Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

2020 United States Senate election in North Carolina

US state election From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2020 United States Senate election in North Carolina
Remove ads
Not to be confused with 2020 North Carolina Senate election.

The 2020 United States Senate election in North Carolina was held on November 3, 2020, to elect a member of the United States Senate to represent the State of North Carolina, concurrently with the 2020 United States presidential election as well as other elections to the United States Senate in other states and elections to the United States House of Representatives and various state and local elections. North Carolina was one of just five states holding presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial elections concurrently in 2020. On March 3, 2020, Republican incumbent Thom Tillis and Democratic former state senator Cal Cunningham won their respective primaries.[1]

Quick Facts Turnout, Nominee ...
Remove ads

Cunningham led Tillis in the polls throughout much of the campaign.[2] In early October 2020, it was reported that Cunningham had exchanged sexually suggestive messages with a married woman who was not his wife. Cunningham confirmed the texts were authentic and apologized for his behavior.[3][4] The woman stated that she had a consensual physical relationship with Cunningham in 2020.[5][6]

Tillis was re-elected to a second term, outperforming pre-election polling to win a narrow victory, breaking the "one-term curse" that existed with this particular Senate seat for over twenty years; as no incumbent had been re-elected to this seat since 1996 when Jesse Helms won reelection.[7][8][9] On November 10, 2020, a week after Election Day, Cunningham called Tillis to concede the race.[10] Tillis won by a margin of 1.8% over Cunningham, slightly larger than his 1.5% victory in 2014.[11][12] Tillis received a smaller vote share than Donald Trump's 49.93%, but slightly overperformed his margin of victory in North Carolina.

Remove ads

Republican primary

Summarize
Perspective

Candidates

Nominee

Eliminated in primary

Withdrawn

Declined

Endorsements

Thom Tillis

U.S. presidents

U.S. executive branch officials

Organizations

Polling

More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
Hypothetical polling

with only Thom Tillis and Mark Walker

with Thom Tillis and Generic Republican

Results

Thumb
Results by county:
  Tillis
  •   60–70%
  •   70–80%
  •   80–90%
More information Party, Candidate ...
Remove ads

Democratic primary

Summarize
Perspective

Candidates

Nominee

Eliminated in primary

Withdrawn

Declined

Endorsements

Cal Cunningham

Federal officials

State officials

Local officials

Organizations

Newspapers

Individuals

Erica D. Smith

Federal officials

State officials

Newspapers

Organizations

Polling

More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...

Results

Thumb
Results by county:
  Cunningham
  •   40–50%
  •   50–60%
  •   60–70%
  •   70–80%
  Smith
  •   40–50%
  •   50–60%
  •   60–70%
  •   70–80%
More information Party, Candidate ...
Remove ads

Other candidates

Libertarian Party

Nominee

Constitution Party

Nominee

Independence Party

Withdrawn

Independent write-in candidates

Withdrawn

General election

Summarize
Perspective

Campaign

During the Democratic primary, a Republican-funded Super PAC spent $3 million on ads attacking Cunningham and promoting left-wing rival Erica D. Smith.[79][80]

Cunningham and Tillis participated in debates on September 13,[81] September 22,[82] and October 1.[83]

In July, Tillis claimed Cunningham had been "silent" on the issue of defunding the police, saying,—"I assume [his] silence is ...consent". In reality, Cunningham had spoken publicly about the issue and written an op-ed a month earlier stating his opposition to defunding the police, advocating police reform instead.[84]

On October 3, the New York Times wrote that the race had fallen into "utter mayhem" within a period of a few hours after Tillis tested positive for COVID-19 and Cunningham admitted to exchanging sexual text messages with a woman who was not his wife, damaging an image that leaned heavily on his character and military service. Days later, the woman stated that she had a consensual physical relationship with Cunningham in 2020.[5] The Army Reserve started an investigation into Cunningham.[85] The husband of the woman who stated that she had had an affair with Cunningham, himself an Army veteran, called on Cunningham to drop out of the Senate race.[6] Asked repeatedly whether he had had other extramarital affairs, Cunningham declined to answer.[86][87][88][89]

Tillis's diagnosis, which came after an outbreak at a White House ceremony for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, temporarily threw Barrett's confirmation into jeopardy, as two Republican senators had already stated their intention to vote against (though one of them would eventually vote in favor of her confirmation).[90][91]

Predictions

More information Source, Ranking ...

Post-primary endorsements

Thom Tillis (R)

U.S. presidents

U.S. executive branch officials

Organizations

Cal Cunningham (D)

U.S. presidents

U.S. senators, representatives, and federal officials

State officials

Local officials

Organizations

Fundraising

In the first quarter of 2020, Cunningham outraised Tillis for the first time, receiving $4.4 million compared to the $2.1 million Tillis raised. Tillis's prior fundraising, however, left him with the advantage in cash on hand, with $6.5 million in the bank, compared to Cunningham's $3 million.[137]

Polling

Graphical summary

Aggregate polls

More information Cal Cunningham vs. Thom Tillis, Source of poll aggregation ...

Tillis vs. Cunningham

More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
More information Poll source, Date(s) administered ...
Hypothetical polling

with Erica D. Smith

with Generic Democrat

with Thom Tillis and Generic Opponent

with Generic Republican and Generic Democrat

Results

Like many Republican Senate candidates in 2020, Tillis did much better on Election Day than pre-election prediction polling indicated. The senator narrowly defeated Cunningham 48.7 to 46.9 and slightly outperformed President Trump in terms of margin of victory. Tillis's upset victory has been largely attributed to Cunningham's response to his alleged affair as well as Tillis's fierce campaigning during the last few weeks of the campaign.[260]

More information Party, Candidate ...
Thumb
Thumb

By county

More information By county, County ...

By congressional district

Tillis won 8 of 13 congressional districts.[263]

More information District, Tillis ...
Remove ads

See also

Notes

Summarize
Perspective

Partisan clients

  1. Poll sponsored by the Garland Tucker campaign
  2. Poll conducted by the Club for Growth, a pro-Republican PAC
  3. Compete Everywhere primarily supports Democratic candidates
  4. Poll sponsored by Protect Our Care, a pro-Affordable Care Act organization.
  5. Poll sponsored by The American Greatness PAC, which is pro-Trump.
  6. Poll sponsored by Piedmont Rising, a pro-Affordable Care Act organization.
  7. Poll sponsored by The Human Rights Campaign, which has endorsed Biden prior to this poll's sampling period.
  8. Poll sponsored by AARP.
  9. This poll's sponsor had endorsed Cunningham prior to the sampling period
  10. This poll’s sponsor, DFER, primarily supports Democratic candidates
  11. This poll's sponsor is the American Principles Project, a 501 that supports the Republican Party.
  12. Polling was sponsored by OANN.
  13. Poll sponsored by private client
  14. Internal poll
  15. Poll sponsored by End Citizens United, an organization that has exclusively endorsed Democratic candidates
  16. Poll sponsored by VoteVets.org
  17. Poll sponsored by Save My Care, a pro-Affordable Care Act organization

Voter samples and additional candidates

  1. Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear
  2. Hudson with 8%; Holmquist with 5%
  3. Holmquist and Hudson with 5%
  4. Holmquist and Hudson with 3%
  5. Holmquist and Hudson with 4%
  6. Holmquist with 3%; Hudson with 2%
  7. Hudson with 3%; Holmquist with 2%
  8. If the only candidates were Smith and Tillis
  9. "None of the above" with 5%; "other" with 0%
  10. If the only candidates were Tillis and Tucker
  11. Standard VI response
  12. Response after pollster addresses respondents with talking points about Tillis
  13. Not yet released
  14. Response after pollster addresses respondents with short biographies for Tillis and Walker
  15. Response after short biographies and talking points about Tillis
  16. Listed as "would consider another candidate in a Republican primary"
  17. Calculated by taking the difference of 100% and all other candidates combined.
  18. "Refused" with 2%; Did not vote, would not vote and Undecided with 1%
  19. "Some other candidate" with 4%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 2%
  20. Hayes (C) with 1%; "Other candidate or write-in" with 0%
  21. Hayes (C) with 2%
  22. With voters who lean towards a given candidate
  23. "Someone else" with 2%
  24. Hayes (C) and Undecided with 2%; "None of these" with 1%; "Other" with 0%
  25. "Some other candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 6%
  26. "Some other candidate" with 3%; "Refused" with 2%; Did/would not vote with 0%; Undecided with no voters
  27. Hayes (C) with 2%; Undecided with 6%
  28. "Other" and Undecided with 2%
  29. Undecided with 9%
  30. Would not vote with 2%; Hayes (C) with 1%; "Someone else" with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 6%
  31. "Some other candidate" with 3%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 1%
  32. Archived November 1, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  33. "Someoene else" with 4%; Undecided with 5%
  34. Results generated with high Democratic turnout model
  35. Results generated with high Republican turnout model
  36. "Other" with 3%; Undecided with 4%
  37. Did not vote with 1%; "Another candidate" with no voters; Undecided with 6%
  38. Hays (C) with 1%; Undecided with 7%
  39. "Someone else" with 3%; Undecided with 5%
  40. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 2%
  41. "Some other candidate" with 4%; Undecided with 6%
  42. "Other" with 3%; Undecided with 6%
  43. "Some other candidate" and "Undecided/Refused" with 3%; would not vote with 0%
  44. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 14%
  45. Additional data sourced from FiveThirtyEight
  46. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 10%
  47. Did/would not vote and "Some other candidate" with 1%; "Refused" with 0%; Undecided with 3%
  48. "Neither" with 1%; "Other" and would not vote with 0%; Undecided with 3%
  49. Undecided with 12%
  50. Hayes (C) with 1%; "Someone else" with 0%; Undecided with 2%
  51. Hayes (C) with 3%; would not vote with 1%; "Someone else" with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 15%
  52. "Some other candidate" with 5%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 7%
  53. "No one" with 1%; Hayes (C) with 0%; "Other candidate" with no voters; Undecided with 3%
  54. With a likely voter turnout model featuring high turnout
  55. "Other" and Undecided with 3%
  56. With a likely voter turnout model featuring low turnout
  57. "Some other candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 8%
  58. "Other" and "Refused" with 1%; Undecided with 7%
  59. Archived October 14, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  60. "Some other candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 12%
  61. "Some other candidate" with 4%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 7%
  62. Undecided with 11%
  63. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 8%
  64. Would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 3%
  65. "Some other candidate" with 3%; "Refused" and would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 2%
  66. "Someone else" with 3%; Undecided with 11%
  67. "Another candidate" with 1%; Undecided with 7%
  68. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 12%
  69. Would not vote with 2%; "Don't recall" with 0%; Undecided with 7%
  70. Bray (L) with 2%; Undecided with 13%
  71. Overlapping sample with the previous Morning Consult poll, but more information available regarding sample size
  72. Undecided with 8%
  73. "Some other candidate" with 2%; would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 6%
  74. Hayes (C), "Someone else" and would not vote with 1%; "Undecided/Refused" with 16%
  75. "Another Third Party/Write-in" with 4%; Undecided with 9%
  76. Bray (L) with 6%; Hayes (C) and "Other" with 2%; "Refused" with 0%; Undecided with 11%
  77. "Another candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 10%
  78. Hayes (C) with 1%; "None of these" and "Other" with no voters; Undecided with 3%
  79. Hayes (C) with 1%; "None of these" and "Other" with 0%; Undecided with 5%
  80. "Neither/Another Party" with 3%; "Undecided/Don't know/Refused" with 19%
  81. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 5%
  82. "Another candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 7%
  83. Hayes with 1%; "Someone else" with 0%; Undecided with 12%
  84. Would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 4%
  85. "Another Third Party/Write-in" with 3%; Undecided with 13%
  86. Hayes (C) and "No one" with 1%; "Other candidate" with <1%; Undecided with 5%
  87. With a likely voter turnout model featuring higher turnout than in the 2016 presidential election
  88. "Other" and Undecided with 4%
  89. With a likely voter turnout model featuring lower turnout than in the 2016 presidential election
  90. Hayes (C), "Other" and would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 5%
  91. Hayes (C) with 2%; "Other" and would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 6%
  92. "Some other candidate" with 3%; Would not vote with 0%; Undecided with 9%
  93. Would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 5%
  94. "Third party/write-in" with 3%; Undecided with 13%
  95. "Some other candidate" with 5%; would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 10%
  96. Undecided with 14%
  97. Hayes (C) with 2%; Undecided with 16%
  98. Would not vote with 2%; Undecided with 8%
  99. "No one" with 10%
  100. "Someone else" with 3%; Undecided with 9%
  101. "Third party candidate" with 4%; would not vote with 2%; Undecided with 15%
  102. Archived July 30, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  103. Hayes (C) with 2%; Undecided with 11%
  104. Undecided with 13%
  105. "Third party/write-in" with 2%; Undecided with 14%
  106. "Other" with 1%; Undecided with 9%
  107. "Another candidate" with 6%; Undecided with 13%
  108. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 6%
  109. Undecided with 7%; would not vote with 2%
  110. Undecided with 15%
  111. Undecided with 7%; would not vote with 1%
  112. Undecided with 10%; "Some other candidate" with 8%
  113. Undecided with 16%
  114. Undecided with 15%; Hayes (C) with 3%; "other" and would not vote with 1%
  115. Undecided with 17%; "Another candidate" and would not vote with 1%
  116. Undecided with 16%; "Another third party/write in" with 3%
  117. Hayes (C) with 2%; Undecided with 21%
  118. Archived June 5, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  119. Undecided with 11%; "other candidate" with 8%
  120. Undecided with 5%; "Someone else" with 4%
  121. Undecided with 20%
  122. "It is time to give a new person a chance to do better" with 50% as opposed to "Thillis has performed his job as U.S. Senator well enough to deserve re-election"
  123. "Refused" with 3%
  124. "Prefer not to answer/Refused" with 4%; "Candidate from another political party" with 1%; "Will not vote/not sure" with 0%
  125. "Undecided/Refused" with 8%
  126. "Neither" and "Other Party" with 1%; Undecided with 14%
  127. Undecided with 14%; "Neither/other/independent" with 3%
  128. Undecided with 11%; "Neither/other/independent" with 4%
  129. Undecided with 17%; "Neither/other/independent" with 3%
  130. Undecided with 16%; "Neither/other/independent" with 5%
  131. Undecided with 19%; "Neither/other/independent" with 5%
  132. "Undecided" with 8%; "don't know/refused" with 3%
  133. Undecided with 18%; "Neither/other/independent" with 6%
  134. Undecided with 17%; "Neither/other/independent" with 5%
  135. Undecided with 15%; "Neither/other/independent" with 7%
  136. Undecided with 21%; "Neither/other/independent" with 4%
Remove ads

References

Loading content...

Further reading

Loading content...

External links

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads