds a cogent representation of our field strategy, one that includes targeting swing voters in central/ northern regions and registering new voters. First, we referenced our demographic maps in order to exclude precincts with insignificant voting-aged populations. Next, we eliminated those precincts that evidenced a history of strong Republican support, for concentrating our efforts in areas with strong party loyalties seemed an inefficient use of campaign resources. We applied the same reasoning to those precincts that overwhelmingly voted Democrat, for- as described by the Democratic Gain’s Voter Contact manual - these precincts are likely to vote Democrat in the upcoming election, regardless of our campaigning efforts. We instead focused upon locating swing voters with Democratic leanings, additionally measuring that data against voter turnout. Though we generally aimed to include areas with medium to high level turnout, we justified including precincts with low level voter turnout in communities that voted strongly Democrat, in the hopes that Mr. Bruin could rally voter support and inspire a boost in voter turnout in these regions.

Salehian / 604.001.502



Based on the data at hand, our analysts feel confident in Candidate Joe Bruin’s chances of winning a seat in the California Assembly. The 58th Assembly District has a strong Democratic base and a significant potential for both winning swing voters and improving voter turnout in more heavily populated regions. The efficient allocation of Mr. Bruin’s campaign resources will undoubtedly play an essential role in securing his win. We specifically advise that Mr. Bruin concentrates his efforts in the District’s central and northern regions, additionally warning him against heaving campaigning efforts in the District’s largely Republican, south-eastern corner. Though beyond the scope of this field strategy report, we strongly advocate further research into the geography of the district’s racial demographics, for targeting District 58’s largely Latino population (Statewide Database) will undoubtedly aid Mr. Bruin in further strategizing his campaign.

Salehian / 604.001.502



Anderson, Maisie. “How Obama’s 2012 Election Ground Game Won Nevada.” Guardian News and Media, 21 Nov. 2012. Web. 06 Dec. 2013. <> California’s 2011 State Assembly Districts. Statewide Database. University of California, Berkeley. 2011. “Field Wins Campaigns.” Voter Contact Manual. Democratic Gain, 2004. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. <>.

Salehian / 604.001.502


U. S. Census Bureau. (2010). Los Angeles County, C.A. - Shapefiles, Population Data




Field Strategy Formal Report  
Field Strategy Formal Report  

A mock-up field strategy for a fictitious LA mayoral candidate. Document includes: QGIS maps and visualizations, as well as long-form data a...