« What Holds the Republican Party Together? | Main | C4GC Event on Local Policing »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't think your reasoning stands up to common sense. There have been plenty of challengers in past municipal elections, but not this one.

Well, what was different about this one? The biggest difference was how late candidates learned what the actual districts would be. Potential challengers have a lot to think through before filing to run. How would running affect my job, my business, or my family? For incumbents it's simpler. They've already answered the big questions, and the only one remaining is: Do I want to keep doing this or not?

You're saying that there are few challengers because people suddenly and unprecedentedly decided that it would be futile to challenge incumbents. That's not impossible, but let's use Occam's Razor. Given the big difference between this municipal election and previous ones, it's much more likely that uncertainty about district lines was what reduced the field of challengers.

And what caused that uncertainty? Ultimately it was Wade's bill. So if anyone is upset that incumbents have too little competition in this year's election, you have Trudy Wade to thank.

Andrew, I actually agree with you that the passage of the law followed by the legal challenge that reversed it contributed to an inability to plan for running on the part of challengers. That certainly is a factor.

However, I also believe that people who have been paying attention understand that the game is rigged, and that it is pointless to try to buck the machine for most of these races. I really gave up on Greensboro a couple of years ago.

It used to be a vibrant, economically strong area. But those days are gone, because the conditions that allowed that kind of success to develop are also gone.

It is a shame. The jobs are going elsewhere.

The comments to this entry are closed.