Sex scandals are different for Republican candidates, because they're not held to the same standard.

Results from PPP: 37% say the Cunningham story makes them less likely to vote for him, 3% say it makes them *more* likely to vote for him, and 58% say it makes no difference. Most of the less likely responses are from Republicans (66% with Rs, 34% with Is, and 13% with Ds) Also Tillis is -23 in favs (31 fav/54 unfav).

The "more likely to vote" / "less likely to vote" is the stupidest type of polling question ever because it doesn't separate out the people who would never vote for someone regardless and the ones who would always vote for someone regardless. The actual percentage for whom it really makes a difference is very small.

shoutout to the sample size static 3% of voters who are more on-board with Cunningham post-texting admission. The poll question really should be "did this change what candidate you supported?"

I think the ECU poll will set off the panic too

https://twitter.com/BrentScher/status/1313598096413200384

Aren't there laws against that now?

https://twitter.com/zach_hudson/status/1313886702684045319?s=20 if this is true north carolina needs to be abolished

Well, I guess that's all a wash now.

So I guess that SurveyUSA poll should put to rest that North Carolinians could care less about who Cunningham is sexting. Also, Thom Tillis people really don't like you.

also whats funny is that men in this poll were cunningham 45-43. last month it was 50-39 tillis. men swung 13 points towards cunningham

Though Dems have now been blaming Cal for potentially costing Dems the Senate. So they interfered in my Senate Race for no reason

I like looking at the crosstabs in Survey USA polls. 9% having already voted is about 68 people in the survey, which is really too few to analyze with any precision, but just for fun I compared it against the early vote data compiled by Michael McDonald. As of today, 478,156 people have voted in North Carolina and if that is 9% of the total, the total number of voters will be 5,312,844 which is about a 12% increase over 2016.

Though Dems have now been blaming Cal for potentially costing Dems the Senate. So they interfered in my Senate Race for no reason Ok I guess I'll have to explain this to PA Indy. A State Senator by the Name of Jeff Jackson was on his way to announce a bid for the Senate Seat, even heading to DC to get Chuck Schumers blessing as this is a swing seat. When asked about strategy Jackson proposed a plan for the campaign where he would do "100 Town Halls in 100 Days" in all of NC's Counties, Schumer responded with “Wrong answer — we want you to spend the next 16 months in a windowless basement raising money, and then we’re going to spend 80% of it on negative ads about Tillis”. Soon afterwards Cal dropped his yearlong bid for Lt Gov and all of a sudden announced he was running for Senate and almost immediantly afterwards got the support of the DSCC and proceeded to follow Schumers strategy.

knowing what we know now... Jackson would have had to finish out that 100 in 100 tour before mid-March or else it wasn't gonna happen. "Obviously Chuck Schumer knew there was going to be a reason for people to go into windowless basements"

E, your anti-Schumer/anti-DSCC post doesn't exactly make Jackson look like the best guy, either. I mean, he had his own strategy to win and instead of running on it, he bowed down. But, sure, party organization bad because you don't like Cal.

No its actually reverse, I would not GAF about Cal if the DSCC did not butt its nose in the election and pretty much force a candidate out of the race in favor of him. Jackson did not run because running against the DSCC is pretty much impossible, especially given the raised stakes of the 5th most likely seat to flip.