NC 2016 Gubernatorial Discussion Thread

[Dr. Arch]

Nothing yet?

[libertpaulian]

Time to be a gentleman and concede, Prejudiced Pat.

[Kingpoleon]

Ah I see. Thanks! On a side note, it's quite amazing how split the NC electorate is. Almost all the statewide partisan races were decided by tiny margins, save for the Lt Gov race, which was still nothing substantial either.

Cherie Berry and Steve Troxler won by just over 10%.

[Virginiá]

Ah I see. Thanks! On a side note, it's quite amazing how split the NC electorate is. Almost all the statewide partisan races were decided by tiny margins, save for the Lt Gov race, which was still nothing substantial either.

Cherie Berry and Steve Troxler won by just over 10%.

Tbh I didn't even check the numbers on those races, but I did say almost

[Miles]

[Xing]

Prejudiced Pat is on a road to nowhere. He's going to have to come to terms with the fact that he lost, albeit narrowly.

[Maxwell]

McCrory is just determined to come off as a total loser and failure, huh

[Indy Texas]

Pat Quinn (D-IL): The People's Pat

Pat McCrory (R-NC): The White People's Pat

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah I see. Thanks! On a side note, it's quite amazing how split the NC electorate is. Almost all the statewide partisan races were decided by tiny margins, save for the Lt Gov race, which was still nothing substantial either.

Cherie Berry and Steve Troxler won by just over 10%.

Cherie Berry only won by such a huge margin because of her elevator signs. Steve Troxler's large margin of victory was much more legitimate, but only because virtually nobody outside of rural areas cares about his office.

I think it was best said on NCSpin the Sunday after the election. For decades, Democrats were the default party down ballot even as Republicans won the Presidency/Senate races. Now that has changed with the Republicans becoming the default party except those races where the Democrats stood out by virtue of greater resources like with Josh Stein or Roy Cooper.

This is the first time the Republicans will have a majority of these state constitutional offices.

[I’m not Stu]

Cooper's lead has been growing since more provisional ballots have been counted.

[Dr. Arch]

Cooper's lead has been growing since more provisional ballots have been counted.

This sad excuse for a governor still hasn't conceded?

[Miles]

I heard Cooper picked up about 500 provisional votes in Mecklenburg County today.

[BigSkyBob]

The Daily Kos had an interesting, if hysterical article on a possible challenge by McCrory:


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/22/1602733/-How-Pat-McCrory-is-preparing-to-ask-North-Carolina-s-GOP-legislature-to-steal-the-election-for-him

The errors in the article are numerous.

1) Election challenges are part of the process. To so grossly prejudge an election challenge before giving the challenger an opportunity to state his case is unfair, and, fundamentally, un-American.

2) Election challenges exist to seat the rightful winner. This is not an academic question. Hayes successfully challenged the apparent results of the 1876 elections arguing among other things that Blacks had been systematically denied the opportunity to cast ballots, and, had they been allowed to cast such ballots that he would have won a majority. The irony of the authors claims are thick.

3) Election challenges exist to stop the stealing of elections, not, steal elections. In the same election of 1876, a Democratic governor of Oregon disqualified the duly elected Elector who was pledged to the Republican nominee on a technically [which might have not been proper based on another technicality], and replaced him with not with another Elector pledged to the winner of Oregon, but, rather, an Elector who supported the Democrat. That was a blatant and transparent attempt to steal an election.  Had that challenge not been upheld, the Presidential election itself would have been stolen. Thankfully, we have remedies to such abuses.

4) The rightful winner in North Carolina is the person who received the most valid ballots. A valid ballot being a vote cast by a lawful resident who is a citizen, of age, not disqualified by felony conviction, etc., casting one and only one ballot on his own behalf for which he has not been paid. It is that count that ought determine the winner, and, not an official count tainted by the votes of non-citizens, fraud, duplicate voting, etc.

5) The remedies are clear enough. Just as in the election of 1876, as a political question, the judges of the challenge can award the election to rightful winner, or they could order a new election and let the electorate vote for Cooper if they think he truly won, or McCrory if they think he was the legitimate winner.

Finally, I would say, if only it were true! Finally, we may see some Republicans with a backbone saying "Enough!" to things such as allowing non-citizens to vote with a wink-and-a-nod.

[Miles]

^ Thanks, Bob - I don't know what I'd do without your billiant contributions.

[Ronnie]

How do we have a functioning democracy when one of the two main political parties disdains democracy, and doesn't even try to hide it anymore?

[Kingpoleon]

How do we have a functioning democracy when one of the two main political parties disdains democracy, and doesn't even try to hide it anymore?

But there are, nationally, Democratic protesters refusing to accept the results, chanting: "Not my President!"

Instead, it's the Republicans here chanting: "Not my Governor!"

[JerryArkansas]

The Daily Kos had an interesting, if hysterical article on a possible challenge by McCrory:


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/11/22/1602733/-How-Pat-McCrory-is-preparing-to-ask-North-Carolina-s-GOP-legislature-to-steal-the-election-for-him

The errors in the article are numerous.

1) Election challenges are part of the process. To so grossly prejudge an election challenge before giving the challenger an opportunity to state his case is unfair, and, fundamentally, un-American.

2) Election challenges exist to seat the rightful winner. This is not an academic question. Hayes successfully challenged the apparent results of the 1876 elections arguing among other things that Blacks had been systematically denied the opportunity to cast ballots, and, had they been allowed to cast such ballots that he would have won a majority. The irony of the authors claims are thick.

3) Election challenges exist to stop the stealing of elections, not, steal elections. In the same election of 1876, a Democratic governor of Oregon disqualified the duly elected Elector who was pledged to the Republican nominee on a technically [which might have not been proper based on another technicality], and replaced him with not with another Elector pledged to the winner of Oregon, but, rather, an Elector who supported the Democrat. That was a blatant and transparent attempt to steal an election.  Had that challenge not been upheld, the Presidential election itself would have been stolen. Thankfully, we have remedies to such abuses.

4) The rightful winner in North Carolina is the person who received the most valid ballots. A valid ballot being a vote cast by a lawful resident who is a citizen, of age, not disqualified by felony conviction, etc., casting one and only one ballot on his own behalf for which he has not been paid. It is that count that ought determine the winner, and, not an official count tainted by the votes of non-citizens, fraud, duplicate voting, etc.

5) The remedies are clear enough. Just as in the election of 1876, as a political question, the judges of the challenge can award the election to rightful winner, or they could order a new election and let the electorate vote for Cooper if they think he truly won, or McCrory if they think he was the legitimate winner.

Finally, I would say, if only it were true! Finally, we may see some Republicans with a backbone saying "Enough!" to things such as allowing non-citizens to vote with a wink-and-a-nod.

Wow the dumb is strong with this one.

[publicunofficial]

How do we have a functioning democracy when one of the two main political parties disdains democracy, and doesn't even try to hide it anymore?

But there are, nationally, Democratic protesters refusing to accept the results, chanting: "Not my President!"

Instead, it's the Republicans here chanting: "Not my Governor!"

Those Democratic protesters aren't f**king public office holders. Stop this false equivalency BS.

[Kingpoleon]

How do we have a functioning democracy when one of the two main political parties disdains democracy, and doesn't even try to hide it anymore?

But there are, nationally, Democratic protesters refusing to accept the results, chanting: "Not my President!"

Instead, it's the Republicans here chanting: "Not my Governor!"

Those Democratic protesters aren't f**king public office holders. Stop this false equivalency BS.

Listen, McCrory is worse than these protesters.

However, Democrats should stop pretending like these protests are okay, though. Refusing to accept the results of an election is unacceptable, undemocratic, and deplorable.

[DrScholl]

How do we have a functioning democracy when one of the two main political parties disdains democracy, and doesn't even try to hide it anymore?

But there are, nationally, Democratic protesters refusing to accept the results, chanting: "Not my President!"

Instead, it's the Republicans here chanting: "Not my Governor!"

Protesting is one thing, because the protesters are citizens who merely do not like who was elected. Using legislative power to elect someone who was not elected by the majority of voters is a different ball game. That is a violation of democracy and should not even be considered.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

How do we have a functioning democracy when one of the two main political parties disdains democracy, and doesn't even try to hide it anymore?

But there are, nationally, Democratic protesters refusing to accept the results, chanting: "Not my President!"

Instead, it's the Republicans here chanting: "Not my Governor!"

Those Democratic protesters aren't f**king public office holders. Stop this false equivalency BS.

Hi, have you met Bill De Blasio, the new face of nullification?

[BigSkyBob]

Austria recently had a Presidential election in which the losing candidate won the vote on election day, but, lost due to his opponent winning the mail ballots by a very large margin.  There were some irregularities in the handling of mail in ballots, so the Austrian Supreme Court voided the election and ordered a new election. The Austrian Supreme Court took the integrity of the election process seriously. Many of the posters here do not. It heard the challenge rather than rejecting it out of hand. The Austrian Supreme Court did not demand proof of a specific number of questionable ballots that exceeded the final margin. It erred in the favor of election integrity.

If Pat McCrory wishes to contest this election, which, I strongly support him doing, then at that point the burden of proof will rest firmly on him. If people here wish to claim that any election challenge cannot possibly be meritorious, then, that is a claim in which the burden of proof shifts firmly back to the denier. Those that wish to claim that Pat McClory does not have a legitimate case need to show proof that in combination the number non-citizens, non-residents, duplicate voters, and, fraudulent ballots cannot possible exceed the final count's margin.

Scott Favol stated that "we've been bussing people in for fifty years." Maybe that happened in North Carolina. Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina had elections that weren't thought to be very competitive. Perhaps, some folks in those states engaged in same-day registration in North Carolina. Surely, everyone here finds such conduct illegal, immoral and unacceptable. Shouldn't Pat McCrory have the right to investigate that possibility?

One study estimated about a sixth of non-citizens were registered to vote. If that were proportional to North Carolina, the number of registered non-citizens would exceed the final margin by an order of magnitude. Surely, everyone here thinks citizens and only citizens are entitled to vote.   Shouldn't that possibility be investigated?

There was ballot harvesting. Some forms of ballot harvesting are illegal. Shouldn't that possibility be investigated?

The question is do honest election matter? To me, they do.

[BigSkyBob]

How do we have a functioning democracy when one of the two main political parties disdains democracy, and doesn't even try to hide it anymore?

But there are, nationally, Democratic protesters refusing to accept the results, chanting: "Not my President!"

Instead, it's the Republicans here chanting: "Not my Governor!"

Protesting is one thing, because the protesters are citizens who merely do not like who was elected. Using legislative power to elect someone who was not elected by the majority of voters is a different ball game. That is a violation of democracy and should not even be considered.

But, seating the person who received the majority of votes cast by eligible voters is completely legitimate. That is why we have election contests.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

BigSkyBob, can you name a time you've supported a Democratic election challenge? If so, what contest, and what was the outcome? If not, why not?

[BigSkyBob]

BigSkyBob, can you name a time you've supported a Democratic election challenge? If so, what contest, and what was the outcome? If not, why not?

Yes, Fort Worth Texas Democratic primary, multiple races, ongoing.

Surely, you meant to ask me why I supported his challenge. To answer your question, because cheating is unacceptable. The particulars were that vote "harvesters" were engaging in illegal tactics such as tricking people into signing an electronic petition that was used to create unauthorized mail in ballot applications, removing ballots from mail boxes, giving improper assistance in casting ballots, and other irregularities.

In one instance a harvester came to a couple's home. The husband told the harvester that the precinct was just across the street so that he didn't need a mail-in ballot. The harvester told him that he had to have proof of the visit to be paid, so asked that the husband sign a form acknowledging the visit. He did. Then, the harvester asked him if his wife could sign a similar form. She did. On election day, the couple went to vote only to be told that they had already voted by mail. An investigator asked the couple, "Did you sign a yellow square form?" They stated they had. That yellow form was their vote. The harvester had stolen their votes.

Harvesters target the less educated and the less intelligent because they are easier to deceive. If someone tried that crap on me I'd have the police arrest them on the spot. I suspect you would do the same thing if someone did that to you.

Some of the contested races were within two dozen votes.