What to expect in 2016
Published January 4, 2016
By Tom Campbell
by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, January 2, 2016.
The big story in 2016 will be the March 15th Primaries and November 8th General Elections, campaigns that promise to be loud, negative and ugly. The airwaves will be flooded with commercials, making it difficult for challengers to defeat incumbents.
Republican legislative leadership moved all the primaries to March so our state might be a player in determining who gets the party presidential nominations. Their efforts might backfire because the State GOP decided to allocate convention delegate votes proportionally, instead of on a winner-take-all basis. Some major GOP presidential candidates might forego active campaigns here to concentrate on states where they can get a bigger payday. The outcome of the presidential nominations will likely determine November’s winners. If an ultraconservative Republicans is nominated, the 28 percent unaffiliated vote might mark the Democratic ballot at the top and provide coattails for other Democrats.
Look for angry white males to vote in large numbers in Republican Primaries. Several key contests include the U.S. Senate, Gubernatorial and 2nd and 3rd Congressional districts.
Traditional wisdom says Richard Burr and Deborah Ross get the nod for the U.S. Senate, while Pat McCrory and Roy Cooper win the gubernatorial primaries. Josh Stein should win the Democratic Attorney General’s nomination, but the GOP contest between Buck Newton and Jim O’Neill bears watching, as does the Democratic primary for Treasurer between Ron Elmer and Dan Blue, III.
With no organized opposition, the Connect NC Bond campaign will pass, but not by the big margins of past bond referendums. Supposedly non-partisan Court of Appeals elections will see big money trying to influence outcomes. Justice Bob Edmunds will be retained. Look for more partisan decisions by our appellate courts in important cases.
There’s a statistical impossibility that Democrats will win majorities in the legislature, but watch to see if Democrats can gain enough seats to overcome veto-proof majorities in the Senate and House.
The State Board of Education will work to adopt new curriculum standards for public schools, made difficult because the Academic Review Commission failed to recommend reforms in Common Core math and lawmakers interferering in this process.
Our General Assembly convenes in April for “the short session” and we don’t expect major legislation to pass, although the exiting Senate leadership will attempt another round of tax reforms that move us further from an income tax to sales tax system. Lawmakers should have surplus revenues with which to give teachers and state employees 2 to 3 percent pay increases.
New UNC President Margaret Spellings takes office in March and won’t have much of a honeymoon because of residual issues she inherits, as well as organized opposition to her selection. She will focus on affordability, accountability and accessibility for public universities. UNC Chapel Hill will get more NCAA sanctions as a result of the ongoing academic scandal.
Until the second half of 2015, the “Carolina Comeback” was somewhat lackluster but will pick up steam in 2016, just not at the fast pace enjoyed during the go-go 90s.
Medicaid Reform will begin taking shape but nothing dramatic will occur, as DHHS must obtain approval from the federal CMS and it won’t happen in 2016. Medicaid expansion won’t be considered.
Nobody can predict breaking news, weather issues and other events, but 2016 already has many moving parts and should be fun to watch.
January 4, 2016 at 10:37 am
Norm Kelly says:
'Look for angry white males to vote in large numbers in Republican Primaries'.
For years, when we white males disagree with the socialist bent of socialist politicians like virtually every demoncrat pol out there, we are described as angry white males. Can't we simply disagree with socialism? Can't we simply disagree with Political Correctness? Can't we simply disagree with the tax & spend policies of the socialist party?
When black males stand in front of a polling place in military garb with billy-clubs in hand, which liberal media-ally-type described them as 'angry black males'? Which liberal media-ally-type described them, appropriately, as intimidating voters? For that matter, which liberal/socialist politician described them as intimidating voters? When the issue was brought before the Justice Department and the current occupier, the issue was simply dismissed. No investigation. No prosecution. Why? Because they were black males? If they were white males, would they have been prosecuted? Beyond a doubt! If they were white males, would they be described as 'angry white males'? Beyond a doubt! In addition, they would be labeled 'white racists' not just by liberal pols but also by their allies in the media!
I have all intentions of voting in primaries AND the general election. Will I vote for a socialist masquerading as a democrat? Not on your life! But am I an angry white male? Nope. Just white. Not angry. Tired of the failures of socialism being blamed on me. Tired of the failures of socialism being dismissed. Tired of the actual failures of socialism being blamed on conservatism. Tired of illegal aliens being given preferential treatment over legal and natural citizens. Tired of Christians being persecuted for simply following religious beliefs. Tired of Christians being targeted by liberals using state laws that they believe supersede the U S Constitution. Angry? No. Tired? Yes. Know the solution? Yes! Freedom and conservative small government solves the existing problems every time.
Am I happy with the results of placing Republicans in the majority in Washington? No. Because I'm angry? No, because they have continued to let the current occupier and the socialists continue their destruction of our once great nation!
'Look for more partisan decisions by our appellate courts in important cases'. Interesting. Is this another slam against a majority-conservative court? When socialists were the majority, which liberal media ally described their decisions as 'partisan'? When socialists aren't able to get their schemes through the legislative process, what's their next move? Every time their next move is to take the issue to court and let their appointed judges decide in their favor. But it's not described as 'partisan' in this case. Wonder why? When a decision follows logic AND the will of the people, it's called 'partisan' but when the decision is against the will of the people, when it's detrimental to the welfare of the majority, when it forces the minority opinion upon the majority, or worse forces the majority to PAY for a minority scheme, it's never called 'partisan'. Wonder why?! The will of the people may finally be winning and this obviously irritates the minority socialists.
Witness the issue with the coal ash spill. The always truthful N&D tells us the issue existed for decades yet they also tell us that Pat has coal ash on his hands. The truth is completely missed by socialists in order to pull the wool over the eyes of their low-information supporters. 'For decades' precedes Republican being in control, which means the demon party is totally, wholly, fully responsible for the coal ash spill. Which probably includes the golden boy, Roy!
'another round of tax reforms that move us further from an income tax to sales tax system'. As it should be! The only difference between income tax & sales tax is the unpredictable nature of sales tax. Income tax revenue is easier to predict. But it's the wrong way to generate state revenue. When someone participates, willingly, in the economy they should pay. Unlike Obamacancer, which forces people to participate in the economy, a general sales tax is imposed on those who choose to participate. When I make more money, my tax RATE goes up even though my increased income would automatically generate more taxes? This is not just unfair, it should be illegal! It's called a 'progressive' income tax for a reason. Progressive politicians, better defined as socialists, LOVE progressive taxes because it penalizes anyone who makes more as well as pits groups of people against each other. A progressive tax helps socialist pols divide people instead of unite people. Progressive taxes create an 'us vs. them' scheme, which plays into the hands of socialist pols! Put a sales tax on everything. Eliminate income taxes totally. Other states do it, why can't our state?! Eliminate income taxes for individuals as well as business. It couldn't get more fair! Which is probably why liberal pols dislike the idea.
'give teachers and state employees 2 to 3 percent pay increases'. Which still won't satisfy liberal pols or their media allies. We'll continue to hear that Republican lawmakers HATE government workers at every level. Every lib out there, including government employee 'associations' (unions with a different label!) will whine about how SMALL the raise is, ignoring the fact that it was liberal pols who actually CUT spending for education! And also forgetting that it was liberal pols who PROMISED that the lottery would virtually eliminate ALL concerns about spending for education. After all, it's called the 'education lottery' on purpose. The name was chosen to fool people into believing it would FIX education problems. Instead all it did was create another state agency, a very expensive state agency, and the need for gambling counseling.
So, what part of the socialist scheme is advantageous? How has Obamascare HELPED average people? How many fewer uninsured do we have? How much LESS does insurance cost the average citizen? How much LESS is the average deductible for American families? If you love the DMV, then you obviously LOVE Obamacancer! If you like to play ostrich, then you love Obamascare! If you refuse to see the truth, then you love Obamascare! Some of us 'angry white males' are tired of ignoring truth, hiding our heads in the sand, and being told we are the problem! If intelligence, the ability to see truth, and the love of freedom makes me an angry white male, then I will proudly wear the moniker. I'd rather be described using more appropriate terms, more meaningful terms, and terms that show I prefer plans to schemes, but I'll take whatever is given so long as our state and nation move in the RIGHT direction and the proper direction. More freedom is always better than MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL!
January 6, 2016 at 2:25 pm
Norm Kelly says:
On a side note: Both Hillary and Debbie what'shername Shultz have been asked what the difference is between a socialist and a Democrat. I guess this comes up because Bernie is an avowed socialist but running as a democrat.
Neither Bilalry nor Debbie answered the question. Because there is no difference? What's the difference in the policies supported or suggested by either Bernie or Billary? What's the difference between the 2, other than that Bernie appears to be able to tell the truth and Billary is not capable of telling the truth? I say Bernie 'appears' to be able to tell the truth but I'm not sure cuz I've never listened to him and never will. Knowing that he is an avowed socialist means that NOTHING the man spews is worth hearing or reading! Bill was/is a socialist but doesn't have the b@lls to say so. Hillary is also a socialist, more so than her slimy husband, but also lacks the testicular fortitude to say so. I'm guessing Bill didn't have the knuts to say so because Hillary has them in her purse! But if Hillary has both her pair and Bill's pair, why doesn't she use them to simply come out of the closet?
But, if socialists, libs, and media types are going to continue to refer to Conservatives, Republicans, Christians as 'angry white men', then it's fair to refer to the socialists running as socialists. And it's fair to wonder why they aren't called on it. And it's fair to refer to someone who lacks the ability to tell or recognize the truth as a 'liar'. When you are a liar it's not a personal attack to say so. So, when will the liar be forced to answer the question of the difference between a demon and a socialist? When will media types start referring to angry liberals as 'angry socialists'?
