SBOE election results

Comments

D'Annunzio

Crazy person leading in NC-8 after early voting and absentee.

NC10 Republicans

Will return Patrick McHorny to the ticket in November. You'd think they'd be embarrassed by now.

Foxx is leading too

Jeebus...these people have no shame.

Stan Bozarth

Kissell is ahead by a wide margin.

I guess them foks up thar hain't been punished enuf. Goin frum one liar to nother. Heck, we shudda kep ole hayes...culda kep all them contributions en such en jus had a beer.

Stan Bozarth

Did you also notice that they're crazy as shit?

BJ Lawson beats out Pretty Boy Francis for the GQ Cup in the Republican 4th, taking philosophical prostitution to new heights.

Really, BJ. The freakin' Republican Party? The same circus that's electing Tim aka Jesus D'Annunzio to lead Christ's War in the 8th? You are that willing to hold your nose and throw your hat in with the birthers and the deniers and the holy warriors that want to turn America into a Christian Iran?

Sad shit, Mr. Lawson. Fortunately, David Price will kick your ass again.

Guilt By Association

...is still a logical fallacy the last time I checked.

No guilt

It's not the association with D'Annunzio that's a problem. Who cares about that jerk. It's the association with the Republican Party that matters. The birthers, the flat-earthers, the climate-change deniers, the militaristic imperialists.

Lawson is a Libertarian. He has no more business being in the Republican Party than I do.

Don't need guilt by association

His own stances are enough to vote against him.

Lawson is too socially conservative for district 4. Lawson is anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, anti-federal funding for education or for research in the research triangle, which is basically the whole district he is running in, and I'd be willing to bet he's against the new train infrastructure funds NC was awarded as well. And I believe I read here on BlueNC that he was siding with the new Wake School board which isn't likely to win him votes in many parts of the district. And since he lost Orange County last time in particular on the order of 71.57%to 28.43% I don't see him winning. I think maybe he'll do better than last time, but there is no way he's over coming that gap with his socially conservative stances in this district.

Nope

Lawson is anti-choice

As if his pro-life vote would somehow tip the scale on a vote that isn't going to come up...

Besides, if someone is voting simply on this single issue (which is dumb to begin with), then they're stupid considering Obama will still be president and is obviously going to veto any pro-life bills that come his way.

anti-gay marriage

That's just incorrect. He wants the government out of marriage, period.

anti-federal funding for education

Well once you realize that education isn't in the enumerated powers, you might understand his position.

But I digress anyways, progressives aren't going to vote for anyone with an R next to their name, so there is likely going to be little to no time spent on them - just like a progressive candidate isn't going to be going to the Dixie Gun and Knife show to sway supporters.

Unless progressives become the majority of democrats in the district before November (which would never happen), there is still a realistic shot that a hybrid candidate like BJ can oust a 22 year incumbent in a year like 2010.

Hybrid candidate

Part Libertarian, part Libertarian. Is that the mix you're thinking?

There's nothing "hybrid" about Lawson whatsoever, unless you count selling half your soul to the Party of Greed as hybrid.

"That's just incorrect."

I guess he told me wrong, in person, then.

Let's not get carried away

Tim hasn't won yet. And it looks like Harold Johnson is going to end up in the runoff with him so hopefully the old sports reporter can pull it off. Not everyone in this "circus" is hoping for a D'Annunzio candidacy in November...

Does anyone know the rules

Does anyone know the rules for runoff voting in Orange County. I am wondering if there is any chance for a runoff in the Renee Price/ Earl McKee county commissioner race. They ended up less than 100 votes apart so I would think a runoff would be good.

Doubt there would be a runoff ...

... as they are both over 40%. The loser might be able to call for a recount if it is close enough. (0.5%, 1.0% ??)

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Ruby mentioned

on WCHL that we are still waiting on military absentee ballots which may take a while (don't know if its a few days to a few weeks), which might change the outcome with it this close?

The Republican runoff

is going to be mighty interesting ...

well there were only 2

well there were only 2 candidates with no option for a write in so there was no way for both candidates to be under 40%
z
edit: and the percent difference is 1.68%

judicial elections

Has anyone noticed that the winner(s) in the Court of Appeals race for the Elmore seat are both Republicans and - the leader Steve Walker is a law clerk for Supreme Court justice Ed Brady? Walker has never actually practiced law or represented a real, live client and is a part-time conservative preacher. For all you readers who think this nonpartisan, publicly funded system for electing judges works - think again. Walker didn't even qualify for public funding. Two well-qualified democrats never even scratched. Change the system!!!!!

I couldn't be more upset

I couldn't be more upset about the outcome of this race. How in the hell did this happen? If we are going to be electing judges at the very least we should be electing judges who are actually qualified for the seat. Outrageous, and quite frankly saddening. Now I find myself in the awkward position of voting for Rick Elmore in the general. Damn damn damn.

In yesterday's Dunn Daily

In yesterday's Dunn Daily Record editor Bart Adams offered an endorsement of Al Bain for Court of Appeals. Now his paper is a very conservative one so it was great that they would see fit to endorse Al, a Democrat, but also a local. The editorial sounded good until the very end. Bart included a little something about the other candidates. And there was the wink / nudge as he said something to the effect of, Walker is a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit and thus the strongest supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. Walker beat up on the other three all the way across the state. It's scary.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

PPP calls Elaine "strong favorite" for runoff

With all 100 counties reporting its 36.36% for Elaine and 27.31% for Cal.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/05/marshall-favored-in-runoff.html

Elaine Marshall will begin the runoff election against Cal Cunningham strongly favored. On our final pre-primary poll, which proved to be pretty accurate in predicting tonight's results, we also asked about a potential runoff election. Marshall led Cunningham 43-32. Among supporters of Kenneth Lewis, Marcus Williams, Susan Harris, and Ann Worthy 51% said they'd go for Marshall in a potential runoff to just 27% who expressed an intention to shift their support to Cunningham.

While I think I would have preferred no run off, this it makes it that much longer before Burr can go on the attack not knowing who he is up against, and that much longer they can both run against Burr. It also means more free media coverage. I'm pretty sure a runoff is happening, because while the candidate that comes in 2nd has the option of not forcing a run off, from Cal's speech tonight it looks like he's still in it until the end. Kudos to all the campaigns for being run so well! And a round of applause to everyone who worked so hard on the campaigns. It looks like you have more work ahead, but you were probably expecting more work ahead towards November anyways, so I'm sure you will all do well.

I do wonder if Ken will contemplate making an endorsement?

Election day is Tuesday June 22.

Early voting will be in the Thursday June 3rd to Saturday June 19th period.

Last I heard Ken REALLY likes

Last I heard Ken REALLY likes Cal so I think maybe he's going to throw his support that way.

I am stunned at this result

How did we end up with a right winger vs ultra hard right winger? Did I suddenly move to Idaho or Utah?

Because the Democratic Party leadership

...allowed the vote to be split in a four way race.

This is unlike the three way race for the other Court of Appeals seat.

Any fourth grade math class can tell you that this was a possibility.

And yet another reason that the Democratic Party leadership must be changed.

Whoever allowed this to happen is a fool, and deserves some incompetent like Walker sitting on the bench.

 

Eeek! .

If you're suggesting it is the role of the Democratic Party leadership to pressure people to drop out of running in the primary and put up their own chosen candidate -- based on the person most likely to beat the Republican in the fall -- then I have to disagree. That is the antithesis of democracy and narrows the power of the electorate to a few good ole boys and girls. The Dem Party leadership has no business interfering in the field or with the right of voters to decide, even if it becomes a messy process. It's not just the end result that counts, either, it's the process -- and sometimes a primary field that includes a few people with offbeat ideas actually leads us to the future eventually.

Not to mention my opinion that that the leadership of the NC Dem Party is in such poor shape precisely because they have developed a nasty habit of an inner circle hand-picking who will win leadership roles within the party and then mounting campaigns to pressure any viable opposition to their hand-picked candidates off. That is not democracy and it is not good for the Democratic Party.

The solution to all of these problems is for people to pay attention and to get off their duffs and vote. I may hand drag a few neighbors to the polls next time. Or perhaps we should start staging non-voter interventions or something?

Katy Munger,
Progress North Carolina Action
www.progressncaction.org

Lead, follow or get out of the way....

in "nonpartisan" judicial races

the alternative is to get smoked like this.

People are free to run, and the Party should be free to say "here is the person we think is best"

We lost the Supreme Court race to Justice Newby for the same reason, leaving Judge Webb hanging out to dry while Newby piled up endorsements from Republican groups and church groups. Pretty much the same coalition that helped Walker last night.

IN my opinion, the Courts are too important to risk these results in the name of not hurting anybody's feelings in a primary.

And it is long past time for the Democratic Party to endorse appointment and retention elections for the higher courts.

"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire

No

It's not just the end result that counts, either, it's the process -- and sometimes a primary field that includes a few people with offbeat ideas actually leads us to the future eventually.

I'll let you tell that to future COA Judge Steven Walker.

Please don't let the data and numbers from last night get in the way of your pie-in-the-sky rant.

It is precisely the role of every party (Dem, GOP, Lib, Green, etc.) leadership to groom and pick candidates.

Voters (in groups or individually) can choose to reject them, (see Cunningham, Cal), but to squeeze your own judges out of the general is utter nonsense.

 

judicial elections

Walker lead the COA race for three reasons: his name, his top of the ballot position, and the GOP made a conscious effort to get his name and Elmore's out to GOP voters. If 40% of the vote yesterday was by registered republicans and about 700,000 people voted in that race, then there were only 280,000 republican votes to be had since you can only vote for one candidate. Thus, assuming the GOP vote was relatively split between Walker and Elmore, that would mean well over 100,000 people voted for Walker who were either registered unaffiliated or democrat. The point is that a huge portion of the voting population yesterday had no clue who any of the candidates were or what party they were registered with. Now just wait to the general when maybe a couple of million more uninformed voters show up. Change the system!!!!

Dems must adapt to new circumstances.

First, I personally agree that judicial elections invite demagoguery and pandering to the worst instincts of the electorate. (e.g., "To hell with innocent until proven guilty--give 'em a fair trial and then hang 'em all!") While it is impossible in a democracy to take politics out of judicial selection altogether, I agree that an appointive system with a very public merit review process can reduce the chances of extremists on the bench.

In the meantime, however, our current party policy of non-interference in the primary just does not work with a "non-partisan" election. Simply sending out emails and lists of candidates noting that both Copeley and Bain were Democrats contributed to the unpleasant result of NO Democrat in the general election for this seat.

It's time for us as a party to authorize a judicial endorsement process for the so-called "non-partisan" judicial elections.

Dan Besse

It's time for us as a party

It's time for us as a party to authorize a judicial endorsement process for the so-called "non-partisan" judicial elections.

Dan Besse

I would agree with that as long as we endorse all the Democrats running and don't pick one of the two or three. Endorsing Copeley but not Bain ( or the opposite) would be totally out of line for the party.

I'm a moderate Democrat.

But that's the point.

Unless we want the GOPs to continue winning most of the contested appellate judicial races, the organized Democratic party has to start making some real recommendations in these "non-partisan" primaries.

Democratic voters would certainly be under no obligation to take the recommendation, but it would be important information they could use if they choose.

Dan Besse

the organized Democratic party

Was that wishful thinking or a joke?

I don't mean to be piling on, but it's hard to conclude that the party is anything other than in shambles. I've coaxed, cajoled, bribed, ranted, raved and worse over the past two years to try to get an effective collaboration going, to no avail. In the wake of that failure, my takeaway is that the party either (1) has zero interest in progressive voices or (2) has something against BlueNC or me personally. How else to explain its complete and utter lack of participation here? But it's not just here, it's everywhere. From all I can see, the party is all but invisible.

I don't fault David Young, except to say that he shouldn't have taken the job if he wasn't going to do the job. I put the burden on Perdue, Dalton, Hackney and Basnight. It doesn't matter whether they've been distracted by other issues or even if they've been trying to craft a coherent strategy behind the scenes. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and this pudding tastes like crap.

You & Will Rogers,

he of the famous, "I'm not a member of any organized political party--I'm a Democrat", see eye to eye on this point.

By "organized Democratic party" I mean an entity speaking for the formal legal entity, the North Carolina Democratic Party. It's the one that holds conventions, elects officers, has an executive committee, etc.

I think that probably the state executive committee is the logical entity to formally make these endorsements in the so-called "non-partisan" races. I expect it would require an amendment to the by-laws or plan of organization, and certainly a publicly-announced, competitive process. I'm sure someone who's more into the arcana of party procedure will correct me if I'm wrong.

I think also that it's pretty clear why that doesn't take place. The statewide Democratic power-brokers a few years back concluded that it would be easier to hold onto judicial offices in a state that tends conservative on "law&order" issues if the candidates' party affiliations were not shown. The trouble with that theory in reality is that the Republicans don't have any qualms about advertising their affiliation and quashing most serious internal competition.

That's why I suggest a change as an adaptation to actual new conditions.

Dan Besse

If there is a rouge candidate

If there is a rouge candidate I can see not endorsing a Democratic judicial nominee but that would be a special circumstance. The party just needs to make clear to Democrats the identity of these running for these seats that are Democrats. Picking one is totally out of line in my opinion.

I was in Johnston Co. (a heavily Republican County) today and noted a fairly large number of Walker for Appeals Court yard signs. He had money and a grassroots grapevine of conservatives spreading the word. I don't think this was all NCGOP that got this done for him. As far as working for these guys goes, I posted information about Al Bain needing help both financial and through word of mouth. Not one person offered so much as a good luck response. So while we are pointing fingers, I'll have to say it would have been nice to have gotten at least a little support from the readers here.

I'm a moderate Democrat.