With the beginning of early voting across North Carolina last Thursday we are now in the political equivalent of a baseball game’s early innings or in football’s first quarter. Although teams may be putting points on the board, much can happen before the close of counting on Election Day, Nov. 5.
But while those numbers don’t tell us everything, they may tell us something. In my judgment, there are a few key numbers to know and to follow as we approach the finish, as they may be the measures of victory or defeat. (Note the emphasis on the word “may,” which translates into “take with grain of salt.”)
Most crucial among these numbers is 74,483. Expressed in a different way, this number is 1.34 percent. To which you likely respond: What are you talking about?
Donald Trump, in his 2020 loss to Joe Biden, carried North Carolina by that number of votes. His victory margin was 1.34 percent – the smallest margin of the 25 states he won.
Of course many things have changed since then that may affect that number. The state’s population has grown and become younger and more urban. The party registration numbers have shifted from Democrats and Republicans and toward independents. Kamala Harris isn’t Joe Biden. Trump was impeached a second time after his involvement in the January 6, 2021, insurrection, and he awaits sentencing after being convicted of 34 felonies.
Still, as consequential as each of those factors would typically be, every credible poll taken since Biden stepped aside and endorsed Harris has found the race to be a dead heat. It’s about where things stood on Election Day 2020.
That suggests the key to handicapping the outcome this year is to find clues in the latest numbers that the ex-president, despite his many legal issues, is hanging on, or that Harris has bridged the gap and can flip the outcome her way.
Last Thursday, the first day of early voting, 5,607 more people cast ballots across the state than did so in 2020, // Watchdog photo by Starr Sariego
Here’s one of those key clues: Last Thursday, the first day of early voting, 5,607 more people cast ballots across the state than did so in 2020, which itself was a record. That one day itself represents a 1.3 percent jump. In addition, a record 75,133 absentee ballots were accepted (although they won’t be counted until voting ends Nov. 5).
Of course we can’t know for which candidate those ballots were cast. But we do know that more registered Democrats voted that day than registered Republicans, according to state Board of Elections data, which may be a measure of enthusiasm by party loyalists. And notably, more Democrats voted than registered independents (officially called unaffiliated voters), which is by far the largest voting bloc.
Not surprisingly in blue Buncombe County, three Democrats turned out on the first day for every Republican. The Democrats had a slimmer 6-5 edge over the unaffiliated, whose leanings are less predictable.
The opening-day trend has continued through Monday, with registered Democrats out-voting registered Republicans and the unaffiliated, though by fractions of a percentage point.
In sports terms, this means only that the Democrats may have taken a slender lead in the early minutes of the game. We also know from recent elections that Democrats like to vote early while Republicans tend to vote more heavily on Election Day, though this may be changing. As I said, take these numbers with salt.
I’ll leave you with one interesting, though irrelevant statistic: Oddsmakers in NFL games have found that the team with a lead after the first quarter wins 65.75 percent of the time.
Your vote can ensure that nothing will get done
I have been asked by some Asheville Watchdog readers to explain the purpose of a proposed amendment to the North Carolina Constitution appearing to make it illegal for foreigners to cast ballots here. What puzzles these readers is the fact that it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in our elections. In fact, it’s a felony. And every voter acknowledges this when signing their ballot-authorization paper.
It brings to mind a nursery rhyme that begins like this: Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. I wish, I wish he’d go away.
This proposed amendment is the state House Republicans’ version of that invisible man upon the stair. Because of their efforts, that man still isn’t there. The original ditty by Hughes Mearns was meant to rid children of their belief in boogeymen under the bed who, of course, weren’t there and continued not being there night after night.
In this case, led by departing House Speaker Tim Moore who needed an issue to boost his election to Congress, the invisible boogeymen are anti-GOP foreigners who sneak into the country to cast ballots to sway elections (apparently favoring Democrats).
There is no evidence of this happening. But Moore felt the need to demonize immigrants – including naturalized citizens – so some may stay home on Election Day. Moore’s GOP friends in Raleigh humored him by drafting this constitutional amendment to amend the existing one and ensure that nothing will result that isn’t already not being done.
Here is the current law: “Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized” shall be entitled to vote. And here is the proposed amendment to the law: “[O]nly a citizen of the United States…” shall be entitled to vote.
Do you see the difference and now understand why the GOP believes the new amendment is needed? Of course you don’t. So why would House Republicans take the rare step of putting this measure before voters?
Because this is a year in which immigrant fear-mongering runs through the GOP in both the state Assembly and in Congress.
So what are voters to do when they get to this ballot question? They can vote no, in which case nothing will change. Or they can vote yes, and nothing still won’t change. Or they can skip the line and be sure that nothing will change.
And we can all wish that this partisan nonsense will go away.
Helene, Asheville and Project 2025
Among the crucial federal agencies severely disrupted by Tropical Storm Helene is the National Climatic Data Center, which is headquartered in Asheville. This is the government operation that maintains the world’s largest archive of meteorological and climatological data on Earth. Among its achievements: The scientific evidence of global warming was collected and reported by the NCDC, based on the Asheville archive.
Despite its scientific importance, the pro-Trump Project 2025 proposes to break up the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NCDC’s parent), sell its weather-forecasting functions to commercial operators, and smother its Asheville-based climate-change reporting. Project 2025 is the right-wing Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the next Trump administration should he win the election.
Project 2025 characterizes the agency as the power behind the “climate change alarm industry.” But Mother Nature apparently got a head start on this plan by directing Helene (according to Marjorie Taylor Greene) to slam into the NCDC’s digitized operations center in downtown Asheville, putting access to its archive off line for several days.
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. Tom Fiedler is a Pulitzer Prize-winning political reporter and dean emeritus from Boston University who lives in Asheville. Email him at tfiedler@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s reporting is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to avlwatchdog.org/support-our-publication/.
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.