North Mecklenburg digging out of paper blizzard

By Halloween night the “Great Blizzard of 2016” began to taper off, or at least that’s what the locals here in North Mecklenburg hoped.  It had been a long and stormy season, and at this point many were not sure how much more of this “weather” their spirits could take.

You may be asking yourself,  “Great Blizzard?!?!  What on earth could he possibly be talking about?”  It topped 80 degrees on Halloween.  Snow, much less a blizzard, is the furthest thing from most minds right now.

No, it’s not a blizzard of snow and ice we’ve been experiencing.  Instead, it’s been the constant blast of paper stuffing local mailboxes this election season that people are finding hard to take.  By Halloween, at least 50 flyers for and against various political candidates have landed in North Mecklenburg mailboxes.  Like any measurement of accumulation amounts vary depending on your exact location.  Some get more.  Some get less.  However, this season it seems more pervasive than others.

What makes this even more unusual, is that it’s not the historically divisive Presidential campaign that’s generated most of the volume.  No, it’s the race between Republican incumbent John Bradford of Cornelius and Unaffiliated challenger Jane Campbell of Davidson for NC House 98 in the North Carolina General Assembly that has generated the most flyers – by far.  The district covering Davidson, Cornelius, Huntersville’s east side and the Highland Creek area of Charlotte has been hit with at least 30 flyers from both sides starting in mid-September.

Like two equally heavily armed camps in a giant snowball fight the number of flyers have shown almost equal support for each side.  Though in fairness most have been attacking their opponent as much or more than promoting their own candidate.

To keep up this constant barrage requires a lot of money, and Halloween, October 31st, also happens to be the last day for campaigns and outside political groups to file their third quarter campaign finance disclosures.  The reports for both the Campbell and Bradford campaigns showed up on the State Board of Elections site that day as well.

Here are the highlights.

The campaigns raised comparable amounts from individual donors so far this election.  As a challenger, Campbell raised a very respectable $92,218 to Bradford’s $103,803.  Both candidates appeared to garner most of their individual support from their respective home bases within the district.

Bradford pulled ahead significantly in the cash race by raking in $54,800 from “Other Political Committees”.  That would be from other elected officials and industry PACs.  Campbell drew just $10,910.

Both campaigns sent huge amounts to their respective parties.

Campbell sent $55,000 to the NC Democrats.  Yes, technically she’s an “Unaffiliated” but Campbell is essentially running as the replacement Democrat since the party didn’t field one during the filing period.  Bradford sent $30,000 to the NCGOP.  Effectively, both candidates are paying for much of the flyers landing in local mailboxes through these payments to their respective parties.

At this point it would look like the incumbent has a sizable advantage, but the campaigns’ reports don’t tell the whole story.  Both sides also received significant outside help this cycle.  Third party groups that aren’t allowed to coordinate with the campaigns can effectively spend as much as they want to influence elections, and spend they did in this race.

As of the end of October, a group out of Raleigh called NC Families First has dumped $164,849 in opposition ads against Bradford or in support of Campbell.  On the other side Bradford has benefited from $20,000 in support from the NC Realtors.  Flyers have also gone out from the Mainstreet Merchants group and NC Citizens for Freedom in Education in support of his campaign. However, as of this writing numbers for those groups are not available.

So while Bradford’s campaign itself raised more money up through the Q3 of this year, the overall effort to elect Campbell appears to have the lead in total funding.

Regardless, both sides have a ton of money to spend and that has set the conditions for the paper blizzard we’ve been experiencing.

This post first appeared in the Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com.

Left-leaning network spends at least $3.6 million on NC State races

aShortChronicle has posted extensive coverage of the outside spending impacting local races this election cycle.  Now, with election day upon us, some totals are in hand.

After Monday's filing deadline, we've identified $3,568,530 in what would be classified as direct campaign related expenditures (media buys, mailings, canvassing) from a single network of left leaning advocacy groups supporting Democratic Party candidates this election cycle.  Tens of thousands more in legal fees and other costs are also reported in their filings.

The network includes the following groups:

NC Families First, NC Citizens for Protecting Our Schools, A Better NC, Real Facts NC, Common Sense Matters, and Make NC First.  As mentioned in this previous post, all of these entities are connected through Raleigh Attorney, Michael Weisel.

If Weisel's name sounds familiar, it might be from reading these other articles in local media.  WFAE did a piece quoting him as representing NC Families First on the group's commercial against Bob Edmunds for the NC Supreme Court.  Weisel was also quoted in this WBTV report on Planned Parenthood posing as an anti toll group.  In the WBTV report, Weisel was representing NC Citizens for Protecting Our Schools.

This Planned Parenthood situation provides a great example of how the money flows.

The Planned Parenthood affiliated organization Community Organizing Group was working with a subsidiary of NC Citizens for Protecting Our Schools called "Aim Higher Now" to hand out some door hangers.  NC Citizens for Protecting Our Schools is a major funder of NC Families First sending them over $1.4 million this election cycle.  NC Families First in turn sent $485,000 to Planned Parenthood Action PAC NC for canvassing.  The WBTV report states Planned Parenthood Action as working with Community Organizing Group on the canvasing operation.

One can easily draw the connections between NC Citizens for Protecting Our Schools and the Planned Parenthood canvasing operation.  With one hand the "Citizens" group is paying for the canvasing via money given to NC Families First, and with the other hand they are paying for the canvasing materials. Ultimately, the money all flows to this operation from the same place, but it looks like multiple organizations working independently.

In reality, it's just part of a larger plan.

Another part of the plan is targeting NC House seats directly including NC98 and NC92.

According to NC Board of Elections data, NC Families First has hit NC98 Rep John Bradford with $164,849 in attack ads this cycle.  NC92 Republican Danae Caulfield has been hit by $66,471 from the group.

$231,320 spent on attack ads for 2 NC House seats in Mecklenburg county!!!

Further research shows this to be part of a wider effort by NC Families First to flood Mecklenburg and Wake counties with attack ads against Republicans.

The below list matches the list of "Competitive Races to Watch" from Real Facts NC - one of the affiliated groups in this network.

The Republicans highlighted in bold match the targets of NC Families First based on their campaign reports at NCSBE.gov.  One can guess that is likely not an accident.  From the analysis completed so far, John Bradford in NC98 appears to be the group's #1 target based on money spent.

With Mecklenburg County and Lake Norman in particular being one of the central battlegrounds for the NC House this election cycle, the money and organization behind this collection of 527 and 501c4 organizations has gone a long way towards what's been happening here locally.

Will it be successful?  We will know in less than a week.

Is not voting something like committing voter fraud?

That question may sound silly, but since we are deep into the “silly season” of this election it is one worth asking.  Is not voting something like voter fraud?  Think about the following scenario for a moment, and you might begin to think the answer is “yes”.

In recent months you may have come across a staunch supporter of Candidate A in a hotly contested race who says something like “if you don’t vote for my favorite Candidate A it’s the same as voting for that horrible Candidate B.”  Then sometime later, a supporter of Candidate B tells you the exact same thing, just in reverse.  They say not supporting Candidate B is the same as voting for that horrible Candidate A.

Taking that thinking to its logical conclusion, not voting at all is like voting for both of the candidates.  If that were literally true, voting twice by not voting at all would be committing voter fraud.

Fortunately, staying home or leaving individual races blank on your ballot is still a valid option that doesn’t involve committing a felony.

However, it also doesn’t mean what many voters think it might.  Notably, it doesn’t mean you are casting a “protest” vote.  You aren’t effectively protesting anything because one of the candidates is still going to win.  Also, our electoral system does not allow you to truly vote against a candidate, so please don’t go around saying “I voted against Candidate A by voting for Candidate B”.  No, you didn’t.  You voted for Candidate B and for all the consequences that entails.  If somewhere down the line Candidate B does something predictable based on their political philosophy and you think that something is horrible, remember, you voted for that too.

In this election season saying it’s meaningless to sit out a race because you don’t like either candidate may sound harsh.  It is also true.

Not voting at all in a race when a candidate is unopposed might make a voter feel better, but it doesn’t change the outcome.  One would hope it might send a message, but it’s hard to say even a large undervote or “protest vote” in these cases makes much of a difference.  Take as examples, the Mayoral races last cycle in Cornelius and Davidson.  Both Chuck Travis and John Woods were unopposed.  Both received a large percentage of write-ins or undervotes against them due to their stance on the I77 toll issue.  Both of them still went to Raleigh to advocate for the project to Senate leader Phil Berger after that “protest”.

A protest vote only matters if those it’s cast against care.

In a race with two or more candidates, not voting is very unlikely to impact the outcome and you can be sure whichever candidate gets the most votes won’t care about how many people left the race blank.  It goes to the fundamental nature of the two party system.  State and Federal general elections are head to head  contests employing the “first past the post” method to determine the winner - meaning whoever gets the most votes wins. Period.  Yes, there is the Electoral College in the Presidential election, but since NC might be a critical state whichever candidate gets the most here could determine the overall outcome.

None of this is to say voters should always hold their noses and pick someone.  If you think both candidates in a race would likely vote the same way on the issues most important to you and you oppose their position, leave it blank.  Just know someone will win and they will be representing you on that issue and others as well.

The way to remedy this situation over time is to have better candidates up and down the ballot.  The best way to have that happen is getting more people involved in the political process working to have the best people bubble to the top.

After this election where so many people are talking about not voting due to dissatisfaction with their choices, where we go afterward as the voting public may be as important as who wins on election day.

This post first appeared in the Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com

Do we really live in a democracy?

Do we live in a democracy?

The common answer to that question that makes everyone feel good has long been “yes”.  Democracy, or governing by the “will of the people”, sounds great.  But, the real answer to that questions is “no”, or at best a “maybe” or “kinda-sorta”.

We are definitely not a small-d democracy where everyone votes directly on everything, and the majority always wins.  If we were, then we wouldn’t have things like the Electoral College when selecting a president – a system where winning the popular vote does not guarantee victory.  Also the US Senate wouldn’t be set up the way it is with each state having the same number if Senators regardless of population.  The Senate wouldn’t allow something like the filibuster where one person can effectively shut down legislation.

No, we don’t have direct democracy in this country.  Instead we have that “maybe” or “kinda-sorta” version of democracy called “representative democracy” where voters select individuals to represent them in the decision making process.

Picking those people is the voter’s responsibility, but we are often playing in a rigged game.

With both major parties hosting their national conventions in the coming weeks more focus than at any time in recent history is on the process of nominating candidates for the Presidency of the United States.

Republicans started out well when it comes to a democratic process bosting a whopping 17 candidates seeking the party’s nomination.

By the end however they’ve ended up with a candidate, Donald Trump, who is so unpopular among many in the party establishment that there is a simmering #NeverTrump movement of party officials who would like nothing more than to figure out how they could steal the nomination from him.  They pursue this even though he is a candidate who helped lead to record setting turnout all across the country in the Republican Primary.  They’ve even been actively recruiting for a candidate, any candidate, who didn't even run this election cycle because the second place candidate, Ted Cruz, is almost equally as unpopular.

What the actual voters want is a seeming afterthought.

Things on the Democrat side, aren’t much better though.

Bernie Sanders made the race for the Democrat nomination much more competitive than many thought possible.  However, in the end he did not have much of a chance because of something patently undemocratic about the process – superdelegates.  Superdelegates are high ranking current and former party officials who are unbound by the primary voting results.  They can support any candidate regardless of how the voters vote.  Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming lead among superdelegates gave her a sense of inevitability.

Yes, Clinton won the overall popular vote in the primary making it more “democratic”, but in an endeavor like politics a manufactured sense of inevitability can become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Last week, the Pew Research Center released a telling set of data showing how all this has led to a breakdown in the candidate selection process resulting in more “unsatisfying” candidates than have been seen in over two decades.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the least “satisfying” candidates since 1992.  Trump matches the low water mark of 40% set by Republican George H.W. Bush that year, and Hillary Clinton also has the lowest satisfaction level for a Democrat since that same election.  Somewhat ironically, her 43% satisfaction rating as a candidate bests only that of her husband Bill Clinton who had an abysmal 33% in his first run for the Oval Office.

It may come as a surprise to many, but political parties are actually private organizations.  They are free to set up their rules as they wish and select their nominees effectively however they want.  Their goal is to win elections so that their people can become the arbiters of the power that comes with elected office.  Being small-d democratic is somewhere way down on the priority list.

Unfortunately for voters, this election cycle the processes in both parties have resulted in suboptimal candidates.  That leaves the question, do we live in a democracy?

This post first appeared in this week's editionof the Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com.

It's time to vote - again.

We are about to witness one of the stranger elections in recent memory.

No, not the one with the blowhard billionaire, the democratic socialist, or the former Secretary of State being investigated by the FBI.  No, not that one.

Instead it’s the rescheduled primaries for North Carolina’s delegation to the United States Congress.

You may be asking yourself “didn’t we just have the primaries?”  The answer to that questions is “yes” – with a caveat.  We did just have our primary elections for all the races except for the ones for the US Congress.

With the national controversy around North Carolina’s HB2 sucking up all the political oxygen recently, readers may have forgotten the previous political crisis du jour.  That was back in February when Federal Courts invalidated two North Carolina Congressional districts as illegal racial gerrymanders.  A three judge panel said NC-1 and NC-12 inappropriately used race to influence the drawing of these districts using a strategy called “packing” whereby these districts were drawn in such a way at to include as many minority voters as possible and thus making it easier for Republicans to win more of the other districts.

Forced to quickly redraw the districts, the General Assembly did something unexpected.  Rather than just tweak districts to appease the courts, they redrew all 13 districts – many of them in fairly radical fashion.  While the new districts are almost as controversial as the old ones due to their partisan breakdown, they will be used in the upcoming election.  No area of the state has been more impacted by these redrawn districts than the Lake Norman region.

Prior to redrawing the boundaries Lake Norman area voters in Mecklenburg  and Iredell counties pretty much all fell in the 9th Congressional District represented by Rep Robert Pittenger.  Under the new boundaries, North Mecklenburg now moves to the newly configured 12th District and South Iredell goes to the new 13th District.  This has some major implications for voters in both areas – particularly in this election cycle.

The only thing that’s guaranteed is that Rep Robert Pittenger won’t be representing the area.  He decided to stay with the 9th District which now only includes the southeast portion of Mecklenburg County and runs east along the South Carolina border.

North Mecklenburg voters are almost certain to see a partisan switch in their representation.  Like the old gerrymandered 12th District, the new boundaries are heavily tilted towards a Democrat winning the district.  The new district is entirely within Mecklenburg, the only single county district in the state.  Since North Mecklenburg is heavily Republican, the Democrat candidates have not been all that visible here.  The one exception may be Tricia Cotham.  Cotham, the daughter of Mecklenburg County Commissioner Pat Cotham, currently serves in the state legislature.  She is making s strong play for North Mecklenburg voters by opposing the I77 HOT Lanes project.

Iredell County voters in the new 13th District face a different challenge at the polls.  Like the old 9th District, the new 13th is heavily Republican.  This district however, is a truly open race this year and has drawn a record number of candidates – 23 in all with a whopping 17 Republicans.  Many of these candidates are not well known across the district which stretches from Iredell over to Gilford County.  Instead they are counting on a doing well in only a small part of the district and taking advantage of a one-time only rule for this primary election.  Due to the late primary, there will be no run-off even if no candidate reaches 40% of the vote.  In the 13th District that could result in a Republican “winner” who barely breaks into a double digit percentage of voters.

This will be a very, very low turnout election, but if here’s one good thing about that for voters it’s that it gives your vote a higher relative impact.  Spend the next few days doing a little candidate research and head to the polls.  Due to the partisan nature of the districts, in both cases the “real” election day for these races is June 7th, not in November.

Bonus Observation: On Thursday a Federal 3 judge panel unanimously upheld the newly redrawn districts while maintaining they look like a political gerrymander.  See here for that story.

This post first appeared in this week's Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com.

Why Sanders might be the most formidable Dem against Trump

Nobody thought we'd be here.  Nobody.

It's not just the mind boggling fact that Donald Trump is going to be the Rebublican nominee, but also the fact that the Republican primary has ended before the Democrats fully nailed down their choice.

But here we are.

So, let's take a look at the Democrat race so far and look at it through the lens of who would make the best candidate against "The Donald".

Should it be Hillary or Bernie?

Sure, all the polls and the conventional wisdom say either one will beat the "Blowhard Billionaire", but at this point national polls are really meaningless and this race will be anything but conventional.

Still, we here at aShortChronicle like our numbers and so we took a look at the results of the Democratic Party primaries to date to see if anything stood out when looking at a general election.

It was a bit more interesting than you might think.

Take a look at the below chart which has the delegate counts from the actual primaries and caucuses.  It does not include Super Delegates.  The color scheme and assumptions are explained below.

In the general election all that really matters is the Electoral College.  The color coding is based on how states are likely to vote in the Electoral College based on the results from the 2012 election.

The primaries marked in yellow don't factor in the analysis because they don'thave Electoral College votes.

The states marked in red are states where Romney won by 10 points or more.  There are a couple of exceptions where it was only 8 or 9 points, but it is still likely that Trump wins these states even if he significantly underperforms Romney's result from last cycle.

Said another way, the outcome of the Democratic primary is meaningless in the red states when it comes to the general election.  For example, Clinton's biggest delegate haul to date was in Texas, but does anyone believe Texas will be blue this year even with Trump as the Republican nominee?

The blue states are likely Democrat Electoral College states.  Those are divided into three shades of blue.  Darkest blue is a solid Sanders primary win.  Medium blue is a solid Clinton primary win.  Light blue is where the difference in their delegate count from the primary was 3 or less.

Here's the first interesting thing.

When you add up the delegates from these blue states, Sanders actually has 57 more delegates chosen to date by actual voters in solid Democrat states.

The green states were coded this way actually because Trump is the Republican candidate. Both Michigan and Pennsylvania are likely blue states for any other Republican.  However, they are also states with high concentrations of blue collar white voters.  That's a group that has been particularly drawn to Trump's populist message - particularly on trade.  That's the same message Sanders has been using on that issue.

If Clinton is the nominee instead of Sanders, some of the Sanders voter may end up in the Trump camp.

Now, before you roll your eyes too much on that one.  Read this.

On the morning of the Pennsylvania primary, former state Governor Ed Rendell was on NPR downplaying Clinton's expectations.  He actually said that Clinton might not get as many voters in the state as she did in 2008 against Obama.  She didn't come close.  Rendell actually said that was in part because a decent chunk of that white, blue collar demographic had gone to Sanders, and yes, to Trump as well.   Overall Dem turnout in Pennsylvania was off about 29% from 2008 and Clinton received 342k fewer votes than she did 8 years ago.

Even if you discount that theory and treat Michigan and Pennsylvania as blue states, Sanders has 37 more delegates chosen by voters in blue states.

The purple states are the familiar swing states in recent elections.  Clinton has a solid advantage in those states.  That alone could be why she is the best choice.  The unanswered question here is will Sanders voters be guaranteed Clinton voters in the general if their guy is not the nominee.

That's probably less likely than if it was ths other way around.  This was also pointed out on a recent NPR segment.  In 2008, Clinton worked hard to get her supporters behind Obama.  She was true blue, life long Democrat.  Sanders isn't.  He was until this election an independent who proudly called himself a socialist.  For him and his followers, pushing to support Clinton will be seen as selling out.

All of this begs the question, who really is the best candidate to take on Trump?

At this point in the race it is hard to say it is definitely not Sanders.

Pres "The Donald", Veep "The Kasich", Justice "The Cruz"

One of the things to love the most about politics is the complete and utter unpredictability of how things can happen quickly.

Less than 24 hours ago, the punditry was furiously analyzing the possibilities of a contested Republican convention.  People were mired in the details of obscure RNC rules trying to figure out how Trump could be stopped from getting the nomination.  The number 1237 was etched into the brain of every political junkie across the political spectrum as the magic number of delegates Trump needed to secure the nomination outright.

Now, with both Cruz and Kasich dropping out of the race, none of that matters.

"The Donald" will be "The Republican"...nominee for President of the United States of America.

Let that sink in for a minute.

OK.  TIME TO MOVE ON.

With Trump as the candidate we can be assured of only one thing.  This will likely be the nastiest and weirdest presidential election in modern times.  As such, a lot of people will tune out.  That means this will be a base driven election.

Fortunately, or not depending on you point of view, Republicans have a ready made way to satisfy all the main legs of the party base and possibly take some of the air out of the #NeverTrump movement.

Trump should say very clearly he would look at Ted Cruz as his nominee to the Supreme Court if the Republicans leave Justice Scalia's seat unfilled.

He should also pick Kasich as his running mate for the Vice President spot.

While Cruz supporters may hate Trump they would love the idea of Cruz on the Supreme Court in a lifetime position.  He would be in position to defend the Constitution in a meaningful way for decades to come.  He would be a staunchly conservative voice to replace Scalia's.  Approving the appointment would also remove Cruz from the Senate where he's not very popular.

The Kasich pick for VP has always seemed obvious.  He has been running for that spot since the very beginning - regardless of what he has said to the contrary.  Kasich delivers Ohio which makes the path to victory easier no matter who the nominee is at the top of the ticket.  He was never going to be conservative enough for the base, but he could be seen as a moderating influence in the VP spot. He is also totally believable as someone "a heartbeat from  the Oval Office."

Doing those two simple things could unite the party in an unexpected way.  Trump clearly has tapped into a populist current.  Kasich provides a lifeline to the establishment. Cruz anchors the evangelical and Tea Party wings.

That would be a potent combination to get out the base and move this election.

An election day "sign" of the apocalypse in Davidson?

Davidson precinct 206 is typically the lone speck of blue in what is otherwise a sea of red that is the Lake Norman area on Election Day.   However, if the campaign signs around Davidson Town Hall today are any indication, something of an anomaly may be happening.

The signs today were predominantly for Republican candidates.

And if that wasn't surprising (or jarring) enough for Davidson's left leaning citizenry, "The Donald" had the most.

Trump's signage was followed closely his opponent Ted Cruz and by Greg Brannon in his run for US Senate.

As for the other side of the aisle, the signage did not reflect the historically leftward leanings of the precinct's voters.

Only one small Hillary sign and one for the Bern were seen out front along Main Street - rather shocking for a location right across from Davidson College.

But did that signage ultimately mean anything when it came to vote totals?

No, no it did not.

Vote totals in the Republican Presidential Primary were 814.  The Democrats with their small number of signs counted 1140 voters.

PCT 206 is still safely in the hands of the Dems, outside appearances on election day not withstanding.

Marco Rubio taps the "$19,116.45 Man" to help lead his NC campaign

As the Republican field slowly winnows, Marco Rubio has been the one professional politician who has seen his poll numbers creeping in the right direction.  For those looking for a fresher face while not being comfortable with a full-blown outsider (Trump, Carson, Fiorina), Rubio seems like the best choice.

Unfortunately, this week his campaign made an announcement that should ding his chances in North Carolina and quite frankly makes me question his judgment.

Rubio's campaign announced that Lincoln County State Representative, Jason "The $19,116.45 Man" Saine, will co-chair his effort in North Carolina.

Now, I like Rubio as a candidate.  In fact, until this announcement I was probably leaning towards him as my primary election choice. However, picking a national board member of ALEC and someone who spends over $19k in campaign funds on clothes makes me cringe.

With his somewhat flashy Miami image, the media has had it out for Rubio and his own spending habits in the past.  Remember this story from Rubio's 2010 US Senate campaign about pricey haircuts?

I can just see the campaign ads now..."Rubio and Saine go on shopping spree.  Spend thousands on socks, belts, and other accessories." 

Queue the ZZ Top playing in the background.