2020 United States Senate election in North Carolina

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 is one of just five states holding presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial elections concurrently in 2020. On March 3, 2020, incumbent Thom Tillis and former State Senator Cal Cunningham won their respective primaries.[1] Most experts and pollsters considered Cal Cunningham to be the favorite, however, Tillis outperformed pre-election polling to win a narrow victory.

2020 United States Senate election in North Carolina
November 3, 2020
 
Nominee Thom Tillis Cal Cunningham
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 2,665,598 2,569,965
Percentage 48.69% 46.94%
County results
Tillis:      40-50%      50-60%      60-70%      70-80%
Cunningham:      40-50%      50-60%      60-70%      70-80%
U.S. senator before election

Thom Tillis
Republican

 Elected U.S. Senator

Thom Tillis
Republican

Elections in North Carolina
Federal government
U.S. President
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
State executive
Gubernatorial elections
Lieutenant Governor elections
Attorney General elections
Council of State elections
Secretary of State elections
State legislature
General Assembly elections
State Senate elections
State House elections
State judiciary
Judicial elections
Ballot measures
2012
Amendment 1
Mayoral elections
Charlotte mayoral elections
Cary mayoral elections
Durham mayoral elections
Fayetteville mayoral elections
Greensboro mayoral elections
Raleigh mayoral elections
Winston-Salem mayoral elections

On November 10, 2020, a week after election day, Cunningham called Tillis to concede the race. Tillis garnered—(48.72%) of the vote and a margin of 1.8% over Cunningham, who received (46.95%)—similar to Tillis's narrow 1.5% victory in 2014.[2][3]

Republican primary

Nominee

Eliminated in primary

Withdrawn

Declined

Endorsements
Thom Tillis
U.S. Presidents
U.S. Executive Branch Officials
Organizations

Polling
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Sandy
Smith		 Thom
Tillis		 Garland
Tucker		 Mark
Walker		 Paul
Wright		 Other Undecided
High Point University February 21–28, 2020 247 (LV) – – 69% – – 8% 8%[lower-alpha 2] 16%
444 (RV) – – 58% – – 7% 10%[lower-alpha 3] 26%
Meredith College February 16–24, 2020 353 (LV) ± 3.0% – 53% – – 5% 6%[lower-alpha 4] 36%
SurveyUSA February 13–16, 2020 501 (LV) ± 5.0% – 59% – – 3% 8%[lower-alpha 5] 29%
High Point University January 31 – February 6, 2020 198 (LV) – – 62% – – 7% 5%[lower-alpha 6] 27%
400 (RV) – – 52% – – 6% 5%[lower-alpha 7] 38%
December 20, 2019 Smith withdraws from the race; Wright announces his candidacy
December 16, 2019 Walker announces he will not run[14]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) December 2–4, 2019 500 (LV) ± 4.38% 11%[lower-alpha 8] 63% – – – – 25%
December 2, 2019 Tucker withdraws from the race
FOX News November 10–13, 2019 574 (LV) ± 4.0% 4% 54% 11% – – 5%[lower-alpha 9] 26%
Public Policy Polling August 19–20, 2019 564 (V) – –[lower-alpha 10] 38% 31% – – – 31%
Diversified Research (R)[upper-alpha 1] July 8–9, 2019 500 (V) – – 40% 30% – – – 30%
WPA Intelligence (R)[upper-alpha 2] May 19–21, 2019 502 (LV) ± 4.5% 2%[lower-alpha 11] 40% 11% 17% – – 30%
2%[lower-alpha 12] 18% 8% 56% – – 16%
May 6, 2019 Tucker announces his candidacy[15]
Diversified Research (R)[upper-alpha 3] Months before May, 2019 –[lower-alpha 13] – – 63% 7% – – – 30%
Hypothetical polling
with only Thom Tillis and Mark Walker
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Thom
Tillis		 Mark
Walker		 Undecided
WPA Intelligence (R)[upper-alpha 2] May 19–21, 2019 502 (LV) ± 4.5% 43%[lower-alpha 14] 34% 23%
28%[lower-alpha 15] 64% 8%
21%[lower-alpha 16] 69% 10%
with Thom Tillis and Generic Republican
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Thom
Tillis		 Generic
Republican		 Undecided
WPA Intelligence (R)[upper-alpha 2] May 19–21, 2019 502 (LV) ± 4.5% 17%[lower-alpha 17] 18% 52%[lower-alpha 18]
7%[lower-alpha 19] 32% 57%[lower-alpha 20]

Results
Results by county:
  Tillis—80–90%
  Tillis—70–80%
  Tillis—60–70%
Republican primary results[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Thom Tillis (incumbent) 608,943 78.08%
Republican Paul Wright 58,908 7.55%
Republican Larry Holmquist 57,356 7.35%
Republican Sharon Y. Hudson 54,651 7.01%
Total votes 779,858 100.00%

Democratic primary

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
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Cal
Cunningham		 Trevor
Fuller		 Atul
Goel		 Erica
Smith		 Steve
Swenson		 Undecided
High Point University February 21–28, 2020 274 (LV) – 50% 4% 1% 24% 3% 18%
474 (RV) – 42% 5% 1% 24% 4% 4%
Civitas Institute/Spry Strategies February 26–27, 2020 587 (LV) ± 4.1% 45% 2% 1% 23% 1% 28%
NBC News/Marist February 23–27, 2020 568 (LV) ± 5.1% 51% 3% 1% 18% 2% 25%
Public Policy Polling February 23–24, 2020 852 (LV) ± 3.4% 45% 4% 1% 18% 2% 30%
Meredith College February 16–24, 2020 429 (LV) ± 3.0% 43% 2% 1% 14% 2% 36%
Civitas Institute/Spry Strategies February 21–23, 2020 553 (LV) ± 3.8% 48% 1% 0% 21% 1% 29%
SurveyUSA February 13–16, 2020 698 (LV) ± 4.9% 42% 3% 1% 17% 3% 34%
High Point University January 31 – February 6, 2020 224 (LV) – 37% 4% 0% 11% 4% 44%
397 (RV) – 29% 5% 1% 10% 5% 50%
Public Policy Polling February 4–5, 2020 604 (LV) – 29% 3% 2% 10% 4% 52%
Public Policy Polling January 10–12, 2020 509 (LV) – 22% 2% 3% 12% 1% 60%
FOX News November 10–13, 2019 669 (RV) ± 4.0% 13% 10% – 18% – 49%

Results
Results by county:
  Cunningham—70-80%
  Cunningham—60-70%
  Cunningham—50-60%
  Cunningham—40-50%
  Smith—40-50%
  Smith—50-60%
  Smith—60-70%
  Smith—70-80%
Democratic primary results[1]
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Cal Cunningham 717,941 56.93%
Democratic Erica D. Smith 438,969 34.81%
Democratic Trevor M. Fuller 48,168 3.82%
Democratic Steve Swenson 33,741 2.68%
Democratic Atul Goel 22,226 1.76%
Total votes 1,261,045 100.00%

Other candidates

Nominee

Nominee

Withdrawn

Withdrawn

General election

Campaign

During the Democratic primary, a Republican-funded Super PAC spent $3 million on ads attacking Cunningham and promoting left-wing rival Erica Smith.[52][53]

Cunningham and Tillis participated in debates on September 13,[54] September 22,[55] and October 1.[56]

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.[57]

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 confirmed that she had a consensual physical relationship with Cunningham in 2020.[58] The Army Reserve started an investigation into Cunningham.[59] The husband of the woman who confirmed having an affair with Cunningham, himself an Army veteran, called on Cunningham to drop out of the Senate race.[60] Asked repeatedly whether he had had other extramarital affairs, Cunningham declined to answer.[61][62][63][64]

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).[65][66]

Predictions
Source Ranking As of
538[67] Lean D (flip) October 6, 2020
Economist[68] Lean D (flip) October 6, 2020
Daily Kos[69] Tossup October 6, 2020
DDHQ[70] Likely D (flip) October 5, 2020
Inside Elections[71] Tilt D (flip) October 1, 2020
Sabato's Crystal Ball[72] Lean D (flip) November 2, 2020
RCP[73] Tossup September 27, 2020
The Cook Political Report[74] Tossup September 23, 2020
Niskanen[75] Likely D (flip) September 15, 2020
Politico[76] Tossup September 9, 2020

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
Newspapers
Individuals

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.[114]

Graphical summary

Aggregate polls
Cal Cunningham vs. Thom Tillis
Source of poll aggregation Dates administered Dates updated Cal Cunningham Thom Tillis Other/Undecided[lower-alpha 21] Margin
270 to Win October 28, 2020 October 30, 2020 46.4% 44.0% 9.6% Cunningham +2.4%
Real Clear Politics October 20, 2020 October 27, 2020 47.1% 45.0% 7.9% Cunningham +2.1%

Tillis vs. Cunningham
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Thom
Tillis (R)		 Cal
Cunningham (D)		 Shannon
Bray (L)		 Other /
Undecided
Change Research/CNBC October 29 – November 1, 2020 473 (LV) ± 4.51% 46% 50% – 5%[lower-alpha 22]
Swayable October 27 – November 1, 2020 619 (LV) ± 5.6% 47% 53% – –
Ipsos/Reuters October 27 – November 1, 2020 707 (LV) ± 4.2% 46% 48% – 6%[lower-alpha 23]
Data for Progress October 27 – November 1, 2020 908 (LV) ± 3.3% 46% 51% 1% 1%[lower-alpha 24]
Frederick Polls[upper-alpha 4] October 30–31, 2020 676 (LV) ± 3.7% 46% 50% 3% 2%[lower-alpha 25]
Emerson College October 29–31, 2020 855 (LV) ± 3.3% 47%[lower-alpha 26] 50% – 2%[lower-alpha 27]
Morning Consult October 22–31, 2020 1,982 (LV) ± 2% 43% 47% – –
CNN/SSRS October 23–30, 2020 901 (LV) ± 4% 44% 47% 2% 5%[lower-alpha 28]
Pulse Opinion Research/Rasmussen Reports October 28–29, 2020 800 (LV) ± 3.5% 44% 47% – 9%[lower-alpha 29]
East Carolina University October 27–28, 2020 1,103 (LV) ± 3.4% 46%[lower-alpha 30] 48% – 5%[lower-alpha 31]
Cardinal Point Analytics (R) October 27–28, 2020 750 (LV) ± 3.6% 46% 41% 6% 7%[lower-alpha 32]
Marist College/NBC October 25–28, 2020 800 (LV) ± 4.7% 43% 53% – 4%[lower-alpha 33]
Gravis Marketing October 26–27, 2020 614 (LV) ± 4% 44% 46% – 9%[lower-alpha 34]
Public Policy Polling (D)[upper-alpha 5] October 26–27, 2020 937 (V) ± 3.2% 44% 47% – 9%[lower-alpha 35]
Meeting Street Insights/Carolina Partnership for Reform (R) October 24–27, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 43% 47% – –
Siena College/NYT Upshot October 23–27, 2020 1,034 (LV) ± 3.4% 43% 46% 2% 9%[lower-alpha 36]
Ipsos/Reuters October 21–27, 2020 647 (LV) ± 4.4% 47% 48% – 4%[lower-alpha 37]
RMG Research October 24–26, 2020 800 (LV) ± 3.5% 42%[lower-alpha 38] 49% – 9%[lower-alpha 39]
40%[lower-alpha 40] 51% – 9%[lower-alpha 41]
43%[lower-alpha 42] 48% – 9%[lower-alpha 43]
Swayable October 23–26, 2020 363 (LV) ± 7.1% 50% 50% – –
SurveyUSA October 23–26, 2020 627 (LV) ± 4.9% 45% 48% – 7%[lower-alpha 44]
YouGov/UMass Lowell October 20–26, 2020 911 (LV) ± 4.2% 45% 49% – 7%[lower-alpha 45]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) October 22–25, 2020 504 (LV) ± 4.37% 43% 46% 2% 8%[lower-alpha 46]
YouGov/CBS October 20–23, 2020 1,022 (LV) ± 4.1% 43% 49% – 8%[lower-alpha 47]
Trafalgar Group October 20–22, 2020 1,098 (LV) ± 2.89% 49% 47% 2% 2%[lower-alpha 48]
Pulse Opinion Research/Rasmussen Reports October 20–21, 2020 800 (LV) ± 3.5% 45% 45% – 10%[lower-alpha 49]
Citizen Data October 17–20, 2020 1,000 (LV) ± 3.1% 42% 48% – 9%[lower-alpha 50]
Ipsos/Reuters October 14–20, 2020 660 (LV) ± 4.3% 47% 47% – 6%[lower-alpha 51]
Morning Consult October 11–20, 2020 1,904 (LV) ± 2.2% 42% 48% – –
Meredith College October 16–19, 2020 732 (LV) ± 3.5% 38% 43% 4% 15%[lower-alpha 52]
Change Research/CNBC October 16–19, 2020 521 (LV)[lower-alpha 53] – 45% 51% – –
Data for Progress (D) October 15–18, 2020 929 (LV) ± 3.2% 42% 46% 1% 11%[lower-alpha 54]
East Carolina University October 15–18, 2020 1,155 (LV) ± 3.4% 47% 48% – 5%[lower-alpha 55]
ABC/Washington Post October 12–17, 2020 646 (LV) ± 4.5% 47% 49% – 4%[lower-alpha 56]
Emerson College October 13–14, 2020 721 (LV) ± 3.6% 44% 45% – 12%[lower-alpha 57]
Civiqs/Daily Kos October 11–14, 2020 1,211 (LV) ± 3.3% 45% 51% 2% 3%[lower-alpha 58]
Siena College/NYT Upshot October 9–13, 2020 627 (LV) ± 4.5% 37% 41% 4% 19%[lower-alpha 59]
Ipsos/Reuters October 7–13, 2020 660 (LV) ± 4.3% 42% 46% – 12%[lower-alpha 60]
Monmouth University October 8–11, 2020 500 (RV) ± 4.4% 44% 48% 3% 4%[lower-alpha 61]
500 (LV)[lower-alpha 62] 44% 49% – 6%[lower-alpha 63]
500 (LV)[lower-alpha 64] 47% 48% – 4%[lower-alpha 65]
SurveyUSA October 8–11, 2020 669 (LV) ± 4.8% 39% 49% – 11%[lower-alpha 66]
Susquehanna Polling & Research Inc. (R)[upper-alpha 6] October 7–11, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.3% 44% 46% – 9%[lower-alpha 67]
RMG Research October 7–11, 2020 800 (LV) – 36% 46% 4% 15%[lower-alpha 68]
Morning Consult October 2–11, 2020 1,993 (LV) ± 2.2% 41% 47% – –
Ipsos/Reuters September 29 – October 6, 2020 693 (LV) ± 4.2% 42% 47% – 11%[lower-alpha 69]
Public Policy Polling October 4–5, 2020 911 (V) ± 3.3% 42% 48% – 11%[lower-alpha 70]
Data For Progress (D) September 30 – October 5, 2020 1,285 (LV) ± 2.7% 39% 50% 2% 9%[lower-alpha 71]
Change Research/CNBC October 2–4, 2020 396 (LV) – 46% 50% – 4%[lower-alpha 72]
East Carolina University October 2–4, 2020 1,232 (LV) ± 3.2% 47% 46% – 7%[lower-alpha 73]
ALG Research (D)[upper-alpha 7] September 22–28, 2020 822 (V) – 41% 53% – –
Hart Research Associates (D)[upper-alpha 8] September 24–27, 2020 400 (LV) ± 4.9% 41% 54% – –
YouGov/CBS September 22–25, 2020 1,213 (LV) ± 3.6% 38% 48% – 14%[lower-alpha 74]
YouGov/UMass Lowell September 18–25, 2020 921 (LV) ± 4.1% 43% 49% – 8%[lower-alpha 75]
Meredith College September 18–22, 2020 705 (RV) ± 3.5% 42% 43% 4% 13%[lower-alpha 76]
Change Research/CNBC September 18–20, 2020 579 (LV) – 43% 48% – 9%[lower-alpha 77]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) September 17–20, 2020 612 (LV) ± 3.96% 38% 44% 3% 15%[lower-alpha 78]
Morning Consult September 11–20, 2020 1,604 (LV) ± (2% – 7%) 38%[lower-alpha 79] 47% – –
Emerson College September 16–18, 2020 717 (LV) ± 3.6% 43% 49% – 8%[lower-alpha 80]
Morning Consult September 8–17, 2020 1,664 (LV)[lower-alpha 81] ± (2% – 4%) 39% 46% – –
Ipsos/Reuters September 11–16, 2020 586 (LV) ± 4.6% 44% 48% – 9%[lower-alpha 82]
Siena College/NYT Upshot September 11–16, 2020 653 (LV) ± 4.3% 37% 42% 2% 19%[lower-alpha 83]
Redfield & Wilton Strategies September 12–15, 2020 1,092 (LV) ± 2.97% 38% 49% – 13%[lower-alpha 84]
Suffolk University September 10–14, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 38% 42% 6% 15%[lower-alpha 85]
SurveyUSA September 10–13, 2020 596 (LV) ± 5.6% 40% 47% – 13%[lower-alpha 86]
CNN/SSRS September 9–13, 2020 787 (LV) ± 4.4% 46% 47% 3% 4%[lower-alpha 87]
893 (RV) ± 4.1% 44% 46% 4% 6%[lower-alpha 88]
Kaiser Family Foundation/Cook Political Report August 29 – September 13, 2020 1,116 (RV) – 37% 41% – 22%[lower-alpha 89]
The Trafalgar Group (R) September 9–11, 2020 1,046 (LV) ± 3.0% 45% 46% 3% 6%[lower-alpha 90]
Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research September 7–8, 2020 1,000 (LV) ± 3.0% 44% 47% – 10%[lower-alpha 91]
Benenson Strategy Group/GS Strategy Group[upper-alpha 9] August 8 – September 8, 2020 1,600 (LV) ± 2.5% 39% 42% 5% 13%[lower-alpha 92]
Change Research/CNBC September 4–6, 2020 442 (LV) ± 4.6% 44% 51% – 5%[lower-alpha 93]
Redfield & Wilton Strategies August 30 – September 3, 2020 951 (LV) ± 3.2% 37% 47% – 16%[lower-alpha 94]
Monmouth University August 29 – September 1, 2020 401 (RV) ± 4.9% 45% 46% 2% 7%[lower-alpha 95]
401 (LV)[lower-alpha 96] 45% 47% – 8%[lower-alpha 97]
401 (LV)[lower-alpha 98] 46% 46% – 8%[lower-alpha 99]
FOX News August 29 – September 1, 2020 722 (LV) ± 3.5% 42% 48% 3% 8%[lower-alpha 100]
804 (RV) 40% 47% 3% 10%[lower-alpha 101]
East Carolina University August 29–30, 2020 1,101 (LV) ± 3.4% 44% 44% – 12%[lower-alpha 102]
Change Research/CNBC August 21–23, 2020 560 (LV) ± 3.6% 42% 52% – 6%[lower-alpha 103]
Morning Consult August 14–23, 2020 1,541 (LV) ± 2.0% 39% 47% – 14%
Redfield and Wilton Strategies August 16–18, 2020 856 (LV) ± 3.4% 38% 47% – 16%[lower-alpha 104]
East Carolina University August 12–13, 2020 1,255 (RV) ± 3.2% 40% 44% – 16%[lower-alpha 105]
Emerson College August 8–10, 2020 673 (LV) ± 3.8% 42% 44% – 14%[lower-alpha 106]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) August 6–10, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 38% 41% 2% 18%[lower-alpha 107]
Change Research/CNBC August 7–9, 2020 491 (LV) ± 4.4% 43% 48% – 10%[lower-alpha 108]
Public Policy Polling (D)[upper-alpha 10] July 30–31, 2020 934 (V) ± 3.2% 44% 48% – 8%[lower-alpha 109]
Data for Progress July 24 – August 2, 2020 1,170 (LV) ± 3.2% 41% 49% – 10%[lower-alpha 110]
YouGov/CBS July 28–31, 2020 1,121 (LV) ± 3.8% 39% 48% – 12%[lower-alpha 111]
HIT Strategies (D)[upper-alpha 11] July 23–31, 2020 400 (RV) ± 4.9% 32% 48% – 21%[lower-alpha 112]
Change Research/CNBC July 24–26, 2020 284 (LV) ± 5.6% 40% 52% – 8%
Morning Consult July 17–26, 2020 1,504 (LV) ± 3.0% 37% 46% – 17%
Cardinal Point Analytics (R) July 22–24, 2020 735 (LV) ± 3.6% 43% 43% 1% 13%[lower-alpha 113]
Public Policy Polling July 22–23, 2020 939 (V) ± 3.2% 40% 48% – 13%[lower-alpha 114]
Redfield & Wilton Strategies July 19–23, 2020 919 (LV) ± 3.2% 36% 47% – 16%[lower-alpha 115]
Marist College/NBC News July 14–22, 2020 882 (RV) ± 4.0% 41% 50% – 10%[lower-alpha 116]
Spry Strategies (R)[upper-alpha 12] July 11–16, 2020 750 (LV) ± 3.5% 40% 40% – 20%[lower-alpha 117]
Cardinal Point Analytics (R) July 13–15, 2020 547 (LV) ± 4.2% 44% 47% 1% 7%[lower-alpha 118]
Change Research/CNBC July 10–12, 2020 655 (LV) ± 3.8% 42% 49% – 9%[lower-alpha 119]
Public Policy Polling July 7–8, 2020 818 (V) ± 3.4% 39% 47% – 15%[lower-alpha 120]
Change Research/CNBC June 26–28, 2020 468 (LV)[lower-alpha 121] ± 3.9% 41% 51% – 8%[lower-alpha 122]
East Carolina University June 22–25, 2020 1,149 (RV) ± 3.4% 41% 41% – 18%[lower-alpha 123]
Public Policy Polling June 22–23, 2020 1,157 (V) ± 2.9% 40% 44% – 16%[lower-alpha 124]
FOX News June 20–23, 2020 1,012 (RV) ± 3.0% 37% 39% 3% 20%[lower-alpha 125]
NYT Upshot/Siena College June 8–18, 2020 653 (RV) ± 4.1% 39% 42% – 19%[lower-alpha 126]
Gravis Marketing (R)[upper-alpha 13] June 17, 2020 631 (RV) ± 3.9% 46% 45% – 9%
Redfield & Wilton Strategies June 14–17, 2020 902 (LV) ± 3.3% 36% 45% – 19%[lower-alpha 127]
Public Policy Polling June 2–3, 2020 913 (V) ± 3.2% 41% 43% – 16%[lower-alpha 128]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) May 26–28, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 38% 36% 3% 24%[lower-alpha 129]
Meeting Street Insights (R) May 9–13, 2020 500 (RV) ± 3.8% 44% 46% – 8%[lower-alpha 130]
East Carolina University May 7–9, 2020 1,111 (RV) ± 3.4% 40% 41% – 19%[lower-alpha 131]
Civiqs/Daily Kos (D) May 2–4, 2020 1,362 (RV) ± 3.0% 41% 50% – 9%[lower-alpha 132]
Meredith College April 27–28, 2020 604 (RV) ± 4.0% 34% 44% – 22%
SurveyUSA April 23–26, 2020 580 (LV) ± 5.5% 39% 41% – 20%[lower-alpha 133]
Public Policy Polling April 14–15, 2020 1,318 (LV) ± 3.4% 40% 47% – 13%
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) April 5–7, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 38% 34% – 28%
East Carolina University February 27–28, 2020 1,288 (RV) ± 3.2% 44% 42% – 14%
NBC News/Marist February 23–27, 2020 2,120 (RV) ± 2.6% 43% 48% – 9%
Public Policy Polling[upper-alpha 14] February 25–26, 2020 [lower-alpha 134] 911 (RV) – 41% 46% – 13%
Public Opinion Strategies (R)[upper-alpha 15] January 11–15, 2020 800 (LV) ± 3.5% 48% 44% – 8%
ALG Research (D)[upper-alpha 16] January 8–13, 2020 700 (LV) – 42% 44% – 13%
Meredith College September 29 – October 7, 2019 996 (RV) ± 3% 33% 33% – 32%
Public Policy Polling (D)[upper-alpha 16] September 16–17, 2019 628 (V) ± 3.9% 43% 45% – 12%
Fabrizio Ward[upper-alpha 9] July 29–31, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 41% 42% – 17%
Public Policy Polling[upper-alpha 17] June 17–18, 2019 610 (RV) ± 4.0% 40% 41% – 19%
Hypothetical polling
with Erica D. Smith
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Thom
Tillis (R)		 Erica D.
Smith (D)		 Undecided
Meredith College September 29 – October 7, 2019 996 (RV) ± 3% 33% 34% 17%
Emerson College May 31 – June 3, 2019 932 (RV) ± 3.1% 39% 46% 15%
with Generic Democrat
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Thom
Tillis (R)		 Generic
Democrat		 Undecided
Public Policy Polling (D)[upper-alpha 18] June 30 – July 1, 2017 1,102 (V) ± 3.6% 44% 48% 8%
with Thom Tillis and Generic Opponent
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Thom
Tillis (R)		 Generic
Opponent		 Other Undecided
Fabrizio Ward[upper-alpha 9] July 29–31, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 26% 52%[lower-alpha 135] 3%[lower-alpha 136] 19%
with Generic Republican and Generic Democrat
Poll source Date(s)
administered		 Sample
size[lower-alpha 1]		 Margin
of error		 Generic
Republican		 Generic
Democrat		 Other/Undecided
Ipsos/Reuters September 11–16, 2020 586 (LV) ± 4.6% 47% 48% 5%[lower-alpha 137]
Siena College/NYT Upshot September 11–16, 2020 653 (LV) ± 4.3% 48% 44% 8%[lower-alpha 138]
Emerson College August 8–10, 2020 673 (LV) ± 3.8% 45% 44% 11%[lower-alpha 139]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) August 6–10, 2020 600 (LV) ± 4% 42% 43% 16%[lower-alpha 140]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) May 26–28, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.38% 43% 40% 17%[lower-alpha 141]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) April 5–7, 2020 500 (LV) ± 4.4% 41% 42% 17%[lower-alpha 142]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) Released March 17, 2020 –[lower-alpha 143] – 44% 41% 15%[lower-alpha 144]
Climate Nexus Feb 11–15, 2020 675 (RV) ± 3.9% 43% 46% 11%
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) Released October 17, 2019 –[lower-alpha 143] – 40% 41% 20%[lower-alpha 145]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) Released September 11, 2019 –[lower-alpha 143] – 37% 42% 21%[lower-alpha 146]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) Released August 4, 2019 –[lower-alpha 143] – 39% 37% 24%[lower-alpha 147]
Fabrizio Ward[upper-alpha 9] July 29–31, 2019 600 (LV) ± 4.0% 44% 44% 11%[lower-alpha 148]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) Released June 10, 2019 –[lower-alpha 143] – 38% 38% 24%[lower-alpha 149]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) Released May 5, 2019 –[lower-alpha 143] – 39% 39% 22%[lower-alpha 150]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) Released March 17, 2019 –[lower-alpha 143] – 37% 40% 22%[lower-alpha 151]
Harper Polling/Civitas (R) Released February 13, 2019 –[lower-alpha 143] – 37% 38% 25%[lower-alpha 152]

Results

While Tillis consistently trailed in pre-election polls, 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 affair as well as Tillis's fierce campaigning during the last few weeks of the campaign.[115]

2020 United States Senate election in North Carolina[116]
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Republican Thom Tillis (incumbent) 2,665,598 48.69% -0.13%
Democratic Cal Cunningham 2,569,965 46.94% -0.32%
Libertarian Shannon Bray 171,571 3.13% -0.61%
Constitution Kevin E. Hayes 67,818 1.24% N/A
Total votes 5,474,952 100.0%
Republican hold

See also

Notes
Partisan clients
  1. Poll sponsored by the Garland Tucker campaign
  2. Poll conducted by the Club for Growth, a pro-Republican PAC
  3. Poll sponsored by the Garland Tucker campaign
  4. Compete Everywhere primarily supports Democratic candidates
  5. Poll sponsored by Protect Our Care, a pro-Affordable Care Act organization.
  6. Poll sponsored by The American Greatness PAC, which is pro-Trump.
  7. Poll sponsored by Piedmont Rising, a pro-Affordable Care Act organization.
  8. Poll sponsored by The Human Rights Campaign, which has endorsed Biden prior to this poll's sampling period.
  9. Poll sponsored by AARP.
  10. This poll's sponsor had endorsed Cunningham prior to the sampling period
  11. This poll’s sponsor, DFER, primarily supports Democratic candidates
  12. This poll's sponsor is the American Principles Project, a 501 that supports the Republican Party.
  13. Polling was sponsored by OANN.
  14. Poll sponsored by private client
  15. Internal poll
  16. Poll sponsored by End Citizens United, an organization that has exclusively endorsed Democratic candidates
  17. Poll sponsored by VoteVets.org
  18. Poll sponsored by Save My Care, a pro-Affordable Care Act organisation
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. Standard VI response
  15. Response after pollster addresses respondents with short biographies for Tillis and Walker
  16. Response after short biographies and talking points about Tillis
  17. Standard VI response
  18. Listed as "would consider another candidate in a Republican primary"
  19. Response after pollster addresses respondents with talking points about Tillis
  20. Listed as "would consider another candidate in a Republican primary"
  21. Calculated by taking the difference of 100% and all other candidates combined.
  22. "Refused" with 2%; Did not vote, would not vote and Undecided with 1%
  23. "Some other candidate" with 4%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 2%
  24. Hayes (C) with 1%; "Other candidate or write-in" with 0%
  25. Hayes (C) with 2%
  26. With voters who lean towards a given candidate
  27. "Someone else" with 2%
  28. Hayes (C) with 2%; "None of these" with 1%; "Other" with 0%; Undecided with 2%
  29. "Some other candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 6%
  30. With voters who lean towards a given candidate
  31. "Some other candidate" with 3%; "Refused" with 2%; Did/would not vote with 0%; Undecided with no voters
  32. Hayes (C) with 2%; Undecided with 6%
  33. "Other" and Undecided with 2%
  34. Undecided with 9%
  35. Undecided with 9%
  36. Would not vote with 2%; Hayes (C) with 1%; "Someone else" with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 6%
  37. "Some other candidate" with 3%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 1%
  38. Standard VI response
  39. "Someoene else" with 4%; Undecided with 5%
  40. Results generated with high Democratic turnout model
  41. "Someoene else" with 4%; Undecided with 5%
  42. Results generated with high Republican turnout model
  43. "Someoene else" with 4%; Undecided with 5%
  44. "Other" with 3%; Undecided with 4%
  45. Did not vote with 1%; "Another candidate" with no voters; Undecided with 6%
  46. Hays (C) with 1%; Undecided with 7%
  47. "Someone else" with 3%; Undecided with 5%
  48. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 2%
  49. "Some other candidate" with 4%; Undecided with 6%
  50. "Other" with 3%; Undecided with 6%
  51. "Some other candidate" with 3%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 3%
  52. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 14%
  53. Additional data sourced from FiveThirtyEight
  54. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 10%
  55. Did/would not vote and "Some other candidate" with 1%; "Refused" with 0%; Undecided with 3%
  56. "Neither" with 1%; "Other" and would not vote with 0%; Undecided with 3%
  57. Undecided with 12%
  58. Hayes (C) with 1%; "Someone else" with 0%; Undecided with 2%
  59. Hayes (C) with 3%; would not vote with 1%; "Someone else" with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 15%
  60. "Some other candidate" with 5%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 7%
  61. "No one" with 1%; Hayes (C) with 0%; "Other candidate" with no voters; Undecided with 3%
  62. With a likely voter turnout model featuring high turnout
  63. "Other" and Undecided with 3%
  64. With a likely voter turnout model featuring low turnout
  65. "Other" and Undecided with 2%
  66. "Some other candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 8%
  67. "Other" and "Refused" with 1%; Undecided with 7%
  68. "Some other candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 12%
  69. "Some other candidate" with 4%; would not vote with 0%; "Undecided/Refused" with 7%
  70. Undecided with 11%
  71. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 8%
  72. Would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 3%
  73. "Some other candidate" with 3%; "Refused" and would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 2%
  74. "Someone else" with 3%; Undecided with 11%
  75. "Another candidate" with 1%; Undecided with 7%
  76. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 12%
  77. Would not vote with 2%; "Don't recall" with 0%; Undecided with 7%
  78. Bray (L) with 2%; Undecided with 13%
  79. Overlapping sample with the previous Morning Consult poll, but more information available regarding sample size
  80. Undecided with 8%
  81. Additional data sourced from FiveThirtyEight
  82. "Some other candidate" with 2%; would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 6%
  83. Hayes (C), "Someone else" and would not vote with 1%; "Undecided/Refused" with 16%
  84. "Another Third Party/Write-in" with 4%; Undecided with 9%
  85. Bray (L) with 6%; Hayes (C) and "Other" with 2%; "Refused" with 0%; Undecided with 11%
  86. "Another candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 10%
  87. Hayes (C) with 1%; "None of these" and "Other" with no voters; Undecided with 3%
  88. Hayes (C) with 1%; "None of these" and "Other" with 0%; Undecided with 5%
  89. "Neither/Another Party" with 3%; "Undecided/Don't know/Refused" with 19%
  90. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 5%
  91. "Another candidate" with 3%; Undecided with 7%
  92. Hayes with 1%; "Someone else" with 0%; Undecided with 12%
  93. Would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 4%
  94. "Another Third Party/Write-in" with 3%; Undecided with 13%
  95. Hayes (C) and "No one" with 1%; "Other candidate" with <1%; Undecided with 5%
  96. With a likely voter turnout model featuring higher turnout than in the 2016 presidential election
  97. "Other" and Undecided with 4%
  98. With a likely voter turnout model featuring lower turnout than in the 2016 presidential election
  99. "Other" and Undecided with 4%
  100. Hayes (C), "Other" and would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 5%
  101. Hayes (C) with 2%; "Other" and would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 6%
  102. "Some other candidate" with 3%; Would not vote with 0%; Undecided with 9%
  103. Would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 5%
  104. "Third party/write-in" with 3%; Undecided with 13%
  105. "Some other candidate" with 5%; would not vote with 1%; Undecided with 10%
  106. Undecided with 14%
  107. Hayes (C) with 2%; Undecided with 16%
  108. Would not vote with 2%; Undecided with 8%
  109. Undecided with 8%
  110. "No one" with 10%
  111. "Someone else" with 3%; Undecided with 9%
  112. "Third party candidate" with 4%; would not vote with 2%; Undecided with 15%
  113. Hayes (C) with 2%; Undecided with 11%
  114. Undecided with 13%
  115. "Third party/write-in" with 2%; Undecided with 14%
  116. "Other" with 1%; Undecided with 9%
  117. "Another candidate" with 6%; Undecided with 13%
  118. Hayes (C) with 1%; Undecided with 6%
  119. Undecided with 7%; would not vote with 2%
  120. Undecided with 15%
  121. Additional data sourced from FiveThirtyEight
  122. Undecided with 7%; would not vote with 1%
  123. Undecided with 10%; "Some other candidate" with 8%
  124. Undecided with 16%
  125. Undecided with 15%; Hayes (C) with 3%; "other" and would not vote with 1%
  126. Undecided with 17%; "Another candidate" and would not vote with 1%
  127. Undecided with 16%; "Another third party/write in" with 3%
  128. Undecided with 16%
  129. Undecided with 21%; Hayes (C) with 2%
  130. Undecided with 8%
  131. Undecided with 11%; "other candidate" with 8%
  132. Undecided with 5%; "Someone else" with 4%
  133. Undecided with 20%
  134. Additional data sourced from FiveThirtyEight
  135. "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"
  136. "Refused" with 3%
  137. "Prefer not to answer/Refused" with 4%; "Candidate from another political party" with 1%; "Will not vote/not sure" with 0%
  138. "Undecided/Refused" with 8%
  139. Undecided with 11%
  140. "Neither" and "Other Party" with 1%; Undecided with 14%
  141. Undecided with 14%; "Neither/other/independent" with 3%
  142. Undecided with 14%; "Neither/other/independent" with 3%
  143. Not yet released
  144. Undecided with 11%; "Neither/other/independent" with 4%
  145. Undecided with 17%; "Neither/other/independent" with 3%
  146. Undecided with 16%; "Neither/other/independent" with 5%
  147. Undecided with 19%; "Neither/other/independent" with 5%
  148. "Undecided" with 8%; "don't know/refused" with 3%
  149. Undecided with 18%; "Neither/other/independent" with 6%
  150. Undecided with 17%; "Neither/other/independent" with 5%
  151. Undecided with 15%; "Neither/other/independent" with 7%
  152. Undecided with 21%; "Neither/other/independent" with 4%

References
  1. "NC SBE Contest Results". er.ncsbe.gov. North Carolina Board of Elections. Retrieved March 7, 2020.
  2. Snell, Kelsey; Walsh, Deirdre (November 10, 2020). "GOP Sen. Thom Tillis Wins Reelection In North Carolina After Democrat Concedes". NPR.org. Retrieved January 4, 2021.
  3. Fordham, Evie (November 10, 2020). "Cal Cunningham concedes to Thom Tillis in North Carolina Senate race". Fox News. Retrieved November 10, 2020.
  4. Cohen, Zach C. (December 5, 2018). "How 2014's Outsiders Became 2020's Insiders". National Journal. Retrieved December 5, 2018.
  5. Robertson, Gary D. (December 20, 2019). "N Carolina candidates rush for legislature, Meadows' seat". Raleigh News & Observer. Archived from the original on December 25, 2019. Retrieved December 20, 2019.
  6. Woolverton, Paul (April 17, 2019). "Near-death experience inspires Eric Mansfield to consider US Senate race". The Fayetteville Observer. Retrieved April 26, 2019.
  7. Pathé, Simone (December 2, 2019). "Garland Tucker drops Senate primary challenge to North Carolina's Thom Tillis". Roll Call. Retrieved December 2, 2019.
  8. Frey, Kevin [@KevinFreyTV] (April 30, 2019). "In interview with @costareports, Rep. Mark Meadows says there's "zero chance" he will primary @SenThomTillis, but says he believes Tillis will have a "legitimate" primary opponent #ncpol" (Tweet). Retrieved April 30, 2019 – via Twitter.
  9. Wong, Scott; Bolton, Alexander (March 13, 2019). "GOP's Tillis comes under pressure for taking on Trump". The Hill. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
  10. Wong, Scott; Wilson, Reid (December 4, 2019). "NC rep explores Tillis primary challenge". The Hill. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
  11. "George W. Bush to hold virtual fundraiser for Republican senators". The Washington Post.
  12. Fredericks, Bob (September 13, 2019). "John Bolton returns to former position as head of two PACs".
  13. "Thom Tillis". Susan B. Anthony List. Retrieved February 27, 2020.
  14. Murphy, Brian (December 16, 2019). "His House district was made a Democratic one. Here's what's next for Mark Walker". The News & Observer. Retrieved August 29, 2020.
  15. Pathé, Simone (May 6, 2019). "Trump loyalty is already at the heart of North Carolina Senate primary". Roll Call. Retrieved August 30, 2020.
  16. Robertson, Gary D. (June 17, 2019). "Democrat Cal Cunningham enters North Carolina Senate race". Associated Press. Retrieved June 17, 2019.
  17. "Thom Tillis getting his first serious 2020 challenger". charlotteobserver. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  18. Daniel, Nyamekye (December 9, 2019). "U.S. Sen. Tillis files for re-election amid handful of challengers". The Center Square. Retrieved December 20, 2019.
  19. "Teacher becomes 3rd Democrat to seek Thom Tillis' U.S. Senate seat in 2020". newsobserver. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  20. "North Carolina Senate 2020 Race". Open Secrets. Retrieved May 15, 2020.
  21. "LEE, EVA F MS - Candidate overview". FEC.gov. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  22. Colin Campbell [@RaleighReporter] (February 8, 2019). "The first Democrat to announce a run for Tillis' U.S. Senate seat is switching races to run for labor commissioner #ncpol" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  23. Campbell, Colin [@RaleighReporter] (July 5, 2019). "Just in: Former state Sen. Eric Mansfield announces he won't run for U.S. Senate after all. This leaves Cal Cunningham, Erica Smith and Trevor Fuller in the Democratic primary race #ncpol" (Tweet). Retrieved July 5, 2019 – via Twitter.
  24. Mills, Thomas (April 29, 2019). "Challengers for Tillis". PoliticsNC. Retrieved April 29, 2019.
  25. "A rising statewide star". NC SPIN Balanced Debate for the Old North State. January 24, 2019. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  26. Morrill, Jim (January 30, 2019). "Tillis, rivals gear up for a costly Senate race. Could Democrats pick up a seat?". The Charlotte Observer. Retrieved January 31, 2019.
  27. Arkin, James (March 13, 2019). "Senate recruiting notebook: Multiple Democrats eyeing Texas". Politico Pro. Retrieved March 13, 2019. Tom Ross, the president of the Volcker Alliance and former president of the University of North Carolina system, is a potential candidate, according to North Carolina Democrats. Ross, who was mentioned as a possible Senate candidate in 2016 but declined to run, confirmed to POLITICO that people have talked to him about the race and he’s “considering what they have to say.”
  28. Schneider, Elena (March 6, 2019). "Democratic state AG won't challenge Tillis for North Carolina Senate seat". Politico. Retrieved March 6, 2019.
  29. poopdogcomedy (December 30, 2019). "NC-Sen: Sen. Sherrod Brown (D. OH) Helps Cal Cunningham (D) Get Ready To Defeat Thom Tillis (R)". Daily KOS.
  30. "NC-Sen: Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D. PA) Helps Cal Cunningham (D) Defeat Thom "Cover-Up" Tillis (R)". Daily KOS. February 10, 2020.
  31. Morrill, Jim (June 17, 2019). "Democrat Cal Cunningham enters US Senate race, and draws fire from both sides". The Charlotte Observer. Retrieved July 30, 2019.
  32. poopdogcomedy (December 30, 2019). "NC-Sen: Sen. Tim Kaine (D. VA) Helps Cal Cunningham (D) Get Ready To Defeat Thom Tillis (R)". Daily KOS.
  33. Schneider, Elena (May 1, 2020). "Klobuchar launches Campaign to aid Senate, House Dems in 2020". Politico. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
  34. "Harvey Gantt Endorses Cal Cunningham". calfornc. March 1, 2020.
  35. Brown, Kris (December 19, 2019). "Brady Endorses Cal Cunningham for U.S. Senate: A Common-Sense Champion for Gun Violence Prevention". Brady Campaign. Retrieved December 28, 2019.
  36. "Cal Cunningham for Senate (D-NC)- Council for a Livable World". Council for a Livable World.
  37. Murphy, Brian (October 31, 2019). "National Democrats make their pick in North Carolina's Senate primary". The News & Observer. Retrieved October 31, 2019.
  38. "JStreetPAC Candidates". JStreetPAC.
  39. Richtman, Max (October 29, 2019). "National Committee Endorses Cal Cunningham in NC Senate Race".
  40. "Endorsements". replacementsltdpac. Replacements Ltd. PAC.
  41. Editorial Board, Observer (February 14, 2020). "Our endorsement for the U.S. Senate Democratic primary in North Carolina". The Charlotte Observer.
  42. Editorial Board, Charlotte Post (February 27, 2020). "The Post endorses Mike Bloomberg for president". Charlotte Post.
  43. Editorial Board, Indy Week (February 12, 2020). "The INDY's Endorsements for President, U.S. Senate, and Congress". Indy Week.
  44. "Page by Page Report Display (Page 945 of 1405)".
  45. "Endorsements | Erica For Us".
  46. "Equality North Carolina Endorsed Candidates 2020". Equality NC. February 17, 2020.
  47. "FEC FORM 2 STATEMENT OF CANDIDACY - SHANNON BRAY" (PDF). FEC. July 16, 2019. Retrieved August 22, 2019.
  48. "NC State Board of Elections: Candidate List Grouped by Contest" (PDF).
  49. "The Green Papers: North Carolina 2020 General Election". The Green Papers. April 22, 2020. Retrieved May 15, 2020.
  50. "CANDIDATE LIST GROUPED BY CONTEST" (PDF). Forsyth Board of Elections. April 22, 2020. Retrieved June 7, 2020.
  51. "Petition Search". North Carolina Board of Elections. August 5, 2020. Retrieved August 19, 2020.
  52. Morril, Jim; Murphy, Brian (February 22, 2020). "'More successful than we could have imagined.' GOP group funds ads for Dem in NC race".
  53. Lavelle, Marianne (September 14, 2020). "Senate 2020: In Storm-Torn North Carolina, an Embattled Republican Tries a Climate-Friendly Image". InsideClimate News. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  54. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article245731475.html
  55. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article245929000.html
  56. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article246141280.html
  57. Specht, Paul (August 19, 2020). "No, Cunningham has not been 'silent' on defunding police". PolitiFact. Retrieved September 24, 2020.
  58. Arkin, James (October 6, 2020). "Cal Cunningham under fire after more texts revealed". Politico. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
  59. Specht, Paul (October 6, 2020). "Army Reserve investigating Cunningham after woman confirms affair, more texts emerge". WRAL.com. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
  60. Copp, Tara; Murphy, Brian; Alexander, Ames (October 7, 2020). "After woman confirms affair, her husband calls on Cunningham to drop out of NC Senate race". News & Observer. Retrieved October 9, 2020.
  61. Kane, Paul (October 9, 2020). "Cunningham struggles to refocus N.C. Senate campaign after acknowledging extramarital relationship". Washington Post. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
  62. Leslie, Laura (October 9, 2020). "Asked four times whether there are more affairs not yet known, Cunningham declined to say yes or no". WRAL.com. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
  63. "Cal Cunningham dodges several questions during first news conference since sexting scandal". WSOC. October 9, 2020. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
  64. Greenwood, Max (October 9, 2020). "Cunningham dodges questions about text message scandal". TheHill. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
  65. Edmondson, Catie (October 3, 2020). "Virus Diagnosis and Secret Texts Upend a Critical Senate Race in a Single Night". The New York Times. Retrieved October 4, 2020.
  66. Berman, Russell (October 3, 2020). "Suddenly, Amy Coney Barrett Might Not Have the Votes". The Atlantic.
  67. Silver, Nate (September 18, 2020). "Forecasting the race for the Senate". FiveThirtyEight. Retrieved September 18, 2020.
  68. "Why the Democrats are our narrow favourites to win the Senate". The Economist. September 23, 2020. Retrieved September 24, 2020.
  69. "Daily Kos Elections releases initial Senate race ratings for 2020". Daily Kos Elections. Retrieved February 28, 2020.
  70. "2020 Senate Elections Model". Decision Desk HQ. September 2, 2020. Retrieved September 2, 2020.
  71. "2020 Senate Ratings". Senate Ratings. The Rothenberg Political Report. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  72. "2020 Senate race ratings". Sabato's Crystal Ball. Retrieved November 2, 2020.
  73. "Battle for White House". RCP. April 19, 2019.
  74. "2020 Senate Race Ratings for April 19, 2019". The Cook Political Report. Retrieved September 20, 2019.
  75. "2020 Negative Partisanship and the 2020 Congressional Elections". Niskanen Center. April 28, 2020.
  76. "2020 Election Forecast". Politico. November 19, 2019.
  77. "Defend Our GOP Senate Majority. Donate NOW". WinRed.
  78. https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/57717/thom-tillis
  79. PAC, Huck. "Candidates - Huck PAC". www.huckpac.com.
  80. "Republican Jewish Coalition". www.rjchq.org.
  81. JoCoReport.com, Editor (November 4, 2019). "National Right To Life And NC Right To Life, Inc. Endorse Thom Tillis For US Senate".CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
  82. Obama, Barack (August 3, 2020). "First Wave of 2020 Endorsements". Medium.
  83. Cunningham, Cal (March 4, 2020). "North Carolina Democratic Congressional Delegation Endorses Cal Cunningham". Retrieved April 7, 2020.
  84. Schnieder, Elena (May 1, 2020). "Klobuchar launches campaign to aid Senate, House Dems in 2020". Politico.
  85. "Serve America PAC endorses six new federal candidates". Serve America PAC. March 11, 2020.
  86. Kinnard, Meg (May 21, 2020). "Stacey Abrams endorses candidates in 7 US Senate contests". Associated Press.
  87. Cunningham, Cal (March 5, 2020). "Cal Earns Additional North Carolina Endorsements Following Decisive Primary Victory". Retrieved April 7, 2020.
  88. poopdogcomedy (April 23, 2020). "NC-Sen: Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D. IN) Helps Cal Cunningham (D) End Moscow Mitch's Reign Of Terror". Daily KOS.
  89. Merica, Dan (May 13, 2020). "Buttigieg highlights importance of local officials in first post-campaign endorsements". CNN. Retrieved May 14, 2020.
  90. "Bend the Arc Jewish Action PAC". Bend the Arc: Jewish Action.
  91. "Cal Cunningham - Black Economic Alliance PAC". Black Economic Alliance.
  92. "2020 Endorsements".
  93. "Communications Workers Of America Local 3611 Endorse Cal Cunningham For His Commitment To Economic Justice". Calfornc.
  94. Muller, Tiffany (July 30, 2019). "End Citizens United Endorses Cal Cunningham for U.S. Senate". End Citizens United.
  95. "Equality North Carolina Releases Final Round Of 2020 Electoral Endorsements". Equality NC. April 23, 2020.
  96. "Everytown For Gun Safety Action Fund Endorses Cal Cunningham for U.S. Senate in North Carolina". Everytown. June 9, 2020.
  97. "2020 – Feminist Majority PAC". feministmajoritypac.org.
  98. "In Key Senate Races, Giffords Backs Challengers in Iowa and North Carolina Taking on NRA-Backed Incumbents". Giffords.
  99. "Human Rights Campaign Endorses 40 House, 5 Senate Pro-Equality Leaders". Human Rights Campaign. May 18, 2020.
  100. "Indivisible NC District 9". Indivisible NC District 9.
  101. "Meet the 2020 Candidates". Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs.
  102. "LCV Action Fund Endorses Cal Cunningham For Senate". July 31, 2019.
  103. "Former North Carolina State Senator and Candidate for U.S. Senate Earns Endorsement from Nation's Leading Pro-Choice Advocacy Group". replacementsltdpac. NARAL Pro-Choice America.
  104. "U.S. Senate - Education Votes". educationvotes.nea.org.
  105. "2020 Federal Endorsements - NOW PAC". nowpac.org.
  106. "Who We Support - Environmental Candidates". Natural Resources Defense Council.
  107. "NC Labor 2020 Voter Guide". July 22, 2020.
  108. "2020 Endorsements - Patriotic Millionaires". patrioticmillionaires.org.
  109. "Planned Parenthood Action Fund Endorses Cal Cunningham and Deborah Ross to Fight for North Carolinians in Congress". replacementsltdpac. Planned Parenthood Action.
  110. "Sierra Club Endorses Cal Cunningham". Calfornc.
  111. "North Carolina – Official UAW Endorsements". uawendorsements.org. United Automobile Workers.
  112. "Cal Cunningham for Senate". VoteVets.org.
  113. McCready, Dan [@McCreadyForNC] (October 17, 2019). "If you don't know Cal: he is a fellow veteran and a good friend of mine. Cal is running to challenge Sen Tillis in what was just rated a toss-up race. I'm proud to support Cal. If we're gonna protect voting rights, we MUST return the Senate to Dem control" (Tweet). Retrieved October 17, 2019 – via Twitter.
  114. Bravender, Robin (April 26, 2020). "With first quarter fundraising surge, Cunningham outraises Tillis for the first time". ncpolicywatch.com. NC Policy Watch. Retrieved April 26, 2020.
  115. Millard, Drew. "How the Safe Bet Lost in North Carolina". The Nation. Retrieved December 13, 2020.
  116. "State Composite Abstract Report - Contest.pdf" (PDF). North Carolina State Board of Elections. Retrieved November 24, 2020.

Further reading
Official campaign websites
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.