Mark Robinson’s Path to Victory: A Data-Driven Look at the NC Governor’s Race

With just 15 days left until the election, early voting data from October 18, 2024, shows a significant shift in North Carolina’s electorate, moving from D+9 in 2020 to R+2 now—a swing of 11 points in favor of Republicans. This change provides Mark Robinson with a better chance of closing his polling gap against Josh Stein, but several key factors must align for him to succeed.

Trump’s Influence and the Coattail Effect

Robinson, currently trailing by up to 16 points in RealClearPolitics (RCP) averages, will rely heavily on a strong performance from Donald Trump to generate coattail momentum. For Robinson to overcome his deficit, independent voters must break for Trump and align with Robinson as a close facsimile of the former president. This alignment could shift critical votes in Robinson’s favor, especially if voters resist North Carolina’s historic tendency toward split-ticket voting.

Recent elections show that straight-ticket voting has grown nationwide [1][2], and Robinson will need to capitalize on this trend to win. If Republican voters support Trump and continue voting GOP down the ballot, Robinson’s path to victory becomes clearer.

Chart 1: Adjusted Trump Margin Needed to Overcome Mark's RCP Deficit (D+9, 2020)

This chart shows the margin Trump would have needed in the D+9 electorate from four years ago for Robinson to close the polling gap.

Chart 2: Adjusted Trump Margin Needed to Overcome Mark's RCP Deficit (R+2, Current)

With the current R+2 electorate[3], the required Trump margin drops, reflecting the favorable shift for Republicans since the last election cycle.

Chart 3: Trump Victory Margin Needed at Various NC Republican Leans (R+3 to R+9)

The final chart outlines what Trump’s margin of victory in North Carolina must be for Robinson to overcome his polling deficit, based on different Republican leans in the electorate.

Conclusion

With just two weeks remaining, Robinson's path to victory is narrow but achievable. The shift to an R+2 electorate gives him a critical advantage, but much depends on independent voters seeing him as aligned with Trump’s vision. If Trump performs well and Republicans vote straight-ticket, Robinson could close his polling deficit and win the governor's race. The coming days will be decisive as both campaigns race to the finish. ​

Sources:
[1]
https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/articles/us-politics/2024/10/9/end-straight-ticket-voting-implications-democracy
[2]
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/21/large-shares-of-voters-plan-to-vote-a-straight-party-ticket-for-president-senate-and-house/
[3]
https://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2024/10/what-can-NC-early-voting-tell-us.html#more

Introduction

Tariffs, often dismissed in modern economic debates, have historically been one of the most effective tools to protect domestic industries and ensure economic independence. The idea is simple: by imposing taxes on imported goods, tariffs make foreign products more expensive, encouraging consumers to buy domestically produced alternatives. This approach helped build the American industrial base before 1913, but the landscape changed after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which introduced federal income taxes and reduced reliance on tariffs. In recent years, especially under President Donald Trump, tariffs have reemerged as a strategic economic and geopolitical tool to combat unfair trade practices and protect American jobs. This paper argues that tariffs remain a vital part of U.S. policy, particularly in the face of economic challenges posed by foreign powers such as China.

Historical Success of Tariffs Before 1913

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, tariffs were a cornerstone of U.S. economic policy. The federal government relied heavily on tariffs as its primary source of revenue, which made America largely independent from other nations’ goods and foreign trade. More importantly, these tariffs shielded nascent American industries from established European competition, enabling the United States to build strong manufacturing capabilities. For example:

• The Tariff of 1828 (also known as the "Tariff of Abominations") placed heavy taxes on imported goods, which allowed northern manufacturers to thrive.
• The Morrill Tariff of 1861, passed during the early days of the Civil War, provided a crucial boost to American industries by discouraging foreign competition, ensuring that jobs and capital stayed within the country.

This economic framework was instrumental in transforming the U.S. into an industrial powerhouse by the early 20th century. At the same time, a limited federal government meant the burden of taxation did not fall on individual incomes.

The Shift in 1913: Income Taxes Replace Tariffs

The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 fundamentally altered the American economic system. It introduced federal income taxes, giving the government a more reliable and scalable revenue stream. However, as the government became less dependent on tariffs, it increasingly opened the domestic market to foreign goods. The new revenue model encouraged policymakers to pursue free trade agreements, and over time, American industries lost their tariff protections.

The consequences of this shift were long-term and profound. U.S. manufacturers, once dominant in sectors such as steel and textiles, found themselves increasingly vulnerable to cheaper foreign competitors. With fewer tariff protections, many companies moved operations overseas, where they could produce goods at lower costs. As a result, the U.S. became more dependent on foreign imports and experienced the gradual decline of key industries—particularly manufacturing.

The China Problem: Unfair Trade Practices and Deindustrialization

One of the clearest examples of the negative impact of free trade policies can be seen in the U.S. relationship with China. After China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, American markets were flooded with inexpensive Chinese products, ranging from electronics to textiles. While this benefited consumers with lower prices, it devastated domestic industries, leading to:

• Mass layoffs in manufacturing-heavy regions (such as the Midwest)
• Offshoring of American factories to Asia, leaving local economies in decline
• A growing trade deficit with China, which reached $382 billion in 2018

China's trade practices, including currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and state subsidies, created an uneven playing field. Despite promises of mutual economic benefit, American industries struggled to compete. This situation revealed the dangers of unregulated globalization and the need for renewed economic nationalism.

Trump’s Use of Tariffs (2016-2020): A Return to Economic Nationalism

Donald Trump’s presidency marked a significant shift in U.S. trade policy, as he used tariffs to challenge the status quo and protect American jobs. Trump’s central campaign promise in 2016 was to put “America First,” and his administration followed through by imposing tariffs on imports, particularly from China.

• 2018 Steel and Aluminum Tariffs: Trump implemented tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum to protect domestic producers from foreign dumping.
• China Trade War: In response to China’s unfair trade practices, the Trump administration imposed tariffs on $360 billion worth of Chinese goods. The goal was not just to protect American industries but also to pressure China into renegotiating trade agreements.

Despite criticism, these tariffs yielded some important results:

• Revitalization of manufacturing: The tariffs incentivized companies to bring production back to the U.S. or avoid moving operations offshore.
• Reduction in trade imbalances: Although the trade deficit with China persisted, it decreased for the first time in years.
• Negotiation leverage: The tariffs forced China to engage in new trade talks, resulting in the Phase One Trade Agreement in 2020, which included promises to increase Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural goods.

Trump’s tariff policies reflected a broader strategy of economic nationalism, prioritizing the needs of American workers and industries over global integration. While not a return to the exact policies of the pre-1913 era, these tariffs reintroduced the concept that government should play an active role in protecting domestic industries.

Why Tariffs Are Necessary Today

Given the economic challenges posed by globalization, tariffs remain a relevant and necessary tool for the U.S. economy. The 1913 shift away from tariffs made the U.S. more dependent on income taxes and foreign trade, leaving American industries vulnerable to outsourcing and foreign competition. By reintroducing tariffs selectively, the U.S. can protect vital industries, reduce dependence on hostile foreign powers, and create more stable, long-term employment for American workers.

• Job Creation: Tariffs discourage companies from outsourcing jobs by making foreign production less profitable.
• Industrial Independence: Tariffs protect strategic industries like steel, ensuring that the U.S. maintains the capacity to produce essential goods domestically.
• Economic Security: Tariffs reduce the risks of supply chain disruptions, which became evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when the U.S. faced shortages of essential products.

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Critics argue that tariffs increase prices for consumers and provoke retaliatory measures from trading partners. However, the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs. While tariffs may initially raise prices, they incentivize companies to invest in domestic production, leading to job growth and wage increases. Furthermore, countries like China have long manipulated markets to their advantage—tariffs are a necessary response to level the playing field.

Another argument is that tariffs disrupt global trade. Yet, the globalist approach has already harmed American workers. As the U.S. trade deficit has grown, jobs have vanished, and entire regions of the country have been hollowed out. Tariffs offer a corrective path, encouraging domestic investment and reducing dependency on foreign powers.

Conclusion

The U.S. reliance on free trade policies and low tariffs since 1913 has contributed to the decline of domestic industries and increased dependence on foreign imports. History shows that tariffs were instrumental in building the American economy during the 19th and early 20th centuries. President Trump’s reintroduction of tariffs between 2016 and 2020 demonstrated that tariffs can once again protect American workers and industries from unfair foreign competition.

While not a return to pre-1913 economic policies, the selective use of tariffs today serves the same purpose: protecting American industries, securing jobs, and maintaining national economic independence. Tariffs are not a relic of the past—they are a necessary tool for defending the American economy in an era of global uncertainty.

Sources

1. Trump Tariffs and Trade War – Office of the United States Trade Representative.
2. Irwin, Douglas. Clashing Over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy. University of Chicago Press, 2017.
3. Li, Yeling. "China's Trade Practices and Global Impact." Journal of International Affairs, 2019.
4. Schweikart, Larry. A Patriot’s History of the United States. Sentinel, 2004.
5. United States Census Bureau. "Trade Deficit with China."

Mark Robinson still has a clear path to victory despite trailing by 16 points in the RCP polling average—a number skewed by outlier polls following CNN’s September report accusing him of controversial online activity. Prior to the report, Robinson was only down by single digits and on track to win. With On Point Politics—the most accurate polling aggregate from 2020—projecting Trump to win North Carolina by 8 points, Robinson can leverage Trump’s coattails to outperform current polling averages.

Presidential coattails historically add 3-5 points for aligned down-ballot candidates, especially in states like North Carolina, where Trump’s rural and evangelical base overlaps with Robinson’s support. If Robinson narrows his deficit to 11-12 points, Trump’s projected 8-point win could boost Robinson just enough to overcome biased polling and suburban split-ticket voting trends. As voters increasingly view Robinson as a Trump-like outsider under attack by the political elite, this momentum, combined with strong rural turnout, positions Robinson to defy the polling narrative and secure a narrow victory on Election Day.

Tracking Robinson’s Numbers: The True Picture

Polling averages show Robinson down 16 points today, but that is largely due to the temporary spike in Stein’s numbers following CNN’s September report. In fact, the polls were competitive before this controversy, and Robinson's grassroots campaign was building momentum to overtake Stein. Notably, the Quinnipiac poll, known for its liberal lean, has Robinson down only 12 points, which suggests the race is already within striking distance when factoring in Trump’s coattails.

This confirms what our model shows: Mark Robinson is in position to win, as long as the fundamentals continue trending his way.

Coattail Math: How Trump’s Performance Lifts Robinson

We have mentioned how Trump’s projected 8-point win in North Carolina will affect down-ballot races like the gubernatorial contest. Presidential coattails typically add 2-5 points to aligned candidates, depending on turnout overlap. Since both Trump and Robinson draw heavily from rural, evangelical, and working-class voters, the coattail effect is likely to be on the higher end of that range.

Here’s how the math breaks down:

• If Robinson reduces his polling deficit to 11-12 points by Election Day, Trump’s coattails could provide a 3-5 point boost through increased turnout and straight-ticket voting.
• This means that Robinson only needs to close the gap to 11 points to enter the range where Trump’s coattail effect could push him over the finish line.

Historical data supports this analysis. In 2016, Trump’s 3.6-point victory in North Carolina helped GOP Senator Richard Burr outperform his Democratic challenger by 5.7 points. Similarly, in 2020, Trump’s narrow 1.3-point win lifted several Republican candidates in state legislative races, despite Democrats' heavy spending. This demonstrates how strong alignment between the top of the ticket and down-ballot races boosts turnout and results.

In this race, limiting split-ticket voting in suburban areas is crucial. Robinson can reduce GOP defections by framing his campaign as a fight against the same political and media elites who target Trump. With Stein tied to the Biden-Harris agenda, Robinson has the opportunity to unify Trump voters behind both the presidential and gubernatorial tickets. If he succeeds in reducing suburban defections and GOP turnout surges in rural areas, Trump’s coattails could be decisive.

With Trump winning by 8 points and Robinson needing only a 4-5 point lift to overcome a 12-point deficit, the math shows Robinson is in a position to win. Historically strong GOP turnout patterns, especially in rural counties, combined with Trump’s momentum, put Robinson on track for a narrow but realistic victory.

Rebuilding Momentum: Relief Work and Fighting Back

Robinson’s efforts during Hurricane Helene relief operations demonstrate his leadership and hands-on approach. Working alongside local law enforcement and coordinating supplies, Robinson has been able to reframe the narrative in his favor—highlighting his ability to act decisively in times of crisis, in contrast to the Democratic administration’s faltering response.

Meanwhile, Robinson’s lawsuit against CNN shows voters that he’s willing to fight back against elite media attacks, much like Trump has done throughout his political career. This has already begun to galvanize grassroots support, with many voters viewing Robinson as a Trump-like figure who is being unfairly targeted by the political establishment.

The Path to Victory Is Clear

With Trump projected to win North Carolina by 8 points and Robinson already within 12 points in even the most liberal polling (Quinnipiac), Robinson is well-positioned to close the gap. On Point Politics’ model—which factors in Trump’s coattail effect—has Robinson trailing by just 3 points, reinforcing that if Robinson tightens the race further, he can win.

The narrative is shifting, too, with more voters seeing Robinson, like Trump, as a candidate being railroaded by political elites and the media. If Robinson maintains his grassroots efforts, limits split-ticket voting, and leverages Trump’s momentum, the math shows a clear path to a narrow but decisive victory.