SC-1 special election - May 7th

[Old Man Svensson]

My god, Krazen, you are one desperate little toadie.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

I kept the champagne locked up. After all, we're talking about South Carolina.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I honestly never really expected Colbert-Busch to win this, and still don't. Like Sawx said, this is South Carolina.

Krazen's sexism is similarly unsurprising.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[Tender Branson]

Krazen doesn't understand the nature of polling.

There's always the possibility that the PPP poll showing ECB up 9 was correct at the time of their polling. Only the events after the poll was conducted were responsible for the narrowing.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

For one thing, write-in votes are generally wasted.  If one wants to vote the the Republican in this race, you need to vote for Sanford, not Stanford.  Still this Stanford fellow, whoever he is would almost certainly be better than Mark Sanford.  Practically any Republican would be better than Sanford.  Mark Foley would be one of the few who would be worse.  Even you, Winfield, krazen, or CARLHAYDEN would be better than Mark "A.T." Sanford.

[Mehmentum]

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.

[Ogre Mage]

This is an R+11 district.  We shouldn't be competitive here, so it is quite funny that we are, especially with a neophyte candidate.  I frankly just find this race amusing and the stakes not very high.

If Colbert Busch wins, we will have planted a stake behind enemy lines.  Although she probably won't last long.  If Sanford wins, well, that won't be helpful to the national GOP's PR efforts.  This is the party that claims to be for "fiscal responsibility" and "moral values," hee hee.  Maybe the GOP doesn't comprehend how horrible it looks to anyone outside of its hard-core base.  The fact they nominated this turd on a plate certainly suggests that.

[minionofmidas]

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?

There's always the possibility that the PPP poll showing ECB up 9 was correct at the time of their polling. Only the events after the poll was conducted were responsible for the narrowing.

Up nine? I must have subconsciously refused to form a memory of that because it seemed so unlikely. I doubt she was ever up that much.

[BigSkyBob]

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?

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[JerryArkansas]

I am really loving this race.  If either candidate wins right now, the republican party loses.  With one, you lose a district which is a safe republican district to a liberal democrat, and with the other, you get a Todd Akin in congress who can run later for a senate seat and lose to another democrat.

[minionofmidas]

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?

Ah, to answer my own rhetorical question: The only even better way for South Carolina Republicans to embarass themselves would be to nominate Mark Sanford in this race, and then lose the GE as a result.

Democrats already have "won" here - what's still at stake on tuesday is how much the GOP lost by.

[Mehmentum]

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.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Charleston Post and Courier endorses ECB

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[Mehmentum]

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.  People have other completely rational motivations for voting other than what would benefit Republicans or Democrats.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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?

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

[Mehmentum]

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?

Umm, sure, if there are Democrats out there who dislike the leadership of the party so much that it outweighs their dislike for Sanford, they should vote for Sanford (though voting Green would be a better option for those who couldn't stomach voting for him).  I'm not about to tell people to vote for someone they hate.  

I'm not sure how likely that would be to send a message to Democratic leadership.  Only if there is significant organization behind such a movement would it get any attention.  So my suggestion is organize, get major donors if they actually want an impact.

What your point?

Edit: A more applicable example would be if John Edwards decided to run for congress and got the nomination.  I would absolutely encourage anybody who would listen to not vote for him.

[RogueBeaver]

Specials are just that, specials. Remember when Bob Turner and Kathy Hochul were supposedly bellwethers on the Jewish vote and P2P respectively?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Specials are just that, specials. Remember when Bob Turner and Kathy Hochul were supposedly bellwethers on the Jewish vote and P2P respectively?

Or Scott Brown.

Special elections can produce interesting results, yes, but this will be long forgotten after 2014.

[xavier110]

I feel like this could go a number of ways. Remember, Akin was the "momentum" candidate in his race too -- I still think this could be a decisive Colbert Busch victory, a squeaker for either candidate or a surprising Sanford margin