Talk:Mark Harris (North Carolina politician)

Since Republicans would prefer to classify abortion as a social issue and Democrats would classify it as a healthcare issue it is best in the interest of wikipedia's neutrality to treat it as a standalone issue when listing Mark Harris' positions. Postermon1 10:45, 24 July 2018 (EST

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/400733-gop-candidate-preached-that-wives-should-submit-to-husbands 76.16.92.107 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarify resignation

The article says Harris resigned from the First Baptist Church of Charlotte. Pretty sure he only resigned from his pastorate, not from the church (though I don't know for sure). --Haruo (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In the fraud investigation story it seems possible that two things are being conflated. The elevated number of African American absentee ballots that were requested but never returned may be the result of Tom Steyer absentee voter drive in which ballot request forms were sent to African American and college aged voters and only required their signatures. The possibility is that because it only required their signature many people signed the request form and sent it in but then when they received the ballot they requested they saw that it required witnesses etc., was far more time consuming than they had anticipated, and they chose not to return it. So this issue with un-returned ballots may be completely unrelated to the accusations against McCrae Dowless.--Postermon1 (talk) 09:37, 6 December 2018 (EST)

Missing ballots from African Americans

Postermon1 Looking at the edit summary here;

re "None of the sources cited imply" - What do you mean none of source the sources imply that? If they weren't trying to imply the missing ballots were linked to the fraud why would the Charlotte Observer mention it in the same article? NickCT (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason the Charlotte Observer mentioned it in the article is that they know the Board of Elections is investigating the results in the district but they don't know why (the board hasn't stated exactly why) so they are stating all irregularities that they find. But there is nothing in that article that says the gap between ballots that were returned and ballots that were requested are because of McCrae Dowless and not because of Tom Steyers voter drive. We know based on this story that Steyer spent $1 million on this and one other district in North Carolina https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article209097664.html Postermon1 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2018 (EST)

This is not to say that Dowless was not illegally harvesting absentee ballots but that the gap between African American ballots requested and ballots returned may be a separate issue and in the interest of honesty and neutrality that possibility needs to be acknowledged. Postermon1 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2018 (EST)

@Postermon1: - I'm a little confused by your line of reasoning. How would Steyer spending a million dollars prevent or encourage people to send back the absentee ballots they'd been given? NickCT (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

re "the gap between African American ballots requested and ballots returned may be a separate issue" - For the record; I agree. It could theoretically be a separate issue. But it's obviously suspicious, and suspicious enough that the Observer mentioned it in relation to the fraud. We should too. NickCT (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I should maybe have reposted my previous comment since it was posted outside of this discussion. What Steyer's group did was to send absentee ballot requests to high propensity Democratic voters (college students, African Americans and other demographic groups that are viewed as key support bases for the Democratic Party) These request forms were more or less prepared and required little more than a signature to send back in. It is possible that, since it was made easy, a lot of people went ahead and requested a mail in ballot but when it arrived they realized that they would need to find witnesses and that filling out the ballot was going to be more effort than they had bargained for. In that case you would have a higher number request sent in by people who were targeted by Steyer's group but then the return rate would drop off substantially which seems to be what we saw happen. One way to determine if that is the case would be to look at the other district in North Carolina that Steyer targeted and see if there is a similar request-to-return disparity among African Americans in that district. Another way would be to look at college students, the other demographic targeted by Steyer, see if there is a similar pattern. Postermon1 (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2018 (EST)

@Postermon1: - re "What Steyer's group did was to send absentee ballot requests to high propensity Democratic voters" - Ok. If that's true, then perhaps it might go someway to explain the discrepancy. Do you have a source that calls out that Steyer's group used this tactic? NickCT (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@NickCT:The absentee ballot strategy is outlined to some extent in this politico story in relation to another race his group got involved in in Arizona. I want to be clear though, there is nothing illegal in North Carolina about helping someone request a ballot. What McCrae Dowless is being accused of is handling the ballots themselves, not the request forms and that is illegal.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/02/2018-elections-outside-money-democrats-democrat-alliance-soros-steyer-956032 Postermon1 (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2018 (EST)

@Postermon1: - Tad confused. The source you provided points to an example of a group going out to assist/influence voters in filling out their mail-in ballot. It does not say that they were encouraging voters in certain areas to get mail-in ballots.

Regardless, it definitely isn't talking about North Carolina's 9th district. Unless you have something that says this kind of activity was going on in Carolina, what you're saying seems highly speculative. NickCT (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft

Why is this in article space when Dan McCready is a draft? Neither of them hold office. Jonathunder (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonathunder, I put this in mainspace before the election happened because I believed (and still do) that there's enough coverage of him from before the election to establish WP:GNG. An AfD in May 2018 kept this article. That isn't the case for McCready, although it's possible it should be moved into mainspace regardless of the result due to WP:BLP1E, as the election fraud makes this a completely different event than a standard election. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Election fraud allegations

I changed "Responding to their obstructionism" to "Responding to their actions" in the comment retrieved on 1/31/19 regarding the Republican party officials' not sending the names of their party's candidates to the Governor, because no matter what we may think about party's actions, posts in Wikipedia should have a NPOV. I'm sure the party would not categorize their own actions as "obstructionist", so that word is not neutral. Widjididji (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Fire alarm?

The last bit in the personal life section about him turning on a fire alarm to avoid the press seems a little random and doesn't really add anything to the article. It especially doesn't make sense to have that in his personal life. Listenhereyadonkey (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)