Political Observations in North Carolina

Last minute thoughts and analysis on the 2011 Raleigh Mayoral race

2011-10-11T16:04:00.002-04:00

Note: As I stated in this piece, I am not an expert in local Raleigh politics, this was just an attempt to apply the same kind of political analysis I use for my work for state politics, to local politics. Believe it or not, this was put together relatively quickly (please forgive any typos or ill-worded sentences). This is nonpartisan analysis and I simply highlight what I believe to be important political aspects of the rapidly concluding mayoral campaign. And I unfortunately have found I don't have time to regularly update this blog, but wish I did!

-----------

For those of you who know me, or follow me on twitter, you know that I spend most of my time covering and analyzing state politics in North Carolina (from a nonpartisan perspective). However, since today is Election Day for local races in Raleigh, I thought I would share my analysis of the political dynamics in the single most high profile contest, the Raleigh Mayoral race. First, let me say that I am not an expert in local Raleigh/Wake County politics. However, recognizing this fact, several months ago I decided to use this year’s local races as an opportunity for me to learn more about Raleigh’s local political scene and engage more in that discussion. After months of observation these are my thoughts as we head into the campaigns final hours.

After ten years leading Raleigh, current Mayor Charles Meeker chose not to run for re-election leaving an open seat contest in his wake. I’ve found the candidates that are seeking to succeed him politically very interesting and somewhat surprising.

Dr. Randall Williams, who is a registered Republican (one of two in the race), got into the race with the backing of former Raleigh Mayor (and former NC Republican Party Chair) Tom Fetzer. With little in the public record from which to glean information about Dr. Williams, my early opinion of his politics was formed largely based on Fetzer’s backing of his campaign. I expected Dr. Williams to be a down-the-line conservative like Fetzer, but that hasn’t really proven to be true. I base that mainly on Dr. Williams’ support of Raleigh’s two proposed bonds dealing with transportation and housing that some conservatives have opposed. Dr. Williams has talked up his background as a doctor and his experience with humanitarian missions to Afghanistan. Beyond that, however, Dr. Williams hasn’t been an aggressive force on the campaign trail.

The other Republican in the race, real estate executive Billie Redmond, has been an energetic campaigner, and raised significant funds for her campaign. Initially I assumed her political identity would line-up as a moderate Republican. However, as the campaign progressed, she’s increasingly struck conservative themes. As I understand it, she opposes the two proposed bonds as part of a theme that became central to her campaign, the city’s debt. Public debt has obviously been a hot national political issue due to the continual debates in Washington about the debt ceiling and the federal government’s budget. It seemed that Redmond’s campaign tried to hook into that conservative discontent with public debt and make Raleigh’s debt a campaign issue. A chart depicting the growth of city debt was featured in Redmond’s campaign commercials and was a frequently raised issue in candidate forums.

Current City Council member Nancy McFarlane is the only mayoral candidate with any electoral experience or experience with city government. She is registered Unaffiliated, though her ties to Mayor Meeker (who is an outspoken Democrat), and support for center-left policies, earned her the endorsement of Wake County’s Democratic Party. Even though it was widely assumed that Mayor Meeker support McFarlane’s bid to succeed him, he didn’t publicly endorse her campaign until last week (the week before the election). While my first reaction was surprise that his endorsement wasn’t made official early in the campaign, I came to view the relatively late endorsement as a smart political move. Waiting until shortly before the election to announce Mayor Meeker’s endorsement appeared to me to be part of a strategy of waiting to expend resources on campaign commercials, direct mail pieces, and yard signs until late in the campaign when voters were finally tuning into the election. Municipal races tend to produce low voter turnout, so launching several campaign commercials, sending direct mail pieces and having a newsworthy endorsement in a timeframe most likely to earn public attention/recognition seems to me to be a good political strategy (if indeed that’s what her campaign was going for). Another interesting political strategy embedded in Mayor Meeker’s endorsement of McFarlane’s campaign was the implicit and explicit attempt to tie McFarlane to Mayor Meeker and his tenure. This seems like an obvious point since McFarlane clearly made a big deal of the endorsement, but it’s a noteworthy move in my view in the context of what’s going on in national politics. Both the President and Congress are suffering from poor approval ratings, the public is generally dissatisfied with both parties, and there has been consistent unease with “the establishment.” Many national political observers have suggested that 2012 may be an election that doesn’t have a partisan advantage, but is dominated by frustrated voters willing to turnout incumbents of both parties. However, McFarlane is hugging Raleigh incumbent Mayor Meeker as tight as she can and bucking the strategy I’m guessing many politicians will use next year. McFarlane and her campaign have basically been saying, “If you like what’s been going on with Raleigh for the past several years, vote for me.” I think it would be an interesting exception to what many believe is becoming the rule dominating the 2012 election cycle.

I’m not really in the business of predicting election outcomes, I tend to lay out the facts as I see them and let others come to their own conclusions. However, it’s not illogical to assume that the fact that there are two Republican candidates, they may hurt each other’s chances by drawing from the same voter pool. McFarlane has also run a credible campaign and despite the nation’s economic issues, Raleigh is still generally viewed as a prosperous and growing city (those “best of” rankings continue to roll in for example), which helps her as she’s tried to position herself as the virtual incumbent in the race. The Wake County Democratic party has also invested in this “off year” election heavily (and in ways they didn’t in 2009). Will this be enough for Nancy McFarlane (and many of her Democratic allies) to win? I don’t know, but as I’m finishing this sentence, we only have to wait a few hours to find out.

Minority status and Twitter

2010-12-16T20:50:00.005-05:00

Is the usage of twitter by a party and it's members in the legislature inversley related to it's representation in the General Assembly? Put more plainly, is the party out of power in the NC House and/or NC Senate more likely to have members use twitter? In my opinion, it seems like it.

On Sunday December 12, the @NCHouseDems joined twitter and got me thinking about this. The use of Twitter by elected officials is probably just an component of a larger point about how parties who find themselves in the minority turn to any method they can to get their message and perspective to the public, media, stakeholders, etc. I'm pretty active on twitter, and based on my experience, Republicans in North Carolina have been the primary users of twitter - at least during the 2010 election cycle. They were also out of power at virtually every level in North Carolina during that time. But now that the GOP has won majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly, will their usage of twitter diminish? Or will they continue to use it as a medium to communicate with their supports, etc.? Of course, there have been some active NC Democrats on twitter, but no real members of the Democratic leadership has taken advantage of twitter to my knowledge.

TweetNCGA (a project of the conservative John Locke Foundation) does a good job of aggregating tweets by members of the General Assembly as well as tweets referencing the General Assembly's hashtag #NCGA. I also created a list of the newly elected members of the General Assembly on twitter here. It'll be interesting to see if these folks who were often times frequent users of twitter during the campaign to see if they maintain their use.

This may seem like a silly thing to talk about, but twitter is a very important tool for me, and is increasingly an important communication method for politicians at all levels. Will North Carolina's elected officials that are now in the majority continue to embrace it? Or will twitter be a tool largely for those in the minority or on the campaign trail?

The incoming Speaker & the Governor

2010-12-16T20:42:00.010-05:00

On Wednesday December 15, Governor Perdue (D) made an unusual move and addressed a relatively informal budget meeting put together by the incoming Republican leadership in the NC House. It wasn't too long into her speech that she made her reasons for addressing the meeting clear, she wanted to get out in front on a few issues and called on the legislature to do three things. She wants the legislature to enact session limits (90 days for the "Long" session and 45 days for the "Short" session), create an independent redistricting commission in time for it to re-draw North Carolina's political maps for the 2012 elections, and increase transparency of the legislative process. She acknowledged that she didn't come up with these ideas, they all have either been championed by, or had some support from, Republicans. I thought these issues were interesting - in part - because through my work at the North Carolina FreeEnterprise Foundation, we asked about a couple of these issues in our candidate questionnaires.

One of the key players in the upcoming legislative session, (soon-to-be) Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg), will have a lot of say into what gets done in 2011 and 2012. He was one of the incoming members of the legislature that filled out the candidate questionnaire and I thought his answers may shed some light on whether the Governor's new pet issues will get off the ground in the NC House. You can see Rep. Tillis' full scanned questionnaire here.

On the issue of an independent redistricting commission, Rep. Tillis is not a fan. Beyond a commission that could serve in an advisory role, he doesn't want to cede legislative authority to redraw political boundaries and questions the "nonpartisan" nature of any commission engaged in this kind of activity.

The Governor may have found common ground with Rep. Tillis on the issue of session limits though. He indicated that he would support session limits, but no specific lengths were identified in the questionnaire, so there may be some disagreement on exactly what those limits would be.

And while a question about increasing legislative transparency wasn't asked on the questionnaire, another question did catch my eye on Rep. Tillis' questionnaire. The questionnaire states: "State legislative leaders (the President Pro Tempore of the NC Senate and the Speaker of the NC House) should be limited to serving no more than two consecutive terms at a time." Rep. Tillis, the incoming Speaker of the NC House, answered "Agree". Who knows what the next election holds and who will be leading the NC House beyond 2011-12, but this answer may have more relevance in a couple years.

I don't know if the Governor knew of Rep. Tillis' opinions on these topics before she proposed them, but it does look like she's might be trying to pick a political fight with the incoming GOP majorities. And based on Rep. Tillis' asnwers on the questionnaire, she just might get that fight. Who will be the beneficiary? We'll have to wait and see.

Race for NC GOP Chair

2010-12-13T13:52:00.009-05:00

Shortly after the 2010 elections, the Chair of the North Carolina Republican Party, Tom Fetzer, announced he would be stepping down. Immediately following this announcement, news that former US Rep. Robin Hayes would run for the Chairmanship surfaced. There are two other candidates running that I know of, NC GOP Vice chair Timothy Johnson and former Guilford County GOP chair Marcus Kindley, but my sense is that Congressman Hayes has the advantage.

As I was thinking about Congressman Hayes, his bid for NC GOP Chair and the current political environment, I recalled a description of one of his campaigns in an older edition of the Almanac of American Politics. This is from the 2006 edition and is describing Congressman Hayes' 2000 General Election campaign when we was running for a second term:

Hayes traveled the campaign trail with a four-foot-wide reusable blank check signed "Uncle Sam." At each stop he took a felt-tip pen and wrote in the federal money he had brought in: $650,00 to extend water lines to a school in Stanly County, $258,000 for a pilot housing program in Troy, $4 million for two airports.

The 2008 edition of the Almanac of American Politics added, "Hayes has compiled a conservative voting record, with an occasional populist streak, devoting much of his energy to getting federal money for the folks back home." Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like Congressman Hayes worked hard, and campaigned on, securing federal earmarks for the 8th Congressional District. Recently, many Republicans have sworn-off seeking federal money. In November, Republicans in the US House of Representatives voted in favor of a voluntary ban on earmarks. Earmarks are also a target of the Tea Party movement that has largely support Republicans and is credited with helping Republicans win control of the US House in the 2010 elections.

It strikes me as interesting that in this current political environment, former Congressman Hayes, who seemed to actively seek out federal funds for his district, is now the main contender to lead his party that now disapproves of such activities. Has Congressman Hayes sworn off support for earmarks too? Has the issue even been raised in his campaign for NC GOP Chair? People tend to have short memories. Since the election of party chairs is the consummate insiders game, coverage of the campaign is understandably scant. If anyone knows if this has come up, I'd be interested to hear about it.

I'm offering this information only as an interesting observation (at least to me) and have no dog in the fight for NC GOP Chair.

The GOP and a voter ID law

2010-12-07T18:34:00.003-05:00

I've said many times in this blog that I'm not going to get into policy issues, this blog is about politics. I'm sticking to that and taking a quick look at the politics of a policy issue that has come to the surface recently: a voter ID law. Jim Morrill of the Charlotte Observer reported (and it was widely picked up and reported around the state) that the new GOP majority in the North Carolina General Assembly wants to pass a voter ID law to prevent voter fraud. The article does a nice job of hitting the talking points of the conservative and liberal/progressive side of this policy debate (and if you want some additional information on academic research on this issue, visit this great blog post at the Politics and Policy in the Tarheel State blog). My first thought is: does the GOP really want to have this issue be featured so prominently in their agenda?

This issue is not out of the blue, it's a part of the GOP's 10 point, 100 day agenda but GOP leaders kept the focus of the campaign on jobs and the economy - a winning strategy. Speaker-in-waiting Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) even went as far as to make bracelets for GOP House candidates that said one thing on them "Think Jobs" and told the candidates to snap their wrists with them if they felt tempted to talk about anything other than the economy. Why would they want to deviate from that winning campaign strategy as they transition to governance? I'm not suggesting they ignore all other issues, but I do wonder why a voter ID law appears to be so prominently placed on the agenda.

Again, I'm not debating the merits of a potential voter ID law. But is this an issue voters care about? Maybe it is for the Republican base, but I haven't seen much evidence that it is for wider audience. Will support for the new GOP majority in the General Assembly soften if voters think the legislature is spending too much time on issues not directly related to jobs and the economy? Perhaps.

In my opinion, this illustrates the political danger in this upcoming legislative session for Republicans. The GOP will need to strike the right balance between pressing economic/budgetary issues and social issues (more or less like the voter ID law) that have long been bottled up in the Democratically controlled General Assembly. What is that balance? I have no idea. But national Democrats have signaled that they will contest North Carolina vigorously in 2012 as they did in 2008, which means attention and resources will be devoted in the state to helping Democrats up and down the ballot. If Republicans appear to be spending too much time on issues other than jobs and the economy, the campaign theme they won, their newly won majority could be in realy jeopardy.

I'm sure others have lots of thoughts and opinions on this. Feel free to agree or disagree, just thought I'd add my initial analysis of this recent issue.

Party switchers are everywhere...except NC

2010-11-29T20:26:00.004-05:00

I saw an article today from Jonathan Martin at Politico highlighting Democratic losses across the South in the 2010 Midterm elections, including some lawmakers elected as Democrats switching parties after November 2. An AP article also detailed these Democrats-turned-Republicans from around the country, though most of them are predictably concentrated in the South. North Carolina, like many of it's Southern neighbors saw big Republican gains at the state level. In a lot of these cases (including North Carolina), Democrats had been in control for a long time. Some of these (former) Democratic lawmakers wanted to keep positions of power, others wanted a seat at the table they've never had before, and others changed parties to reflect their more conservative perspectives that they believe are now a better fit within the Republican party.

All of this made me think that here in North Carolina, not one Democratic lawmaker has switched parties after the elections. I actually hadn't given it much thought in part because there hasn't even been a whisper of such a move in the media. Now that doesn't mean conversations haven't been taking place, but I certainly haven't caught wind of any such talk (if it's occuring). Is it surprising we haven't seen any party switchers in NC? In my mind, not really. Republicans made significant inroads in Eastern North Carolina, a region long dominated by moderate to conservative Democrats. Many of these Democrats either retired/resigned or lost this year. So practically speaking, the number of Democrats state legislators that may be conservative enough to be potential party switchers is just pretty small in NC. Again, doesn't mean we won't see any, but so far, it's been all quiet on the party switching front in the Tar Heel state.

Post-Election Analysis

2010-11-08T20:10:00.002-05:00

Well the 2010 Midterm Elections are over and the GOP scored big wins in North Carolina at the state level though it looks like all but one Tar Heel Democratic Congressmen survived the GOP wave. Over the next several weeks I'll be taking a look at how big GOP gains were in NC and how exactly they made those gains both here and through work. If you have any ideas about how to slice the data, ideas for analysis, or any observations you think would be helpful, please send them my way. In addition to post-election analysis, I'll be keeping tabs on the General Assembly leadership elections taking place soon, and the all-important redistricting which will start cranking up after the new year. Plus, the 2012 election cycle started the day after the 2010 election cycle ended and it's never too early to start tracking what's going on with the North Carolina Council of State races which will be up for election in addition to the Congressional and General Assembly seats again. I hope to return to regular blogging now, don't hesitate to keep me honest so I won't slack off. I'll still be tweeting (probably a lot) so twitter is always a good way to catch up with me, my observations, and hopefully useful analysis.

I'm all a twitter

2010-10-17T09:54:00.002-04:00

OK, my bad, the election season has just totally overwhelmed my ability to keep up with this blog. It's not that I don't have things to say and observations to make, I just can't seem to find the time right now, though I do plan to return to regular posts after the election. That's the bad news. The good news, is that I'm tweeting up a storm with (hopefully) timely observations and unique insights. So you can catch me on twitter. Since my tweets are 'public' anyone can view them here. And if you are signed up for twitter, you can follow me @jonathankappler. Of course, I've got a widget on this blog (look on the left hand side of this page), so you can see my most recent tweets there. Hope my relatively incessant micro-blogging on twitter will be a happy medium for folks (however many of you there are/were) that are interested in NC politics. Sorry again for the absence, but catch me on twitter and I will return with full blog posts soon!

On the road

2010-09-21T08:01:00.002-04:00

For the next week, I'll be on the road a good bit for a mix of business and personal travel, so posts will be few here, but I'll try and squeeze some in!

Updated US House ratings by FiveThirtyEight

2010-09-19T17:52:00.006-04:00

Last week I highlighted Nate Silver's first set of US House ratings. He's updated them, and while the overal picture of how each of North Carolina's US House races is projected to shake out hasn't changed much, there have been some noteworthy shifts.

First, the races that didn't change. All five of North Carolina's Republican Congressional representatives still have a 100% chance of winning, says Silver. Democratic Congressmen GK Butterfield (1st District) and Mel Watt (12th District) also continue to have a 100% chance of winning. Congressman Brad Miller (D) of the 13th District inched up from a 99.8% chance of winning to 99.9% chance of winning (seriously, not sure why, but there it is).

The shifts come in the races I noted last week. In the 2nd Congressional District, Congressman Bob Etheridge has actually seen his chance of winning go up from 87.9% to 91.2%. Thay translates into a projected vote share of 49% for Etheridge and 37% for Renee Ellmers (the Libertarian Tom Rose gets 11% in Silver's projection). Perhaps the most interesting rating from Silver last week, was that Congressman David Price (D) in the 4th District was rated as having only a 75.4% chance of winning and Congressman Mike McIntyre (D) in the 7th District, who many considered more vulnerable, had a 92.8% chance of winning. Well that changed, McIntyre leap-frogged Price and now has 'only' a 65.4% chance of winning (which equals a projected vote share of 50% for McIntyre and 47% for Republican Ilario Pantano). This makes sense to me since this week we learned that the National Republican Campaign Committee is spending $134,000 worth of TV ads for Ilario Pantano. Obviously some indicators are showing a tight/competitive race in the7th District. Price's chances of winning slipped a bit as well, to 69.4%. That still surprises me. No one has been talking about Congressman Price's district as competitive, and I'm not sure what caused his odds of winning to go down this past week. And Congressman Heath Shuler (D) in the Mountainous 11th District actually saw his chances of winning tick up a bit from 62.4% to 67.8% (just above Congressman Price). First-term Congressman Larry Kissell (D) who occupies North Carolina's lone Swing District (the 8th) had a 50.3% chance of winning, but he inched up to 53.1% in these updated projections. Certainly not in safe territory, but I'm sure he's glad to take it.

Fascinating. I'm not sure how often Nate Silver will update these US House ratings before the election, but I'll be sure to keep an eye on them.

Note: This is not an endorsement of any candidate or party, just an observation and (hopefully) useful analysis.

$340,866.10

2010-09-19T17:39:00.003-04:00

$340,866.10

That's how much Americans for Job Security has spent so far on this ad against 2nd District Congressman Bob Etheridge (D). If you live within the Raleigh media market, chances are you've seen the ad a few times. Americans for Job Security has pledged to spend $800,000 against Etheridge. Is this the first salvo? If it doesn't seem to be having much impact on the race, will they continue to run ads? This ad? Other ads? Even as this campaign season unfolds, there are still many unknowns.

Note: This is not an endorsement of any candidate or political party, just an obervation and (hopefully useful) analysis.

What we're seeing (and what we're not) on TV

2010-09-17T13:04:00.011-04:00

As I've been thinking more and more about the TV ads we're seeing so far in North Carolina, a few additional thoughts occurred to me as to what we're seeing and what we're not seeing. I'll cover it from a macro perspective then get into a few details.

The mere fact that certain incumbents/candidates are running ads now while others are not is telling. We're seeing both positive and negative/contrast/attack ads in in three congressional districts so far, the 2nd District currently held by Bob Etheridge (D), the 7th District currently held by Mike McIntyre (D), and the 11th currently held by Heath Shuler (D). The campaign's of Congressmen McIntyre and Shuler are themselves putting out positive ads and running negative/contrast/attack ads in some form. These are clear signals that they know they have credible challengers and they are taking these opponents seriously. Their opponents, Ilario Pantano and Jeff Miller, respectively, have produced ads introducing themselves to voters as credible alternatives to the Democratic incumbents. Pantano here and Miller here. As I pointed out in my last post, in the 2nd District, Congressman Etheridge has a less formidable challenger, but is having to contend with significant investment of outside groups in negative ads against him. He's been responding to that by running positive ads, and so far, has yet to attack his Republican opponent Renee Ellmers directly. (Ellmers' youtube channel here)

The conspicuously quiet district missing from this conversation so far is the 8th Congressional District where first-term Congressman Larry Kissell (D) is facing retired Charlotte sportscaster Harold Johnson (R). The 8th District is North Carolina's lone Congressional Swing District and after a contentious Republican primary (and runoff) this district has been pretty quiet. A practical reason that we may have yet to see any TV ads from Kissell or Johnson may be the fact that they are not as well funded as their counterparts in other districts, and the district is more expensive in which to run TV ads. The 8th District spans two pricey media markets, Charlotte on the western end and the Raleigh media market which covers Fayetteville on the eastern end. However, while this race will likely be competitive no matter what, there may be some signs that this race may be taking a step away from the limelight. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is planning on spending over $1 million on behalf of Kissell, while the NRCC has indicated no plans to invest in the 8th District race. The NRCC seems content to let outside groups, like American for Job Security (ASJ) who are attacking other Democratic incumbents, spend money on that race. ASJ has announced plans to spend $600,000 against Kissell, but so far they haven't released an ad (as they have with Congressman Etheridge). The NRCC has announced a $137,000 investment in the 7th District for Pantano, which I can't help but take as a slap in the face of Johnson's 8th District campaign. Beyond the TV ads (or lack thereof), at least two recent polls have shown Kissell with a double digit lead, and to combat those polls, the Johnson campaign released a poll showing them down by five points. I tend to take it as a not-so-positive sign when a campaign releases an internal poll showing them down outside the margin of error and that's supposed to be good news?

Things can definitely shift quickly, especially at this point in the campaign. But so far, momentum seems to shifting away from the 8th District being a high-profile competitive race and towards other races (the 7th District in particular) being more competitive, or at least more engaged. The level engagement of the media side of these campaigns seems to be the leading indicator in that regard.

A few notes on media campaigns so far

2010-09-16T20:30:00.009-04:00

We've reached a point in North Carolina where the campaigns that can afford are going on TV with campaign commercials in a big way. So far these are generally limited to the congressional campaigns, but we're beginning to see radio ads and other media in some state legislative races, and I would expect some TV ads to follow for some of the better funded candidates.

Sen. Richard Burr (R) has the most money of any candidate in North Carolina this year. At the end of June, he reported having over $6 million in cash on hand, while his main opponent, Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D) had less than $200,000 on hand. He's beginning to really use that financial advantage by taking to the air with consistent TV ads, especially the revised and updated version of the DSCC/Hagan rocking chair ad that seems to be popular. Two recent polls (here and here) have shown Sen. Burr opening up big leads over Secretary Marshall, and while my gut tells me that his lead is not quite as big as those polls show, I think it's hard for anyone to argue that Sen. Burr doesn't have a clear lead. Secretary Marshall cannot continue to let these ads go unanswered, or she risks falling too far behind to have any hope of catching up. We don't know what the updated campaign finances of the respective campaigns look like (and won't until mid-October) but I doubt Secretary Marshall will be able to answer any of Sen. Burr's ads for another few weeks. Without significant expenditures by outside groups on behalf of Marshall, North Carolina's US Senate race may turn into how close can Marshall get to Burr? Rather than, who will win?

Congressman Bob Etheridge (D) of the 2nd Congressional District has also taken to the airwaves with at least two new TV ads. One was a bio spot (re)introducing him to voters. It focused heavily on his 'up-by-the-bootstraps' American story, his family, his christian faith, and transitioned into his support for education/teachers so others can have that same success story. He came across pretty conservative, which was probably the point. The second was an ad that I strangely cannot find online (which makes me believe it may have been from an pro-Etheridge outside group, but I can't be sure). This second ad consisted mainly of people standing in manufacturing facilities thanking Bob Etheridge for his support so they were able to start a bussiness, or hire more employees, or get hired by one of those businesses. They said the word 'job' a zillion times, which again, was probably the point. Congressman Etheridge is facing a low-name recognition, poorly funded Republican challenger, Renee Ellmers. However, his real opponent(s) this cycle are the outside group like Americans for Job Security that say they plan to spend $800,000 airing TV ads (like this one) against Congressman Etheridge. He's up pretty early with these ads, so he's seems to be both worried about these outside ads and working to combat them. A lack of polling in this race make it hard to know where things stand.

This is just a sampling of the TV ads that are running across North Carolina, and a little about how they are impacting their respective races. I hope I have the chance to review additional ads as they come out. You can tell a lot about where the candidate thinks the race stands, and what themes he or she thinks are winners by really watching and listening to their ads.

Seeing what sticks?

2010-09-16T13:27:00.003-04:00

The National Republican Congressional Committee announced today that three GOP congressional candidates from North Carolina (amongt several others) had been named "Young Guns". Ilario Pantano (7th District), Harold Johnson (8th District), and Jeff Miller (11th District) were promoted today. The Eye blog on CQPolitics.com explains this program from the NRCC:

The Young Guns system ranks candidates in three levels: "On the Radar," "Contender" and, finally, "Young Guns." Candidates are named to the program by meeting individualized benchmarks set by the committee, which include developing grass-roots support, fundraising and creating a media plan. Being named a Young Gun qualifies a candidate for the highest level of support from the committee, although not every Young Gun has received the most coveted prize: television advertising buys in their district. The NRCC has bought or reserved television air time in 47 districts so far this cycle, but that list is expected to expand.

While this is good news for these three candidates and it presumably means that the national Republican party is paying attention to these races and should send some resources their way, I have a couple of questions. (surprise, surprise)

Just last week all three of these candidates were promoted to "Contender" status. Presuming that was a meaningful shift in their status (meaning they had met some benchmarks required for moving up a level) what prompted these three candidates/races to move up to the top level within a week? It makes me feel like the distinction is less meaningful than it seemed to be earlier in the election cycle. Is this simply a strategy by the NRCC to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks? Or were there some significant shifts in the dynamics of these races? If so, I'd love to know what they are/were. And now that a large pool of GOP candidates across the country have qualified as a "Young Gun" (it's up to 75 now), is the designation as significant as it may have been in terms of resources these candidates are eligible to receive? And as far as I know, Renee Ellmers, who is the Republican running against Bob Etheridge in the 2nd Congressional District, has not been designated a "Young Gun". That doesn't send a very good signal about what national Republicans think of her chances.

Is this a continuation of the strategy from the NRCC that I mulled over in a recent post where the Republicans are hoping to continue a national narrative about being on the offensive, and that is motivating some of these late decisions? As the campaign season hits high speed, things will happen fast and it's important to try and take a critical eye to events as they happen.

Note: This is not an endorsement of any specific candidate or party, just an observation and (hopefully useful) analysis.

NRCC adds McIntyre to it's target list

2010-09-14T20:06:00.006-04:00

Just saw this post from The Eye at CQ Politics, that says the National Republican Campaign Committee will invest some money for an ad buy in the 7th Congressional District currently held by Mike McIntyre (D). It reads, in part:

The National Republican Congressional Committee is set to go up with new ads this week against a pair of incumbents who had previously been considered lower tier targets this fall, providing further proof the House playing field still very fluid with 49 days to go before the elections. According to a GOP strategist who tracks ad buys, the NRCC has placed an $82,000 buy against Rep. Rick Boucher (D) in Virginia's 9th district as well as a $45,000 buy against Rep. Mike McIntyre (D) in North Carolina's 7th district. The ad buys are for the week of Sept. 17-23...

While this may seem straighforward on the surface, it makes me wonder why national Republicans are spending $45,000 in the 7th District. I'm not a media expert, but $45K doesn't seem like it would buy a lot of TV air time, and it seems a little far out from the election. A month before even early voting starts. And it was my understanding that Democrats have a lot more money at the national level than Republicans do, with particular disparity (in the Democrats' favor) between the campaign committees for each caucus in the US House. Is this investment because the GOP thinks it can win, or could it be more about trying to continue the dominate narrative playing out in the press about Republicans being so far on the offensive that they are even contesting seats that Democrats usually win with ease. Put another way, is this is a strategic investment that plays into a national theme/storyline, or just a straight-up investment in a district the party thinks it has a shot at?

Maybe I'm reading into this too much, but the 7th District seems to be in the news as much as the highly competitive 8th District. Regardless of the motives, I'm sure the Pantano campaign (R) will be happy with the $45K and any national attention that comes with it.

Note: This post is not an endorsement of any specific candidate or party, just an observation and (hopefully useful) analysis.

FiveThirtyEight's US House ratings

2010-09-13T20:36:00.020-04:00

Last week I posted on a few of the well-known organizations that rate US House races by which party is projected to win each contest, you can read that here. I found (a couple days late) Nate Silver's projections for each US House seat based on his new statistical model. In case you don't know who Nate Silver is, during the 2008 election cycle he founded a blog/web site FiveThirtyEight.com where he turned his statistical know-how to politics and polling (he had been doing statistical modeling for mainly sports). FiveThirtyEight was a huge success, and proved to be a pretty accurate and predictor of election outcomes in 2008. Silver's success with FiveThirtyEight led to the NY Times brining the web site under it's banner, and now Silver's analysis can be found there.

Anyway, I found Silver's projections for North Carolina's US House races very interesting and worthy of a post. Silver projects the chance/percentage of a Democratic or Republican win as well as projecting a vote shares/percentages by each candidate.

1st District:
-100% Chance of a Democratic Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-GK Butterfield (D) incumbent: 62%
-Ashely Woolard (R): 35%

2nd District:
-87.9% Chance of a Democratic Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Bob Etheridge (D) incumbent: 48%
-Renee Ellmers (R): 38%
-Tom Rose (L): 11%

3rd District:
-100% Chance of a Republican Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Walter Jones (R) incumbent: 70%
-Johnny Rouse (D): 27%

4th District:
-75.4% Chance of a Democratic Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-David Price (D) incumbent: 51%
-BJ Lawson (R): 46%

5th District:
-100% Chance of a Republican Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Virginia Foxx (R) incumbent: 65%
-Billy Kennedy (D): 32%

6th District:
-100% Chance of a Republican Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Howard Coble (R) incumbent: 71%
-Sam Turner (D): 26%

7th District:
-92.8% Chance of a Democratic Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Mike McIntyre (D) incumbent: 55%
-Ilario Pantano (R): 43%

8th District:
-50.3% Chance of a Democratic Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Larry Kissell (D) incumbent: 49%
-Harold Johnson (R): 49%

9th District:
-100% Chance of a Republican Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Sue Myrick (R) incumbent: 67%
-Jeff Doctor (D): 30%

10th District:
-100% Chance of a Republican Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Patrick McHenry (R) incumbent: 67%
-Jeff Gregory (D): 30%

11th District:
-62.4% Chance of a Democratic Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Heath Shuler (D) incumbent: 50%
-Jeff Miller (R): 47%

12th District:
-100% Chance of a Democratic Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Mel Watt (D) incumbent: 67%
-Greg Dority (R): 31%

13th District:
-99.8% Chance of a Democratic Win
-Projected Share of the Vote:
-Brad Miller (D) incumbent: 59%
-Bill Randall (R): 38%

Some things to note. While Silver projects the 8th District race to effectively be a toss-up, he gives the slightest edge to Kissell (D). The next most competitive race is the 11th District, where Shuler is projected to win, but this contest is definitely not out of reach for Republican Jeff Miller. The real surprise here, is that the third most competitive congressional race in NC is not the 2nd or 7th District, it's the 4th District, currently held by Congressman David Price (D). This seat makes up a large portion of the Triangle, which has become more Democratic over the years. Congressman Price is still projected to win, but it would be a much closer race than is typical in this district and Republican BJ Lawson is still in the game according to this analysis. This is also interesting because Congressman Price was actually ousted in the 1994 Republican landslide, but won the seat back in 1996. Could we see a surprising repeat? And while Democratic Congressmen Bob Etheridge (2nd District) and Mike McIntyre (7th District) are projected to see their share of the vote cute substantially, they are projected to be a safer bet for reelection than Congressman Price. This runs counter to what other race rating organizations have concluded.

This is the first time that Silver has done this kind of analysis for US House races. We are only a few weeks away from finding out how accurate these projections are.

Note: This post is not an endorsement of any specific candidate or party, just an observation and (hopefully useful) analysis.

Disappearing poll?

2010-09-13T19:44:00.007-04:00

UPDATE: The post about the poll was removed from Pantano's campaign website due to a technical glitch. It's back online here. I'm leaving this post up for full disclosure but everything italicized is no longer relevant.

This morning I found a post on Ilario Pantano's web site about an internal poll the campaign released showing the race very close. [Quick background, Ilario Pantano (R) is challenging Congressman Mike McIntyre (D) in North Carolina's 7th Congressional District. Congressman McIntyre was first elected in 1996 and usually wins by comfortable margins despite a generally conservative electorate.] I even tweeted about it. I had plans of using the results of this poll as part of a blog post, but when I clicked on the link I had previously used, or searched on Pantano's website, I got a "Page not found" message. Curious.

I searched around for it, and was able to find a cached version of what I saw earlier in the day here. This web site also still had it up, but the link back to the original story from Pantano's web site took you to a "Page not found" message too.

Maybe I'm missing the live version on Pantano's web site, but I've looked and I can't find it. (If I'm just missing it somehow, please let me know I'll appologize for my lack of internet prowess.) I'm not trying to insinuate anything nefarious, but I would like to know why it was removed.

I actually had some questions about it before it was apparently taken down. The post says the the live interview poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies poll on August 31 and September 2 with 400 interviews and a margin of error of 4.9%. Seems OK to me. But a little further down, the way the results were reported were a little odd. The post continues, "Among most likely voters challenger Ilario Pantano holds a 7 point advantage of 48% to 41% and among very likely voters Congressman McIntyre is clinging to a single digit lead of 45% to 39% on the ballot test."

I'm not an expert in polls, but I have read a lot of them and some basic polling was covered in my graduate studies. It's been my experience that public opinion polls usually report results by registered voters (usually a wider pool of voters) or likely voters (usually a narrower pool of voters). This poll (or at least this post) reports on "most likely voters" and then "very likely voters ." I'm not exactly sure what that means or why those distinctions were made. Was the Pantano campaign trying to demonstrate that their supporters are more enthusiastic and likely to vote? If so, their message seemed to be diluted by showing Congressman McIntyre with a lead among voters categorized as "very likely voters."

There could be many reasons why this post was removed from Pantano's campaign web site, but regardless of the reason, I would like to know why it seems to have disappeared. Any help?

Note: This is not an endorsement of any specific candidate or party, just an observation and (hopefully useful) analysis.

Well that race has gone quiet

2010-09-10T13:15:00.004-04:00

North Carolina's 13th Congressional District was home to an interesting race earlier this year, but things have gone quiet since the primary. Am I the only one who noticed the lack of any news about Congressman Brad Miller's (D) election with Bill Randall (R)?

Randall was one of the more interesting congressional candidates earlier this year. As a self-proclaimed Tea Partier, he narrowly lead a four-person race for the GOP nomination. But he didn't meet the 40% threshold to avoid a runoff. He faced Raleigh publisher, and establishment favorite, Bernie Reeves in the runoff, and despite being outspent, Randall significantly outpaced Reeves in the runoff. Randall is also African-American.

In the lead up to the primary and runoff, Randall was waging a (successful) grassroots campaign and at times made bold statements that were lampooned by his opponents. The most notable was his assertion that the federal government and BP conspired to intentionally spill oil in Gulf of Mexico. Randall was also dogged by charges of plagiarizing parts of his campaign platform.

GOP voters in the 13th District chose him as their nominee in spite of (because of?) these statements/issues. But since the June runoff, Bill Randall and the race in the 13th Congressional District seemed to have gone quiet. Congressman Miller may prefer it that way. He's had experience with bold Republican challengers in the past, remember Vernon Robinson? Perhaps this is just the quiet before the storm? (The 'storm' in this scenario is a creative and unusual grassroots campaign by Randall.) Or maybe this race will just stay quiet.

The district leans Democratic both in voter registration and past voter performance. It's an uphill climb for a Republican, even in a GOP-friendly year like it appears we're having now.

Note: I am not endorsing any candidate with this post, just offering an observation and (hopefully useful) analysis.

A head scratcher

2010-09-10T09:54:00.000-04:00

Yesterday Jim Leutze, who is the Democrat running in North Carolina Senate District 9 (think Wilmington), tweeted "Bernie Reeves endorses my Jim Leutze for NC Senate campaign Read what Bernie says at my web site." What makes this noteworthy is Bernie Reeves is a Republican from Raleigh, who ran (and lost in a primary runoff) for the GOP nomination in the 13th Congressional District. He is also the publisher of Metro Magazine. A portion of the endorsement:

Citizens of Wilmington and New Hanover County are fortunate indeed that Jim Leutze has thrown his hat in the ring to represent them in Raleigh....Jim's skill as a manager is known throughout the state. But his achievements in coastal and maritime endeavors continue to be praised as he strives to strike a balance between the ecology and the development of the area's coastal resources. This common sense approach is what voters must have in Raleigh to ensure economic growth in an environmentally sensitive region.

This endorsement raises questions that I don't have the answers to. Why did Bernie Reeves endorse Leutze over his Republican opponent, Thom Goolsby. Did Leutze seek out the endorsement? And Reeves is from Raleigh and I presume not well known by Wilmington voters. If that is the case, then voters are not the target of this endorsement. Does that mean that this endorsement was aimed at potential campaign donors? Or is this endorsement purely about a personal friendship between Leutze and Reeves. Leutze writes a column for Reeves' Metro Magazine.

Campaigns are all about the voters, or should be. This endorsement is just a little confusing to me. However, it certainly got my intention. Maybe that was the point.

Counterintuitive thought

2010-09-09T13:18:00.000-04:00

In a recent Public Policy Polling blog post, Tom Jensen runs through President Obama's approval rating in the state, along with Sen. Kay Hagan (D) and Governor Bev Perdue (D). The President clocks in with a 43/54 approval/disapproval rating. He follows these numbers with the suggestion "Democrats would probably be well advised to keep these folks off the campaign trail in the state this fall..."

On the surface, I would agree. However, a counterintuitive thought keeps creeping into my head that the President should hit the campaign trail, and hit it hard, including here in North Carolina. Most people (the few) who I've seen advocate this generally point to the need to 'rally the troops' and raise money to fend off an expected Republican wave. While those may be valid points, that's not really why I think Democrats might be better off with the President campaigning. If you scan the newspaper, read any online news sources, or turn on the TV, the nearly uniform message is about how the GOP is on the offensive and how Democrats are are on the run. Any mention of policy differences is only presented in the context of why Democrats are in such electoral trouble. This is where I think the President can help Democrats.

If you can remember back to 2008, you'll recollect that President Obama was actually pretty good at the whole campaigning thing. Something he really hasn't done much of since being in office (based on my impression of his presidency so far). He seemed to hunker down and work on getting his agenda enacted. He's had reasonable success on that front, but in my estimation, one of his strengths on the campaign trail in '08, was his ability to communicate well with the public and explain his positions. This strength has been completely neglected since he's been in office. We've seen flashes of it, the most prominent in my mind is when President Obama went to the House Republican Caucus' retreat and answered their questions while CSPAN cameras rolled. The White House viewed his responses and reaction to this relatively hostile audience as an unmitigated success and shared the video as far and wide as they could. But there has simply not been a consistent effort by the President to forcefully address his critics as well as explain and sell his policies. The next several weeks in advance of the 2010 Midterm elections provides the President with that opportunity.

At the very least, an energetic President Obama on the campaign trail will suck away some of the oxygen from Republicans' campaign narrative that everything is seemingly falling into place for them. And at best, he'll be able to successfully communicate his policies in a positive light, something voters haven't heard for a while. Plus he can raise money and rally the troops as others have mentioned.

Could it backfire? Sure. But President Obama is clearly going to be blamed for (any potential) losses by Democrats around the country. So if you're going to be tagged with the results, why not try and do something to influence them directly?

Note: this is not an endorsement of President Obama's policies or any specific candidates, just an observations (and hopefully useful) analysis.

Sen. Burr making some smart decisions

2010-09-08T12:30:00.000-04:00

North Carolina's marquee race in the 2010 Midterm elections is the US Senate contest between first term Sen. Richard Burr (R), NC Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D), and Business Professor Mike Beitler (L). Multiple polls over the past several months, including this recent one from Public Policy Polling, have shown that Sen. Burr is vulnerable, but is posting consistent leads largely due to the generally favorable political environment for Republicans. These polls also consistently indicate that despite 10 years in the US House of Representatives and nearly six in the US Senate, he is not well known across the state, and his approval ratings are not very good.

While Sen. Burr's campaign staff and supporters may push back against this narrative that he is vulnerable and is not well known or well liked among NC voters, a few recent actions indicate to me that he's seen this data, acknowleges it's legitimacy on some level, and is working to turn it around.

Sen. Burr's first telling action is his first TV ad of the Fall General Election campaign. He released it last week (you can see it and a write up about it here). The ad is a positive one, with lots of images of him interacting with presumably average North Carolinians while his name flashes on the screen repeatedly throughout the spot. He doesn't mention or attack his opponents, it's an ad all about Sen. Burr.

Sen. Burr's second "tell" is news that he has agreed to three debates this Fall before the election. Three debates by a sitting US Senator running for re-election in North Carolina is a lot, and more than in other recent elections. Usually, incumbents tend to stay away from debates for several reasons, fear of making a gaffe, fear of giving their opponent(s) free publicity, fear of uncomfortable questions, etc. However, Sen. Burr has welcomed these opportunities.

A good and experienced political consultant recently shared with me that candidates/campaigns should first build name ID, then build positive favorability/approval ratings, then go on the attack if necessary. The thinking behind this being (and I'm simplyfying things a bit here) is that if you attack an opponent before you've defined who you are and built a positive image of yourself in the minds of voters, then you run this risk of being labeled a negative candidate. And voters typically don't respond well to candidates they perceive as negative.

Taken together, the ad and his willingness to debate his opponents, shows Sen. Burr has seen the polling data that shows him with less than stellar name ID and approval ratings, and has smartly chosen to address those weakness. I can imagine it is tempting to try and define your opponent(s) early by launching an attack, but that can create voter backlash. I can also imagine it would be easy to be overly proud of your own efforts/accomplishments and dismiss the data as flawed and not reflective of the electorate. In my opinion, Sen. Burr has avoided these pitfalls by beginning the Fall General Election campaign (when most voters are paying attention) with a positve ad and an agreement to participate in several debates. If he continues making smart moves like these, he'll be able to capitalize on the GOP-friendly political environment.

Note: this is not an endorsement of any kind, just a combination of observation and (hopefully useful) analysis.

Speaker Shuler?

2010-09-07T19:46:00.000-04:00

Last week a few Western North Carolina news outlets and blogs reported some comments made by moderate to conservative Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler about his desire to take on leadership roles in Washington, DC. He even went as far as to suggest that he could be a candidate for Speaker. The Citizen Times has a good write-up here.

It's hard t know what motivated Congressman Shuler to make these comments. He could legitimatly be positioning himself for an increased leadership role in Washington, or, and I think this is a much more likely explanation, he could be using these comments to deflect uncomfortable questions about Democratic leadership in the US House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is much more liberal than Congressman Shuler or his district, and his affiliation with her as a member of the Democratic caucus is causing some electoral issues. His political opponents often use Speaker Pelosi as a reason to vote against Congressman Shuler. While he's gently defended her on a personal level in the past, he typically distances himself politically. By suggesting he himself could run for Speaker, Congressman Shuler changes the conversation and effectively deflects a politically dangerous conversation about Speaker Pelosi.

So while I'm not denying that Congressman Shuler has leadership potential in the US House or a desire to serve in a leadership role, I personally don't expect him to throw his hat into the ring for Speaker of the US House. That is, of course, if he gets re-elected in November.

Sorry for the absence...

2010-09-07T15:42:00.000-04:00

It's been a crazy few weeks getting prepped for the General Election and all that comes with it, plus other life duties. There should be more than enough fodder for blogging, I just hope I can blog about it consistently! I'll give it my best shot!

Agreeing & Disagreeing

2010-09-07T14:54:00.000-04:00

Most avid followers of North Carolina and national politics are familiar with the handful of organizations that do race ratings for the US House and US Senate. Three of the most prominent that frequently make news when they update their ratings are the Cook Political Report, the Rothenberg Political Report, and Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. For the 2010 Midterm elections coming up in about eight weeks, all three have predicted big gains for the Republican party in the US House. Their most recent ratings even indicate that the GOP could overcome their 39 seat deficit and win a narrow majority in the upcoming elections. However, in regards to predicting the outcome of North Carolina's (potentially) competitive congressional races, these rating groups differ widely.

The four US House races I'm focusing on here are the 2nd District held by Congressman Bob Etheridge (D), 7th District held by Congressman Mike McIntyre (D), 8th District held by Congressman Larry Kissell (D), and 11th District held by Congressman Heath Shuler (D).

Here's a run down of the somewhat divergent race ratings.

Cook Political Report:

2nd District: Likely Democratic (Etheridge)
7th District: Likely Democratic (McIntyre)
8th District: Toss-up (Kissell)
11th District: Lean Democratic (Shuler)

Rothenberg Political Report:

2nd District: Not mentioned as competitive (Etheridge)
7th District: Not mentioned as competitive (McIntyre)
8th District: Lean Democratic (Kissell)
11th District: Not mentioned as competitive (Shuler)

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball:

2nd District: Likely Democratic (Etheridge)
7th District: Not mentioned as competitive (McIntyre)
8th District: Toss-up (Kissell)
11th District: Likely Democratic (Shuler)

I'm left scratching my head a little. Presumably these folks are looking at generally the same information, but are coming to (in some cases) very different conclusions. Congressman Kissell's seat is obviously considered the most vulnerable and Congressman McIntyre's seat is probably the least vulnerable of this group. Congressman Shuler's seat ranges from "Lean Democratic" to not being listed among the competitive races. And Congressman Etheridge appears to have the edge based on these ratings.

The voters will obviously decide these races on November 2, but when reviewing these or other race ratings, it's helpful to keep a wide view and not put too much stock in one source of information.

Been rollin' around...

2010-08-19T19:48:00.000-04:00

A few things have been rolling around in my head about the level of organization of the two parties. Recent reports from the national media have shown that the Democratic National Committee has spent/invested significantly in state parties while the Republicans haven't had the cash to make similarly large invesments. How much impact will that have on the upcoming elections? Will it help Democrats up and down the ballot? Republicans, under the leadership of President George Bush and his top advisors, built a successful turnout operation in the early 2000s, but the Democrats seemed to have caught up and surpassed them during the 2008 election. Will that Democratic turnout infrastructure prove to be a firewall against an apparently bad political year for them?

On the state level here in North Carolina, it always seemed that the Democrats had figured out how to get organized, raise money, target voters and win in places they really shouldn't. But have recent retirements/resignations by several long-serving Democratic legislators compromised these advantages? When I say that, I'm largely thinking of former Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand (D-Cumberland), who observers credit with running the Senate Democratic caucus campaign operation, and running it well. But he resigned in 2009 to Chair the state's Parole Commission. Another big fundraiser in the Senate Democratic caucus has always been Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston), but he opted not to run again, so the Democrats are down a big fundraiser. New Senate Majority Leader Martin Nesbitt (D-Buncombe) has been stepping up his fundraising, but I doubt it's making up the difference. What's even less clear is whether or not Senate Democrats are making good strategic choices as they have consistently done in the past.

On a parallel track, the Republicans seem to be catching up in terms of organization and seem (to me) to be running a more coordinated and strategic campaign operation. Notably, Rep. Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg), who is leading the campaign charge for House Republicans, appears to be running an organized and thoughtful campaign operation.

So, there are some competing trends/observations here. Which ones will win out? We might not know until well after the election.

If it quacks like a Duck...

2010-08-16T20:05:00.000-04:00

An article I saw today "McCrory stops in Sanford to stump for Stone" reenforced what I (and others) have been thinking for some time. And that would be former Charlotte Mayor and 2008 GOP Gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory is laying the groundwork for another run at the Governor's office. The article detials a recent swing through Sanford where McCrory campaign for a Republican challenging a Democratic incumbent NC House member. Earlier in the year he started a political action committee (PAC), the New Leadership PAC. The next Governor's race in North Carolina isn't until 2012 and a lot can happen between now and then, but this recent news lends credence to the notion that McCrory is looking for a rematch with Governor Bev Perdue.

A safe Democratic district becoming less so?

2010-08-13T16:08:00.000-04:00

A State Senate district that no one should be talking about in the same breath as competitive races may turn out to just be one of the most interesting seats to watch this election cycle. The district is NC Senate District 28, based in Greensboro/Guilford County, and it's currently held by retiring Sen. Katie Dorsett. The district is overwhelmingly Democratic. In the 2008 elections, it gave President Obama 69% of the vote, Sen. Kay Hagan (D) 70.5%, and Gov. Perdue (D) 68%. The district is also a "minority majority" district which means racial/ethnic minorities make up more than 50% of the district's voters. The drama associated with this seat started a while ago, but I'll start with the candidate filing period this year, which took place in February.

Sen. Dorsett (D-Guilford) initially filed for re-election, in fact, she filed on the first day of the filing period. All was quiet for another couple of weeks until the last day of filing. As the clock ticked away, Sen. Dorsett withdrew her name for NC Senate District 28 in an apparent move to clear the Democratic field for her friend and political ally, Gladys Robinson. It only partially worked. Another Democrat filed to run as well, the relatively unknown Evelyn Miller. Four Republicans wound up filing as well. This almost-last minute maneuver likely miffed a fair number of Democrats in the district, but it was especially troublesome for Guilford County Commissioner Bruce Davis.

Davis had run against Sen. Dorsett in the 2008 Democratic primary, earning a respectable 35% of the vote. Some felt that Sen. Dorsett's sudden withdrawal was intended to block Davis from seeking the seat. Sen. Dorsett's motivations aside, the situation prompted Davis to start gathering signatures to get on the ballot as an Unaffiliated candidate. In a couple of months he collected the requisite signatures and after the Republican primary dust settled, we're left with a three-way race with Democrat Gladys Robinson, Republican (and Greensboro City Councilor) Trudy Wade, and Unaffiliated Bruce Davis.

Typically an Unaffiliated candidate wouldn't garner much attention, or have much affect on the election outcome. However, Davis brings to the table a political base and now some notable endorsements. From the High Point Enterprise:

State legislative hopeful Bruce Davis of High Point has enlisted some notable city leaders to endorse his unaffiliated bid for the 28th State Senate District. Mayor Becky Smothers and High Point University President Nido Qubein signed an endorsement letter mailed recently by the Davis campaign. Davis, a longtime Democratic Guilford County commissioner, submitted enough petition signatures in June to the Guilford County Board of Elections to gain an unaffiliated spot on the Nov. 2 general election ballot.

The endorsement letter signed by Qubein, Smothers and two prominent local businessmen, Robert "Bob" Brown and Ed Price...

Some local Democrats have expressed concern that Davis will split the Democratic base with Robinson and create just enough of an opening for Trudy Wade to win a majority and take the seat away from the Democrats. That may still be a long-shot, but Wade appears to be a formidable candidate, especially for such a Democratic district. This one is worth keeping an eye on.

SEANC's sitting out this go 'round

2010-08-13T15:32:00.000-04:00

NC SPIN recently reported what I had been hearing about SEANC. Apparently, the State Employee's Association of North Carolina (SEANC) will not be making any endorsements for the General Election this year. This could have a significant impact on how NC's legislative races turn out this year. SEANC, who recently became an affiliate of the Service Employee International Union (SEIU), has typically endorsed and worked for Democratic candidates - usually the more liberal members. According to data from the State Board of Election, in the 2008 election cycle, SEANC contributed $174,250 to state legislative candidates, which placed them just outside the top 10 largest Political Action Committees (PACs) in the state. With Republicans doing a bit better in fundraising than they have in the past, SEANC's decision to sit this cycle out could compound problems for the Democrats. Beyond the money SEANC was distributing to mostly Democratic candidates, I also wonder how much organizational support SEANC is holding back from it's usually favored candidates, and what impact that might have on the elections' outcome.

Not endorsing any candidates seems to me to be a pretty dramatic step. I assume it's because they felt their support was being taken for granted and they are sending a message to lawmakers and candidates. Will it work? It seems doubtful to me that moderate to conservative Democrats that SEANC hasn't traditionally loved would be replaced by more labor-friendly Republicans. This is a potential outcome, but I assume SEANC's thought this all through already.

But just because SEANC isn't working FOR any candidates, that doesn't mean they aren't working AGAINST some candidates. Is SEANC still actively working against candidates that are/have been hostile to their priorities? Are those Republicans AND Democrats?

I guess we'll have to wait to see until after the election whether SEANC's political decisions were good ones for it's membership. And regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, maneuvering like this is what makes politics endlessly fascinating!

NC Parties' Finances

2010-08-13T12:22:00.000-04:00

I feel like I've spent the better part of my life trying to deconstruct, then reconstruct the campaign finance reports of the NC Democratic and Republican parties. It's really been closer to two weeks, but it sure has felt longer than that. The result of all this hard work was featured in the NCFEF's weekly About the Capital e-mail that shows in detail the state parties' campaign finances. Read it here.

The reason this was hard, and why no one else I know of has tried to do this, is because the state parties are only required to submit their receipts and expenditures in aggregate. However they have several accounts designated for specific purposes, such as their campaign to win a majority in the NC House and the NC Senate. So I basically had to reconstruct the past year and half of receipts, transfers and expenditures for each of these accounts. It was tough. It was also an education in how the parties structure their campaign finances. There are some interesting nuggets in there, but I think we covered it pretty well in our write up (here). Check that out, and if I can muster the energy, I might pick things apart some more.

Random fact of the day

2010-08-13T12:06:00.000-04:00

In North Carolina, when one files their tax returns, you have the option for checking off a portion of your return to go towards the political party of your choice. (By the way, the NC Libertarian Party just earned the right to benefit from this as well, read here.) I was going through some campaign finances documents again today (what else would I be doing?!) and found out how much the NC Democratic and Republican parties received from that. The Democrats got $457,547.98 and the Republicans took in $282,058.96. Not a bad haul, especially since they didn't even have to ask for it. Can't beat that ROI.

Unusual Special Election on tap

2010-08-12T16:15:00.000-04:00

So Judge James Wynn did in fact resign his NC Court of Appeals seat before the September 3 deadline which means NC will get one more statewide election to vote in this November. In fact it looks like due to the timing and nature of the election, it's going to be an "instant runoff" election. I'm not sure NC has ever actually had an instant runoff election before. This should be interesting. Editorial writer for the Greensboro News & Record explains here:

[Judge Wynn's resignation] will introduce a new voting scheme to North Carolina called "instant runoff voting." It will be employed, only in this special judicial election, because there will be no time to hold a primary.

The change was prompted by a special Supreme Court election several years ago in which many candidates filed to run and the winner received much less than a majority.

The problem is that this "instant runoff voting" is confusing and, in my opinion, no better than the prospect of a winner receiving less than a majority vote.

Here's how it works, according to the statute, if more than two candidates file to run: "Under 'instant runoff voting,' voters rank up to three of the candidates by order of preference, first, second, or third. If the candidate with the greatest number of first‑choice votes receives more than fifty percent (50%) of the first‑choice votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate receives that minimum number, the two candidates with the greatest number of first‑choice votes advance to a second round of counting. In this round, each ballot counts as a vote for whichever of the two final candidates is ranked highest by the voter. The candidate with the most votes in the second round wins the election."

Say what? Not only is that not very clear, it's going to confuse the heck out of voters, most of whom are unfamiliar with even one candidate in judicial races. So how could they rank three in their order of preference?

A possible special election & NC's ballots

2010-08-10T08:17:00.000-04:00

I wrote this article about a potential special election for a soon-to-be-vacant seat on the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Take a look and then read below, there's more.

North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge James A. Wynn, Jr. was confirmed on August 5th to the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals. This could set the stage for a special election, depending on when Judge Wynn resigns his current position.

If Judge Wynn resigns his seat on the North Carolina Court of Appeals before September 4th, the State Board of Elections will be required to open a special week-long filing period for the vacant seat. If the resignation comes on or after September 4th, Governor Perdue can appoint a replacement to the North Court of Appeals until an election can take place in 2012.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals is composed of 15 judges who are elected statewide in nonpartisan races to eight-year terms. Judge Wynn first won a seat on North Carolina Court of Appeals in 1990. President Clinton nominated him to the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in 1999, but his nomination was blocked and a Judiciary committee hearing was never held. In November of 2009, Wynn was nominated again for the Fourth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals by President Obama and earned support from both of North Carolina’s U.S. Senators, Richard Burr (R) and Kay Hagan (D).

Judge Wynn won his most recent election in 2008, garnering 54 percent of the vote.

Another component of this I didn't mention in the (short) article is that if Judge Wynn waits until September 3 to resign, it would push back the State Board of Elections' (SBOE) ability to print the entire state's ballots for the November 2 General Election because they would have to wait for the special filing period to close. I'd rather the SBOE not rush to print the ballots, I know when I rush to get something done, that's when mistakes happen.

Politics makes strange bedfellows

2010-08-02T15:55:00.000-04:00

I was running through more campaign finance reports (yes, at some point I will take about something other than campaign finance reports), this time from the state Republican and Democratic parties. I happened to notice that according to the most recent campaign finance reports, so far this election cycle the North Carolina Advocates for Justice PAC (aka trial lawyers) have donated $10,000 to the NC Democratic Party and $8,500 to the NC Republican Party. This is a little surprising given that trial lawyers are often associated with the Democratic party, and GOP candidates often try and use the support of trial lawyers against Democrats. It seems so far this year, their giving to the state parties seems to be close to even. Of course, the NC Advocates for Justice PAC could be (and almost certainly is) giving money to individual Democratic candidates and Republican candidates, but I find their nearly equal giving to the state parties interesting.

While I was out...

2010-08-01T14:23:00.001-04:00

So I probably started this blog at the wrong time because I was about to go on vacation. But I'm back now and ready to start more regular posting. Since I'm still catching up, I thought I'd link to some work that my colleagues and I did on campaign finance in the NC House and Senate. Some headlines (of many) from this are that Democrats and Republican candidates for NC Senate are virtually tied in the amount they have in cash on hand (big change from past elections), and in the NC House, Democrats have a big cash on hand advantage over GOP candidates. But there's more than just that...hopefully I'll have time to dig into the numbers a little more later, but for now take a look. NC Senate 2nd Quarter Campaign Finance Analysis here, and NC House 2nd Quarter Campaign Finance Analysis here.

Campaign finance fun

2010-07-20T18:33:00.000-04:00

When you go through the campaign finance reports for every candidate running for the North Carolina General Assembly (170 seats all together) you pick up a few interesting tid bits that aren't necessarily part of a larger story. This often means said tid bits are largely ignored by, well, everyone. I'll take advantage of this new medium (for me at least) to post these little factoids unearthed by hours of research. So consider this the first installment of what you learn when going through campaign finance reports.

There are a couple of candidates for the North Carolina House that have registered their campaign committee "inactive" with the State Board of Elections (SBOE), Larry Yarborough (R) running in NC House District 55 (Durham) and Matt Miller (R) running in NC House District 103 (Charlotte). As I understand it this means the candidate can't raise or spend any money for their campaign. Candidates do this, apparently, so they don't have to file regular campaign finance reports with the SBOE. The thought being that the campaign finance reports would be a bunch of zeroes, so why go through the hassle of filing at all? These districts are pretty Democratic districts, so these candidate's lack of active campaigning likely wont change the outcome of the General Election.

Another candidate, Jackie Smith (D) NC House District 98, has withdrawn altogether. Not sure if her name will be on the ballot in November or not. This is the seat held by NC Rep. Thom Tillis (R) who is heading up the NC House GOP caucus' campaign team. This seat could be competitive, but obviously not this year.

And in perhaps one of the most interesting tid bits, Marc Boudreau, (R) who is running in NC Senate District 13 (Robeson County), has failed to file any paperwork with the SBOE (i.e. he didn't set up a campaign committee, get a Treasurer trained and registered, or file either a first or second quarter campaign finance report). This means the SBOE has "terminated" his campaign committee, so he can't raise or spend any money. He could get back in the good graces of the SBOE if he gets caught up with all his paperwork, but somehow this seems unlikely to me with less than four months to go before the election.

OK, maybe you didn't find that as interesting as I did, but in an election that is likely to be as contested as this one, it's good to know which candidates are serious and campaigning and which ones aren't.

More to come...

2010-07-20T16:24:00.000-04:00

Starting a little experiment here. Going to try and record the many random aspects of Tar Heel politics that I observe nearly everyday. Will I be able to do politics in North Carolina justice? And in fair, objective way? We'll find out. More to come...