Home › Blogs › Mike Nellis's blog ›

NC-Sen: Elaine Marshall's "decisive win"

Submitted by Mike Nellis on Wed, 05/05/2010 - 2:44pm

Friends, it was a great night for the Elaine Marshall campaign last night as we won the primary and won 74 of North Carolina's 100 counties. But it isn't over yet as our opponent looks poised to request a runoff.

Elaine will be on Daily Kos tonight for a live chat, but I wanted to share with you her email to supporters:

Friends --

Thanks to your hard work and dedication to North Carolina, we scored a decisive victory in yesterday's primary. Now, we are considered the "prohibitive favorite" to win the nomination and our next step is to win it outright in a runoff on June 22nd.

Last night proved that people, not TV ads, matter in elections. It proved that running a grassroots campaign can overcome Washington's support any day of the week.

Help start strong toward the June 22nd runoff by chipping in $5 or more!

I know we've messaged you a lot this last week, and you've responded so amazingly to our calls to finish strong. Now we need to start strong on our path to the runoff.

Our campaign has just a little further to go to finally secure the nomination and a chance to retire Burr in November. Your support has kept me going throughout this race and it's your support and friendship that has brought us here today.

Now it is time to move on to the next step, and score another decisive win in June.

Contribute $5 or more today and help us get off to a good start this week!

Special thanks to Ken Lewis, Marcus Williams, Ann Worthy, and Susan Harris who also ran last night. Each of them ran great campaigns and are impressive individuals.

Thank you for your continued support,

Elaine Marshall

P.S. Let's capitalize on last night's momentum - chip in $5 or more today!

I'd like to thank some of the great progressives in this community and groups like Democracy for America and the PCCC for backing Elaine and helping lift us to victory. Now we just have to do it one more time.

See you tonight!

Tagged:

Comments

You cut and pasted the post from DK here, Mike?

Submitted by funluvn on Wed, 05/05/2010 - 5:56pm.

The incredible spin you tried to put on this whole "her opponent MIGHT request a runoff" is sickening to see from a Democrat. Not to mention, the lazy approach you took in not taking the time to personalize this post to the people here at BlueNC is unprofessional in so many ways. I'm sure your boss isn't going to like it.

You knew from Cal Cunningham's statement LAST NIGHT, Mike, that he was going request a runoff because here in NC if no candidate breaks the 40% plateau, that is what happenes. But you tried to spin that too. I can cut and paste from DK if you would like. The comments, obviously, since you already posted word-for-word your spin from there, here.

You know, that old Republican spin might work for your campaign, but it totally lacks class and it hits below the belt on the intelligence YOU think we Democratic voters here in North Carolina might or might not possess. We all want a Democratic candidate to beat Burr in a serious way. It's just that your play book sucks when it comes to dealing with reality.

Let's talk about your "decisive win" meme. Decisive means you won. Just a hint for next time you want to spin to Democrats. We can spell it and we know what it means.

Mike? Understand this. I am hoping the best candidate that can take down Richard Burr emerges from the runoff. I will back either because they are both good candidates.

There end's the lesson. Let's hope you learned something.

North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!

Umm...

Submitted by Mike Nellis on Wed, 05/05/2010 - 6:37pm.

...it's a pretty common tactic to post the same post in multiple places. I've done it before and so has the Cunningham campaign. It's done in just about every race where there is a national and local blog that deserves a posting.

That being said, there are plenty of things I've posted just to BlueNC and posted just to Daily Kos. But it's not an uncommon or lazy tactic.

As for the spin, I guess that's for you to judge but I don't think it goes to far to say Cunningham is "poised" to request the runoff. Sounds like we're nitpicking and arguing about something very small. For the record, a runoff only happens if the other candidate requests which I expect Cunningham to do at this point.

Nothing I have said in that regard is spin.

Furthermore, Elaine's win was decisive because she was outspent 2:1 and the only candidate in a six person race to get more than 30% of the vote. Does that mean it's over? No, but it was a decisive win in my opinion.

Furthermore

Submitted by funluvn on Wed, 05/05/2010 - 7:27pm.

your continued spin is unacceptable.

I think it is too far to spin that the other candidate might not ask for a runoff considering our State and it's election rules. Why didn't you mention that it was customary in NC to do so?

Oh! I know! It isn't customary, right? Just stop here, because it is and you know it. I have facts and figures, too. Real ones.

The percentage of votes in the primary over your candidates opponents was "decisive" because of the money spent? No, Mike. Once other candidates are taken away, the win comes when the runoff is complete. Spin, my friend. Obvious and really mind numbing that you would continue that here.

Your spin is for me to judge, Mike. It has been judged, by me. Oh, and by the way. Professional's do try to personalize their written correspondence to their individual audiences.

Barry

North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!

You want some cheese with that ...

Submitted by persondem on Wed, 05/05/2010 - 8:40pm.

If he wants to call it a decisive win that's his opinion which he is entitled to. You don't like it, so you are also entitled to your opinion. His candidate beat the best financed and party supported candidate by nearly 10 points, winning in about 75% of the counties statewide. Sounds pretty good to me. Those are facts; you can call it spin all you want.
And has it occurred to you that your version of events could also be considered spin? Especially since you offered no facts to support your assertion.

Environmental Defense Fund

http://signon.org/sign/an-end-to-gerrymandering

I do like cheese

Submitted by funluvn on Thu, 05/06/2010 - 5:56pm.

I'll bring a bottle of something good to go with it if you supply it. Then your whine will be something we can laugh about over a toast.

I'm spinning nothing. I'm telling it like it is. Do you know how to do math? It sounded like it above with the numbers you spun. Now, extrapolate those numbers into 7 more weeks of the voters of the candidates that didn't make it into the runoff having an opportunity to change their minds. Add to that the people that simply won't show up to vote at the runoff that did vote in the primary. Divide that by the amount of people that might get interested in voting now that the media attention will be paid to only two candidates and those registered voters that didn't vote in the Primary might be moved to voting in the runoff.

Decisive my backside. I did not vote for Cal Cunningham in the Primary. My complaint was that the spin that Mike decided was a good idea was a bad idea for me. It should be for anyone with intelligence.

Elaine is a really good candidate, and I don't hold Mike's silliness against her. I want Mike to learn from his mistakes. It is in OUR best interests as Democrats to not use the fucking Republican play book when discussing reality. Meaning, non-reality.

North Carolina. Turning the South Blue!

This Is Just The Kind of Thing

Submitted by crowbar317 on Thu, 05/06/2010 - 12:30am.

that pisses me off. Let me see if I have the argument right:

Cal is bad because a bunch of people got together and lobbied the DSCC to get him into the race and gave him money.

Cal is bad to ask for a recall because 60+ percent of voters chose not to mandate either him nor his opponent the clear-cut, majority (of all voters) winner.

Cal is bad because he spent more money than his opponent.

Why can't both Cal and Elaine be good and let the voters decide which good candidate they prefer? And not a plurality of voters, but a majority of voters.

Why is Elaine's campaign not saying that once the polls showed her and Cal the front-runners that the other three candidates should have dropped out of the primary?

Why does Elaine's campaign continue to make it tough for Cal supporters to get behind her if she wins the runoff?

Do you guys really want to win the primary so bad that you don't care about a pretty wide swath of base voters (and activists and fundraisers) abandon you by Labor Day?

sigh..............

Runoffs aren't democratic

Submitted by Oliver Queen on Thu, 05/06/2010 - 1:17am.

You're saying that you want 10-20% of the voters that voted yesterday to decide the election? Because that's the best case scenario for runoff turnout.

And instead of spending money to reach North Carolina's 6 million voters, the campaigns will use expensive microtargeting to reach the 50-100K voters who will vote in the runoff but will already be voting for the Dem in November.

If Cal wins the runoff, his combined vote totals from the primary and runoff will still likely be less than the 170K votes that would have represented 40% in the first primary.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks