[and they broke heavily to the devil they knew- the Liberals]

I have some ideas as to what went wrong:

*"Silent majority" - a large percentage of centre-right people who don't care about politics that much, don't follow it to a high degree, don't do polls, but get out to vote. I think there is a higher percentage of people like this in BC and Alberta. From my times as an interviewer at EKOS, I can tell you that BC and Alberta are the most hostile provinces to pollsters.

*Undecideds went Liberal - seems to me that just like in Alberta, there were lots of undecideds, and they broke heavily to the devil they knew- the Liberals. One thing that pollsters could have done is look at how the undecideds were leaning and extrapolate for all undecideds. It's risky business, but I think it would have been more accurate in this case.

*Lying respondents - with the Liberals so unpopular and using dirty campaign tactics (well, negative ads), respondents were less likely to admit voting Liberal. Perhaps respondents in BC and Alberta are more likely to lie anyways due to just being hostile/distrustful of pollsters. That might account for why the lied in online surveys and IVR surveys.

Um, the NDP governed B.C. in recent times with less than popular results.

So the big question is...

Does the election of Sanford destroy the GOP's credibility even more than before?

The people whose credibility has been shaken are liberal Democrats in the South.  Their claims to being "conservative" are increasingly being discounted.

Sad but true. This is why the party, at least the state levels in the south, needs to move to right. Then, they can bring the voters who are increasingly willing to vote R back into the coalition.

Why should they come back into a coalition that brings Nancy Pelosi to power?

I'm talking more about rebuilding strength at the local level. Democrats should be a diverse group.

A diverse group that unites around Nancy Pelosi?

[9 Point Victory]

Also, I wouldn't call a 9 Point Victory over a Liberal Democrat in a safe republican district a Soaring one.

I wouldn't call the district's portion of Charleston to be a "safe Republican" area, yet, Sanford carried it.

There might very well be residents of MO-7 on all sides of the sequestration debate. What belies the narcissism of the political class is your jumping from the fact that some folks in MO-7 are for cutting government spending to the conclusion that MO-7 is lousy place to live. Most people who aren't obsessed with politics judge a location on things like the weather, the cost of living, the availability of jobs, and the cultural and recreational opportunities.  MO-7 has grown faster than the national average for a number of decades now. That is people have voted with their feet, and vote they have cast has been for the desirability of the Missouri Ozarks.  Are these hundreds of thousands of people wrong? Or were you, Miles?

I already said that there were other factors that shape my perception of Missouri. If I judged places solely on politics, I don't think I'd be living where I do now, Bob.

I think you're reading too far into this, as you usually do. I was just floating an idea. No need for you to attack me.

Now, I didn't read anything into what you wrote. I read what you wrote, so did Krazen. You simply weren't "floating an idea," you were attacking on a personal level an entire class of people simply because you didn't like the politics of some of those folks.

Whether the fact that you don't judge the folks in Louisiana by the same standard you judged the folks in the Missouri Ozarks is evidence of your innocence or your hypocrisy is itself an interesting question.

Karen Tumulty ‏@ktumulty 33m
Interviewed about a dozen voters at @ColbertBuschSC home polling place in Mt Pleasant. All but one had voted for @MarkSanford #sc

No kidding. So a handful of SC-01 voters are voting for Sanford just like a 'handful' of Billy Long's constituents don't like sequestration!  

This is a confusing theory, because in a few hours, Sanford will have acquired thousands of votes.

Eh, I'm only making inferences from what you've posted.

And I'm sure there are likewise  thousands of voters in MO-07 who don't want sequestration.

There might very well be residents of MO-7 on all sides of the sequestration debate. What belies the narcissism of the political class is your jumping from the fact that some folks in MO-7 are for cutting government spending to the conclusion that MO-7 is lousy place to live. Most people who aren't obsessed with politics judge a location on things like the weather, the cost of living, the availability of jobs, and the cultural and recreational opportunities.  MO-7 has grown faster than the national average for a number of decades now. That is people have voted with their feet, and vote they have cast has been for the desirability of the Missouri Ozarks.  Are these hundreds of thousands of people wrong? Or were you, Miles?

Sanford: 51%
Colbert Busch: 47%
Platt: 2%

Assuming the accuracy of the RRH and PPP polls, I would add a point for Sanford due to momentum, and a few points for turnout converging towards the norm as Republican enthusiasm increases. That would be about,

Sanford 51.5%
Colbert Busch 46.5%
Platt <2%

Anyway, my bet is a very narrow Sanford's win. I'd love to see a Democrat elected, even as by a fluke, in this district, but SC-1 is just too Republican and, as Nathan, I have very little faith.

Either way, this is hillarious.

I would point out that another poster here noted that this was a winnable district in which a Republican "backbencher" nearly lost in a previous election.

R+11

A fact that didn't stop another poster here from offering that "spin."

Anyway, my bet is a very narrow Sanford's win. I'd love to see a Democrat elected, even as by a fluke, in this district, but SC-1 is just too Republican and, as Nathan, I have very little faith.

Either way, this is hillarious.

I would point out that another poster here noted that this was a winnable district in which a Republican "backbencher" nearly lost in a previous election.

... but this is not the 1st district of 2010 and anyone who assumed that is quite mistaken.

Just goes to show you how specious some of the "spin" offered her can be.

Anyway, my bet is a very narrow Sanford's win. I'd love to see a Democrat elected, even as by a fluke, in this district, but SC-1 is just too Republican and, as Nathan, I have very little faith.

Either way, this is hillarious.

I would point out that another poster here noted that this was a winnable district in which a Republican "backbencher" nearly lost in a previous election.

You are in utter denial of exactly who and what you have become. You are part and parcel of a movement that holds to a principled intolerance. What in previous time would be considered the height of poor manners is treated a mere political discourse. You just gratuitously called me "mean," "unpleasant most of the time" and a "'prick,'" as if those weren't your own words. Didn't actually occur to you that your actions were the epitome of being "mean," and "unpleasant?" Apparently, an aggressive self-righteous is part and parcel of that principled intolerance.

Best I can tell, you looked the other way the whole time. Your protestations reek of partisan, and personal, hypocrisy.

Have a nice day.

You're calling me partisan and intolerant? How funny. Is that why many of my best friends here are Republicans while all parties seem to agree that you're an arrogant troll? You can use whatever fancy words you want, but I think thats the key here.

Even if you were be in my party and I'd still be criticizing you for your belligerent and destructive style. You don't come here to contribute anything positive. You're just lookin' for fights, while hijacking a few threads in the process.

I see your hypocrisy meter is hitting high. You accuse me of having a "belligerent and destructive style" while repeating attacking me on a personal level for no apparent reason. Calling me a "troll" isn't even a plausible attack. Word have meanings. A "troll" is by definition a person who writes things they don't actually believe solely for the purpose of annoying people. If you think I am anything other than sincere you are an extremely poor judge of character. From what you have written, the root of your obsession  with me seems to be the fact you considered yourself a better political analyst than I, and, visa versa. You seem to consider the solution my agreeing with your self-assessments. I consider that arrogant and presumptuous.

Again, Miles, I would remind you that in a redistricting thread I pointed out that you had not been truthful with another poster. You response was to go ballistic against me on a personal level acting wounded and aggrieved. Later in the same thread, you admitted to yet another poster that what I had noted was indeed entirely correct. It is one thing for a Bill Clinton, who wanted to be President, to disassemble about his fidelity when he had been caught in a series of affairs. It is another for a poster on the internet to blame an innocent person rather than take responsibility for his actions. That is why I consider you a person of low moral character. Life is too short to invest any personal effort into such persons, Miles.

In this thread, a series of partisan Democrats were suggesting to Republicans they effectively vote for Colbert because Sanford had had an affair. My response was to point out the hypocrisy of those offering that suggestion regarding Bill Clinton. In response, I have received a series of ad hominem attacks ranging from "boob" to "troll." You want escalate the personal attacks by  engaging in amateur psychoanalysis. Instead of accepting my accusations of hypocrisy at face value, you are now claiming the real issue is some unstated desire to "attack" others  and "pick fights." Instead of accepting the fact that refuting an argument is inherently arguing the negative, you claim the real issue is my "negativity." [It doesn't seem register on your partisan brain that I see the election of one Randroid in Congress to be a"positive" and that I was being "positive" in noting the potential upside in a Sanford victory.] In a thread in which poster and poster were giddy about the impending victory of Colbert I stated my preference that Sanford win, and that is equated with "hijacking" a thread.

I don't really feel the need or desire to address content here, so...

1. Who is Alice Rosenbaum, exactly? Sorry, I haven't been following this thread with my fullest attention.
2. I see your grammar and punctuation haven't improved.
3. It's 'Stephen'.

Steven, Stephen, doesn't matter. The salient point is that he is prick.

It sure takes one to know one.

I seem you operate on just about the same level as Colbert. The main difference is what you just wrote might actually be considered funny, unlike almost all of his swill.

I don't really feel the need or desire to address content here, so...

1. Who is Alice Rosenbaum, exactly? Sorry, I haven't been following this thread with my fullest attention.
2. I see your grammar and punctuation haven't improved.
3. It's 'Stephen'.

Steven, Stephen, doesn't matter. The salient point is that he is prick.

This malicious or malicious-seeming glee over the possible return of Mark 'Appalachian Trail' Sanford to high elected office--even if one would generally be happier than not when Republican candidates no matter how tainted win--is...well, it's there, and that's all that I really think needs to be noted about it. I'm going to see if there's anything going on in the Massachusetts or Iceland threads.

As I said before, Sanford embraces the absurdities of Alice Rosenbaum without embraces the absurdities of so-called Libertarianism. I would not want a Congress with 435 Ron Pauls, but, I highly approve of having one. The same is true of the followers of Rosenbaum. Yes, I do have an attitude of malice towards the RNCC, which I consider part of the problem of Washington rather than part of the solution, and I am, outright giddy that at this point whatever happens on Tuesday they have embarrassed themselves badly. And, I consider Steven Colbert to be an especially obnoxious prick. Running his sister for Congress was a bit in your face, and, I am estactic that that decision may cost the Democrats this election.

I wonder what his fellow House Republicans will do if he is elected and then convicted of trespassing.

Something akin to what the Democrats did when Patrick Kennedy crashed his car in Washington? Though it was the middle of the night, and he was plastered, it occurred to Kennedy to assert Congressional immunity by claiming he on his way to his job.

http://www.redracinghorses.com/diary/3085/rrhpmi-sc1-poll


Tied at 46.

Krazen, a little advice: don't be that guy who cherry-picks polls.

Needless to say, he ended up looking foolish after everything was said and done. This poll is inside the realm of possibility (after all, this is South Carolina, and ECB looked shaky in the debates), but I'd say this race leans Democratic after Sanford's implosion.

Mark Sanford is the best gift to the Democratic Party since Todd Akin.

Lol.

That poll has Colbert Busch up double digits in Beaufort County, which indicates that Sanford is in a very tough position. A mere tie in a Republican poll is not great news for Sanford at all.

As with all close races, it's about the approval, if Sanford is still underwater, Colbert Busch takes it, as that is usually how very close races hinge on. And, there's the fact that Sanford people are comparing Colbert Busch to Lizzie Borden in videos that makes me he's still not in good shape.

Spin machine in full gear.

The other change in "spin" will be from characterizing the district as one in which some "backbencher" Republican incumbent almost lost to a Democrat challenger to one that it is "blood red."

https://twitter.com/TheFix/status/331042440314241024

In talking with D and R strategists over past 24 hours, consensus is that Mark Sanford is the momentum candidate. Amazing.

Usually, "the momentum candidate" wins such elections. We will see.

So, Democrats don't actually have a preference as to whether Colbert or Stanford wins? I don't think that is the case.  Nor, do I see how Stanford winning is another other than stinging rebuke of Nancy Pelosi.

Of course Democrats would prefer ECB to win the seat.  However, even if Sandford wins, the Dems would be in a better position than if the special election never happened.  They just wouldn't be in as good as postion as they would be if ECB had won.

If the Democrats best interests lie in Colbert winning, then, it immediately follows that the best interests of the Republicans lie in Colbert losing.

Sure, if the only reason you vote is to side with you're political party, then go ahead vote for Sandford.    However many people who identify with a party do not vote based off of political calculation. 

If everyone voted solely off of political calculation, Akin would have never made it near the nomination, the Constitution and Green parties would get zero votes, and crossover voting would be zero.

The fact is, voters vote off of other things than what gives their party the most political advantage.  I encourage Republicans to vote against Sanford because he's a horrible person who does not deserve to win the election. I know argue against that, but your arguments are BS, and no amount of special pleading will change my view of him.

What I did argue against, and win, were claims that Republican voters would be rational in voting for Colbert. The Republican nominee could have been Mother Teresa and you would have encouraged Republican voters to vote for Colbert for some equally specious reasons.

Yes, if Sanford > Pelosi, and Colbert = Pelosi, Sanford > Colbert.

Simple enough even for the posters on page 5.

The problem being, of course, that neither of your premises are anywhere near true.

Frankly, that is not for you to determine. Every voter in South Carolina is entitled to whatever postion they choose on those premises. Like it or not, Sanford's campaign of linking Colbert to Pelosi seems to have resonated with Republican voters in South Carolina.

What I did argue against, and win, were claims that Republican voters would be rational in voting for Colbert. The Republican nominee could have been Mother Teresa and you would have encouraged Republican voters to vote for Colbert for some equally specious reasons.

Voting for other reasons than to support your political party isn't irrational.

Again, my point is that encouraging people from another party to not support the nominee of their party might well be a rational tactic. What is irrational is not immediately recognizing such arguments as being self-serving and offered in incredibly bad faith.

May I suggest you take your own suggestion seriously and encourage Democrats in South Carolina to vote for Sanford. Perhaps, they should vote for Sanford to send Washington Democrats the message that they don't want Pelosi as Democratic leader. Perhaps, they should do so to show their displeasure for Obama deliberately slowing air traffic. I'm sure there is an endless list. But, such considerations are for the other guy! Right?

So, Democrats don't actually have a preference as to whether Colbert or Stanford wins? I don't think that is the case.  Nor, do I see how Stanford winning is another other than stinging rebuke of Nancy Pelosi.

Of course Democrats would prefer ECB to win the seat.  However, even if Sandford wins, the Dems would be in a better position than if the special election never happened.  They just wouldn't be in as good as postion as they would be if ECB had won.

If the Democrats best interests lie in Colbert winning, then, it immediately follows that the best interests of the Republicans lie in Colbert losing.

Sure, if the only reason you vote is to side with you're political party, then go ahead vote for Sandford.    However many people who identify with a party do not vote based off of political calculation. 

If everyone voted solely off of political calculation, Akin would have never made it near the nomination, the Constitution and Green parties would get zero votes, and crossover voting would be zero.

The fact is, voters vote off of other things than what gives their party the most political advantage.  I encourage Republicans to vote against Sanford because he's a horrible person who does not deserve to win the election. I know argue against that, but your arguments are BS, and no amount of special pleading will change my view of him.

What I did argue against, and win, were claims that Republican voters would be rational in voting for Colbert. The Republican nominee could have been Mother Teresa and you would have encouraged Republican voters to vote for Colbert for some equally specious reasons.

So, Democrats don't actually have a preference as to whether Colbert or Stanford wins? I don't think that is the case.  Nor, do I see how Stanford winning is another other than stinging rebuke of Nancy Pelosi.

Of course Democrats would prefer ECB to win the seat.  However, even if Sandford wins, the Dems would be in a better position than if the special election never happened.  They just wouldn't be in as good as postion as they would be if ECB had won.

If the Democrats best interests lie in Colbert winning, then, it immediately follows that the best interests of the Republicans lie in Colbert losing.

It would seem that if we took your postion seriously the "most important" thing the Democrats could achieve is Mark Stanford's election.

What better way for South Carolina Republicans to embarass themselves?

If what has been claimed here is True, what better way for South Carolina Democrats to embarass South Carolina Republicans than to cast a tactical vote for Sanford?

So, Democrats don't actually have a preference as to whether Colbert or Stanford wins? I don't think that is the case.  Nor, do I see how Stanford winning is another other than stinging rebuke of Nancy Pelosi.

Obviously Colbert Busch winning would be preferred by the Dems, but it's not the most important thing the Dems can hope to achieve in this race, especially since it doesn't matter who holds the district until a new Republican takes the district in 2014.  In a district as Republican as the 1st is, it is impossible for any Republican to deliver a stinging rebuke to Pelosi unless he wins by 20 points, which Sanford ain't going to do.  A Sanford single digit win won't even be a mild chastisement of Pelosi.

It would seem that if we took your postion seriously the "most important" thing the Democrats could achieve is Mark Stanford's election. After all, if you concede the principle that some Republican will represent this seat in January of 2015 what better Republican to hold the seat than Stanford? Why aren't you suggesting Democrats cast a tactical vote for Mark Stanford?  Instead, you are suggest Republicans cast a tactical vote for Colbert.

Mark Stanford was given up for dead before he debated a cardboard cutout of Nancy Pelosi. Apparently, even PPP has connect the dots. By all means maintain the denial position. I can live with running against Nancy Pelosi year after year.

The best thing for the GOP at this point would be for Colbert Busch to win the special election and then get a more honest Republican to win it back in 2014.

If this were True, then it would also be the case that the best thing for the Democrats were if Stanford won this race. Somehow, I haven't read any Democrats hoping for a Colbert lose. Rather, when the polls showed Colbert up by double-digits, and the RNCC fortuitously for Stanford wrote him off, the gloat-a-meter was reading "high." I can only conclude that since the Democrats perceive their interests lie in winning the race it must be the case that Republican best interests rest on a Stanford victory.

If Stanford wins this will be a needless lose for the Democrats. No matter who was the nominee they would have been saddled with Pelosi and Obama. Had the Democrats had an once of brains they would have nominated someone without such obvious ties to Hollywood. They put Stanford in the power position: Democrats in Washington such as Obama and Pelosi are trying desperately to defeat him, while, Republicans in Washington are aiding and abetting them.

There are such things as win/win and lose/lose situations.  The Democrats are currently in a win/win situation.  

So, Democrats don't actually have a preference as to whether Colbert or Stanford wins? I don't think that is the case.  Nor, do I see how Stanford winning is another other than stinging rebuke of Nancy Pelosi.

The best thing for the GOP at this point would be for Colbert Busch to win the special election and then get a more honest Republican to win it back in 2014.

If this were True, then it would also be the case that the best thing for the Democrats were if Stanford won this race. Somehow, I haven't read any Democrats hoping for a Colbert lose. Rather, when the polls showed Colbert up by double-digits, and the RNCC fortuitously for Stanford wrote him off, the gloat-a-meter was reading "high." I can only conclude that since the Democrats perceive their interests lie in winning the race it must be the case that Republican best interests rest on a Stanford victory.

If Stanford wins this will be a needless lose for the Democrats. No matter who was the nominee they would have been saddled with Pelosi and Obama. Had the Democrats had an once of brains they would have nominated someone without such obvious ties to Hollywood. They put Stanford in the power position: Democrats in Washington such as Obama and Pelosi are trying desperately to defeat him, while, Republicans in Washington are aiding and abetting them.

Hillary and Bill are still together. Mark and Jenny aren't. Do you really believe the first has damaged his marriage more? LoL.

I haven't offered an opinion either way, nor, was it in any way the topic of discussion in this thread. Another poster was mystified about how any Republican could vote for a liar and cheater. I merely asked him how he could vote for Bill Clinton given the fact that Clinton was a felonious liar and serial cheater. Until now, no one but you wished to debate whether or not, Hillary Clinton was more of a doormat to her philandering husband than Jenny Stanford.