The Making of a Southern Democracy: North Carolina Politics from Kerr Scott to Pat McCrory

Appendix: Comments on Methodology and General Approach

331 a p p e n d i x Comments on Methodology and General Approach This book is research-based and at the same time reflects personal observations and impressions of the writer. Such personal observations can provide readers with valuable insights, and sometimes there are no reasonable substitutes. For that I offer no apology. Indeed, such an approach was essential to explaining both fairly and honestly the changing times. Scholars should never hold back the truth as they see it. Yet this book relies heavily on data available to both scholars and the simply curious. Much of the focus is on election data, both state and national . Unless otherwise noted, all North Carolina election figures—state, county, and city—were gathered directly from the State Board of Elections or from official sources, usually the North Carolina Manual, published by the Secretary of State’s Office throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first. Precinct data were collected from individual county boards of elections. Observations about “predominantly black” or “predominantly white” voting precincts are based on the official breakdowns by race for the relevant precincts. For some early primaries and general elections (primarily pre-1965), these data are not available. However, local newspapers often identified precincts by racial makeup. For example, in Durham the socalled predominantly black precincts were Burton, Hillside, Whitted, and Pearsontown. When white segregationists sought political office, these precincts would vote by greater than 99 percent against the candidate. Beginning in the 1940s, all of North Carolina’s major cities had comparable precincts. Political scientist Donald Strong, Urban Republicanism in the South (University: Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama, 1960), and journalist Samuel Lubell, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper, 1952) and The Revolt of the Moderates (New York: Harper, 1956), 332 / Appendix also divided southern urban precincts into categories of race and social class. Their categories were based on the observations of local journalists, politicians, and professors. Professors Numan V. Bartley and Hugh D. Graham also utilized this type of precinct analysis in Southern Politics and the Second Reconstruction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975). Among other cities around the South, they examined precinct returns from Charlotte, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem. While my analysis relies strongly on raw election returns, I did closely follow polls, especially after 1980. In earlier periods, state-level polls were scarce, sometimes unreliable, and often not made available to the general public, academics, or journalists. The polls that did exist were often commissioned by candidates or parties. Among the most helpful over the past thirty years has been the November exit polls sponsored by the news outlets. These surveys of actual voters offer powerful information for explaining the vote and providing a good breakdown based on race and other socioeconomic factors. The North Carolina–based Elon University poll has specialized in the coverage of recent North Carolina elections. I conducted forty-five formal interviews specifically for this study; they lasted from one to three hours. In addition, I had conducted forty-seven for earlier but related studies of race and North Carolina politics. I sought individuals who had played central roles in modern campaigns. The list includedformergovernorsJamesHolshouser ,BobScott,andJimHunt.Unfortunately ,formerSenatorJesseHelms,akeyfigureintheNorthCarolinastory had fallen into serious mental and physical decline by the time this study was under way. However, I did interview key figures from the Helms campaign , including top strategists Tom Ellis and Carter Wrenn. I also visited the Jesse Helms Center in Monroe, where I interviewed director John Dodd and other key associates. A few persons were interviewed because of their in-depth background knowledge and behind-the-scenes activities. Most notable in this category was former University of North Carolina president William Friday. I attempted to build a relaxed conversational style into all the interviews , much in the manner of V. O. Key Jr. and his associates. Unlike them, I did take notes on significant points during the interview. But like Key and associates, I wrote a very extensive summary immediately after the interviews. There were numerous requests for confidentiality, but I do not believe that they interfered with my telling of the big story. In addition to the formal interviews, I had mini-interviews, brief contacts, and telephone conversations with other persons who were helpful in answering specific questions. Appendix / 333 I have been personally acquainted with many North Carolina movers and shakers of both political parties. Many of them had...