PART 1: HOW RABB WON THE 3RD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

Michael Kleiner

Filmmaker Woody Allen is credited with the adage “Eighty percent of success is showing up.” Taking some liberty with his words, in politics a candidate needs a base, a loyal following that’s going to show up and get others to. In the May 19 primary in the 3rd Congressional District race, State Rep. Chris Rabb’s loyal base built over 10 years in office did just that.

The 3rd District is huge, incorporating 33 complete wards and parts of four others, 56% of the city’s wards, and 884 divisions (52% of Philadelphia’s precincts), so the district crosses divergent views and neighborhoods.

The 22nd Ward

My analysis of the election results indicates Rabb won handily  With 44% of the vote, Rabb defeated State Sen. Sharif Street by just over 15% and Dr. Ala Stanford by over 20%. Shaun Griffith was far behind. District-wide, Rabb won 24 wards and 440 divisions to Street’s 12 wards and 373 divisions, and to Stanford’s one ward and 60 divisions. There were ties in 11 divisions.

Mt. Airy Democrats were key to getting out the vote in the 22nd Ward, which was the only closed ward in the Congressional district where Rabb swept every division, capturing 65% of the votes to Street’s 19% and Stanford’s 16%. Indicative of Rabb’s dominance in the Ward is that he received between 100 and 380 votes in 26 of the 29 divisions, whereas Street and Stanford didn’t attain 100 votes in any division of the 22nd.

Ward Leader and 8th District City Councilperson Cindy Bass endorsed Street and delivered no divisions.

Northwest, Open Wards anchor victory

The Rabb victory was anchored in the Northwest and in some open wards, where similar patterns emerged. An open ward is one where committee persons vote on endorsements; in a closed ward, the Ward Leader decides, following the lead of the Democratic City Committee. The eight critical wards were the closed 21st (Roxborough, Manayunk) and 36th (South Philadelphia, mostly Point Breeze and Grays Ferry); open wards 1st, 2nd (both encompassing parts of Northern Liberties and Fishtown), 8th (Center City), 9th (Chestnut Hill, part of Mt. Airy); and 46th (West Philadelphia, Cedar Park, parts of Cobbs Creek and Spruce Hill).

In these eight wards Rabb received: 33,609 votes, 51% of his entire total, with an average percentage  of the vote per ward of 62%; won 221 of 240 divisions with two ties, and averaged 140 votes per division. Detailed breakdown here.

Another key Northwest ward was the 50th, where Mayor Parker is Ward Leader and turns out the vote. The Mayor also endorsed Street. Rabb eked out the win despite winning a minority of divisions. Rabb took 13 of 30 divisions and won by 123 votes over Street (14 divisions won). Again, Rabb won by receiving more than 100 votes in seven divisions.

Rabb won two other wards where he won the minority of the divisions, notably in the 51st (Southwest Philadelphia, primarily covering the neighborhoods of Kingsessing and Elmwood), where he won six of 24 divisions, winning by 184 votes. His highest division total was 232, which put Rabb over the top in the Ward.

Turnout elsewhere in district

The awful turnout in other parts of the district was epitomized by the 27th Ward, 20th Division, where Rabb won with, not by, 5 votes. Street and Stanford each received 2 votes. Rabb won seven divisions in the 27th (West Philadelphia, University City mostly around Penn and Drexel) with between 5-22 votes.

Street numbers low

By comparison, my analysis shows that Street won where his number of votes were low. Street won 373 divisions, but he won 84 divisions with less than 40 votes.

In Street’s 11th Ward (North Philadelphia, neighborhoods of Allegheny West/Tioga), he won 18 of 20 divisions with 56% of the vote, but his total ballots in the ward was 873. You can’t win when you receive 873 votes in 20 divisions in your home base while Rabb receives a combined 1,016 votes in 22-01, 22-02 and 22-06.

Street’s best ward vote was 3,384 in the 34th, where he won 41 of 42 divisions, with 100+ votes in nine of them. Stanford’s top ward vote was in the 8th Ward—which she lost.

Division data

At the granular division level, district-wide, Rabb’s strength was drawing triple-digit votes in 113 divisions, with his highest total 380. However, Street’s highest total in a division was 168– losing in that division–and achieved triple digits in only 36 divisions. Stanford’s best division count was 193 and earned triple digits in just 15 divisions. Not a recipe for success when your best total is 212 votes less than another candidate’s best.

While Rabb benefited from voters not showing up in swathes of the district, if Democrats are to win statewide and in national elections, we need a much stronger presence in those weak wards and divisions.

So much for the DCC endorsement–again

Why do I think this happened? The Democratic City Committee endorsement was once coveted by candidates and still is by many. It used to have some cachet. Street had their endorsement. Maybe endorsed candidates have taken for granted that they don’t need a robust field operation because they figure the committee people are going to take care of it and show up on Election Day. The Party doesn’t push canvassing or leave the decision to Ward Leaders. Then, you can’t canvas without information. The Party continues to wait until the last weekend or up until the day before Election Day to disseminate sample ballots to committee persons. For most committee persons, this is the first time they’re seeing the endorsements and they may not agree with them. If they do, there’s no time to canvas. Six years after the introduction of mail ballots, the Party still hasn’t made accommodations  for that. By Election Day, many people have already voted. Those who vote on Election Day have probably made up their mind. Those who haven’t been informed about Election Day are at home.

Rabb has battled the Democratic establishment since he first ran in 2016 and beaten back challengers every time. In his first race, he knocked on doors throughout the 200th district. For anti-Democratic establishment progressives, an endorsement by the Committee in a primary is viewed as someone not to vote for (unless on occasions when there might be in agreement). Grassroots organizations like Mt. Airy Democrats, Vote the Ridge in the 21st Ward, Riverwards Votes, RECLAIM and open wards are making their own endorsements of progressive candidates, then focusing on getting the vote out for those candidates. They are getting out ahead of the Party, doing what the Party used to do.

Michael Kleiner is the owner of Michael Kleiner Public Relations and Web Design. Working together for 10 years with his committee person partner in Ward 22, Division 6, they organized block-by-block for the 2020 and 2024 Presidential elections, achieving 90% turnout. He has been hired to advise political campaigns and was a co-founder of Mt Airy Democrats. kleinerpr@kleinerprweb.com

______________________________________________

Part 2: Was the Result of the 3rd Congressional District Race Really a Statement for the Progressive Agenda?

Michael Kleiner

Now, all the gaudy numbers have been presented for how Chris Rabb won the Congressional primary. Pundits–including the media—have declared it a big victory for progressives/democratic socialists. The movement is excitedly exploring how it can be replicated statewide and nationally.

Winning in the bluest district in the country, where there will be no Republican opposition in November, is different from winning in a state with large pockets of conservative Democrats. Rabb has often mentioned this as part of his challenge in the State House in addition to dealing with Republicans. He’s also navigated it.  Or in a country which has twice shown it would rather vote for a fascist.

Yes, Rabb’s margin of victory made it a big win but was it really a statement win for the progressive agenda? There are other numbers that should concern progressives: the demographics of the vote and general polling done about the African-American electorate.

Overall turnout in the district was 32%. For all the work of the Rabb campaign, he polled 45%, but not a majority of the electorate.

While Rabb will be a voice for the voiceless or underserved communities, he didn’t receive that vote. In a May 21 Philadelphia Inquirer analysis, Anna Orso and Sam Jenesch note Rabb collected 60% of the ballots in majority-white divisions, but only 28% in majority-Black divisions. In divisions where the median household income was $100,000 or more, Rabb earned three times more votes than the rest of the field, and this was replicated where 25%+ of adults had a bachelor’s or advanced degree.

In addition, their analysis noted one of the keys to Mayor Parker’s 2023 victory was carrying predominantly African-American areas from North to West Philadelphia. Together, they potentially had 14,000 more votes than the majority white divisions. Street carried 41% and Stanford 30% of the majority African-American divisions.

As evidenced in Part 1 of this blog, the lack of turnout doomed Street, despite being endorsed by the Democratic City Committee, being the son of former Mayor John Street, former chair of the state Democratic Party, and incumbent State Senator, and Stanford, who also struggled being in her first run for public office and may have relied too much on her early TV blitz.

Why didn’t Rabb receive this vote? Recent polling of African-American voters, in general, reveal they are not as progressive, or even liberal, as it is assumed they are.

In his May 27 Inquirer op-ed,  Jonathan Zimmerman prefaces the article by saying he voted for Rabb, then quotes the same figures from the Orso and Janesch analysis.

He goes further. In 2024, 15% of African-Americans voted for Trump, compared to 8% in 2020. A good question would be whether these were African-American Democrats or a combination of African-American Democrats and African-American Republicans?

Trump received 11,441 more votes in Philadelphia in 2024 than in 2020–while 300,000 Philadelphia Democrats didn’t vote in 2024—to swing the state from Biden, who won in 2020. Trump won the Presidency. Despite having an African-American woman candidate, the Democratic vote went down by 35,604 votes and the percentage dropped from 81% to 79%. A Democratic candidate winning Democratic-rich Philadelphia with less than 80%?

In the 22nd Ward, Trump increased his vote total by 254, receiving a bump in 26 divisions, while polling the same in three. In 12 precincts, the increase was in double digits. Kamala Harris received 412 fewer votes less than Biden. The decrease was by double-digits in 15 divisions, with a high of minus-55. The four where there was an increase for Harris over Biden were in divisions 22-06 (+28), 22-08 (+12), 22-16 (+4), and 22-25 (+1).

Many people voted for Trump even though it wasn’t in their best interests. It's not clear whether it was white or Black votes in the 22nd that contributed to the increase for Trump and decrease for the Democrats.

Still, the shift, even in the progressive 22nd Ward, is disconcerting. Is there a problem with the messaging?

Zimmerman wrote that Rabb is not wrong on some of the issues, but they aren’t meshing with African-Americans’ views.

Here are the results of some polls on important current issues (though the 2019 question was before the 2020 and 2024 Presidential elections) comparing views of African-American Democrats and white Democrats.

The African-American position on some of these issues is understandable. Enrollment in public schools is dominated by African-Americans. If parents want the best education for their children, they will explore options. I may think money that goes to charters should go to improving current public schools and just because it’s “new,” doesn’t make it “better,” but parents caring about their children’s education is better than if they didn’t.

Crime happens disproportionately in Black neighborhoods so they would want increased safety.

I consider myself a progressive. We are supposed to be the supporters of “DEI, Diversity, Equality, Inclusivity,” but sometimes dismiss people who don’t share our opinions. I was one of the committee persons who was removed without due process before the 2024 Presidential election. We argued that the City Committee should’ve united us to get the vote out since we were all Democrats and were supporting the same ticket. We can’t turn around and refuse to accept people who don’t fall 100% in line with us, or take everyone’s votes for granted.

Zimmerman cautions progressives: “I’m not suggesting they need to alter their political positions or their fundamental values. Instead, I’m pleading with them to show more tolerance for Democrats — especially African Americans — who disagree with them. The numbers don’t lie: Black voters cluster in the moderate wing of our party. The only question is whether we can create a big enough tent to retain them.”

There are ways to do this. African-Americans’ position on abortion has been driven by their faith, especially among the elderly. In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In a July 28, 2022 New York Times article, Zolan Kanno-Youngs reported on a meeting between Vice-President Harris and faith leaders about the ruling. Rev. Najuma Smith-Pollard, a pastor at a Black church in Los Angeles, said to connect restrictions on abortion to restrictions and attacks on other individual rights.

“The most effective message would be having the conversation without the word abortion,” said Ms. Smith-Pollard. “We were all clear that this is about abortion, but this is not just about abortion. It is imperative to focus on the implication on other rights — civil rights.”Black churches have historically been active in civil rights.The article continues that as a result of that meeting, in early July, 2022, Harris spoke at an event of predominantly Black women in New Orleans and connected abortion restrictions to attacks on voting rights. At a meeting of the NAACP later that month, Harris said,  “supporting a woman’s abortion rights does not require anyone to abandon their faith or their beliefs. It just requires us to agree the government shouldn’t be making that decision for her.”

This approach can be used when talking about trans-gender, immigration rights, ICE and police brutality.

Another example is Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 New York City Mayoral campaign. He struggled to get the Black and Hispanic vote in the primary. Andrew Cuomo received those ballots in large numbers. This was especially true among elderly voters and union members, especially in the Bronx and Queens. In the general election, The Manhattan Institute reports: “...(he) won them over to his affordability agenda, mobilizing an army of union-aligned canvassers across outer-borough neighbourhoods, and delivering his message in multiple languages…he took the unusual step for a non-Latino candidate of releasing a full Spanish-language ad — speaking less than fluently, but with the conviction of someone who cared enough to try [emphasis added]. This culturally fluent approach paid dividends. He won clear majorities of both Latino and Black voters, especially in the working-class enclaves of the Bronx and Queens.”

This shift occurred despite Cuomo being on the ballot as an independent.

If Rabb emphasized the affordability issues more, perhaps, he would have received more of the Black and Hispanic vote.

Michael Kleiner is the owner of Michael Kleiner Public Relations and Web Design. Working together for 10 years with his committee person partner in Ward 22, Division 6, they organized block-by-block for the 2020 and 2024 Presidential elections, achieving 90% turnout. He has been hired to advise political campaigns and was a co-founder of Mt Airy Democrats. kleinerpr@kleinerprweb.com