SC-1 special election - May 7th

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

I have to agree. The election of Bob Turner to Weiner's seat was a rebuke of Pelosi, not the election of Sanford to a seat in a race that was closer than it had to be.

[old timey villain]

Sanford: 49
Colbert Bush: 48

I really do think that Sanford will win, and maybe by more than my prediction. If Republicans have no problem voting for Newt Gingrich, then why would voting for Sanford be any different? He's also ran a pretty good campaign considering what he has to work with.

The silver lining for Democrats is that Mark Sanford in congress will be a constant reminder to people of the GOP's hypocrisy on family values. How can they convince people that gay people are destroying the institution of marriage when anybody can see that Mark Sanford has done a much better job ruining it?

[Miles]

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.

[wan]

If she can get a strong minority turnout she could win.

[nolesfan2011]

Sanford wins by 3 and Colbert-Busch doesn't break 49%, also Platt gets 2%+

[JerryArkansas]

Go Colbert-Busch

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Mark will win, albeit narrowly, because he has the momentum in the final few days. Plus, who really wants to cheer against love? Maria! Mariaaaa!

[Ogre Mage]

Should Republicans root for Mark Sanford to lose?  by Harold Mass.

http://theweek.com/article/index/243740/should-republicans-root-for-mark-sanford-to-lose

What I find fascinating about this race is that what should have been a dull special election for a house seat in a solidly Republican district has turned into a big spectacle because of the two candidates -- a disgraced former governor and the sister of a TV celebrity.  Due to the media coverage and public interest, it is one of those cases where the symbolic importance of the race has become overinflated over the actual substantive value of the seat in question.  Still, it makes for good theater.

[Eraserhead]

Final Prediction:

Mark Sanford (R) - 52%
Elizabeth Colbert Busch (D) - 47%
Eugene Platts (G) - 1%

[Miles]

Sanford- 49%
Colbert Busch- 48%
Platt- 3%

[smoltchanov]

Sanford- 49%
Colbert Busch- 48%
Platt- 3%

Me too)))

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't care about Sanford having an affair per se. His private life is not mu business. What disqualifies him is that in course of said affair he went missing, leaving the state without a man in charge. Now that's irresponsible.

Andre Bauer would dispute that there was no man left in charge, but since I never cared for our former Lt. Governor, I wouldn't.

The real question is: who cares about Andre Bauer?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[Niemeyerite]

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

[Miles]

Calling someone a person of low moral character is a pretty weighty accusation, Bob, no? (Especially since you know me so well on the personal level!) Its not something I'd go around calling people here.

Eh. good point. As warped as your views are, I do think you actually believe them, so I do think you're sincere.

But your style is belligerent and destructive. I think most here would agree with me on that.

Well, maybe after you've actually been to North Carolina, we can have a better conversation about NC redistricting!

[Miles]

You have to recall that Miles is a guy who took the incredibly logical approach of concluding that Missouri is a miserable place because the people of Springfield weren't whining about sequestration.

Eh, that wasn't the only reason.

Seriously? I usually stick up for you, krazen, when people say you're worse than Bob

[DrScholl]

It's clearly a toss-up as to who is worse. Both belong on the ignore list, which is a lot better than arguing with either.

[publicunofficial]

I'm so ing ready for this election to be over.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

If this election was being fought on the 2010 borders of the 1st district, then Colbert Busch would be winning easily, but this is not the 1st district of 2010 and anyone who assumed that is quite mistaken.

Colbert Busch would also be easily winning this race if it were be fought in a non-gerrymandered (for either partisan or VRA reasons) natural 1st District consisting of Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester Counties.

However neither is the case.  This election is being fought in the a highly gerrymandered district that no Democrat should have ever had a chance of coming close in.  That it will be close, with a chance of the Democrat winning, is something the Republicans alone can blame themselves, since they nominated Sanford.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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

I hope you realize that Mt. Pleasant is about 2-1 Republican and that Republican voters will be more likely to be voting this time of day than Democrats will be.  If you actually think that tweet signifies that Sanford is going to have a landslide victory today, you're as crazy as Politco or Winfield ever were.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Still, I can't recall anyone here who suggested that the 1st is a district that in a normal election would be winnable by a Democrat. Plenty here who have suggested that Sanford makes it a district a Democrat could win, but that's because of Sanford, not the district. Care to give a link to that spin you are remembering?