Endorsements' Impact (or Lack Thereof)

I didn't use any endorsements to make my voting decisions, but I did use the Chamber of Commerce forum transcripts. I was also invited to a private reception that allowed me to ask 'probing' questions based on what I learned here at OP.

Which candidates attended the reception? If only a few attended, then how could you ask 'probing questions" to all the candidates to truely formulate an informed decision?

I agree with you Melanie and that doesn't lessen what I've posted. I see the poll-watchers as indicators of an active campaign. People coming to your door, people at the polls, people giving even poorly attended teas, basically any activity beyond the structured panels, newspaper adverts, and signs is to me signs of strong support put into action.

No matter the group endorsing unless they can also bring energy to the campaign, they are just another name on an ad. I think a successful candidate will put people out there for her (or him) with energy and commitment. Foushee's campaign did that well from what I saw.

I was serious when I was asking what other groups might be endorsing that I might have missed. Were there any?

Paul and Mark--whenever someone tries to talk to me as I walk toward a polling place I always tell them "People who are still undecided as they walk into the polls really ought NOT to be voting for that office." I say it as politely as I can--but I believe it. If you don't have any real opinion, then you shouldn't be casting your vote for ANYONE. It scares me to think that folks still haven't made up their minds ON ELECTION DAY.

Criminitly, people--DO SOME RESEARCH.

melanie

Maybe not the endorsements mattered so much as how those endorsements were put into action. I noticed at my precinct that only Margaret Brown and Valerie Foushee had people working the outside. Several other precincts in town had only Foushee's poll workers there. Foushee finished first in the three precincts (in town) that I know had her workers on the spot.

In the county, there may have been another story, but in town Foushee picked up more votes than Hemminger I believe in large part because of her organizing her own workers -- rather than just relying on nomerger or naacp, say.

If by "good old fashioned racial politics" you mean people voting for what they preceive their interests to be, it's the American way. I vote for people whose views most closely resemble mine. What's your problem with that?

The problem comes when people equate their interests with race. For an update on how destructive that can become, please review the latest from Durham.

http://www.herald-sun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-504114.html

Back to OC. African American's in the city apparently have interest in someone who wants to merge the schools. Is that in the best interest of African American city childrent? In the county, the support was for someone who up to now has been completely city-focused. Hard to understand what African American county voters saw that the majority of the county voters did not.

None of this is to take anything away from the winners - they both ran a good campaign and will be good leaders. The celebration of a racial group voting along racial lines is a problem.

To second Paul's comments, there is no doubt that having a volunteer at the polling place translates into real numbers. My (unproven) rule-of-thumb is that 10-20 votes can be garnered with reps at the polls.

The NAACP does not endorse and cannot endorse candidates. The winning candidates in the commissioners race have more than ethnicity in common. The voters believed that those individuals would protect their interests. The interests of black voters are no different than the interests of white voters. Black voters want the same things as white voters, good paying jobs, safe neighborhoods, and good schools for their children.

Let's review. Issues for the County Commissioner's race included merger, funding for schools, location of soccer fields, environmental protections, senior center, APS. In a close election, the voting populace is pretty equally split on 4 of the 5 candidates. By the comments of some, the balance is tipped by a club which is a thinly veiled front for the NAACP which tells black voters to vote for black candidates. Why isn't this good old fashioned racial politics? Why are some erstwhile "community leaders" celebrating an election in which some people apparently feel they must vote along racial lines? Is this really a good thing?

Let's review. Issues for the County Commissioner's race included merger, funding for schools, location of soccer fields, environmental protections, senior center, APS. In a close election, the voting populace is pretty equally split on 4 of the 5 candidates. By the comments of some, the balance is tipped by a club which is a thinly veiled front for the NAACP which tells black voters to vote for black candidates. Why isn't this good old fashioned racial politics? Why are some erstwhile "community leaders" celebrating an election in which some people apparently feel they must vote along racial lines? Is this really a good thing?

I think the Breakfast Club endorsement may have had the impact of blessing the choice of Carey & Foushee & sending a message that the merger question was not paramount, thus resulting in many people feeling like it was OK to go with them.

While I agree with you, Bobby, that there is a lot to said for grassroots efforts in the particular election. I agree that Pam did very well in this election given the odds that she was facing. I believe and I hope that we will see more of Pam in future elections. She can and will bring a clear and calm voice to both envirnoment, planning, and parks issues.

Having said that, I believe that the grassroots organizations in the African American community played a decisive factor in this election. I believe that areas that Mark Chilton have pointed to are areas where folks hold some very old, very traditional, and very solid grassroots orgainizations. These organizations have taught some of us "youngsters" a thing or two about grassroots. These are communities where churchs and neighborhood partnerships have come together for years over issues on issues that seriously and dramatically affect their daily lives.

There was a common opinion amoung the communities Mark mentioned. That opinion played a decisive factor in this election and created the "surprise result". A factor that the incumbent Town Council, Alderman, and local columnists should and probably will take note of.

I think that there is a very common message in the different parts of the grassroot organizations of this election. That common message is that "we citizens want to be included, we citizens want to be respected, we citizens want to be heard, we citizen want our place at the table... we citizens, all of us".

The heart and spirit of the message should be something that all of "we citizens" should listen to, be proud of, and come together over.

Did anyone look at the percentage of voter turnout as compared to the last primary? I would have guessed a higher turnout, especially after factoring in the poor date (i.e. mid-summer). Is it really true that the AA vote was such a significant factor? How many votes is that really, and does anyone really know how that community voted, or is that just a guess? Probably a good guess, but still a guess. I would not underestimate the impact of the grassroots effort, which the more traditional local political establishment needs to take not of. Those typically not active in such a local primary were MUCH more involved, and that is a trend we are likely to continue to see.

I too agree that the mainstream media did an oddly poor job with their endorsements as compared to what the public wanted. Seems to me they were more likely to go with the status quo while the public wanted a change. It was not mentioned that a number of incumbent Town Council and Aldermen endorsed Margaret, as did several of the local columnists.

Had you asked me what I would guess the outcome of the election, I would have pegged Margaret and Valerie. For other pundits, I suggest not losing sight of the significant impact Pam had in terms of her numbers. This election was marked by a lot of grassroots effort for change, which no doubt helped Valerie and Pam. Regardless, in the end, this was a victory of participation in the process of public elections.

DISCLAIMER: I did this math late at night and it could be wrong.

If you group the precincts into just four categories, as follows:

Pro-Incumbents
Pro-Challengers
Pro-Brown/Foushee
Pro-Carey/Foushee

and then look at the results, some patterns emerge. Here are those tallies:

Precinct-Type, Margaret Brown, Moses Carey, Val Foushee, Pam Hemminger
Pro-Incumbents 2376 2426 1281 1111
Pro-Challengers 3028 2961 4614 4198
Brown/Foushee 302 260 301 225
Carey/Foushee 433 829 570 212

Margaret picked up 42 votes as against Moses in the Brown/Foushee precincts (Brown listed first for alphabetical reasons only). Margaret further gained ground against Moses in the Pro-Challenger precincts (by 67 votes) and lost to him by 50 votes in the Pro-Incumbent precincts. Giving Margaret a 59 vote lead against Moses in the first three categories of precincts taken together.

However, the Carey/Foushee (also alphabetical) precincts, went overwhelmingly for Moses giving him a 396 vote margin over Margaret in those six small precincts. Moses won by 337 votes over Margaret in the final standings countywide, so Moses' 396 vote advantage in Carey/Foushee precincts was his edge. Here is a list of the Carey/Foushee precincts:

Precinct Name, % Registered as 'Black', Rank among Highest % 'Black'
West Hillsborough, 49.7%, 1
Northside, 31.2%, 3
Tolars, 26.6%, 4
Cheeks, 24.5%, 5
Country Club, 23.7%, 6
Lincoln, 18.8%, 8

This does not prove anything astonishing, but it certainly removes all doubt that Black voters tended toward voting for Moses and Val and that this tendency gave critical assistance to Moses.

Without the Carey/Foushee precincts, the race would have wound up as follows:

Foushee 6196
Brown 5706
Carey 5647
Hemminger 5534

Notably, the six Carey/Foushee precincts constitute just 8% of all the votes cast in the entire race.

I think it's pretty interesting that only the Breakfast Club, arguably the smallest endorsing body, picked the two winners.

Although the outcome probably has more to do with the fact that the black vote was the deciding factor in an otherwise even split between nomerger supporters and incumbent supporters.

Everyone knows, it's printed in the paper at least once a year: all you have to do is show up for breakfast at Dip's on Saturday morning and you can be in the Breakfast Club. I can tell you from personal experience that all who share in the struggle for justice are welcome.

It's kind of funny these shadowy, secretive concerns coming from someone with a pseudonym. O the irony.

"The NAACP does not endorse and cannot endorse candidates."

No?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/197292_naacp29.html
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-538196.html

In Orange County endorsements are made by the Hank Anderson Breakfast Club. Who is in that club, do they have a mission statement, membership list, etc.? Don't see them listed among the many clubs in town.
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/our_town/directory/story/1573511p-7765739c...
More importantly, how do I join? Maybe it is one of those good ole boy network type clubs.

Whenever an endorsement comes from the HABC, the news media identifies the representative of the club as an officer of the NAACP. Would anyone care about this club's endorsement if it were not identified with NAACP?

As far as I know, they are Fred Battle, Al McSurely, Bill Thorpe, and Nate Davis among others. Personally, I care a lot about what they think. Anonymous OP.org posters on the other hand . . .

How does one join? Is the club open? Are there membership drives? Is this an elitist group?