April 2021

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  

« Berger Jr. FTW | Main | The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party »

Jul 16, 2014


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


The GOP is in shreds.

Can Walker play to the moderates? I don't think so.

Can Fjeld energize the electorate? I don't think so.

The Taliban wins.


When turnout is just 4%, anything can happen.

And as I've said before, the members of the true GOP base, the people who turn out for EVERY election, do not, generally speaking, care what the Chamber of Commerce has to say.

Even if, as I believe is the case, the Democrats have learned a little from 2010 about what happens when you stay home during the midterms (and, from 1998, what can happen if you show up), this is a district in which electoral demography alone probably is destiny. Walker and his jihadism are going to Washington, and he's probably safe at least until the 2022 election. I'd love to be wrong, but I don't think so.


I was surprised at the margin, but Berger and the politic machine was never attractive to me. He's going to single handedly repeal the ACA? Really? Just more hot air.


"this is a district in which electoral demography alone probably is destiny"

Every time I read that, I'm prompted to ask: "Do you know what the demographics of the district are?"


Walker should win the General by 10-15k votes, just like Berger Sr. wanted his son to do in the district he drew.

Greensboro Observer

Fjeld was quick to release the statement below. For me, it's a strong "NO thanks" in response to her invitation. The two Republican camps will pull together like siblings that fought but that are still brothers in the end - with core values of smaller federal government, cutting wasteful spending/bureaucracy and encouraging private sector job creation.

Fjeld Statement on Republican Primary

Mark Walker won the bitter Republican runoff tonight by appealing to far-right Tea Party voters.

Democratic congressional candidate Laura Fjeld welcomed Republican supporters of Phil Berger Jr. to join her campaign, stating, “Those mainstream Republican voters who are disappointed with their extremist nominee have a home in my campaign. I represent mainstream North Carolina values, and will work with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats to create jobs and improve education.”

Laura outlined the differences between her and Walker, stating, “Mark Walker is a radical extremist who doesn’t share the values of North Carolinians. He wants to raise taxes on millions of working families. Walker believes that women who are the victim of rape or incest should be forced to carry the resulting pregnancy. Walker would even outlaw some forms of birth control. This is 2014, we should be talking about jobs, not banning birth control.”

Laura concluded by stating that, “Walker’s extremism has blinded him from the issues that matter. I am laser focused on the issues people care about: creating jobs, fixing our roads, improving our schools, and cutting wasteful spending. I will work with both sides, be a consensus builder, and get the results we need to help families here in North Carolina. I will work to end the Washington gridlock while Mark Walker’s extremism will make it worse. I will be a voice for everyone; Mark Walker will be a voice only for the most extreme segment of our society.”

Andrew Brod

I'll bet Fjeld targeted this message to independents. I doubt she really believes that mainstream Republicans will vote for her rather than Walker. Personalities aside, there was very little difference between Berger fils and Walker on the issues.

Greensboro Observer

Andrew - the statement is directly from her news release on her website: http://www.laurafornc.com/news/fjeld-statement-on-republican-primary

"Laura Fjeld welcomed Republican supporters of Phil Berger Jr. to join her campaign"
"Those mainstream Republican voters who are disappointed with their extremist nominee have a home in my campaign."

Are you saying she made those two direct statements in an effort to sway independents and wasn't really trying to get Republican support?


As a supporter of Berger, do you reject his assessment that Walker is "unfit to hold any office?"

Greensboro Observer

I don't have that impression and I will be supporting Mark in the November election. Also Phil was very clear in his support for Mark in his concession speech. I think prior comments by both camps had more to do with various accusations and retorts.

Who is everyone else in this thread supporting in November?


" Also Phil was very clear in his support for Mark in his concession speech."

Yes, and he was equally clear that Walker was unfit for office. So...

Andrew Brod

Yes, Marty, that's what I'm saying. This wouldn't be the first time a politician spoke to one group by talking to another one.


Feels like these folks wanted a Berger win so they could get a Fjeld win Marty.

I don't blame them.

I don't agree with Walker on social issues, but I was convinced Berger was much more severe in the right wing rhetoric and actions.

Walker will be harder to beat.

Fjeld has to take R votes to win.

No other way to do it.
"I'll bet Fjeld targeted this message to independents."

Andrew Brod
The math says there is little chance of beating Walker without a significant chunk of R votes.

I expect Brod and friends will be a D Bob Harris on these threads, as whatever truths that may have mattered will be suspended.

Just like in the Walker Berger race, only different.


Roch: I haven't seen the most recent registration stats, but as of the 2011 redistricting, the 6th was the most heavily Republican congressional district in the state.

Andrew Brod

D Bob Harris?

Greensboro Observer

Andrew - I don't think her message was targeted to independents. I think she's trying to get Berger supporters to sit this one out by painting Walker as extreme.

"If they are united, separate them." - Sun Tzu

Andrew Brod

Yes, I get it -- you disagree already. Now, perhaps you can explain: D Bob Harris?


Lex, I think that was true before redistricting.

NC6 is approximately:

42% Dem
36% Rep
22% Una

Joe Killian

I'm sure it's shifted a bit but in December the numbers looked like this in the 6th District:

• Registered voters: 217,973.

• Democrats: 80,279.

• Republicans: 80,047.

• Libertarians: 885.

• Unaffiliated : 56,762.

If you look at actual voting patterns, those unaffiliated voters tend to lean Republican.


Joe, could you be looking only at Guilford County?

According to the State Board of Elections, there were 387,331 voters in the sixth district at year's end.

My data (at CampaignManager.us) shows that your split more closely resembles the current numbers for Guilford County's portion of the sixth district.

Joe Killian

Ah, you may be right. That was from notes on an old story about how the redistricting was going to effect Guilford County specifically.

Joe Killian

Or even "how the redistricting was going to affect Guilford County specifically."

Too early to be typing...


Got a subscription to CampaignManager.us Roch?


George, Campaignmanager.us is one of my latest projects.


Is Fjeld and Hagan going to explain this one Andrew?

Is Andrew going to explain this one?

"On no legal basis, all 4.5 million residents of the five U.S. territories were quietly released from ObamaCare. It seems the costs of healthcare soared in these five territories due to uneconomic mandates - which would have been a disaster PR-wise for the administration and so, under cover of catastrophe, WSJ reports all of a sudden last week HHS discovered new powers after "a careful review of this situation and the relevant statutory language," that enabled them to 'selectively exempt' American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and Virgin Islands from Obamacare.


The original House and Senate bills that became the Affordable Care Act included funding for insurance exchanges in these territories, as President Obama promised when as a Senator he campaigned in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and other 2008 Democratic primaries. But the $14.5 billion in subsidies for the territories were dumped in 2010 as ballast when Democrats needed to claim the law reduced the deficit."

They should get together with you on your economic strategic wisdom Andrew.

Andrew Brod

One would think that if Hartzman wants to introduce a new topic, he should post it on his own blog. But in case Ed lets this thread move in a new direction, I'll just note two things. First, Hartzman's quoting from a WSJ editorial, for pete's sake. Second, the Obamacare mess in U.S. territories is a screw-up of program design, not "economic strategy wisdom."

It shouldn't need to be said, but for Hartzman's benefit: I'm opposed to screw-ups in program design.

The fix, in this case, is to make the law more Obamacare-y, not less, in the U.S. territories: "Igisomar thinks the very best solution is actually expanding the health-care law, not delaying it. He wants Congress to re-open the Affordable Care Act and include the territories in the individual mandate and subsidy provisions."


Nice call for censorship.

It's about Fjeld Walker campaign issues and your tendency to mislead, which is certainly a part of this thread.

Ed Cone

"Call for censorship."

Reading Hartzman's comments is like listening to Little Feat: Lots of LOL George.

Anyway, the question seems to be: How will Fjeld explain that something Obama said six years ago didn't turn out to be the way ACA was implemented?

My guess is she'll handle that pretty easily.



"rational plan to cut spending

"cut the deficit."

...we need to come together to agree on a set of principles that will protect the futures of our children, families and seniors, and leave the next generation better off.

...I will oppose any budget proposal that balances the budget on the backs of seniors and our children."

There is no way to cut the deficit without curbing entitlements.
Same problem for the abortion argument from the right; how would who pay for the social costs of the additional kids created.

Can't have it both ways.

Ed Cone


For sure we need serious efforts to control health-care costs — which we seem to be getting in Medicare, but face relentless Republican demagoguery.

Finally, whenever someone warns about the supposedly unsupportable costs of entitlements decades into the future, you should ask why, exactly, it’s urgent that we solve that conjectural future problem now — and why it has any bearing at all on current fiscal issues. Don’t say that it’s obvious; it isn’t, and in fact deficit scolds bob and weave when confronted with that question.

But the deficit scolds do love their looming disaster, and they love making tough proposals that someone always involve sacrifices by the little people.


"There is no way to cut the deficit without curbing entitlements." -- George

That's false. In fact, we are undergoing a period in which the deficit is shrinking without curbing entitlements.


Total short term federal deficits have nothing to do with expected Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security deficits, relatively.

Andrew Brod

That may be, but you said there's "no way to cut the deficit without curbing entitlements," and Roch showed another way. If you meant something else, perhaps you should have said it.


You seem tense Andrew.

Andrew Brod

I did some stretching. I'm good now.

The comments to this entry are closed.