archived: 16 - 22 Jan, 2005         Back                 Next

            CHAIRMAN TURLINGTON 

Two years ago, TPJ endorsed Jerry Meek for Chairman of the NCDP.  Today, TPJ recommends Ed Turlington for Chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party.   

TPJ endorses Turlington for the same reasons that TPJ recommends Gov. Howard Dean for DNC Chairman – Turlington is the right person for the job facing the NC Democratic Party. 

Turlington has roots both in the progressive and moderate wings of the Democratic Party as exemplified by his work for McGovern, Bill Bradley, Terry Sanford, Sen. Edwards. He has extensive experience in mounting campaigns both within the State and nationally.  A Turlington Chairmanship promises the hope of an individual who can build bridges between the conservative, moderate and progressive forces that comprise the NC Democratic Party. For NC progressives who have not had an appropriate voice in the Democratic Party, Turlington’s demonstrated ability to work in the various wings of the NCDP should ensure a meaningful voice in Party affairs. 

TPJ also believes that Turlington is the best candidate to address these critical issues facing the Democratic Party in the State: 

  1. Money: The Party, while not in debt, is largely under funded.  The next Chairman must be able to mount a successful effort to raise the funds necessary to undertake critical programs.
     
  2. Rebuild Local Organizations:  We need a full time professional Democratic Party. Party organizational structure in some counties and many precincts is deficient.  Rebuilding local Party organizations will be critical and it must be sustainable.  Assuredly the last election taught us that mounting a rather frantic effort in the last few months to register, etc. etc. will not work in these modern times.   
     
  3. Define the Democratic Party:  Democrats were unable to pass a Party Platform in 2004.  If a potential voter asks what Democrats stand for in North Carolina, what would the answer be?  Many voters will not identify with a Party that does not clearly express its core values and policy objectives
     
  4. Voter Registration:  In 2004, Democrats exceeded Republicans in registering new voters by a small margin, but that small margin reversed the opposite trend of recent years.  Democratic Party efforts to register new voters were, at best, spotty across North Carolina, most gains being made in only 20 Counties.  Democrats have to immediately lay the structure in every County to start the effort to register new voters for 2006. 
     
  5. Develop a Strategy for Victory:  It is not simply a fight to elect a President, as critical as that office is. The Democrat Party has to set a course to elect Democrat County Commissioners, Legislators, members of the Council of State, State Executive Officers, Congressmen and Senators.  At present, the only truly organized effort to field candidates is coming from the State House of Representatives Campaign Committee and the State Senate Campaign Committee.  Their efforts were successful in 2004, but it is not, alone, enough.  

Jerry Meek, current Vice Chairman of the Party, is a viable candidate.  As one TPJ reader noted in a recent Junkies’ Speak article, NC Democrats are fortunate to have two fine candidates for Chairman. Meek and Turlington both devoted themselves to the 2004 election. 

Yet, Meek’s lack of leadership in some areas has been a disappointment.   

Meek sought the Chairmanship during the last Party election cycle.  Many progressive Democrats, including TPJ, committed to challenge Barbara Allen as Chairman.  In the 2002 election, former Democrat State Representative Phillip Baddour was locked in a recount of votes against the apparent and ultimate Republican winner.  Rep. Baddour was one of the leading Democrats in the State House and moderately progressive on some issues.  The NCDP under Barbara Allen sent no one to help protect the recount for former Rep. Baddour, while the Republican Party had a gaggle of lawyers and observers present.  Junkie went and was convinced that a Party that will not stand with one of its own when the “chips are down” is no Party at all. 

Many believed that Meek was on track to win the Chairmanship when he cut a deal with the Party leadership to accept Vice-Chairman. 

Meek must now share some degree of responsibility for the failure of the NCDP to effectively organize statewide for the 2004 General Election.  As previous TPJ articles have noted, the NCDP failed to mount an organized voter registration effort statewide.  That failure hurt Democrats badly.   

The Democratic Party’s website is generally lacking and certainly the did not make effective use of the internet as a campaign tool during 2004.  While Meek notes in his campaign for Chairman that he traveled the State helping local Democrats to develop internet technology, the NCDP of which he is a leader made virtually no improvements – a strange paradox.   

While Meek’s abandoning his campaign for Chairman might be understandable and forgivable, his lack of leadership in addressing just the two items above is a mystery.  In essence, if progressive Democrats thought that Meek would be a voice inside the Party for reform over the last two years, it has not been publicly apparent on these critical issues to the Party. 

The progressives who are the core of Meek’s candidacy point to his leadership after the NCDP stopped consideration of a State Platform at its last Convention.  Democrats will recall that when progressive delegates advanced a plank to support the development of commercial hemp in the State, moderate delegates correctly noted that a quorum was not present.  The Convention ended without a Party Platform.  Meek did, belatedly, call for the State Chairman to convene a meeting of the Executive Committee to adopt a platform. 

Where was Meek’s voice over the nearly two years on the issues of voter registration and building an internet presence? 

The 2004 election brought a lot of new citizens to the Democratic Party in North Carolina, particularly progressives.  It is the most massive infusion of "new blood" that the NC Democrat Party has had since he 1960's. Turlington is the best candidate to incorporate these Democrats into the Party effectively. Looking at Turlington’s unmatched record of building political organizations and his progressive roots, these new Democrats should find their rightful place within the Party.  It is place progressives have earned. 

For progressive Democrats, some of whom appear to be spoiling for a fight over policy issues, Meek appears to be willing to join that fight, promising to speak out against policies that elected Democrats may be taking.  In addition, Meek is promising a Party that is “independent.”  

Meek’s statements signal an independence and fight that is destructive rather than constructive.   

A Party divorced from its public office holders?  One can only imagine the reaction to Meeks statement by members of the Democratic Party State Senate Caucus and the Democratic Party State House Caucus, the two most potent organizations in the NCDP as proven by the last election. Assuredly, there has been too much “top” in the NCDP and not enough “bottom.”  But, the goal should be to find a balance that fosters success, not division. 

Progressive Democrats seeking independence should take a lesson from the Republican intra-Party war that is currently raging.  Democrats narrowly regained control of the NC State House largely due to the Republican infighting that cost them at least two districts.    

Rev. Jesse Jackson once observed that in facing the dilemma of fashioning the various wings of the Democratic Party into a cohesive and successful force: “a bird needs both of its wings to fly.”  Bob Geary has authored an excellent analysis of that dilemma for the North Carolina Democratic Party in “Turlington Versus Meek Puts State Democrats at a Crossroads.”  

Turlington is the right person to fashion the “wings” of the NC Democratic Party into an organization that listens and responds to all, including progressives. He is the best choice for Chairman.  

                        WINNING THE SENATE

TPJ continues its review of the 2004 election results in North Carolina and the South with an analysis of the results in the NC State Senate.  For readers who might have missed TPJ’s analysis of other races, follow these links to: 

            Winning the State House, Part II
            Winning the State House, Part I
            An Election of Ideas – Democrats Lost (Kerry V. Bush Exit Poll Results)  
            North Carolina Numbers (Kerry V. Bush: County By County Results) 
            Easley: The Southern Democratic Formula (Easley v. Ballantine) 
            The South Rises Again (Republican Domination of the South)
  

            Overview 

While Democrats recaptured a majority in the State House, Democrats in the State Senate were expanding their existing control over the State Senate by a net of two seats; 28 to 22.  The net increase provides the Democratic Party with a clear working majority.  It was an impressive feat in an election where Democrats running on the national ticket were being soundly defeated. 

Follow this link for a chart of the results from all of the State Senate Races – NC Senate Vote Totals 

As in the State House, the impressive Democratic Party victory was based upon narrow margins.   

            Analysis:  No Contest 

Of the 50 State Senate districts, 17 were uncontested by the major Parties.  Democrats held 8 of the 17 uncontested seats and Republicans 9.  

Follow this link for a chart of the uncontested districts – NC Senate Uncontested Districts 

The percentage of State Senate seats uncontested by the Parties, about one third, poses an interesting contrast to the percentage of State House seats that were unopposed by the major Parties.  As noted in TPJ’s analysis of the State House results, 71 of 120 State House seats were unopposed. 

The eight uncontested Democratic Party State Senate seats do not follow a distinct geographical pattern;   three loosely classified as being in Eastern North Carolina and four in the Piedmont. Neither was it urban vs. rural.  Four uncontested Democratic seats are from rural areas and four from urban centers.   

For Republicans, geography was more of a factor. Six of nine uncontested Republican seats are within the I-85 corridor and all nine within the Piedmont. 

Recall that in the State House, the uncontested seats followed a more distinct geographical pattern.  As TPJ noted in its State House review:

For Republicans, some 24 of the 35 uncontested counties were in districts contiguous to or west of I-85.  Of the 11 remaining uncontested seats, 5 districts were in Wake County or contiguous counties to Wake.   

For Democrats, the 36 uncontested seats were slightly more geographically diverse: 

            13 uncontested districts were contiguous to or east of the I-95 corridor.   

            11 uncontested districts included Durham, Orange and Wake counties or districts adjacent thereto.  

            5 uncontested districts were in Mecklenburg County.   

            3 uncontested seats were from Guilford or Forsyth Counties. 

Follow this link to see the uncontested Democratic Party State House Seats –
Democratic Uncontested Seats  

            Analysis: Contested Seats: Non-Competitive 

Of the 33 contested seats, Democrats won 21 and the Republicans 12.  

Follow this link for the results in the contested districts – NC Senate Contested Seats 

Of the 33 contested seats, 23 districts were simply not “competitive” between the Parties. For the purposes of this analysis, TPJ defines a “competitive” race as one in which the two major candidates were separated by more not more than 15%. Of the 23 non-competitive districts, the Democrats won 13 and the Republicans 10.   

Follow this link to the chart for non-competitive districts: -- NC Senate Non Competitive Seats   

            Analysis:  Contested Seats: TPJ’S HOT 10 

Control of the State Senate hinged on only 10 competitive districts – TPJ’s Hot 10. These districts comprise TPJ’s Hot 11: 

County

 

District

Candidate

Party

County Total

Total

Percent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CARTERET

 

DISTRICT 2

Scott Thomas

DEM

12407

 

 

CRAVEN

 

DISTRICT 2

Scott Thomas

DEM

21012

 

 

PAMLICO

 

DISTRICT 2

Scott Thomas

DEM

3704

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37123

54.46%

CARTERET

 

DISTRICT 2

Richard C. Evey

LIB

444

 

 

CRAVEN

 

DISTRICT 2

Richard C. Evey

LIB

532

 

 

PAMLICO

 

DISTRICT 2

Richard C. Evey

LIB

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1073

1.57%

CARTERET

 

DISTRICT 2

Chuck Tyson

REP

12028

 

 

CRAVEN

 

DISTRICT 2

Chuck Tyson

REP

15753

 

 

PAMLICO

 

DISTRICT 2

Chuck Tyson

REP

2185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29966

43.96%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GREENE

 

DISTRICT 5

John Kerr

DEM

4059

 

 

PITT

 

DISTRICT 5

John Kerr

DEM

13129

 

 

WAYNE

 

DISTRICT 5

John Kerr

DEM

16974

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34162

56.80%

GREENE

 

DISTRICT 5

Tony P. Moore

REP

2350

 

 

PITT

 

DISTRICT 5

Tony P. Moore

REP

14104

 

 

WAYNE

 

DISTRICT 5

Tony P. Moore

REP

9533

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25987

43.20%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JONES

 

DISTRICT 6

Cecil Hargett, Jr.

DEM

2922

 

 

ONSLOW

 

DISTRICT 6

Cecil Hargett, Jr.

DEM

15592

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18514

44.84%

JONES

 

DISTRICT 6

Mathew Tillman

LIB

32

 

 

ONSLOW

 

DISTRICT 6

Mathew Tillman

LIB

1116

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1148

2.78%

JONES

 

DISTRICT 6

Harry Brown

REP

1564

 

 

ONSLOW

 

DISTRICT 6

Harry Brown

REP

20060

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21624

52.38%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRUNSWICK

 

DISTRICT 8

R.C. Soles, Jr.

DEM

18439

 

 

COLUMBUS

 

DISTRICT 8

R.C. Soles, Jr.

DEM

14002

 

 

PENDER

 

DISTRICT 8

R.C. Soles, Jr.

DEM

7456

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39897

54.26%

BRUNSWICK

 

DISTRICT 8

Jack Swann

REP

17961

 

 

COLUMBUS

 

DISTRICT 8

Jack Swann

REP

6927

 

 

PENDER

 

DISTRICT 8

Jack Swann

REP

8739

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33627

45.74%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW HANOVER

 

DISTRICT 9

Julia Boseman

DEM

40486

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40486

50.55%

NEW HANOVER

 

DISTRICT 9

Woody White

REP

39601

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39601

49.45%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HARNETT

 

DISTRICT 22

Oscar N. Harris

DEM

18444

 

 

MOORE

 

DISTRICT 22

Oscar N. Harris

DEM

14785

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33229

48.27%

HARNETT

 

DISTRICT 22

Harris Blake

REP

13581

 

 

MOORE

 

DISTRICT 22

Harris Blake

REP

22024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35605

51.73%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GASTON

 

DISTRICT 43

David W. Hoyle

DEM

28264

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28264

53.76%

GASTON

 

DISTRICT 43

Russell Fleming

REP

24311