Red Clay Citizen

Civitas Poll: Buyer's Remorse? McCrory 46 - Perdue 32

Are NC voters suffering from a bit of buyer's remorse on Governor Bev Perdue?

It appears so according to our latest poll results where Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory leads Gov. Bev Perdue 46% to 32% in a hypothetical matchup.

McCrory leads among Republicans (80-7) and Unaffiliateds (45-28), while Perdue is only garnering a bare majority of her own party’s support (52-21).

On a generic re-elect test, only 26 percent of voters say they would vote to re-elect Perdue.  55 percent said no.

Full text of questions:

If the election for Governor were held today, would you vote to re-elect Bev Perdue?

Yes – 26%
No – 55%
Not Sure – 19%

If the election for Governor were held today and the candidates were Republican Pat McCrory and Democrat Bev Perdue, for whom would you be voting?

McCrory – 46%
Perdue – 32%
Not Sure – 22%

Click here for full results and crosstabs.

Remember - the cure can kill you

Blame the law when you break the law; that is what Scott Mooneyham does on behalf of Mike Easley and Jim Black in his article “A Root of Corruption” in the Capitol View, INSIDER AFTERNOON UPDATE, July 20, 2009.  It is Mooneyham’s contention that there is a loophole in a campaign finance law and he thinks it should be closed. He joins Democracy North Carolina in their call for the Board of Elections to hold hearings due to “troubling patterns” of party contributions to Easley’s Campaign Committee.

In his article Mooneyham makes it clear that he does not want to blame the transgressor.  He rests the blame squarely on the law.  He writes “It's the law that spawns much of the political corruption in North Carolina. It's a campaign finance law that, weak as it is, foments abuse of power.  The law in question allows the state's political parties to make unlimited contributions to candidates. ”   He even goes on to say “Human nature is human nature, and politicians have always been and will always be susceptible to temptation.”

Wow – let’s all take a minute to “soak” up this point of view.  I guess Mooneyham thinks we are wrong to expect anything resembling honesty and integrity from our elected leaders.  I can’t help it, I expect so much more from someone who makes me promises and begs me for my support.

Mike Easley didn’t come straight from the backwoods to the big city to lead our State.  He was a District Attorney for ten years (according to his biography, “a top drug buster”), North Carolina’s Attorney General for eight years and elected Governor twice.  He knows North Carolina’s laws, he knows right from wrong; I will hold him entirely accountable, if he is found guilty.

For some reason Jim Black gets slipped into this argument for changing the state's political party’s ability to make unlimited contributions to candidates.  We would have to throw away all of North Carolina's laws to cover all of Black’s transgressions; public corruption, bribery, obstructing justice, accepting kickbacks in public restrooms...

Before we ask our elected representatives to rewrite campaign finance laws, we should remember John McCain blamed the law after he was investigated in a political influence scandal in the 1980’s – does anyone remember the Keating 5?  McCain then made campaign finance reform a priority and we got McCain-Feingold.  Remember - the cure can kill you.

Tracking Voter Registration Changes

Just posted statewide voter statistics and they are interesting.  In the period between May 23, 2009 and June 26, 2009 North Carolina’s voter registration rolls have increased by 7,400 voters. Net gains for the political parties are as follows:

• Democrats – 825
• Republicans – 1,394
• Libertarians – 204
• Unaffiliated voters – 4,977

Could this be a new trend? 

Little Benefit from Being a Moderate

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com has an interesting analysis of the median voter theorem in which he says that being a so-called moderate elected official is only worth a roughly 2 percentage point advantage.

Certainly the median congressmember is important: by definition, it's that marginal vote you need to get a majority. But where do the median congressmember's positions come from? Not necessarily from the median voter in his or her district. My research with Jonathan Katz (see the graph above), suggests that being a moderate is worth about 2% of the vote in a congressional election: it ain't nuthin, but it certainly is not a paramount concern for most representatives.

So while there seems to be a ton of ink spilled lately on the direction of the conservative movement, here we have statistical evidence that moderating our views leads to minimal electoral advantage.  Conservative elected officials are better off sticking to their values and leading as a conservative.

As we've seen extensively through our polling, it's not conservative issues that are losing, its conservative candidates -- especially ones that do not either run as conservatives, let their opponents stake claims as conservatives, or cannot clearly articulate a conservative message.

This data just proves that the calls for conservatives to moderate -- calls coming mostly from the left -- are statistically invalid.  Better messaging, branding and a cohesive set of values will do much better for conservatives than pandering to a so-called median voter that seems to not exist.

Is This Anyway to Run an Election?

I must admit I didn’t know what to make of the folly coming out of the nominations made by the Wake County Democratic Party to the Wake County Board of Elections.  The N&O  just left me with too many questions:

• Why would the Wake County Democratic Party choose, as one of their three nominees, someone (Alexander Killens) who has a criminal conviction? 
• Why would the Democratic Party’s county chairman suggest that the State Party could reappoint the former member (John Gilbert) who, incidentally wasn’t even nominated, instead of appointing Killens?  Remember, the county party had made three nominations for two seats.
• And, why does the N&O write an article essentially overlooking the two women nominated, concentrating on Killens and feature the suggestion by Wake Democratic Party Chairman that Gilbert could be reappointed? The N&O does not stop there but goes on to endorse Gilbert’s reappointment in an editorial.

I still don’t know the answers to any of these questions but, I think I know why John Gilbert didn’t make it to this year’s nomination roster.  It looks like he crossed somebody in the verified voting crowd  when he allowed a pilot of the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) in Cary in 2007.  Never mind that the North Carolina State Board of Elections sanctioned the pilot and the Town of Cary agreed to it.

It’s not clear (yet) as to whether Aida Doss Havel and Sharon Everett are advocates for the verified voting cause.  But, it will be interesting to see who the North Carolina Democratic Party nominates.

Pork for Super Pier Ad

Here is the first glimpse of something I think you will be hearing a lot more about in the near future:

Another Cost of IllegaI Immigration Discussed

While open border advocates continue to push blanket amnesty for illegals aliens in hopes that these newly minted citizens will impact the electorate, more talk is zeroing in on an effect of our unenforced border laws:  the impact on blue collar employment.

Blogger Clayton Cramer really gets at the heart of the native worker issue with this article. 

"However, unskilled illegal immigrants who have flooded across our Southern border the last few years aren’t driving down the wages of well-paid professionals. They are lowering the wages for unskilled U.S. citizens and legal residents. It might not be much, but even a dollar per hour matters for people who earn hardly above minimum wage. For some, it’s the difference between self-sufficiency and needing government assistance."

Rather than taking the jobs that Americans don't want, turning a blind eye to illegal immigration for the sake of good business has resulted in giving illegals jobs that Americans won't want to do for the low pay given to their competitors from south of the border.

This grand coalition that the liberals hope to put together by giving citizenship (and the resulting voting rights that come with citizenship) is really an attempt to force two groups together that have competing economic issues. Low skilled, blue collar workers already have a tough enough time competing for the dwindling good paying manufacturing jobs that their parents and grandparents raised their families on. 

And if you are a felon looking to get hired by a company? Forget about it.  Why hire someone with a criminal record when you can hire an illegal for less pay despite the fact that they have an undeterminable criminal background as well as a questionable identity.  That's right employers, don't ask the questions that you don't want the answers to.

Thank goodness our education establishment has tried to shoehorn every kid in high school into college and an unreasonable career path.  That policy seems to have dovetailed nicely with the arrival of masses of unskilled workers that don't complain much.  American exceptionalism and our sovereignty are at risk, but don't let it get in the way of making a buck.

Civitas Friend Robinson Everett Passes

A good friend to the Civitas Institute, Duke Law professor, Robinson Everett has passed away at the age of 81.  Everette was a frequent guest at the Civitas monthly poll lunches and was keenly interested in the opinions of North Carolina's voters.

In addition to a ground breaking career as a military lawyer and judge, Everett also had an impact on North Carolina's representation in Congress.  He focused on the individual versus attempts by law makers to force voters into groups for the purposes of representation.  His greatest success in this area came when he challenged the makeup of North Caolina's congressional districts from 1992 to 2001. 

The legislature had gerrymandered the congressional districts to the level of absurdity.  The 12th district in particular was widely regarded as a joke.  The Wall Street Journal called the district "political pornography." The NCGOP sued to overturn the districts and was defeated in court.

The case might well have ended there had not Robinson Everett believed that the real problem with the revised redistricting plan was not partisan gerrymandering, but racial gerrymandering.  He filed suit in the same month that the Republicans lost their case.  Everett acted as chief counsel and plaintiff in his suit and even enlisted one of his sons, a secretary from his firm, and a Duke law school colleague to act as co-plaintiffs. 

For the next nine years, Everett engaged in continuous litigation.  Even though he did not win every decision, Everett did manage to argue four cases before the US Supreme Court; to force the NC legislature to redistrict; and to play a role in the development of a new legal standard, whereby redistricting plans predominately based on race are held to be unconstitutional unless they are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest.

Welfare for Politicians Bill Dead?

Overlooked in all the budget talk yesterday was the significant development that the welfare for politicians bill (HB 120) was sent back to committee from the Senate floor yesterday.

This has to be seen that the votes to pass the bill just aren't there in the Senate.

It's good to see that some in the Senate realize that allowing local officials to use taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns for re-election is a bad idea.

Let's hope this bill has died a slow painful death and will never see the light of the floor again.

For more on why public financing of campaigns are bad, see this piece by Civitas' Brian Balfour.

Stated vs. Demonstrated Preferences

Today's Under the Dome reports on polling results by Public Policy Polling that claim to show public support for taxpayer-financed campaigns.

Democratic firm Public Policy Polling has found that 60 percent of voters favor full public funding for candidates for state Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. Twenty-four percent had an unfavorable opinion, and 16 percent were not sure.

There are many problems with the "conclusions" being drawn from these results.  In a press release included with the survey results, PPP declares that the scheme of "public financing" for judicial campaigns "is still highly favored by the voters of North Carolina."

First off, what PPP conveniently leaves out of their press release is the result of question number 2 in their survey:

Q2 Were you aware of this law prior to this survey?
If yes, press 1. If no, press 2.
Yes........................ 48% No ......................... 52%

So more than half of the respondents had never even heard of this law prior to the survey, yet their answer is still somehow declared as some proof positive that the law is "highly favored" by North Carolinians? Please.

A completely uninformed response to a question about which the respondents were given no real context hardly qualifies as a legitimate gauge of public opinion.

Consider a few facts about the public financing for judicial campaigns that most respondents were not made aware of during the survey:

• "Originally portrayed as relying only on voluntary support – a $3 check-off on state tax returns and an opportunity for state attorneys to contribute $50 a year – the funding system ran dry"
• Taxpayers and attorneys chose not to support the system
• "State government resorted to compulsion."
• "The $50 “contribution” has now become an extra licensing fee for attorneys."
• "And in 2004, the General Assembly transferred nearly $1 million from the General Fund, from mandatory taxes and fees, to the cash-strapped judicial-campaign fund."

But the most important lesson in this episode is a case of stated vs. demonstrated preferences. It costs the survey respondents nothing to press a button on their phone to say they support this system they know little or nothing about.

When taxpayers are asked to actually demonstrate their support by checking off the box on their tax return, however, roughly 90% choose not to do so. Keep in mind, it doesn't even cost $3 extra, it merely directs $3 of their tax bill to the judicial campaign fund.

Looking at demonstrated preferences, rather than uninformed survey responses, is a much better way to determine the public's support of the public financing of judicial campaigns. Based on this measure, about 90% do not support the program.