RALEIGH — Elections results have come in from local elections in many North Carolina communities, as well as from a certain trend-setting state somewhat to our west. I think that the outcomes, mostly far from surprising, served to confirm some basic lessons about how the political process works, or fails to work, in the modern age.
First, by far the most important asset any politician or aspiring politician can claim is the familiarity of his or her name. That’s the main reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger overwhelmed his experienced opposition, despite the obvious hurdles along the way. That’s also why most incumbent mayors in North Carolina cities either drew little serious opposition or had little trouble fending off rivals.
Second, despite the fact that incumbents enjoy this name-recognition advantage, incumbency is no guarantee of success. It can be combatted with adequate campaign funds, an overriding political issue, or preferably both. That’s what happened to the well-known Gray Davis. That was also the fate of controversial Cary Mayor Glen Lang, who in his bid for reelection failed even to make the runoff, coming in an embarrassing third. Lang tried to bank on his notoriety and spent little time or money campaigning. But his anti-growth policies, attractive to some during the economic vitality of the late 1990s, were out-of-sync with the current sentiments of many Cary residents still suffering a tech-led recession. They likely voted en masse for pro-business candidate Ernest McAllister.
Moreover, Lang didn’t just have notoriety. He was notorious. It was his ill-informed rantings, his over-the-top rhetoric, and emerging ethical concerns about him that apparently turned off even left-of-center voters, who gravitated towards Julie Aberg Robison.
A similar dynamic appeared to play out in Wilmington, the other competitive NC mayoral race I was watching this time around. Incumbent Harper Peterson was outpolled by challenger Spence Broadhurst, who also outspent and out-hustled him. Peterson lost the support of a local taxpayer group that had supported him in his first run two years, in part because he turned out to favor a new tax-funded convention center. A contentious session of the city council may also have prompted some voters to seek a change in leadership.
In Raleigh, on the other hand, challenger John Odom had neither the resources nor the overriding issue to offer a significant challenge to Mayor Charles Meeker, who won reelection easily. Because Meeker has held the line on taxes, the main issue motivating fiscally conservative voters to show up was lacking. Former challenger Paul Coble had the same problem when Meeker beat him in 2001. Opposition to the Triangle Transit Authority’s choo-choo train plan could have the potential to develop into a major issue for Odom, but because most of the money comes from the federal and state coffers, it’s hard to get taxpayers to see the financial hit it will bring. Again, Odom didn’t have the resources to make this happen — but that is partly because he didn’t exhibit any real willingness to run an exciting campaign about ideas, the kind of campaign that has motivated Raleigh donors to give to conservative mayoral candidates in the past.
Third, because of the institutional advantages of public-school districts and their well-organized employees, it is virtually impossible to defeat a school-bond referendum unless there is organized opposition, a significant controversy about school-system policy, and a clear connection to a resulting tax increase. The Wake County Taxpayers Association, announcing only last week a last-minute campaign against a $450 million school bond in Wake County, had only two out of three of these factors in place. They had an organization (albeit not enough time to really use it) and a controversy (Wake’s continued use of forced busing for socioeconomic balance). But they lacked a clear message on the tax issue.
Finally, details matter. Over in Greensboro, a big debate about a new baseball stadium downtown resulted in an electoral loss for opponents of the project, who had criticized its (indirect) subsidy by taxpayers and its impact on surrounding neighborhoods and an existing ballpark. The detail here was that the ballot question concerned whether to ban baseball stadiums from downtown. Those wanting to vote “no” on the stadium had to vote “yes” on the referendum. I’m guessing this cost the opponents a lot of votes, though I’m not sure they had any alternative. Futhermore, as was the case with the Wake school bond, the implications for taxpayers were murky. The funding scheme for the ballpark is convoluted and prominent local conservatives had backed it as not costing the taxpayers any money.
In general, murkiness and low decibel levels in local campaigns favor incumbents, the status quo, and established interests. Clarity and high decibel levels favor upstarts, bond opponents, and outsiders. This time around, North Carolina’s elections weren’t nearly as compelling as other things going on in the world, including the California recall, so the energy was lacking — and the usual suspects had a good night.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.