SC-1 special election - May 7th

[Nichlemn]

If ECB does win the seat, hopefully in '14 she'll run on a sort of "Give me a full term to represent you" appeal.

Why would this work? It's not as if Representatives are executives that could have a plan they want to follow through with.

[Maxwell]

Sure looks like ECB will have that seat for 18 months, and then Pubs can get a sane candidate.

In South Carolina? Where is a sane Republican going to come from?

True enough, Bob Inglis already got crushed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sure looks like ECB will have that seat for 18 months, and then Pubs can get a sane candidate.

In South Carolina? Where is a sane Republican going to come from?

True enough, Bob Inglis already got crushed.

That was in the upstate.  In general, low country Republicans are notably saner.

[publicunofficial]

From PPP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sanford is practically begging Colbert-Busch to do more debates and/or joint appearances.  At least unlike the Mittinator, the Mark II realizes he's in trouble.

[California8429]

I am embarrassed for South Carolina republicans to have nominated this man. Losing this district is disgraceful.

[Morning in Atlas]

I am embarrassed for South Carolina republicans to have nominated this man. Losing this district is disgraceful.

Don't worry, y'all can try again in 15 months. It's not like this seat's going to be the difference between House control.

[smoltchanov]

Sure looks like ECB will have that seat for 18 months, and then Pubs can get a sane candidate.

In South Carolina? Where is a sane Republican going to come from?

True enough, Bob Inglis already got crushed.

That was in the upstate.  In general, low country Republicans are notably saner.

True, but still - most of the Republican's candidates in SC are very conservative. I don't expect "moderates" there, but even reasonable moderate-conservative (of Lugar - Voinovich type) is a rarity ..

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In general, low country Republicans are notably saner.

True, but still - most of the Republican's candidates in SC are very conservative. I don't expect "moderates" there, but even reasonable moderate-conservative (of Lugar - Voinovich type) is a rarity ..

It's a byproduct of having highly gerrymandered districts and a large statewide majority.  There are so few races which are competitive that any sensible politician here will generally be worrying more about the primary than the general election.  Not only that, but the primary voters have little incentive to worry about whether candidates will appeal to the middle.

[smoltchanov]

In general, low country Republicans are notably saner.

True, but still - most of the Republican's candidates in SC are very conservative. I don't expect "moderates" there, but even reasonable moderate-conservative (of Lugar - Voinovich type) is a rarity ..

It's a byproduct of having highly gerrymandered districts and a large statewide majority.  There are so few races which are competitive that any sensible politician here will generally be worrying more about the primary than the general election.  Not only that, but the primary voters have little incentive to worry about whether candidates will appeal to the middle.

Agree

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As if there were any doubt about how much trouble Sanford was in, when a Republican activist has decided to not vote rather than vote for the GOP candidate, that's a pretty clear sign.

http://www.thestate.com/2013/04/21/2734677/will-women-abandon-sanford.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If either the Libertarian or Constitution parties had fielded a candidate, they'd have a good chance of picking up support from Republicans who can't bring themselves to support Sanford.  I can't see many Republicans voting for Platt on the Green Party ticket and fewer for the fusion candidacy of Colbert Busch. (Elizabeth also got the nod from the Working Families Party.)  In particular the Libertarians might well have picked up 10% or more of the votes cast, but guy they ran in 2012 chose to try his luck in the GOP clusterbomb of a primary.  Heck, if they'd played their cards right, the Libertarian candidate might have come in second.

[Miles]

PPP will have their poll out in the next hour.

[Tayya]

She's at 50. Sanford has 41, Platt 3. All are mentioned by name, though, so Platt's score may decrease. Most of Platt's voters voted Romney! Colbert-Busch is at 56-31, Sanford at 38-56.

What can I say.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/colbert-busch-expands-lead.html

[Miles]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No kidding.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most of Platt's voters voted Romney!

I strongly suspect that many of them are Republicans who feel a civic obligation to vote, but do not want to vote for either Sanford or a Democrat, so will be voting for Platt as a safe protest vote instead of staying home.  There would be more of those safe protest votes if either the Libertarian or Constitution parties had put up a candidate.

[Miles]

This is the only question in the poll that look off to me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney won the district by 18.

[Tender Branson]

This is the only question in the poll that look off to me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney won the district by 18.

The poll also said that Republicans are sitting this one out, which means A) the sample is much more Democratic than in the actual election in 2012 and B) many people refuse to admit that they voted for a loser like Romney.

[Miles]

This is the only question in the poll that look off to me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney won the district by 18.

The poll also said that Republicans are sitting this one out, which means A) the sample is much more Democratic than in the actual election in 2012 and B) many people refuse to admit that they voted for a loser like Romney.

Yeah, but a 13-point drop still seems pretty large.

[Tender Branson]

This is the only question in the poll that look off to me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney won the district by 18.

The poll also said that Republicans are sitting this one out, which means A) the sample is much more Democratic than in the actual election in 2012 and B) many people refuse to admit that they voted for a loser like Romney.

Yeah, but a 13-point drop still seems pretty large.

Maybe, but I still think a combination of these 2 makes it possible. National polls recently have shown that in a question like this people say by 10-point margins that they voted for Obama over Romney, even though Obama won by just 4. And these polls show no Republican-enthusiasm gap ... Also: the margin of error could play a role here (+/- 3.5%)

[windjammer]

Honestly, I think that Sanford can win...

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Most of Platt's voters voted Romney!

I strongly suspect that many of them are Republicans who feel a civic obligation to vote, but do not want to vote for either Sanford or a Democrat, so will be voting for Platt as a safe protest vote instead of staying home.  There would be more of those safe protest votes if either the Libertarian or Constitution parties had put up a candidate.

Even if Platt's to the left of the Democrats?  And besides, why do so many people think Nader cost Gore the 2000 election if some Republican-leaning voters who didn't necessarily want Bush didn't vote for him?  I'm not arguing that they're right, I'm just asking you how that figures.
Anyway, I have no idea why a state with a large religious conservative population like South Carolina, in a party with a powerful religious conservative constituency, would nominate a womanizer like Sanford for Congress.  The worst part about it is that he'll lose to, of all people, Stephen Colbert's sister.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Most of Platt's voters voted Romney!

I strongly suspect that many of them are Republicans who feel a civic obligation to vote, but do not want to vote for either Sanford or a Democrat, so will be voting for Platt as a safe protest vote instead of staying home.  There would be more of those safe protest votes if either the Libertarian or Constitution parties had put up a candidate.

Even if Platt's to the left of the Democrats?  And besides, why do so many people think Nader cost Gore the 2000 election if some Republican-leaning voters who didn't necessarily want Bush didn't vote for him?  I'm not arguing that they're right, I'm just asking you how that figures.

Platt's politics don't come into play here.  All that matters is that he has no chance of winning so Platt takes the place of the "None of these" option that is on Nevada ballots.  If there were someone closer to their politics than Platt who fit the bill, they'd vote for them.  What'll be interesting to see is how many write-in votes are cast. I suspect many of those will be for Jenny Sanford.

As for Nader/Gore, for those who were right-leaning but anti-Bush, there were other choices on the ballot.  While a lot of Nader's support came from collecting most of the generalized protest votes that would not have gone to either major party in 2000, he also got some votes from the left that would have accrued to Gore had there been no Green Party on the ballot.

[Talleyrand]

Most of Platt's voters voted Romney!

I strongly suspect that many of them are Republicans who feel a civic obligation to vote, but do not want to vote for either Sanford or a Democrat, so will be voting for Platt as a safe protest vote instead of staying home.  There would be more of those safe protest votes if either the Libertarian or Constitution parties had put up a candidate.

Even if Platt's to the left of the Democrats?  And besides, why do so many people think Nader cost Gore the 2000 election if some Republican-leaning voters who didn't necessarily want Bush didn't vote for him?  I'm not arguing that they're right, I'm just asking you how that figures.
Anyway, I have no idea why a state with a large religious conservative population like South Carolina, in a party with a powerful religious conservative constituency, would nominate a womanizer like Sanford for Congress.  The worst part about it is that he'll lose to, of all people, Stephen Colbert's sister.

I agree it's ridiculous that he has somehow managed to bring himself low enough to put a district this Republican at serious risk of takeover, but judging Elizabeth Colbert-Busch simply for the fact of being Stephen's sister strikes me as silly. She's a very accomplished businesswoman in her own right...

[Consciously Unconscious]

The nomination of Sanford shows complete hypocrisy.  If Republicans are going to support a traditional family, they can't be nominating people like Sanford.  Do any of you think this might be a "favorite son" because the seat used to be Sanford's?  So perhaps he can pull off a win.  The only upside to this is Tim Scott in the Senate.

[Indy Texas]

The nomination of Sanford shows complete hypocrisy.  If Republicans are going to support a traditional family, they can't be nominating people like Sanford.  Do any of you think this might be a "favorite son" because the seat used to be Sanford's?  So perhaps he can pull off a win.  The only upside to this is Tim Scott in the Senate.

Basically, the Republican party thinks that if you're an unmarried woman seeking birth control pills, you're a "slut" and need to be shamed. If you're a married man who cheats on your wife, you deserve to be nominated to run for Congress. And they wonder why people think they're the anti-woman party...