Why was the 2010 SC governor's race so close?

[asexual trans victimologist]

Mark Sanford's first election in 2002 underperformed George W. Bush 2000 in the many of the same counties that Nikki Haley 2010 underperformed McCain 2008.


But its easier for the left to cry racism despite the fact that Haley got around 75% of whites.

Mark Sanford was running against an incumbent Democrat (Jim Hodges) who, from my perfunctory look at his Wikipedia page, didn't seem to have done anything to merit getting voted out of office other than being a Democrat in South Carolina. While 2002 was a fairly good year for Republicans at the federal level b/c of the post-9/11 afterglow, that didn't translate to state-level coattails (see: Republicans losing open-seat governor's races in Oklahoma and Tennessee).

For Nikki Haley in 2010 to underperform relative to Mark Sanford in 2002 seems to fly in the face of what anyone would reasonably expect given the factors I outlined.

Well, from 2002:

They also recaptured the governorship of South Carolina, where Jim Hodges, a Democrat, was ousted after one term by former Representative Mark Sanford, who had attacked him over the state's lagging educational performance and economic fortunes.





In any case, nobody has posted what the 'expected' vote share for Nikki Haley is. Nathan Deal got 53% against Roy Barnes in the neighboring state.

Upper fifties, say ~55-59%? South Carolina's a few points more Republican than Georgia, though Sheheen and Barnes are/were both fairly good candidates for the states in question.

[krazen1211]

That, at most, establishes that Jake Knotts might or might not have voted for Nikki Haley. It hardly explains why Haley should have expected to gain substantially more than 51.4% of the vote when Mark Sanford got only 52.9% 8 years earlier.

But remember, Sanford unseated an incumbent in 2002 (Jim Hodges).  That could well have made his race tougher than Haley's.

Going back further, here are the results for other Republicans elected in the last 40 years there.

1974: James Edwards - 50.88%
1986: Carroll Campbell -  51.02%
1994: Davis Beasley - 50.41%
2002: Mark Sanford - 52.85%
2010: Nikki Haley - 51.37%


As far as I can tell, getting 59% statewide in South Carolina requires getting Jim Demint/Phil Bryant 80%+ performance with the white vote, if you get what appears to be 5% among blacks. You can decide for yourself if that's a reasonable threshold; 55% might be possible as that's what Ken Ard got.

[Gravis Marketing]

Mark Sanford unseating an incumbent vs. Nikki Haley running in an open seat race is a key distinction.

How did Bobby Jindal's first gubernatorial election go?

[Senator Kalwejt]

Going back further, here are the results for other Republicans elected in the last 40 years there.

1974: James Edwards - 50.88%
1986: Carroll Campbell -  51.02%
1994: Davis Beasley - 50.41%
2002: Mark Sanford - 52.85%
2010: Nikki Haley - 51.37%

Well, Campbell was reelected in a 69.5%-27.8% landslide in 1990 but, indeed, no Republican winning for the first time did surpass 53%

How did Bobby Jindal's first gubernatorial election go?

Runoff (Louisiana is a jungle primary state):

Blanco: 51.95%
Jindal: 48.05%

[Gravis Marketing]

1974 and 1986 were both strongly Democratic years and, needless to say, further back in the transition of  conservative Dems into the Republican party.

[krazen1211]

1974 and 1986 were both strongly Democratic years and, needless to say, further back in the transition of  conservative Dems into the Republican party.

And if anything, proof that the idea of 'strongly Democratic years' is perhaps less meaningful than some think it is.

[Gravis Marketing]

1974 and 1986 were both strongly Democratic years and, needless to say, further back in the transition of  conservative Dems into the Republican party.

And if anything, proof that the idea of 'strongly Democratic years' is perhaps less meaningful than some think it is.

I think we can all agree that drawing contemporary lessons from Southern elections and legislatures from the 1970s, 1980s, and even much of the 1990s is inherently problematic. Looking at elections before the year when Rick Perry chaired Al Gore's campaign as a model for 2010 is tough to defend, objectively.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

She's a woman is my top bet. I honestly don't think race was an issue, because from what I can tell the racists seem to lump "Asian Indians" with "Intelligent Whites" whatever the hell that's supposed to mean...

[krazen1211]

1974 and 1986 were both strongly Democratic years and, needless to say, further back in the transition of  conservative Dems into the Republican party.

And if anything, proof that the idea of 'strongly Democratic years' is perhaps less meaningful than some think it is.

I think we can all agree that drawing contemporary lessons from Southern elections and legislatures from the 1970s, 1980s, and even much of the 1990s is inherently problematic. Looking at elections before the year when Rick Perry chaired Al Gore's campaign as a model for 2010 is tough to defend, objectively.

Well, that's just it. You can pick at the idea that the SC 2010 governor's race was closer than it 'should be', but such is baseless without a valid target as to what it, uh, should be. Preferrably a target backed with some sort of prior electoral evidence.

I appreciate the one poster who made such target; much less so the people who merely scream 'racist!'. I guess its much easier to poke at others' historical evidence rather than provide your own.

[CelticHoosier1993]

I think all of the coverage of the Tea Party really hurt them more than helped.

[True Federalist]

Haley was largely seen as a clone of Sanford, and a lot of people were not in favor of a third Sanford term even before he went hiking.  Actually, the sex scandal probably helped Haley get the nomination.  It wasn't particularly believable and it kept the discussion away from the issues at a critical time in the campaign.