Trump may have just won NC for good

[Fuzzy Bear]

None of this changes Trump from the person he is. He's still a psychopathic, unfit moron that he's always been.

None of this changes what BLM appears to many to be.  A group of folks who are not shy about using intimidation as tactics in advancing their agenda.  A group of folks more preoccupied with the welfare of criminals, including criminals who are actively resisting lawful arrests, over the welfare of law-abiding citizens.

This isn't the 1970s and Trump doesn't play as well with the Silent Majority as Nixon did, but NC is a game of inches, and there are folks who, frankly, view BLM as folks who are making excuses for criminals and sympathizing with rioters, who ARE criminals once they commence to riot.  They are folks like me, Obama voters (I'm an independent, but a registered Republican.) who have no problems with a black President but have lots of problems with public lawlessness.  A person does NOT have the right to resist an officer during a lawful detention or arrest, and a person who continues to move when told to halt and who reaches in a vehicle for who knows what is giving a police officer every reason to believe that the subject in question has no intention of complying and is actively seeking means to obtain an advantage in the building confrontation.

There are lots of liberal proposals for criminal justice reform I could support.  But I support our law enforcement officers, and I oppose folks who are deluded into thinking that persons have the right to resist a lawful arrest, or a lawful command of a police officer while lawfully detained.  And I reject the notion that a subject seeking to escalate a confrontation with police has the "right to a fair fight".  It is not unreasonable for a police officer to believe that a subject unwilling to comply with lawful directives may well be manipulating a situation to where they (the criminal subject) can use lethal force to get the upper hand in a situation or escape a situation.  I'm with law enforcement on this.  Period.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hillary winning NC was always quite a pipe dream from the Democrats.

Trump is heavily favoured there.

Based on what quantitative evidence?

Based on tonight. You think that white voters are going to sit back and be terrorized out of their cars. Maybe you, but not the people I know.

Oh, now they're terrorists. Good to know.

They're pulling people out of cars. You support that nonsense?

I think we don't know enough at the moment to understand what the heck is going on.

What possible reason could a person have to pull someone out of their cars?

This actually rises to the level of carjacking.  At best, it's flat-out intimidation and coercion.

Folks who want to minimize this or (even worse) justify this have no credibility when they criticize behavior at Trump rallies.

[Fuzzy Bear]

So far there is no polling evidence to suggest NC moving towards Trump as a result of what happened in Charlotte.

I suspect that the voters of the Great State of North Carolina see that as a local issue, and it will come down to shifts in national currents, GOTV, etc...

If Trump narrowly wins NC by 20-30k votes then maybe it was the deciding factor between a W and an L....

IDK if any reputable pollsters doing another round of polling will ask the question as to if this impacted their presidential preference, but I'm still on the skeptical side on this one.

Clinton got a break when the violence ended after just 2 days and things stabilized again.  This does not look to be a Ferguson/Baltimore scenario where hostilities drag on for months and it dominates the news indefinitely.  If things stay cool this will be a distant memory by Election Day.

But to use your two examples, it doesn't appear that unrest associated with controversial police killings of civilians, has done anything politically in either Baltimore/MD nor in the Great State of Missouri. In fact it looks like the Dems are on route to convincingly win the Governor's Mansion, and have a chance at picking off a US Senate seat.

Also, why didn't the Rodney King LA uprising cause a massive surge of support towards the Republican Party in Cali? Instead, it along with Prop 187 likely caused California to become a permanently Democratic State at the Presidential and State level.

Maybe you're right that if unrest had continued longer it might have had an impact, in what is a recently overwhelmingly Democratic city (Charlotte) and county (Mecklenberg), but I'm still dubious on the proposition that these types of incidents will generally have an impact on contested state Presidential results, considering that police departments report to the mayors and city councils, and NC of 2016 is not the NC of 1968....

The riots that followed the Rodney King beating, while not something I condone, were the result of five (5) police officers beating an unarmed subject on the ground for 81 seconds.  That's a long time for the beating he took.  At that time, such films of events like this were rare; the cell phone proliferation hadn't occurred yet, and not everyone had a camcorder.  It shocked America; indeed, it shocked MIDDLE America in ways the events leading up to the Long Hot Summers of the 1960s did not.