With Election Day little more than a month away, Republican US Sen. Thom Tillis delivered a remarkably blunt assessment Sunday of Republican Michael Whatley’s chances of succeeding him in the US Senate.
Tillis stopped short of saying that Republicans should give up on the North Carolina race, but he came pretty close.
Appearing Sunday, Sept. 27, on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Tillis said Republican leaders need to look at the polling and decide where their campaign money has the best chance of keeping Republicans in control of the Senate.
“If we have a path to victory, then we double down on it,” Tillis said. “If we don’t, we move where we have the opportunity.”
CNN host Jake Tapper then asked Tillis directly whether the data showed that North Carolina should no longer be a top Republican priority. Tillis responded that when an average of polls has a candidate trailing by high single digits or double digits, “it’s approaching a point where it’s going to be difficult to make it up.”
That’s a somewhat extraordinary assessment coming from the Republican who currently holds the seat Whatley is trying to win.
Tillis emphasized that he wasn’t declaring the North Carolina race over. He noted that elections can change quickly and candidates can make mistakes – but his larger point was that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has a limited amount of money and its primary objective should be maintaining the Republican Senate majority rather than protecting any individual candidate.
Tillis pointed to his own 2014 race against Democratic US Sen. Kay Hagan. Tillis said on the Sunday morning show that Republican officials questioned late in that campaign whether they should continue investing in North Carolina, and he told them that if they didn’t believe he had a path to victory they should put the money elsewhere.
They ultimately stayed in the race, and Tillis won.
This time, however, Tillis suggested Republicans also need to concentrate on races in Maine, Alaska and Ohio, along with other states becoming competitive.
The comments come as Whatley – the former chairman of both the Republican National Committee and the North Carolina Republican Party – continues to closely associate his campaign with President Donald Trump.
Tillis has publicly encouraged Whatley to establish more independence from Trump. Whatley has instead emphasized their relationship.
At Trump’s Sept. 16 rally in Whatley’s hometown of Gastonia, Whatley recalled being asked to help Trump’s first presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2015.
Whatley said he agreed because he believed in what Trump was proposing and he added that, 11 years later, “I am still with that guy.”
Ahead of Trump’s Gastonia visit, Whatley also posted that “President Trump needs an ally in the Senate and North Carolina needs a fighter.”
Trump has strongly backed Whatley: Whatley entered the Senate race after Tillis announced he wouldn’t seek a third term, and Trump endorsed Whatley as his preferred successor.
Trump traveled to Gastonia to campaign for him Sept. 16, and Vice President JD Vance appeared in Greensboro for Whatley five days after that.
Tillis suggested Sunday that Republicans’ insistence on near-total loyalty to Trump may itself be creating political problems. He pointed in particular to Texas, where Trump opposed longtime Republican US Sen. John Cornyn and supported Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Tillis called Trump’s decision regarding Cornyn a “colossal mistake” and he added that Republicans wouldn’t be spending enormous amounts of money defending Texas if Cornyn were the nominee.
Tillis also criticized what he described as Republican “loyalty oaths” to Trump – arguing that Republican officeholders who support Trump almost all the time shouldn’t be targeted just because of the relatively few occasions when they disagree with him.
Such expectations, Tillis said, are “unrealistic” and “unsustainable,” and can cause Republicans to lose elections.
Tillis also corrected Tapper’s characterization that Trump forced him out of the Senate race.
Tillis said that he was already leaning toward retirement and joked that Trump simply gave him “a good opportunity to announce my retirement.”
The polling helps explain Tillis’ concern about the North Carolina race. A High Point University Poll released Thursday, Sept. 24, found former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper leading Whatley 50 percent to 42 percent among likely North Carolina voters. Another 3 percent supported another candidate and 5 percent were undecided.
The same HPU poll in August found Cooper ahead 50 percent to 45 percent – meaning Whatley’s position in the university’s polling has worsened during the final months of the campaign rather than improved.
Earlier polling also showed Cooper ahead. An Emerson College poll had Cooper leading 47 percent to 41 percent and showed a major difference in name recognition between the two candidates.
Cooper, who served two terms as governor and previously four terms as state attorney general, is better known statewide than Whatley.
Prediction markets have moved even further toward Cooper, although those markets are wagers by traders rather than scientific surveys of voters.
As of the weekend, North Carolina Senate contracts on Kalshi were trading at about 93 cents for Cooper and 7 cents for Whatley, with more than $2.2 million traded in the market. Polymarket showed a similarly large gap. However, those prices can change rapidly as traders react to polls, news and campaign developments.
Whatley still has several factors working in his favor: North Carolina hasn’t elected a Democratic US senator since Kay Hagan won in 2008, and Trump carried the state in 2016, 2020 and 2024. Trump and national Republicans are also actively campaigning for Whatley, and more than a month remains before the Nov. 3 election.
But Tillis’ comments Sunday indicate that at least one prominent North Carolina Republican believes time may be running out for Whatley to demonstrate that the race remains worth a major national investment.
National reports last week raised questions about whether Republicans were preparing to shift resources away from North Carolina. Politico reported that NRSC Chairman Tim Scott had identified seven states as spending priorities without including North Carolina. The NRSC strongly disputed that report, saying Scott had made no spending announcement and had praised Whatley’s polling momentum.
For Tillis, the question now isn’t simply whether Whatley can still win North Carolina. The question is whether Republicans trying to preserve their Senate majority can afford to bet that he will.
I supported Thom Tillis, and for good reasons.
As a conservative, I appreciated his generally conservative voting record on taxes, regulation, Second Amendment rights, immigration, and the judiciary.
He was a strong advocate for North Carolina’s military installations, defense industry and economic interests, and he brought considerable legislative experience to the Senate.
I also respected that Tillis was willing, at times, to break with his own party when he believed constitutional principles, institutional checks and balances, or the Senate’s role required it.
On foreign policy, he generally favored a strong national defense.
Most importantly, Tillis showed that being a Republican did not necessarily mean marching in lockstep with the party. That independence was a big reason I supported him.
our political structure limits/restricts independent candidates getting votes from the unaffiliated MAJORITY or the two minority parties. we need one ‘site’ where we can see the actual ballot & candidates bio & platform
Tillis was given spot in the senate after Kay’s failing health He stared off good but got into it with Trump and realized his political career was over. So he turned on the entire Republican Party. Everything he says or does now are the babbling of an angry short term senator who will be gone soon and disappear into the background. What’s the old saying about “couldn’t win dog catcher in a one man race” ? That’s him now trying to get some shots in before his microphone is taken away completely. Good riddance
I make the assumption that people like Tillis realize they are outside the party’s good graces, so they announce retirement and then speak their mind. I don’t think they are vindictive, they just no longer need to tow the party line, so they speak freely.
It’s just evidence of how too many politicians put party before their own personal principles.
He is the same dirtbag who, with McCrory, & Berger decimated the unemployment compensation from 18 months to 3 months because those on UEB are lazy and not looking hard enough. Well, Mr. Tillis et.al., it took me over 18 months to replace my mid 6 figure income, and the state lost 17 folks also laid off who made comparable salaries.
He also with those two above who refused Medicaid to the state because it cost too much. This clogged up the emergency rooms needlessly. He is a RINO, and he only reason people voted for him was that he wasn’t a democrat left wingnut and liberal, socialist wag. ET. TU., Tillis.
That information is available from the Guilford County Board of elections.
thnx. told beaut, vivaci volupt smart rich horny date @ moment of intimacy: ‘ i luv the way your eyes uncross whenever u fart’
He will be missed. I was also a fan as he we Pro NC far more than pro party. It’s also why I support Cooper over Whately.
60% of NC voters believe Cooper would support the Democratic Socialists of America’s policy priorities.
Based off what? Conservative propoganda? His policy statements clearly point to more bipartisanship so i will go with that over propoganda.
A Carolina Journal poll.
His policy statements are intended to get him elected. What he says and what he would do are probably not the same.
Oh so speculation not actual facts or evidence. Got it.
Cooper is in it for COOPER and his buddies. Surely, you understand this. Look at his record.
Vote Whatley for NC Senate!
You have shown nothing to back that statement.
Ignore there lies in political ads. Vote Cooper
Buddies? What are you talking about?
do majorities get to rule in your ‘game’. i am in that 60% majority u will not gerrymander away !
And just look at what Cooper not only refused to support when he was Governor. He actually vetoed the Voter ID Biil which had bipartisan support. It finally passed over his veto with a major majority vote.
Why would you veto a Voter ID law if you weren’t trying to cheat?
Because you dont beleive it is needed and there is a chance you exlude a small percentage of NC voters from voting. Thats why. I dont necessarly agree but thst is the valid rationale.
national defense ? where/when ? Tripoli, Mexico,Philippines, Korea, Granada, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, Ukraine, Israel, Space . . . ? our city streets?
Tillis demoralized Republican voters with his constant attacks on Trump, his obnoxious statements about the J6 rioters (yes, they rioted — but they were treated with exceptional and illegal harshness by the Biden DOJ, and there is much evidence that Pelosi and Company helped provoke the incident) and his failures to vote the right way on many critical issues — such as the bill to clean up elections. Had he run again, he stood as little chance of being returned to his seat as Whatley does of winning it now. I am glad Tillis is getting his rump out of DC but he has helped pave the way for Cooper to take the seat. Tillis was bad, but Cooper will be horrible.
I can’t see voting for Whately, who seems to offer little original thinking on what NC needs to recover from the failures of Trump’s war with Iran. Ranting about crime feels like an effort to avoid the elephant in the room: Trump’s economic failures.
Trump has no real economic failures! Only the fact that Iran has held out far longer than any knowledgeable person could have predicted. Trump WILL take out Iran. We just all pray that it happens sooner, rather than later!
And i would remind voters that the last several Presidents have promised to deal with Iran, but none ever did!
I would consider being responsible for about $10 Trillion of national debt to be an economic failure of any President, and a disaster from one who still wants to raise the debt limit another $5 Trillion.
No, all knowlegeable people had historically advise against war with Iran for this very reason. It was well understood how Iran would act to defend itself but threatening the strait.
His other failures are his failed tarrifs strategy, his failing trade wars with long term alies now seeking other trading partners, his ignoring the affordability issues and its impact on working Americans, and lastly his ignoring the housing crisis and the spike in long term interest rates. If not fornthe AI bubble we would likely be in far more trouble economically.
Hope that helps.
Two points:
Lincoln’s tariffs were one of the main causes of the War Between the States. This fact has been dismissed by Southern haters who must keep slavery front and center. Well, now we know that tariffs are a big deal now as then. Tariffs are protectionists’ tools. Lincoln was a protectionist for the New England manufacturers at the expense of the South.
The housing crises’ primary cause is Biden’s and the Democrats’ illegal immigration policy, supply and demand. While Democrats wanted more votes, illegal immigration was at the expense of American citizens. How more selfish can the Democrats get…power, power, and more power.
Roy Cooper’s policies favored illegal immigration to satisfy his donors.
Cast your vote for Michael Whatley to keep deportations moving forward.
Your claim of Tariffs being source of Civil war doesn’t add up as remotely true: The biggest problem is chronology. The Morrill Tariff was passed on March 2, 1861, before Lincoln was inaugurated, and was signed by outgoing President James Buchanan, not Lincoln. By then, seven Southern states had already seceded: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.
Also note that I love the South and am a very proud southerner and our southern way of life, yet I fully support historians stated fact that the civil war was about slavery. Easiest supporting fact to back that statement is found in Mississippi’s 1861 declaration of secession that said: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”
Why deny history? You can be a very proud southerner and not deny the facts of history. Weird to believe otherwise.
LOL, we have deported millions of immigrants….yet housing prices are not coming down. Suppy remains well below demand. What a joke of belief to still have given that very simple fact. Another fact that makes your claim of Biden being fault of housing crisis is even more simple: The housing shortage predates Biden by many years. Freddie Mac estimated a 3.8-million-unit shortage in 2020, before Biden took office. The final fact to note is that immigrants make up almost 30% of the housing construction workforce so their leaving the US has actually hurt the housing supply more than any minor impact of immigrants’ demand for housing declining.
No politician right or left supports illegal immigration. That is why democrats tried to actually fix the long outdated immigration laws that republicans yet again have ignored given they hold the House and Senate and White House. If they actually cared about immigration, why not fix the laws that allowed the problem to begin with…….hmmmmm
Vote Cooper who wants real change and improvement in immigration laws and understands the real complex reasons for the housing crisis.
Cheers
i don’t understand all the moaning and crying over the interest rates. Go back to to the 70’s and 80’s see what they were then. My first home loan was 18% and I had a good credit score.
Homes cost a far lower % of your income back in the 70s and 80s then they do today. So not only are housing costs going up as percent of income by a large margin, but the additional interest also just puts the affordability of owning a home that much farther out of reach for young families today.
Hope that helps.
did u pay off that mortgage ?
——————–
“Professor” doesn’t know what he’s talking about, Will. My first mortgage was 11 per cent (1989), yours was 18 per cent.
Current rates are around 7 per cent.
—————————-
PS
If he wants to know who’s responsible for the explosion in house prices, he need look no further than the Biden Administration, which created the highest inflation since the 70’s.
Fact.
The Iran war has been a disaster, as all wars are. Iran is a proud country filled with intelligent people who are resilient. Remember Persia. Islam holds them back.
Trump listened to the Zionists, the super wealthy Jews in the US (think Sam Altman and Miriam Edelson,) and the Israeli government. They are not Trump’s friends and do not operate in the best interest of the US. They are moneybags who use their money to their own end, not Trump’s end, not America’s end but their own end. What Trump most likely failed to realize, these pro Israelis are not America first, they are Israel first. Edelson was born in Israel and has proclaimed that is where her heart is. She has dual citizenship. They are not onboard with Trump’s policies except for Israel. Whatever happens, they are insulated by their billions. But the average American shares the consequences of the war with Iran.
What to do now? End the war with Iran at once. Slide out as diplomatically as possible. Cut our losses, admit the war was a mistake, and brush those wealthy Jews to the side including Israel. And tell your son-in-law to get out of the way.
And speaking of Sam Altman, somehow, he has a nonprofit tied to his business, CEO of OpenAI. I don’t suggest that I know the details of the nonprofit, but I do know that it should be investigated. It is my understanding the OpenAI was started as a nonprofit.
Ending the war with Iran would be of great help to Michael Whatley. Vote Whatley to help end the Israeli-induced war with Iran.
Tillis makes a good point about races being affected by complete loyalty to Trump, like Paxton in TX. TX should not be a place where RNC defensive cash has to flow. Back when Mitch McConnell was high profile in the Senate when the Republicans suffered in midterms, he made the statement that races were being lost due to the poor quality of candidates, which was a “Mitch slap” to Trump’s rubber stamp picks who lost. In TX, George Bush just refused to raise any money for Paxton. At least you can hand it to Whatley, his wife hasn’t filed to divorce him on biblical grounds.
During his 2015 presidential campaign announcement, Trump promised to eliminate the entire U.S. national debt—which was then around $19 trillion
Until Biden assumed office, the Democratic presidential policy on illegal immigration matched the policy of all earlier U.S. presidents; their policy was to enforce the law. The law was to prevent people from entering the country illegally.
The trick to immigration is and always will be asylum requests. Trump ignores this law as well as many others. Biden actually wanted to fix the law versus just ignore it. Most republicans did too until Trump made it a loyalty test.
Cheers
‘asylum requests’? hand’m a weapon & send them back – called ‘offence’. every asylum seeker is a ‘vote’ for us to invade schijthole
Professor, you are delusional.
This is well established fact. Bipartisan bill was going to finally close the asylum loophole and Trump told republicans to vote against it and they followed his order. Then had them lie about how the bill would actually work.
Cheers
Tillis ran as a Republican, but he is really a Democrat at heart. He has cleared the way for Cooper to continue in politics. Cooper will sail into the U. S. Senate.
Heritage Action scores his voting record the same as Senater Burr. Do you consider Burr a Democrat?
I think many politicians vote one way and think another for political reasons. Comparing Burr and Tillis is like comparing apples and oranges. They are both fruits but yet they are different.
They voted very similarly in congress. I think that is the best evidence that you are wrong on this point. The split with Tillis was the BBB where Tillis understood how that bill would hurt people in North Carolina by removing their access to healthcare. Prior to that, they voted mostly in the lock step. At some point a politician needs to vote in line with their principles and not with the party.
When in the House, Burr supported Congressional term limits. As soon as Burr was elected to the Senate, he made an about face, opposing term limits. Tillis has always opposed term limits.
Politics is a gravy train. That’s why Blacks, Muslims, and Socialists are getting in on the act. That’s a powerful reason for supporting term limits.
How do you keep trying to make this about race? I was co.paring voting records of our two senators and you make it abjut race? Weird.
I didn’t know socialists had a race.
They don’t. you brought up race and I was asking why?
We already have term limits, but the voters are unwilling to use them.
I believe Trump did all he could to run Tillis out of office, because Tillis was too independent, too moderate for MAGA. I think the current polling reflects how most North Carolinians feel about that.
can he possibly run as an Independent ?
He was censured by the NCGOP. He opposed several Trump nominees and initiatives. His tenure can’t end soon enough
Never was a fan of Tillis but the article is a good one.
Sadly, I believe Cooper will be elected which will not be good for the average NC citizen. He will vote on the side of increased taxes possibly going after your social security. Betting he will be a strong voice for DSA. He won’t be any better of a senator than he was a governor.
You got that right!
professor = Chris
When are people going to realize NORTH CAROLINA is a Red State
It is only Red by sense of gerrymandering of voting districts for the state legislator. There are about the same number of registered Republicans and Democrats and Independents out numbers them each by ~ 25%. The real tell that NC isn’t a Red state is that during the 2000s there has only been one term of a Republican Governor. The rest have all been Democrats. Yet NC has voted for Trump three times I think.
I think the evidence says we are purple. Not red or blue.
Will be interesting how much the Republicans lose the rural vote in NC due to challenges farming has face under the Trump administration.
Hope that helps.
why is there no Purple Party, professor ?
NC has had a Democrat in the Governor’s office for most of the last 2 decades. Since that is a statewide election that can’t be gerrymandered, I think it is disingenuous to say NC is a Red State. Dark purple maybe?
DP Patriot:
According to the NC State Board of Elections Voter Registration Statistics, out of 7,860.992 registered voters there are 2,329,597 Republicans, 2,324,413 Democrats, and the rest are Unaffiliated, Green, and Libertarian voters.
These statistics are up to date as of 9/26/2026. This is why NC is often referred to as a purple state and a swing state. The Democrats and Republicans are 50-50 and the largest bloc of voters are Independents and others.
Now if you are talking about certain regions of the state, like Eastern NC, you may be right.
Nevertheless the numbers speak to the importance of Independents like me. That’s where the “swing” comes in on the final vote tallies.
i am unaffiliated & have no ‘swing’. i see only two occupied swings. voting is a scam
Odd that a plurality of NC voters self-identifies as neither Red nor Blue, because, evidently, they reject the extremist positions and ideology of both major parties. Sounds like Purple Sensible Centrists to me.
Exactly
not in science, it’s probability.
. . . because the lumbee are now federally recognized & seeking ‘coin’
not in our cities where guvmnt employees, community organizers & mendicants concentrate
Roy Cooper keeps telling us the Democratic Party is a coalition of a lot of different groups, and the DSA is just one of them. Here’s my problem with that. For years, progressives have let our young people be taught how wonderful socialism is, but not how badly it’s failed every time it’s been tried. Even the Scandinavian countries, the ones everybody points to as proof it works, ran a capitalist-socialist mix for a while and then had to back away from it to survive.
Now the DSA, fueled by those young voters, is being allowed to operate as a wing of the Democratic Party. Cooper and a lot of other Democrats say they don’t agree with DSA policies, but they won’t make them run under their own name either, because they’re afraid they can’t win without them.
So what happens once Cooper and the rest are firmly in charge? Do they turn around and ignore the DSA and all those young voters they’ve been chasing? Or does that become the leverage that lets a DSA minority call the shots for the whole party?
If Cooper and the others don’t have the courage to stand up and say no to the DSA now, when it costs them almost nothing, I have to assume they’ll give the DSA whatever it wants later if that’s what keeps them in power. That’s not a good look….and continues to prove Roy is a Milksop. Tillis, as much as I hated his tendencies to play the spoiler to his own party at times…at least had the courage to do that, even at the cost of his own seat. I do not see that trait in Cooper… nor do I expect it in the future. He has openly indicated they must accept the DSA to win. So he is just as likely to bend over in Congress if it means staying in power or losing his seat. So, I see re-opened borders… a surge in NGOs and their funding….bigger & bigger government and taxes to support it all in our future. The young people are about to get a real lesson in what happens when the government controls everything.
On the local level…..progressive cities and counties like Greensboro and Guilford will be emboldened to tax and spend. So this small victory over local property taxes is likely to reverse regardless of what we vote on as far as limits. If they fear the loss of the ultra progressive/socialists who dominate the local political scene, they will find a way to get the money from those who have worked hard for it, and they will spend it as fast as it comes in on those who have not. From the national, all the way to the city council, fear of losing the DSA, or at least those with DSA leanings, runs deep, and the battle for control is about to begin.
No one is teaching that public ownership of production and distribution economic systems. You will have to show evidence of that BS line of thinking.
Sure, Cooper did say the Democratic Party needs a “wide spectrum” and that he sees no need to sign a pledge specifically repudiating socialist positions. That’s a legitimate thing to criticize or disagree with. But there is a huge difference between saying “socialists are allowed to participate in the Democratic coalition” and saying “I support the DSA’s agenda.” The latter doesn’t follow from the former. Are you suggesting that a party should only have a single voice? I suggest that is an awful idea.
Also note that DSA doesn’t consider itself a part of the Democrat party as they see themselves as a party to themselves. Again, this points to the gapping flaw in your statement.
Next, your Scandinavian example needs some correction. Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the other Nordic countries didn’t try “socialism, discovered it failed, and returned to capitalism.” They have long operated market economies with extensive social programs, high taxes, strong labor organizations and substantial government services. The Nordic countries themselves describe their economic model as a combination of market activity and government intervention. Denmark, for example, currently has a highly productive private-sector economy and a strong business environment alongside its large welfare state. That’s not a failed socialist experiment; it’s a mixed economic model.
Both parties have their extremes. They shouldn’t be excluded as that defeats the idea of democracy. Sadly we have lost the ability to work across the various parties to compromise on a common good. The polarization you seem to be promoting is bad for our country and our future.
Late note on your comment: Notice how much of your argument is actually prediction:
“what happens once Cooper is firmly in charge?”
“does that become leverage?”
“I have to assume…”
“he is just as likely to…”
“I expect…”
“I see reopened borders…”
“bigger and bigger government…”
“Greensboro will be emboldened…”
Those aren’t facts about what Cooper has done or what he has proposed. They’re a chain of assumptions about what might happen from someone who clearly prefers a different party win the election………..
Hope that helps.
Cheers
Well said Mongo jerry. I wish your words could be shared with every person who plans to vote for Cooper. It would certainly give them food for thought.
Well said Mango Jerry
Just look what Cooper did during Covid. He used his power and bypassef the committee of the state to close down businesses, churches and nursing homes. He supported forcing all civil servants to take the jab!!! He fell right in line with all the democrats up in Washington and he will do the same if elected. He is also a lawyer and a lifelong politician that has never run a business. We have to stop voting in all these lawyers as they are just pin heads that what more laws and regulations. He is also a huge backer of the alphabet group. He put in regulations and laws in our state for huge amounts of DEI initiatives to hire and promote people in our state government, universities and state run offices that were not qualified for the jobs.He is a huge supporter of the Democratic Party and will do anything to run for president. That’s is why he turn down the Harris campaign because he did not want to be tied to a looser!!!!
Tillis is a trader. He held the party line while running! That’s what got him elected. Anyone could have done what he did with the power of his job. He deserves no credit and I hope he fades out into the wood work. The liberal media will give him lots of mic time for the next few weeks as he will help Cooper get elected with all these lawyers BS he will talk about.
There’s quite a bit of opinion masquerading as fact in this comment.
Let’s start with COVID. Did Cooper impose restrictions on businesses, churches and other public activities? Yes. Were those decisions controversial? Absolutely. People can reasonably disagree about whether particular restrictions went too far or lasted too long. But let’s at least be honest about what happened. Cooper did not force every state employee to take the vaccine. His policy required Cabinet agency employees to verify their vaccination status, with weekly testing and masking as alternatives for those who weren’t vaccinated. That’s an important distinction.
And if you believe Cooper exceeded his legal authority or bypassed the legislature, identify the specific law he violated. Simply exercising the emergency powers granted to a governor is not proof of wrongdoing.
As for the DEI accusations, what specific law or regulation are you talking about? Which unqualified people were hired or promoted, and what evidence shows they were unqualified? Throwing around accusations about the “alphabet group” and DEI without providing a single example isn’t an argument. It’s just more ranting of an angry conservative making hollow accusations they can’t back up with evidence.
Then there’s the argument that Cooper shouldn’t be elected because he’s a lawyer and never ran a business. Really? The U.S. Senate is a legislative body, not a business. Being a lawyer and having served as attorney general and governor are relevant qualifications for understanding laws, government and public policy. You don’t have to own a business to understand the economic challenges facing businesses and working families. Trump’s business leadership experience has not added him in his awful trade wars, maintaining relationships with our long-term allies, or handling of his needles Iran war.
And the claim that he declined to be Harris’s running mate because he thought she would lose? That’s your interpretation of his motives, not an established fact. Unless you have something to substantiate it, it’s just speculation.
Finally, I find it interesting that you criticize Tillis for being a party-line politician while criticizing Cooper for being a Democrat who supports Democratic policies. Apparently, party loyalty is a problem only when you disagree with the party.
You don’t have to agree with every decision Cooper made. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that every decision during COVID was perfect. But there is a difference between criticizing someone’s actual record and constructing a caricature of that person using insults, assumptions and unsubstantiated accusations.
If we’re going to judge candidates, let’s judge them on their actual records, their positions on the issues and what they can bring to the job. That’s a much more meaningful discussion than whether someone is a lawyer, belongs to the wrong political party or supports policies you personally dislike.
But you be you
I’ll support Whatley since he will support Pres. Trump. I ended up disliking Tillis tremendously since he leans so liberal. I’m ready for a very conservative small government focused Congress and will vote accordingly to try to get it, however badly that attempt will fail.
professor, commenting on your tariff statement, if you think the Morrill Tariff was the tariff that sparked resentment in the South. You don’t know history. Spend some time reading.
As far as Mississippi, Mississippi was not Florida, was not Texas, was not North Carolina, etc. Not all Confederate states (11) seceded at the same time; some seceded after the War had started, which confirms that not all state secessions were about slavery, or even that secession was viewed through the same lens. There was only one underlying thread running through all state secessions and that was the belief that the federal government overreached states’ authority. Some states seceded after Lincoln called for troops to fight the states that had seceded. Stop repeating that secession was all about slavery, it was not.
I only gave Mississippi as an example. Funny you bring up Texas as their declaration mentions slavery explicitly as well. As did Georgia and South Carolina. Note that Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee did not all issue separate declarations of causes as did Mississippi, SC, TX and GA.
Also note that the Confederate government itself subsequently identified slavery as a fundamental source of the conflict as well. In an April 1861 message to the Confederate Congress, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens’ government discussed both tariffs and slavery, but described slavery as a ‘subject off discord’ of enormous importance and defended the constitutional protection of slave property as central to the need for secession from the Union.
Every historian acknowledges all the various complaints of the South versus the North but all also agree that Slavery was the central underlying cause for secession.
I love the study of American history a great deal and it makes up most of my causal reading (although I much prefer reading books on founding fathers). I recommend the following books as great reads on this subject: Jame McPherson – Battle Cry of Freedom or Charles Dew – Apostles of Disunion. McPherson does the best job of outlining how Slavery produced political conflicts over territories, federal power, states’ rights and ultimately secession. Dew’s book is a quick read and is based directly on the writings of what Southern Secessionists themselves said at the time.
We don’t have to rewrite history to be proud of the South.
Hope that helps.
As always. Greatly appreciate the civil exchange without all the name calling. Much appreciated and valued.
Let’s look at the “cause” in a different way. Charles Drew wrote that it was slavery not states’ rights that was the cause of the War. It was states’ rights given that the Confederate States believed that the federal government had no right to dictate to sovereign states not only on slavery but other issues, like tariffs that were used as revenue as well as protection for northern manufacturing. Then there is Lincoln’s call for troops from southern states that had not yet seceded. There is no doubt there were sectional differences. The southern states saw that the tariff income was used to build railroads, improve roads and build canals in the northern states. The balance of influence in Washington was shifting to the northern states. In the beginning of the War, few people in the Union believed that the men were fighting to free the slaves. In fact, had that been advertised as the reason for the War, Lincoln knew it would be very, very difficult to raise a fighting force without a draft. Northerners would not have fought to “free the slaves.”
Slavery was an economic issue for the South. It is my opinion that had there been a traveling press before the War and journalists interviewed slaveholders; the slaveholders would have said that slavery was a necessary evil to preserve their economy. It was not an institution that they personally preferred. In fact, I would have found the whole institution totally mind numbing, especially by 1860. The slave trade had ended and the increase in slave numbers was through reproduction. Try managing that.
I understand that there will always be a division over the cause of the War. But the issue was far more complex than slavery. The Industrial Revolution in England was in full swing causing changes in society, including the US. For those in the South and especially those who had ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, there is a strong sense of pride; pride because their ancestors were willing to take up arms against a powerful federal government, a government that existed because the states were the original parties to the compact and they retained ultimate sovereignty and the right to judge whether the federal government had exceeded its delegated authority.
Blacks and liberal Whites want to destroy everything Confederate; monuments, flags, meetings, you name it. They are quick to call Confederates traitors. As far as Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, legal experts and federal prosecutors (including the U.S. Attorneys General) concluded that Jefferson Davis could not be justly convicted by an independent tribunal, partly due to fears that a trial might validate the legality of secession or result in an acquittal that would undermine the Union’s cause. For this reason alone, descendants of Confederate ancestors should hold their heads high and say they had the Constitutional right to secession.
The contemporary evidence answers that question pretty clearly.
Look at the secession documents written by the Southern states themselves. South Carolina explicitly complained about Northern hostility to slavery and the election of Lincoln, whom it regarded as hostile to the institution. Mississippi said, in its declaration of secession, that its position was “thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery” and called slavery its “greatest material interest.” Georgia said its grievances with the North were specifically “with reference to the subject of African slavery.” Texas likewise devoted enormous attention to protecting slavery and the slave system.
That’s why I think “states’ rights” is an incomplete explanation. The Southern states were asserting states’ rights primarily to protect slavery. And the Confederate Constitution makes that even harder to dispute: it explicitly protected the ownership of slaves and required escaped slaves to be returned.
The tariff argument is also difficult to reconcile with the timing. The major secession crisis occurred immediately after Lincoln’s election, because Southern leaders feared the future of slavery and particularly the possibility that slavery would be prevented from expanding into the territories. The secession declarations repeatedly identify slavery—not tariffs—as the fundamental threat.
And you’re right about one important distinction: the war did not begin as a war to abolish slavery. Lincoln’s initial objective was preservation of the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation came later and transformed the war’s purpose and consequences. But that doesn’t mean slavery wasn’t the underlying cause of the secession crisis that produced the war.
I’d put it this way:
Slavery was the root cause. States’ rights was the constitutional argument used to defend it. Economic differences and sectionalism were important contributing conditions. Lincoln’s call for troops was an immediate cause of additional Southern secession. But none of those explanations really makes sense without slavery at the center of the conflict.
I don’t agree that Democrats want to destroy everything Confederate, I just think the idea of those symbols being displayed as core to southern pride are heavily misplaced. Civil war parks and cemeteries certainly warrant statues honoring the fallen. But the rebel flag is not a true symbol of the confederacy. It was a symbol made prominent during the civil rights conflicts from force integration. So were many of the state capitol statues etc… Those symbols deserve to be brought down….not because they represent the Confederacy but because they represent the racist history of the south and it’s being on the wrong side of the civil rights debate of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Hope that helps. As always, thank you for the civil exchange of differing points of view.
Cheers
I have always said that if Blacks had their way, any American history prior to the 1960s would be totally erased and America would have its beginning then. If that should happen, Blacks would not be entitled to anything that came before the 1960s; no roads, no education, no science, no medicine. no building blocks that were built by Americans, and the list goes on. Whites prior to the 1960s represented 90(+) percent of the US population. I will leave it up to you, professor, to guess who was responsible for all those things Blacks would lose if America had a start date of the 1960s.
Yes, Blacks want to destroy all things Confederate; it is an ego thing, a power play. Anything Confederate reminds Blacks that an ancestor in the past may have been a slave. Blacks like to demonstrate influence by forcing some issue by going behind the scenes. That’s what the NAACP is especially good at and especially good with Democrats. Blacks have never wanted equality but superiority, like they have some special aura, some special command. Well, you don’t. They like feeling wronged so they can be victims.
As far as the Stars and Bars is concerned, this was General Robert E. Lee’s flag; the flag of Northern Virginia. It was the same Stars and Bars flag flown on the Confederate Navy ships’ mast, only it was square in shape. Did you know that the Confederacy had a navy, that the “Path Finder of the Seas” was a Commander? Did you know the Confederacy had a submarine and that it sank a Union ship? The submarine, H. L. Hunley, is now preserved in Charleston where it was brought up from the floor of Charleston Harbor at the Battery. There are so many achievements of the Confederacy. There is much to be proud of. So, don’t tell me that Southern pride is misplaced and don’t even suggest that Confederate monuments should be removed. The vast majority of Southerners who fought and died in the War Between the States did not give a flying flip about slaves and who owned them. The vast majority knew they didn’t own any. Most in NC were yeoman farmers taking care of their families, but if their state called them to fight to keep “foreigners” out of their land, they would, and they did.
That is the Confederacy you know nothing about.
Vote for Michael Whatley
What are you going on about now? The black community doesn’t want anyone to forget the long history of racism in this country and its last impact on their communities. If anyone seems to want to erase THAT history it is the Whites that want to pretend it never happened or was no big deal.
Again, the idea of placing confederacy symbols in places of honor such as schools, capitol buildings, town centers is offensive to those that those symbols were used to remind that they were and still are viewed as second class citizens. It was quit the trend during the fight over civil rights to place those symbols up to remind the black community of ‘their place’ by angry racist whites.
The Rebel flag today more than ever is used as a sign of defiance against having to face the racist history of those in the south. Whatever personal meaning some people attach to it today, its historical meaning is inseparable from the racist history of the civil war, the fight against civil rights, against desegregation and ongoing racists views that still exist in society today.
Nothing you stated in your comment is new or eye opening and is frankly very common knowledge. I have read many books on the civil war, seen plenty of documentaries, etc… The confederacy was formed to resist the end of slavery and yes, they used States rights as a means to justify that…but end of the day, they were willing to kill thousands upon thousands of Americans for the right to continue to brutalize other humans for their own economic gains while the North was willing to kills thousands upon thousands to protect democracy and keep the Union whole.
Cheers.
——————–
When the States created the Federal Government it was unambiguously clear that any state or states could also leave this new union, at their own volition.
This right was lost in the War for Southern Independence. Lincoln and the Yankees made it clear that we will be held in the Union at gunpoint, whether we like it or not.
The right of any state or states to leave the Union operated as a brake on Federal overreach. That bulwark of freedom was lost when we lost the right to secede, and has resulted in the omnipotent obese Federal Government we have today.
Maybe you should read the constitutional law history a little more closely. Under constitutional law, a state does not have a unilateral constitutional right to leave the Union.
The key authority is the Supreme Court’s 1869 decision in Texas v White, which arose directly from Texas’s attempt to secede during the Civil War. The Court held that the Union is effectively perpetual and described the Constitution as creating an ‘indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States”
While the Constitution doesn’t expressly state “A state may not secede”, there are several points used in the case that validated their ruling:
– The Constitution establishes “a more perfect Union” rather than a temporary compact among sovereign states
– Article IV provide mechanisms for admitting new state into the Union but provides no mechanism for a state to withdraw
– The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution and federal laws supreme over conflicting state law.
– Article V prvides a mechanism for amending the Constitution but not for unilateral dissolution of the Union.
More importantly, Lincoln understood that democracy fails if every time a state didn’t like the outcome of a vote on legislation and they ‘took their ball to go home’ that it not only dissolved the union, it killed democracy itself.
The break on Federal overreach is the Supreme Court. That is political science 101.
I there are those that believe if they don’t get their way in democracy they should be allowed to leave but think about what the does to democracy. First a state leaves the Union….then a city leaves that State….then a city splits into fiefdoms…then we end up with brother vs brother in the end.
A More Perfect Union is what makes America strong, wealthy and a global powerhouse. Break that and we eventually end up like Afghanistan with a bunch of tribal leaders bickering as their world falls apart around them as the fail to unite as a single community of people.
Cheers
—————–
Bulls### .
Lol, classic response from Austin when proven wrong.
Cheers Chippy Poo Doo Dandy
—————–
“Chippy Poo Poo Dandy”….?
Dude, can you read:
Cheers Chippy Poo Doo Dandy.
Chippy Poo Poo Dandy would be silly. Duh
Cheers Chappy Dandy Doo