GSO/Guilford Pols

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

« Personal and political | Main | GIGO »

Nov 12, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017ee502bfa3970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Step one is denial:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Collards

Something tells me the Republicans will over reach, shoot themselves in the foot, and give the sleeping Dems a reason to wake up.

Fec

Oh, I dunno. In District 5, we came within 750 votes of defeating the Tea Party candidate, even with a gerrymandered district and unprecedented cash from the NCGOP. Phillips raised a little more, and loaned his campaign $25K. He simply wanted it more. I happens.

Joe Killian

If you look at individual donations, Gibson raised much more than Phillips in District 5.

If you look at whose party gave them more money, Phillips did better.

If you look at whose party spent more on their behalf, Phillips did better.

If you look at who put more of their own money into the campaign, Phillips did better.

If you look at whose campaign did more negative (or "comparative" if you prefer) advertising, Phillips did better.

If you look at who put more people on the street knocking on doors and canvassing, Phillips did better.

The district looked good for Phillips - though the Democrats actually had a slight registration advantage in the district, you know what more than 12,000 unaffiliated voters means if you've spent some time talking to unaffiliated folks in that district about their politics.

But in the end what all of these campaign facts tell you about District 5 is that there was more enthusiasm for Phillips where it counted and Gibson didn't put his back into it to the same extent. Phillips had to overcome an opponent who is a known quantity with great name recognition and some cross party appeal -- so I wasn't surprised he put more money into his campaign and his party did so too.

I was just surprised Gibson and the Democrats didn't do that as well.

Hartzman

Also, there was no shortage of not rehashing a few items
by our local media.

The reval and budget magic.

Brenda Jones.

DMV.

Steve Arnold.

The Wachovia loan...did you report on that Joe?

The lack of accountability on Skip's real estate commission
on a deal that didn't go through.

The Dian Real Estate fiasco.

The Sherriff rent thing.

And most importantly IMO,
the non backing off all the money thrown at School infrastructure
after the economy got kicked in the groin.

They voted to spend the money anyway.

Andrew Brod

There's one thing about which NC Democrats don't have to be in denial to feel good. Add up the numbers here and you'll see that Democratic Congressional candidates got more votes than Republicans did. Democrats won the "popular vote" 50.6% to 48.9%.

But back to reality, because Republicans are drawing the maps these days. The most seats Democrats will win is 4, and that assumes Mike McIntyre holds on to his slim lead in NC-7. In other words, 50.6% of the statewide vote will earn Democrats no more than 30.8% of the state's seats in Congress.

Conversely, a mere 48.9% of the votes gives Republicans 69.2% of the Congressional seats.

It's good to be the party drawing the maps.

Collards

It's good to be the King.

The comments to this entry are closed.