Talk Elections

it looks like it will be beasley vs. demint in the sc runoff.

demint narrowly edged the best candidate in the race, thomas ravenel, for second place and the right to take on beasley in the runoff.

i guess ill have to support demint.  beasley was a bad governor and with his new committment to protectionism, he will be an even worse (if possible) senator.

Beasley looked surprisingly weak in the run-off, not even getting close to 40%.  And with Ravenel probably endorsing DeMint, I would say DeMint is a slight favorite.

I also think this becomes a pure toss-up general election if it's Tennenbaum-DeMint.

I think DeMint has the better chance to hold the seat than Beasley, though both should win.

Tenenbaum would beat Beasley fairly handily.  A DeMint Tenenbaum race would be a true tossup though.

  Walter, you have to understand that support for "free" trade is a losing issue, that is one reason why Bush is not doing as well as he should against Kerry, and De Mints support for "free" Trade will hurt him among working class conservatives.

  I have no problem with some protectionism, because it is in many ways, a defense of the borders of the US, the likes of DeMint support the sending of jobs and technology to red China. My hope with a Bush loss, the "free" trade elemnets will exit the party.

I think both Beasley and DeMint would be great members of the Senate... but I respect Beasley more because he stood up and fought against the neo-confederates.  It would be a great irony, and a great day for this country, if David Beasley, the man who brought down the rebel flag from the Capitol, would replace Fritz Hollings, the Democrat who put the flag of treachery up there in the first place.

I think Beasley would definitely win...with DeMint it would be a good race, although DeMint would still win.  

Dammit...why did Fritz have to retire?  :(

have yall ever noticed that fritz hollings comes across as a totally unfriendly guy?

Great, so the working class will be making $15 an hour labouring in some factory, instead of $10 an hour in some office or restaurant, and the net result is everything costs the consumer (me) twice as much.  

But while I find the economics disturbing, I have to admit protectionism tends to win over the simpler sort of voter.

 There is no free lunch. So far, mainly because Clinton was such a big supporter of "free" trade(not to mention his immigration policies led to a dramatic increse in illegal immigration), the opposition to "free" trade was muted.

   It comes down to this, people in the lower middle class are economically stressed, so far because of credit expansion and home re-fis, they have been able to reduce some of the pain, but these are short term. While the benifit to the top 20% of income earners of the US is clear, the benifit of free trade for most of the rest of the citizens in the US are far from clear, the vast majority of the savings in "free" trade line the pockets of the rich, they do not reduce costs to most of the consumers, yet it puts severe down ward pressue4 on wages.

  To the "conservatives" in here, as I said, go beyond talk radio and the WSJ op ed pages(yes its a broken record by so many parrot the propaganda from t hese sources) and look behind the economics numbers, also realize this, the current trads of jobs being exported and cheap labor being imported WILL result in the US becoming a European style welfare state, as enough economically displaced workers get fed UP.

  It is my estimate that the dual issues of uncontrolled immigration and "free" trade is costing Bush 5 to 10 points nationally.

The problem is that the supporters of free trade are usually the people most opposed to rectifying its bad effects.  

I am in favor of free trade if the government makes sure that the people who lose their jobs because of it are taken care of, through increased welfare and unemployment benefits, and a much higher minimum wage.  

If businesses and consumers benefit from free trade, they shouldn't mind paying a portion of this benefit (in the form of higher taxes) to compensate those who lose out from it.

He is 81 or something

Beasely and DeMint are both very flawed candidates.

Beasely was a very unpopular governor who lost an election.
DeMint supports free trade. SC is a very protectionist state.

So it's tough to say who has the better chance, but Tenenbaum's chances are much better than any Democrat should have.

I'm sure you're right, though I'd agree with the 5 points, not ten.  But if he can win with 50% of the vote and still back Capitalism - which is essentially the philosophy of the GOP - rather than compromising it, then why go for the extra five points?

because he can win 50% and not 270 votes.

yes, but he was nasty and mean even when he was a youthful segregationist.

   The way "free" trade is current conducted is not sustainable, and harmful to Capitalism long term. Bush is sticking to his strong support for "free" tarde, ashame he didnt learn anything from his fathers re election effort in 92.

  As for Inez Tenenbaum, she has yet to be defined in the race. So far, the polls have indicated that Beasley would be the strongest canidate against her, though no matter who wins the GOP primary, the GOP nature of SC is though for any Democrat to win in.

http://surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/SC040615gopsenrunoff.pdf

Latest SUSA poll regarding the runoff - looks to be a close race.

Which candidate is more moderate?

when he was the lawyer for Brown in the case of Brown v Board of Ed at age 31?

no, when he was governor and blacks couldnt so much as use the same water fountain as whites.

Beasley I gather...can't be sure though

OK--

DeMint is pretty conservative...Economic 91% Social 75% Foreign 72%.  He gets a 100 from the ACU and the CHC.

I don't know enough about Bealsey.

DeMint is conservative and I hope he wins. However, in a recent SC Senate poll it showed Moderates prefer DeMint while conservatives want Beasley.

id opt for the capitalist (i.e. demint)

I think this race is about image, not real differences at this point. I support DeMint because of Beasley's handling of the Confederate flag issue when he was Governor, but DeMint might well have done the same thing.

Without knowing either guy, I'm not real qualified to say, but it seems to me like DeMint might be the sharper of the two. But Beasley is politically astute and principled. Either one will crush the Democrat.

I agree. Inez Tenenbaum (the Democrat running) is being praised by the D's. They really think she's going to keep the seat. The Republican (whether its Beasley or DeMint) won't "crush" her but I think it'll be a pretty comfortable win for the GOP. SC - GOP pickup!

*cough* textiles *cough* have made the Carolina's *very* hard to predict this year.

I go to school in South Carolina, and do some political work there. It is not hard to predict. Easy GOP win.

Inez has a 2-4% chance at most.

Where in SC?

Furman, in Greenville (DeMint's area).

Results of 2000 Presidential election in Furman:

Bush: 71%
Gore: 26%

Not exactly representative of SC as a whole is it?

Huh? Where'd you get that? Have it for other schools?

I didn't say Furman was representative- actually, most students can't vote in SC because were from other states- but that I am involved with the political scene. Look at all the recent statewide elections: Sanford beats Hodges, Graham beats whoever (I forgot already)...

Tenenbaum has no chance. Trust me, this is not going to be close. Bowles has better odds in NC.

They were the results for Furman precinct.
And seeing as you're the poster that thinks that VA is swinging *towards* the GOP, I don't think I'll be a trusting your judgement.

Oh yeah... remind me again... who was it that Hodges beat in 1998?
---
Yes, Bowles does have a better chance in NC than Tenenbaum in SC. SC is a tossup, NC leans towards Bowles.

Hodges won because Beasley took the Confederate flag off the statehouse. That is the only reason.

As far as Virginia leaning more GOP, I don't even see how it is arguable. I believe that is the position of the US' top political scientist, Larry Sabato of UVA, and the top political scientist with regards to the South, Merle Black of Emory. Perhaps if you lived here you might understand the political situation better.

In the meantime, examine Virginia's Congressional delegation and compare it to that of ten years ago.

Tenenbaum odds: 20:1
Bowles odds: 18:5

I trust Sabato less than you

That's fine, just so you realize your view is a minority one- so who you "trust" appears based on who says what you want to hear...

An idiot like Sabato does not=a majority

"Oh yeah... remind me again... who was it that Hodges beat in 1998?"

how are governor hodges and governor barnes doing these days?  id imagine they have a lot of spare time on their hands.

Doing what all ex-governers do: plot

in the case of barnes, he believed too much of his own hype.  he honestly believed he was a rising national star and had little to worry about in the election.

hodges was a weak governor from the begining, who won the election by beating another weak governor.  hodges is a pretty decent guy.  why didnt he run for the senate this year?

Barnes lost when he should have won, Hodges did better in 2002 than I thought he would.
Dunno why he didn't run for Senate though... maybe the SC Dems wanted to present a united image as opposed to the warring state GOP?

Except for trade, the two are indistinguishable on the issues, but Beasley spent more time courting the social conservatives than DeMint did while DeMint spent more time courting the fiscal conservatives than Beasley did.  DeMint would be the stronger candidate, but the runoff is a tossup right now, but as The State said of the debate on WIS-TV on Tuesday, the winner of the debate was Tannenbaum.

What is it with the NC and SC GOP ripping themselves into little pieces this year?

if i were a south carolinian, id seriously think about voting for inez over beasley (should he win the nomination)

al, the nc gop isnt ripping tself to shreds.  the party is united over richard burr.  i love burr, he was my congressman for awhile.  he is a tad too protectionist for me, but i believe that is just 'talk'.

there is large field of republicans running for governor.  it's a pretty sorry lot.  im not sure who im going to vote for in the primary, probably ballantine.  im most likely voting for easley in the general election.

I dont' think Beasley is going to win the nomination. Condon and Ravenel both made public endorsements for DeMint so I'm guessing that most of their supporters with vote for him.

In NC, I'm glad to see that the GOP is united for Burr. All these people saying that Bowles will hold the seat for the Dems is wishful thinking on their part. NC is going GOP.

As for the NC Governor's race, there are 6 Republicans running.  It seems like Ballantine is the most conservative and has the best shot at winning. Unfortunatley, though, for us Republicans, I think the Dems hold this seat.

WalterMitty, why are you going to vote for Easley?

It amazes me that people think Inez is a good candidate. Do any of you know who she beat to become whatever low-level official she is? A guy with a serious speech impediment. The GOP didn't care enough about the post to run someone stronger... and she still didn't run away with it.

Democrats will lose in NC, SC, GA, FL, and probably LA. They can only hope to pull upsets out west to prevent a complete rout.

I agree with all the GOP pickups you have listed there but I'm not so sure about Lousiana. Three Democrats running will split that vote up nicely (mainly between Kennedy and John) but I don't know if Vitter (R) will get enough to prevent the run-off.  I also agree with you about Tenenbaum.

Most of this is just wishful thinking on the part of the Dems. They know we have some great chances at pickups down south and have a hard time admitting it. I remember hearing someone say that the Dems still have a chance in Georgia. How can someone keep a straight face saying that?

I know that the NC GOP is united behind Burr...
Wasn't there that messy business involving the GOP's Co-Speaker a few weeks back?
Or was that SC as well?

do you go to Bob Jones "University"?

IMO Bowles is a slight favourite over Burr (and no, this isn't wishful thinking) Had Burr been involved in a nasty primary fight, Bowles would walk it.
And Easley will be re-elected Easley (Groans...)

And how is Virginia getting more Republican? What areas? Fairfax? Newport News? *laughs*

There is no way that Vitter will get even close to winning 50% +1 in the first round. In fact I'd be willing to bet real money on it ;)
LA is first and foremost a Democrat state. Sure it doesn't always vote that way, and it's Democrats run the whole gamut from Dixiecrat conservatives to near-Socialist Longesque populists, but you should never, ever forget it.
---
Re: Wishful thinking, whether you wanna admit this or not (I guess not) "Neo-Populism" is rising in rural areas of the South... I dunno whether or not it will be enough to help the Dems hold NC, SC and LA (oh and GA. Technically hold at least) as it's very much a new thing... and is one of the most interesting political trends in the U.S at the moment (who'd have seen it coming 10 years ago?) and I'm still trying to work out when and where it started.

As far as GA goes, the Dems *do* have a strong candidate, and although I personally don't see her winning, the GOP ain't waltzing it *at all*...

yes al, there was a nasty fight over richard morgan a few eeks ago.  that fight was started by a bunch of right wingers.  they are mad about morgan entering into a power sharing agreenment in the state house with jim black.

the republicans in raleigh are completely inept, and so are the democrats , for that matter.  every freakin year, the republicans (who believe in the right of the individual, mind you) block a public referendum on the lottery.  it's really quite sad that they are so backwards/

anyway, richard morgan is involved in a *nasty* primary fight in moore county.  he will be lucky to survive.  im rooting for him, though.

keystone phil:  i disagree that ballantine has the best shot at winning the primary.   id say that richard vinroot is the clear frontrunner, if only because of his name recognition (from two previous lackluster runs for governor).  i would in no way vote for vinroot.  he is a phoney.

id consider voting for ballantine over easley in the general.  ballantine is young, and probably not quite as backwards as his amigos in raleigh.

remember, the gop primary will certainly go to a run off.  right now it looks like vinroot vs. ballantine in the runoff.  but watch out for bill cobey.  

My memory works! :D

I thought it was pretty much a Vinroot/Ballantine race. But since Vinroot ran twice before and lost (though 2000 was pretty close) I thought maybe the frontrunner be someone new.

vinroot *should* have won in 2000.  for a couple of reasons:

1.  he had good name recognition from his 96 run
2.  easley is a terrible campaigner and took several weeks off during the summer.  he also rarely campaigned in person.
3.  easley wasnt a terribly popular politician, even among dems.  many partisan dems have never forgiven him for prosecuting some democratic officials when he was  DA in brunswick county.
4.  bush won big in nc in 2000, yet vinroot failed to capitalize on that.

vinroot performed HORRIBLY in eastern nc, as most republicans do in statewide elections.  perhaps ballantine, being an easterner himself, will be able to do a little better down east.

But do you see NC giving the Governorship to a Republican?

I'd bet real money that you're wrong.  LA is lean Dem.  The Dems will probably win, not loose.  GA and SC are going to switch, but so are CO and IL so the senate won't change from that.  NC and FL are up in the air, as are AK and OK.  There is a good chance that the senate stays 51-49.  There is also a good chance that the Dems win OK and AK while holding NC and FL.  Likewise there is an equal chance that the GOP wins NC and FL while holding OK and AK.

Are you serious?

Competitive states by likely Presidential winner:

Bush

North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Louisiana
Florida
South Dakota
Colorado
Alaska
Oklahoma

Kerry

Illinois

Right off the bat, something becomes apparent: all except one major battle is being fought in Bush territory. So, all else being equal, Republicans would win every single one. Of course, all things are not equal- some candidates are stronger than others, or could turn out to be stronger.

However, most laypeople overestimate the degree to which voters split their ballots. Turnout is highest in Presidential years, and the 'extra' voters are the least likely of all to split. About 2/3 of the electorate votes for a more or less straight ticket- 1/3 for each party. But of course the parties are not of equal strength.

Thus, in, say, North Carolina, Bush should win by 11-16%, depending on his overall performance (I would say 14% is a good figure). In any case, that means well over 10% of Bush voters will have to vote Bowles PLUS the number of Kerry voters that vote Burr (a reasonably small number, but significant if you consider his local strength). So perhaps 15% of Bush's supporters have to go Bowles. Not going to happen. I think Burr is actually a better candidate than Bowles, but he could be inferior by a marginal degree and still win.

Louisiana is always difficult to predict, as it depends on the winner amongst the Democrats. A Northern Democrat last won Louisiana in 1960-- because Kennedy was Catholic. Kerry is, but is secular and disliked by religious voters. Bush will win by 4-10%, perhaps a bit higher if he routs Kerry nationally. John and Vitter are roughly equal candidates- Vitter is a bit better on his own but John is endorsed by Breaux- so this leans GOP. It is not by any means a sure thing. In a non-Presidential year, it would lean DNC.

Colorado is the race everyone thinks Democrats are going to win- for some reason- but will in fact lose, and perhaps handily. 'Celebrity' type candidates always beat expectations, and Coors is surprisingly adept politically. He is well funded in a state Bush will win by 6-12%, and his name recognition is obviously very good. And, let's face it, someone with 'Salazar' as a last name loses 1-2% off the top. Just ask 'Governor' Jindal about it. The Dems did well to get Salazar in the running (he's the only Democrat with any chance at all), but only a fool would give him the race at this point.

Most of the races are the same pattern... strong Dem candidates in Bush country. History is not on their side. EVEN IF BUSH LOSES THE NATIONAL ELECTION he will win those states, or most of them. In 2000, for instance, Slade Gorton lost because GORE helped his opponent in Washington (Gore won by 6%)... Cantwell won by 2,000 total votes. Stabenow also has Gore to thank: he won Michigan by 5%; she won by 1%.

And even when the results do not follow as such, the effect is still clear. In the 2000 Pennslyvania Senate race, Santorum beat Klink 53-45. In a non-Presidential year, he most likely would have won 58-40, perhaps by even more, but Klink was helped by Gore's win and the limited split-ticket voting for people that primarily vote in Presidential elections.

Trust me, the Democrats are not in good shape- whatever your liberal friends tell you. Much better shape than anticipated, but bleak nonetheless. GOP gains 2-3 seats, 4 if Bush wins big.

AuH2O... are you stoned or something?
Your logic is so woolly I'm not going to bother wasting time on it...
I'll tell you this though: there is no way that Bush will win NC by 14 points.

Look, arrogant prick- you haven't proven ANYTHING. You make predictions, without reasons, and without historical precedent, while I make predictions based on such things. We'll see who is right.

I actually put money on stuff like this- and win a lot of money on stuff like this. I don't care if you like reality or not... you can stay in your dream world for all I care. But, if you don't have something even remotely constructive to say, don't say it.

In the past two years something happend to the economy of the Carolina's which has destabalised politics in them.
You *ought* to know what it is...

And, if you were 1/10th as smart as you think you are, you would understand the complexities of voting behavior. Job losses from reductions in certain types of manufacturing (mostly to machines, by the way, very few jobs are truly 'exported') are a relatively minor issue.

Greenville, SC, for instance, benefits tremendously from free trade. BMW North America is HQed in Spartanburg (next door) and Michelin NA is HQed in Greenville. There are literally hundreds of foreign corporations employing thousands of people. Raleigh, Charlotte, and Greensboro likewise benefit.

So, please endeavor to know something about the issues you claim mastery of. You better be around after the election to eat your crow. That's all I ask.

Not how the poor bastards who lost their jobs see it though is it? There had been a growing (but low key) resentment in rural areas of the whole sunbelt thing *anyway*... but the collapse of the textile industry appears to have been the last straw for many people (rightly or wrongly that isn't the point).
---
Job losses are *never* a minor issue.

Do you know the people that have lost their jobs? Have you talked to them? Do you live in the areas impacted by this?

Most Southerners- whites at least- simply will not vote for a Democrat. They could stay home, but social issues make a cross-over impossible. This article actually does a decent job explaining it, from a balanced perspective:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0618nj1.htm

Job losses have been exaggerated, anyway, and like I said- certain jobs are becoming obsolete. There's nothing a Democrat can do to make sewing jeans a profitable activity in North Carolina. Period.

"Most Southerners- whites at least"

Wow. And here's me thinking that Blacks were people and voters too.

Are you saying most Southerners are non-white?

Maybe you're even stupider than I thought.

I am well aware that a majority of people in every state south of the Mason-Dixon line and East of the Sabine are white. I have spent a lot of time looking into Racial and Sectional patterns in said area.
I happen to find this statement disturbing:

"Most Southerners- whites at least"

Most= "majority."

Let me rephrase for your politically correct needs, Mr. Thought Policeman

"A plurality of Southerners, primarily whites, will not consider voting for a Democrat."

Dude, you seriously need a life.

states in 2000 that had a different Senate race outcome than the presidential race:

North Dakota
Florida (disputable, but you would think so)
Georgia
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Vermont
Maine
West Virginia

and compare the margin of victories between the Senate and Presidential candidates in states like New Jersey and New Mexico, and it becomes obvious that a lot more split ticketing than you claim going on.

now to knock off some of your other points:

there is NO way the LA race leans GOP. You won't find a single serious analysist who says so. Even though Bush will probably win Louisiana easily, John is far more conservative than Kerry, so he could easily pick up much of the Bush vote, especially since Democrats have a commanding registration advantage in LA. Now lots are too conservative to vote for Kerry yes, but they'll vote for John. And Breaux is far more popular than Bush in LA, so his endorsement will mean more weight. And of course, there's the whole run off deal meaning this would likely be decided  not on election day. Only 2 years ago, LA reelected the far more liberal Landrieu. And finally, LA hasn't elected a Republican Senator since the Civil War. This race is a toss up only under absolutely best possible conditions for you.

Bush will not win by 14 points in NC. I'd put 10 as the best/worst case scenario. All the recent polls showing it being a lot closer than expected.

Colorado is the state where Republicans like to ignore all the polls giving Salazar a clear lead. And his last name obviously didn't stop him from getting 57% in his last election. Besides, the people who would refuse to vote for someone for that reason aren't the type who would vote for a Democrat anyway, the problem with the Jindal analogy.

Your list doesn't work: long-standing imcumbents without serious opposition are irrelevant. I'm discussing seriously contested races.

Another mistake is to rely on polls this far out. If you use those as your guideline, your conclusions will be highly skewed. Instead, look to the 2000 & 1988 elections, and maybe add Perot's voters to the GOP column for 1992 and 1996. You might be surprised at how little the results vary.

Split-ticketing only occurs en masse when there is no serious opposition. Instead of just looking at percentages, also check out the vote totals. For instance, you cite West Virginia as an example of split-ticketing in 2000. However, over 54,000 fewer votes were cast for Senator than for President-- almost 10% of the Presidential votes cast. In other words, the election was not seen a serious competition and voters, even GOP voters, did not know enough about the GOP Senate candidate to choose him... and they also knew he had no chance. Landreiu won in 2002, but relatively narrowly (52-48%). She was the incumbent, and thus her showing was actually somewhat weak. In a Presidential year, she would have lost. Now there is an open seat. I don't care if there hasn't been a LA Republican Senator since some Yankee tyrant appointed one... the facts are the facts.

I could go through your examples individually, but I don't think it's necessary. Split-ticketing does occur, but the combination Party win for President/close Senate race gives a huge advantage to the person running under the winning Party banner. Zell Miller is not a counter-example. Stephanie Herseth was leading in the polls by 20% a few weeks before her election, and scraped out a 51-49% win-- because she had already run for the seat before and had better name recognition. And that was a mid-year election. By November, Salazar won't be sitting pretty. You'll see.

If you honestly think you every single Perot voter would've voted Republican if Perot wasn't in the race you are so dumb you aren't even worth arguing with. I'm so sure that Bush I would've beaten Clinton, a far weaker candidate than Dukakis by a much wider margin than Dukakis at a time when he was much more unpopular than he was in 1988. Add the Perot vote to Bush I's and Clinton loses every state except Arkansas and narrow pularalities in Maryland and New York. Yep, if it wasn't for Perot Bush would've won Rhode Island.

I don't see how you could say Landrieu would've lost in a presidential year, when THE ELECTION WOULD'VE NOT BEEN HELD THE SAME DAY AS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. No split ticketing would've taken place that day. Landrieu probably would've done a little poorer the election day, but it would've had no effect on the run off.

For whatever reason, SC voters still trust Democrats more than Republicans when it comes to education which is why the Superintendent of Education race is the easiest statewide race for a Dem to win in this state.  It would take a weak Dem candidate and a strong GOP candidate to win the post and Inez is not a weak candidate.  The senate seat is still a probable GOP pickup but with a strong Senate race, Bush will not be doing as well in SC as he did in 2000.  Not only that, but Bush may need to spend time and money here to help Beasley/DeMint beat Inez.

If she was such a weak candidate, she wouldnt' be leading in most polls so far either.

also, women candidates usually do better for the Democrats down south, probably because they attract female voters more. If she can win a majority of the female vote, that + the black vote will put her over the top.

Well I'd dispute that a plurality of Southerners would "not consider voting for a Democrat".
The main problem the Dems have in the South is the fact that a lot of poor rural whites stopped voting 30 odd years ago. This is the DNC's own fault.
IF the rise of Neo-Populism can get these people voting again and if at the same time the suburbs do a NOVA, the South might swing back our way.

Rural whites voted for Sonny Perdue. Ask Roy Barnes.

It was the fault of Barnes and Barnes alone. And he was no Neo-Populist.

give southerners credit.  they know a stupid idea when they see one.

neo-populism=stupid idea.

why cant you just call it populism?  i reckon george wallace and that crowd tainted that word.

Neo means new ;)

yeah but im just as wary of the neo-populists as i am the old populists.  the neo-populists arent racists, but they play on fear just like the old populists did.

no amount of protectionism in the world is going to bring textiles back.  they need to be honest.  it;s all about economic diversifaction.  rdu and charlotte didnt become major economic centers by relying on $8 hour textile jobs.  they diversified their economy.

update:  governor easley further angers democrats by blowing off their  convention over the weekend.  that is one reason i like easley.  he is his own man  

Hey, this Beasely/DeMint runoff is tomorrow. Anyone with predictions? I think DeMint will win it, not by much but he'll win. I'll say....Demint 53%   Beasely - 47%

I'm not sure whether it's fear or resentment... I'm guessing a mix of the two... likewhys I'm not sure when it started and where it started... if it's deep rooted it could be around for a while.

Logically it *should* be a direct result of sunbelt development (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) but I've not looked at it in enough detail to be sure. It might be a result of other factors though... time to look at it in detail I guess...

The only poll I've seen is a week old and had Demint 48% Beasley 47%, but the weather could play a large factor just as it did in the primary.  The forecast is for scattered showers just as it was two week ago.  Had the weather in the upstate and the low country been reversed for the primary, the runoff would have been between Beasley and Ravenel instead.

Wow now that's a close race. From that poll there seems to be a good amount of undecided voters still. I say they will end up voting DeMint.

I'll predict DeMint, but on paper Beasley has a slight edge due to his consistent strength with women voters and statewide reach. We shall see how much effect the endorsements have in DeMint's favor.

I hope DeMint wins... he's a quality guy. Beasley thinks a little too much of himself.

Beasley 52%
DeMint 48%

Nice call, Red.

Well Boss Tweed called for a 6-8% win for Beasley. I didn't think Beasely would win but I didn't expect DeMint to do that well! SC - GOP pickup!

Possible GOP pickup. It's too close for me to call... even a slight favourite...

south carolinians beat back (convincingly) the evil forces of protectionism on tuesday night.  i expect them to do the same in november.

Yeah. Only 12.62 points. What were you thinking, AuH2O?