LA and NC 2014 Congressional Races

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Asheville mayor Terry Bellamy is forgoing reelction to run against McHenry in CD10.

Bellamy will win the Asheville chunk of the district easily, but there are lot of boxes to check elsewhere in the district. Barring a major anti-incumbent wave or scandal, McHenry is still a wide favorite.

Its simply disgusting what Republicans did to Asheville.  There is absolutely no non-political reason or precendence for what they did.  All of Buncombe county has always been in the district with the Smokey Mountains.  

Our self-appointed resident NC geography expert, BigSkyBob, who won't say if he's ever actually been to NC, seems to disagree.

You are my appointed NC political expert and I say that losing Shuler was a travesty.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't want anyone from the state legislature.


My list is still:
1. Fetzer - Fmr. Raleigh Mayor.
2. Pendergraff - Fmr. Mecklenburg Co. Sheriff.
3. Troxler - AG Sectretary 
4. Berry - Labor Commissioner.

No state legislature and no Congresspeople. All from Blue Counties with a good chance to do well in them based on past history or currently elected statewide.

And I think I forgot someone since I remember five being on there.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

Well, it was.  Just go back and look at press comments by Dem campaign people in early 1998.

Which would be optimistic for obvious reasons, no?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How strong of a candidate is he? Once he gets his name ID up that is. Granted Hagan's popularity is meh and she's a red-state Dem in a sixtch, but he doesn't give an impression of political horsepower. Also, what about Berry? She's been elected statewide multiple times so it wouldn't be her first rodeo.

If another person mentions the sixth year itch, I'm gonna scream.  The itch almost never happens in two straight midterms to the same President and rarely happens during divided government.

It did for Eisenhower and to some extent for Reagan. Clinton was special because he had sky high approvals and the scandal backfired on the Republicans when they overreached on it in 1998. Bush was special because 9/11 turned his first midterm into a GOP year.

Democrats in Congress were far more popular than Republicans in 1958 and were generally in tune with the country and Eisenhower.  The only thing that was bad about 1986 for Republicans were the Senate races, due to the fact that they gained so much with weak candidates like Mack Mattingly and Jeremiah Denton in 1980. 

The myth that the Lewinsky scandal is what propelled Democrats to gains in 1998 is another thing im tired of hearing about.  Democrats were on their way to taking back the House before that scandal erupted in early 1998.  That scandal completely knocked Democrats off message and they only recovered in late October. 

I highly doubt that was the case.

Well, it was.  Just go back and look at press comments by Dem campaign people in early 1998.

Which would be optimistic for obvious reasons, no?

Then why did they publicly start freaking out in summer of 1998 when the scandal actually grew legs?  Even Charlie Cook and Stu Rothenberg, who are hardly Democrat friendly, both said that Democrats had a real chance to gain back the House before the Lewinsky scandal broke. 

Because without the benefit of hindsight the scandal could have seriously done damage and destroyed the Democrats but it backfired on the Republicans and they ended up paying for it. I don't doubt it disrupted the paradigm and thus the trajectory, of the race. Clinton had a high approvals and thus the Democrats may have made gains off that plus the economy, though I don't think they would have regained the House. It was a rare situation to be sure and hardly a good case study on there not being two bad midterms for a President.

As to your earlier point, I do recall the GOP losing house seats in 1986, not just Senate seats. It also takes more then a few bad incumbents in terms of Senators to drive such a massive shift in Senate races in that year. A bad map, plus a dem lean at least to the cycle is required.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why wait, just say no now. That goes for all three of them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Which just goes to show the horrible disservice to the GOP this crop of lame contenders is doing by freezing the field until they make a decision, a desicion that can only be good for the GOP if they decide not to run.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So long as he's out of the Senate race.

^ This

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We still have four more lame horses to dispense with though, if the article is any guide.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why is it that Berry got those numbers in Wake and the Triad? Is she from one or the other?


When I put her on my original list of five (not to be confused with your lame five, which is something entirely different. Of course I can't even remember more then four of the people on put on said list now) good candidates, it was because she was elected statewide. I wasn't aware of which metro, if any, that she had a connection with at the time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Even though he hasn't been discussed as a potential candidate by anyone important (save for myself if that counts. ), could I possibly get a map of Steve Troxler's 2012 results to see what metros he did well or poorly in, Miles?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You are doing god's work Miles.


So it would be fair to say that each of the victorious Republicans have atleast two areas of overperformance amongst the three Dem trending Metros then.

McCrory seems to have a Charlotte+Triad thing going on (according to the approvals it would seem, though in his election he didn't do that badly out this way this time either)
Troxer and Berry meanwhile have a Triangle+Triad combination.

Which two did Forest do best in?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Acohol in New Orleans?


But thats just crazy!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think the power outage from the storm has soured my family on McCrory. It was never this long when we were with Progress and now that it is own by Duke and it was for several days, they are out for blood and McCrory worked for Duke Energy. The tax plan is also pissing them off.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

At this point, I would almost see her as an improvement over Tillis, which says a lot about Tillis.

I think that making significant dents in the R supermajority will be hard in a midterm year, but if Hagan wins, it could help some of the more vulnerable Ds.

PPP is showing that the Rs are really unpopular but the state Democratic party really needs to step up in making its case, too.

What is important here is to minimize the midterm drop-off among Democrats and protect Hagan and other vulnerable Democrats.

It's also very important to slowly cut into the R supermajority just in time for the governor race in 2016.

The reason that the Tar Heels voted for the North Carolina Republicans is not because the people like them, but rather because North Carolina Democratic Party is plaque by scandals and imploded.

Tar Heels will vote for North Carolina Democrats again when present themselves as credible alternatives.

Yes, but they also have to distance themselves from the national party to some extent. A candidate like Heath Shuler could probably steal the majority of my family at this point. Obama, Obamacare and Amnesty are going to keep them voting Republican otherwise, regardless of how much they despise the GOP state government at this point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Tillis<Berger<Foxx<Cain<Berry<One of my List of Choices (Fetzer/Pendergraft/Myrick/Forest/Troxler).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

^ That.

I'm not used to being upstaged on this thread, but yeah.

No, say it ain't so!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That is nothing, find your way into the Atlasian Senate and then you'll know what being crabby is like.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yankee, you are probably a kind of "moderate to conservative republican". So I would like to know, what's your opinion of Hagan, could you vote for her if the republican nominee is just horrible (Tillis,...)?

And Miles, how make you the maps, have you a software?

Not if she were to vote for an immigration bill I deem to be too 1986ish (any path to citizenship/legalization w/o the Rand Paul amendment or something similar basically). Some of my family members may defect though since Tillis is the state legislature for all intents and purposes. I generally would like to see her lose, hence why I am so pissed about the crappy candidates running against her.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It is safe to say that Berger is running then I guess and he is trying to reduce Tillis advantage.


I think this is probably our last opportunity to get a "third option" (like someone on my list preferably) to jump in and run on the basis of making it about Hagan as opposed to having to defend state legislative bs.

This is helps McCrory because for once there is a visible distance from himself and legislative extremism. Tillis is the one who will end up biting the bullet here one way or the other.

Frankly I hope that Tillis and Berger destroy each other.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It not like we haven't wasted nine months at this point or anything.

Quite messing around with the trash and look for some solid people to run, already. Get the appropriate amount of the right people in a room (with a good 5 or 6 million amongst them to provide to a selected candidate) and lock one of the people from my list in the room with them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"I'll make a decision at the end of the session"

JUST DONT RUN!!!!!!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"I'll make a decision at the end of the session"

JUST DONT RUN!!!!!!

Berger? Dem glee would be well-justified if Hagan won a second term simply because the Pub bench is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Berger, Tillis the whole lot these Assembly people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"I'll make a decision at the end of the session"

JUST DONT RUN!!!!!!

Berger? Dem glee would be well-justified if Hagan won a second term simply because the Pub bench is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Berger, Tillis the whole lot these Assembly people.

Kay Hagan was a state senator, after all.

Was she President of a Senate that voted to cut 170,000 people from the unemployment rolls, cut education spending, and had an approval rating in the teens?

To beat an incumbent you have to give them a reason to toss her out. That requires focusing the attention on her actions and offering an alternative. Every minute spent defending the state legislative agenda, is a minute not spent on Obamacare, amnesty or whatever it might be that Hagan has done.