On July 13, Alabama held a run-off primary for the Republican Party, to determine who the party’s gubernatorial nominee would be. Robert Bentley defeated Bradley Byrne, even though earlier Byrne had been considered the front-runner and the choice of most party leaders.
This Huntsville Times editorial suggests that Democrats voted heavily in the Republican run-off, something that is legal. Democrats did not have a run-off primary. Alabama does not have registration by party. The editorial says the union that represents public school teachers was angry at Byrne, and that the union encouraged its members (most of whom are believed to be Democrats) to vote in the Republican run-off primary against Byrne. Thanks to Ed Still of Votelaw for the link.
This seems to happen all over the country. One option would be to get folks to run in the Democratic primary to force Democrats to stay in their primary. It could also work the other way around as well.
There are two issues here and I’ll comment on both.
First, anybody should be able to vote in any primary which is paid for with taxpayers money – whether it is a Democratic Primary, a Republican Primary, or a Libertarian Primary. I know some don’t like that philosophy, but I still say the right of the individual voters supercedes the right of the party – especially if public monies are used to pay for the expenses of the election.
Second, there were some Democrats who did “cross-over” and voted for Dr. Bentley for two reasons. 1st, because as the blog post points out, the teachers union were put out with Bradley Byrne, and 2nd, because many Democrats feel Dr. Bentley will be easier for Democratic nominee Ron Sparks to defeat in the General Election.
There is much truth to this 2nd reason. Dr. Bentley is not a photogenic or charismatic individual. Sparks on the other hand does have charisma despite being tagged as a liberal. It could turn out to be a very close election in a year when the GOP should have had the governor’s office sewed up.
Still, I will not vote for Dr. Bentley. He is a “secular conservative” who only cares about lowering taxes (on the rich) reducing government spending (on common people who need it) and allowing free enterprise to continue gouging the consumer and exploiting the worker.
If Judge Roy Moore had won the GOP primary I would have supported him in November. But since many so-called “Christian consevatives” or “Chrisian patriots” stabbed Judge Moore in the back and voted for either Tim James, Bradley Byrne and Robert Bentley, he was denied the gubernatorial nomination he had long worked for an deserved for his courageous 10 Commandments Stand.
Judge Roy Moore is a true “Christian conservative” or “Christian patriot.” He recognizes – as most “secular conservatives” refuse to – that social and moral issues are also affecting the state of our state and nation. We can lower taxes all we want, reduce government spending all we want, and allow private enterprise to go unbriddled, but if we do not address the REAL issues that are destroying this country, America is doomed.
Those real issues should start with strong families. The government shouldn’t legislate those moral issues. Leave those issues to the family and religion.
The editorial appears to be pretty much sour grapes.
The primary was a 4-way race, which finished Byrne 29%, Bentley 25%, Tim James (son of former governor Fob James) 25%, and Roy Moore (judge in the 10 Commandments controversy). The race for 2nd place was extremely close and only confirmed after a recount. The recount probably gave Bentley greater name recognition, and perhaps resulted in some believing the race was between Bentley and James.
As one might expect in such a race, name recognition was a key element. Byrne piled up 46% and 45% margins in Mobile and Baldwin counties, while Bentley had 63% in Tuscaloosa County.
The campaign managers for both James and Moore endorsed Bentley in the runoff. Particularly important may have been the endorsement by James campaign chairman Sonny Callahan, former congressman from the Mobile area.
Turnout in the runoff was comparable to the primary. And while the Democrats did not have a gubernatorial runoff, they did have an AG runoff. Much of the small dropoff in the Republican primary may have been due to Moore supporters who sat out the runoff (see comments of AAI in #2).
In Mobile and Baldwin counties, Byrne went from a 45:14 and 46:18 margin over Bentley in the primary to a 51:49 and 52:48. So Bentley was not able to capitalize in his strong areas. Meanwhile, Bentley went from a 63:13 margin in Tuscaloosa county to a 86:14 margin in the one large county with a significant boost in turnout. IOW, Bentley did a better job of mobilizing his base. In other large counties, where Byrne had more modest margins, he pretty much maintained his lead.
In 8 big counties (Baldwin, Jefferson, Madison, Mobile, Morgan, Shelby, and Tuscaloosa), Bentley had a 51% margin (5000 votes). But he had a 15,000 vote margin in Tuscaloosa County. Remove Tuscaloosa, and Byrne had a 52.3:47.7% margin in the other 7 large counties.
But in the rest of the state, Bentley had a 64% to 36% victory (61,000 vote plurality).
Byrne depended on the cities and perhaps the media, which may have led to the Huntsville paper to perceive it as a done deal, even though Byrne only led 29% to 25% in the primary, with 46% voting for someone else.
So the keys were Byrne’s failure to GOTV in his stronghold in the Mobile area, Bentley piling up a big margin in Tuscaloosa, and simply thumping Byrne by an almost 2:1 margin elsewhere.
To Allen. I hardly know where to begin to refute your erroneous comment that “The government shouldn’t legislate those moral issues. Leave those issues to the family and religion.” It is not a question of “legislating moral issues” as it is in addressing certain issues which results in “immorality” and causes harm to the people. But you liberals and “secular conservatives” wouldn’t understand that.
It is not a question, for example, of whether selling Alcohol is a “moral” issue, but what does Alcohol do to our country? 3 times as many public funds are spend on the effects of selling Alcohol (i.e.,social problems and law enforcment) than the government receives in revenue. Is that conservative? Hardly.
The Constitution of the U.S. in two different places,i.e.,the Preamble and in Section VIII, Paragraph 1, clearly states government has the obligation to “promote the general welfare.”
Stopping the commercial use of Alcohol, Tobacco, Gambling, Pornorgraphy, and other ills, has nothing to do with “moral” issues, but rather with promoting the “general welfare” of the people.
I know both Liberals and some conservatives don’t interpret the Constitution this way, but if this nation is to survive, we need to get our heads out of the “doctrinal sands” and face up to reality.
Jim Riley in #5 is correct. Many Moore supporters, such as myself, set out the 2nd primary. It’s too early, but I’m hoping a “write-in” effort for Roy Moore will spring up from the grassroots.
I predict the General Election between Bentley and Sparks could be close, and a strong write-in effort could hold the “balance of power.” I would “dance a jig” if write-in votes for Roy Moore tipped the election to Ron Sparks.
P.R. – legislative bodies
App.V. – NONPARTISAN executive/judicial offices
NO primaries are needed.
Pingback: Republican