SC to Dems: Money can’t buy you love, or offices

posted at 8:01 am on May 8, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In general, it’s difficult to learn too many lessons from special elections, or so most think.  The ad hoc nature of the contests, the lack of competition from other races, and the brief campaign time all contribute to an exceptionality that keep from turning them into narratives.  The same will be true for the most part in South Carolina’s special election last night, but a couple of points should be noted.

Mainly, a flood of money probably doesn’t mean as much as people believe in special elections, and might actually be counterproductive in one real sense.  Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch ran in a tough district, but faced a Republican with a massive personal scandal and an ethical black mark on his record.  She also outraised her opponent by 5-1, according to Politico, and she still lost by nine points:

Independent liberal groups, national Democrats and influential donors spent nearly $1 million to flood the airwaves in support of Elizabeth Colbert Busch — outspending Mark Sanford’s conservative allies by more than 5-to-1.  …

Colbert Busch was the recipient of almost $900,000 in outside spending from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC alone.

The irony for Democrats is that while many of their rank-and-file members oppose the kind of big outside spending that has characterized the last few election cycles, liberal groups are now as professional and institutionalized as their GOP counterparts.

It wasn’t just outside money where Colbert Busch outstripped Sanford, either:

On the traditional fundraising side the equation, Democrats also had the advantage. Between late February and mid-April, Colbert out-raised Sanford significantly. She raised almost $900,000 between late February and mid-April, and $1.1 million total, according to her most recent campaign finance report. Her bid was aided by her comedian brother’s star power and a who’s who of Democratic stars who helped fundraise for her in two East Coast fundraising stops.

In the same time period, Sanford raised just under $400,000. According to his last report, Sanford raised almost $800,000 through late April — but he faced a competitive primary election, unlike Colbert Busch.

Still, campaign finance watchdogs say Sanford took in enough to be competitive — even as the Democrats and their allies outspent him — pointing to a late surge in campaign contributions.

In fact, this was an interesting contrast.  Unlike Colbert Busch, who successfully nationalized the race on the fundraising side, Sanford had to do almost all the lifting on fundraising by himself.  Thanks to the scandal, national Republican groups wanted nothing to do with him.  On the political side, however, it was Sanford who prevailed in nationalizing the race, in part because of that big fundraising boost for Colbert Busch.  He painted his opponent as Nancy Pelosi’s protege and told voters in SC-01 that their decision wasn’t Sanford vs Colbert Busch, but South Carolina vs Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid all rolled up into one — and Colbert Busch’s flashy fundraising had to have helped sell that message.

The 1st CD is rated R+18 in the Cook Report, so one could argue that losing by nine to a Republican is a moral victory — but it’s clearly not that at all in the specifics, especially considering the nature of special elections.  Sanford was a damaged, weak candidate with few allies and a whole lot of his own party annoyed and chagrined to see him run for office again.  When he prevailed in the Republican primary (in a relatively low turnout), Democrats fully expected to feast on his political corpse. Instead, they barely avoided a double-digit loss after spending a fortune to beat Sanford.

What does this mean for 2014?  Probably nothing at all.  It does mean that we should rethink how big national spending in local special elections actually impacts the race, especially in states where one party dominates as much as Republicans do in South Carolina.  In this case, it seems to have absolved Mark Sanford of all his sins at least long enough to work up a small landslide in answer to the big footprint of Democratic money.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I really feel bad for South Carolinians if this was all they had to choose from.

Badger40 on May 8, 2013 at 8:06 AM

I just can’t wait for more posts so that I don’t have to see that woman holding up her spectacles.

Electrongod on May 8, 2013 at 8:06 AM

And now the butthurt trolls will be on this thread telling us all how ‘corrupt NRA money’ stole the election.

Ed! you seriously need to give us relief from the trolls!

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:07 AM

Not even Karl (Marx) Rove’s big money would get the frumpy Colbert sister elected in D-1, SC! Pay attention idiots@ RNCC!

el Vaquero on May 8, 2013 at 8:07 AM

In this case, it seems to have absolved Mark Sanford of all his sins at least long enough to work up a small landslide in answer to the big footprint of Democratic money.

Absolved seems a bit strong. But when it comes to his ethical lapse he can honestly say “What difference, at this point, does it make?” He’s got 18 months to show that he can do the job (again) and in all likelihood his ethical lapses will be as ancient as Jack Murtha’s corruption or Jim Moran’s record of hitting women and children.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Any time the worser party loses money……it’s a good day for America.

Of course the gop got more slime to add to their leadership pool in DC, so they lose too.

PappyD61 on May 8, 2013 at 8:10 AM

At least there’s one voting segment in the country that can see through the hypocrisy of candidates like Colbert Busch. She played the moderate during the campaign but based on past Tweets from her she proved herself to be a died-in-the-wool liberal. And of course, our Pravda system of leftwing journalists again purposely failed to check her background as they would a conservative candidate and inform the voters.

I sure hope this trend continues and every Democrat running for office is defeated in their upcoming elections – regardless of the office they are seeking.

iamsaved on May 8, 2013 at 8:10 AM

He painted his opponent as Nancy Pelosi’s protege …

Heh. Jim Geraghty calls Pelosi “the Voldemort of Red House Districts” — for Dems in the 2014 races Nanzy is She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

KS Rex on May 8, 2013 at 8:11 AM

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Better a corrupt Pub than an ‘honest’ Democrat (is there any such thing as an honest Democrat?)

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:11 AM

I just can’t wait for more posts so that I don’t have to see that woman holding up her spectacles.

Electrongod on May 8, 2013 at 8:06 AM

Yeah that is one ugly woman.

I’ve got to wonder if maybe the Dems spent too much money. At some point the public is going to be turned off seeing political ads.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:11 AM

Better a corrupt Pub than an ‘honest’ Democrat (is there any such thing as an honest Democrat?)

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:11 AM

Honest Democrats will tell you that they are for gay marriage, want to abolish the Second Amendment, think all illegals should have instant amnesty, and Obamacare is going to kill private health insurance.

So the answer to your question is no.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:14 AM

The irony for Democrats is that while many of their rank-and-file members oppose the kind of big outside spending that has characterized the last few election cycles, liberal groups are now as professional and institutionalized as their GOP counterparts.

Not buying that Republicans started the trend.

Just ask Joe Lieberman.

Ben Hur on May 8, 2013 at 8:15 AM

What it means is that republicans are putting aside the “our candidates need to be holier than thou” theme and going for a proven conservative who is a workaholic and returned unspent office expense money to the US Treasury, the only one to do so at that time I believe.

Additionally, I believe electing Sanford was a thumb on the nose to the Hollywierd crowd, who think their financial success and broad appeal dependent on whatever perceived talent they have can dictate to us whom we should vote for. Another reason the twit, Ashley Judd, won’t make it on the ballot.

Personally, I take this as a great sign!!!

Amjean on May 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM

Honest Democrats will tell you that they are for gay marriage, want to abolish the Second Amendment, think all illegals should have instant amnesty, and Obamacare is going to kill private health insurance.

So the answer to your question is no.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:14 AM

As I thought.

If Dems and other liberals were truly honest, they would be seen as so disgusting even an outhouse rat would yak. Liberals, to me, are so unpalatable they would gag a maggot.

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:17 AM

The South Carolina voters have spoken. Apparently, Christian forgiveness trumps atheistic socialism.

Which makes this agnostic capitalist pretty happy.

M240H on May 8, 2013 at 8:17 AM

The liberal progressives over at the Washington Post are going ballistic screaming about get this…..”Family Values”! Bill Clinton and his cigars, John Edwards, Anthony “what’s in my pants” Wiener. I seem to remember a part of a scripture about “casting the first stone”?

Rovin on May 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM

One other thing – it was also a thumb on the nose to the RNC. Who we know are mostly useless unless they are promoting a leftie like rino candidate that will end up screwing the country almost as bad as Obama.

Are the voters catching on? We can only hope.

Amjean on May 8, 2013 at 8:19 AM

The South Carolina voters have spoken. Apparently, Christian forgiveness trumps atheistic socialism.

Which makes this agnostic capitalist pretty happy.

M240H on May 8, 2013 at 8:17 AM

You need to stop being a capitalist, you Big Blue Meanie!
Love,
The Left

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:19 AM

Hysterical…
5 to 1 money advantage… a corrupt media that hid her leftist background by ignoring her facebook and twitter posts that supported Obamacare and gay marriage…. a republican candidate with tons of flaws… and they lose by NINE POINTS!

But I am happy to report that MSNBC is reporting it was close. NINE POINTS.

Bensonofben on May 8, 2013 at 8:20 AM

I think there is a little mini-trend here, and I have noticed it now with winners and losers on both sides of the aisle.

I think local voters are increasingly annoyed with the influx of outside money meant to buy a win for the national party. People want someone that will represent them, not someone who represents George Soros, or Karl Rove.

This is something that bears watching for 2014.

Chris of Rights on May 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM

Personally, I take this as a great sign!!!

Amjean on May 8, 2013 at 8:16 AM

I think you are reading too much into a special election in South Carolina. But, I think it is a great sign that a million dollars wasn’t enough to get a Dem elected in SC-1. She had the edge going into the election and her people were high-fiving one another when Sanford won the primary. The grapes must be particularly sour this morning.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM

One other thing – it was also a thumb on the nose to the RNC. Who we know are mostly useless unless they are promoting a leftie like rino candidate that will end up screwing the country almost as bad as Obama.

Are the voters catching on? We can only hope.

Amjean on May 8, 2013 at 8:19 AM

It’s South Carolina. The LSAM will say, “Yet again, the deep South endorses Republican racism.”

Or something similar. The LSM is as predictable as me waking up in the morning and still having brown eyes.

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM

I just can’t wait for more posts so that I don’t have to see that woman holding up her spectacles.

Electrongod on May 8, 2013 at 8:06 AM

LOL & agreed!

VibrioCocci on May 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM

Better a corrupt Pub than an ‘honest’ Democrat (is there any such thing as an honest Democrat?)

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:11 AM

As always, the answer is: “one who stays bought”.

Chris of Rights on May 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM

But I am happy to report that MSNBC is reporting it was close. NINE POINTS.

Bensonofben on May 8, 2013 at 8:20 AM

Yeah, well consider the source. MSNBC claims the rat-eared coward won 2012 in a landslide. MSNBC’s “talent” includes Chris Matthews, Joe and Mika, Special Ed Schultz, and Rachael Madcow. MSNBC at this point are still asking Kermitt who?

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Good point Chris of rights

cmsinaz on May 8, 2013 at 8:27 AM

The liberal progressives over at the Washington Post are going ballistic screaming about get this…..”Family Values”!

Rovin on May 8, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Dude! It’s the Washington Post. I only keep my subscription because I like doing the crossword puzzle the old-fashioned way and the plastic sleeve it comes in works well for picking up dog poo.

The WaPo spent eight years routinely predicting the scandal that was about to bring down Bush. Their “fact checker” clearly gets paid by OFA. And their political cartoonist is a rabid socialist. Don’t expect fairness or consistency from that propaganda outlet.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:29 AM

As always, the answer is: “one who stays bought”.

Chris of Rights on May 8, 2013 at 8:23 AM

You know, maybe Obama is tanking the economy so us regular folk can’t buy our own politician. Wouldn’t that be grand!

“What are your assets, Mr. Liam?”

“I own six mansions paid for by lies like Al Gore, a fleet of jets paid for my Washing, an Obamaphone, a partridge in a pear tree, and a politician in my back pocket (not the one where I carry my wallet).”

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM

cmsinaz on May 8, 2013 at 8:27 AM

You never quit, do you?

Crooning, “I want to hold your haa-a-and…I wanna hold you hand!” :-)

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:32 AM

I wish the non-left had come up with a better candidate but thankful the left didn’t.

Hosanna on May 8, 2013 at 8:32 AM

This must have been really, really bad.

When you can’t even win with countless illegal aliens, felons, dead people, multiple voters and “lost bags” of ballots from the military and heavy republican voter areas that means you were really in the 20% range of voters for this thing.

I do beleive that the dems have a harder time on non-presidential elections. Probably a function of the dead and multiple voters not turning out in the same numbers.

There also seems to be less voter irregularities. Don’t hear as much about machines that tally straight dem no matter what you vote or those magic “100%” distiricts that you seem to get on presidential elections. You also don’t seem to have black panthers and other “civil rights” groups standing in front of the polls ensure that the minorities can vote.

acyl72 on May 8, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Aren’t there also questions around the issue of polling in this election ? I seem to recall that the late polling was showing this to be a close/toss-up election after having shown ECB being slightly ahead earlier. How did that turn into Sanford +9 on election day ?

mdavt on May 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM

I wish the non-left had come up with a better candidate but thankful the left didn’t.

Hosanna on May 8, 2013 at 8:32 AM

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Des demanded a recount.

“We lost? How, with all that union money and Obama? Let’s hang some chads!”

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:35 AM

The irony for Democrats is that while many of their rank-and-file members oppose the kind of big outside spending that has characterized the last few election cycles, liberal groups are now as professional and institutionalized as their GOP counterparts.

Find the lies in this one sentence. Sheesh, Politico…

*shakes head*

Fallon on May 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM

He may be a sleaze but he’s our sleaze.I’ll take the win and be somewhat happy since the winner is not a democrat.

docflash on May 8, 2013 at 8:36 AM

The South Carolina voters have spoken. Apparently, Christian forgiveness trumps atheistic socialism.

Which makes this agnostic capitalist pretty happy.

M240H on May 8, 2013 at 8:17 AM

:)

Fallon on May 8, 2013 at 8:37 AM

This is, in fact, a big effin’ deal. Because the only thing South Carolina voters found lower than a man who cheats on his wife and lies about it was a Democrat. It put a very public lie to the line OFA had been pushing about affecting turnout in “red” districts. It is obvious now, or should be, that all the dreaded OFA organization can do is goose up turnout in districts always destined to go “blue” anyway.

Sekhmet on May 8, 2013 at 8:38 AM

*bic lighter on*

Excellent Liam

:)

cmsinaz on May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM

While I don’t have anything complementary to say about Mark Sanford, I’m still glad he won. We have to stop with this holier than thou crap when it comes to our nominees. Sure, we want our candidates to be as upstanding and respectable as possible, but if we get stuck with a selfish a-hole who’s at least a reliable conservative vote, then it makes far more sense to go with that person rather than concede the seat to a far-left Democrat who’ll rubber stamp the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda.

Doughboy on May 8, 2013 at 8:40 AM

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:29 AM

You have to understand HN, I’m registered to comment there for the sheer pleasure of sending liberals into delirious tirades. It’s far better fun than reacting to our resident progressives and their tired out rhetoric.

Rovin on May 8, 2013 at 8:40 AM

I think the stronger message is that you don’t send a leftist stooge into a district that is strong R. Sandford successfully made the race about the leftist stooge in it.

NotCoach on May 8, 2013 at 8:40 AM

I seem to recall that the late polling was showing this to be a close/toss-up election after having shown ECB being slightly ahead earlier. How did that turn into Sanford +9 on election day ?

mdavt on May 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM

I was all set for the late night that they were predicting this time yesterday morning. What a disappointment that even the leftist channels had called it by 90 minutes after polls closed./

Seriously, I think it was always going to be a rout. The Dems talked up how enthused their base was to get out there and vote for ECB. But the reality is that there were plenty of Republicans willing to vote for Sanford who, apparently, did a good job as their Congressman before and was popular as a governor until that “Argentina thingy.” That doesn’t mean they were willing to tell pollsters that they supported the guy who dumped his family and job.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM

I think the Colbert name hurt her more than helped her. When you have a brother who’s made a living off of mocking conservatives and a GOP stereotype and you’re going to run in a heavy GOP area, might be best to distance yourself from the jackass that’s been mocking and ridiculing the majority electorate.

ButterflyDragon on May 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM

*bic lighter on*

Excellent Liam

:)

cmsinaz on May 8, 2013 at 8:39 AM

ROTFL

You win! *L*

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:42 AM

I think the Colbert name hurt her more than helped her. When you have a brother who’s made a living off of mocking conservatives and a GOP stereotype and you’re going to run in a heavy GOP area, might be best to distance yourself from the jackass that’s been mocking and ridiculing the majority electorate.

ButterflyDragon on May 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Sure it wasn’t the Busch name? Too close in spelling to you know who! ;0

I don’t think it had much to do with her name. I think it had more to do with her socialist views and anti-Boeing activities before she started running for office and suddenly discovered a whole other set of values than she lived by as a private citizen.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:50 AM

Chubs McCain had a major meltdown over this. lol

Blake on May 8, 2013 at 8:51 AM

I really feel bad for South Carolinians if this was all they had to choose from.

Badger40 on May 8, 2013 at 8:06 AM

While Colbert Busch essentially ran unopposed in the Rat primary, Sanford ran in a very-crowded primary (taking 36.9% of the vote) and then a runoff.

Steve Eggleston on May 8, 2013 at 8:51 AM

DOJ monitored this race, didn’t it?

I’ll look forward to hearing to how this race compared to, say, Cleveland in November 2012.

EastofEden on May 8, 2013 at 8:52 AM

I think the Colbert name hurt her more than helped her. When you have a brother who’s made a living off of mocking conservatives and a GOP stereotype and you’re going to run in a heavy GOP area, might be best to distance yourself from the jackass that’s been mocking and ridiculing the majority electorate.

ButterflyDragon on May 8, 2013 at 8:41 AM

It probably didn’t help. I’m not sure how many voters were aware of her relation to Stephen Colbert(and that’s assuming they’re even aware of him to begin with), but for those who were, it had to be a major turnoff.

Doughboy on May 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Liam on May 8, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Well, it’s the Alinsky Way.

Funny thing, when I googled (actually I use a private search engine “enhanced by Google”) the race, yesterday’s results were at the very bottom, as if they’d been sorted by date, ascending. the first result was from April 22 about how Colbert Busch was leading.

Hosanna on May 8, 2013 at 8:53 AM

Absolved seems a bit strong. But when it comes to his ethical lapse he can honestly say “What difference, at this point, does it make?” He’s got 18 months to show that he can do the job (again) and in all likelihood his ethical lapses will be as ancient as Jack Murtha’s corruption or Jim Moran’s record of hitting women and children.

Happy Nomad on May 8, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Don’t forget the Kennedy-Dodd Waitress Sandwiches

Steve Eggleston on May 8, 2013 at 8:56 AM

mdavt on May 8, 2013 at 8:34 AM

There are always polling questions. There are always sore losers.

Maybe the “polling” was corrupt?

The Republicans do nothing about controversial losses and the Dems turn it into books and snide remarks to inspire the base elsewhere.

Only a total idiot questions a +9 from a practical standpoint. She lost, kid.

So what is your point?

IlikedAUH2O on May 8, 2013 at 8:57 AM

I think there is a little mini-trend here, and I have noticed it now with winners and losers on both sides of the aisle.

I think local voters are increasingly annoyed with the influx of outside money meant to buy a win for the national party. People want someone that will represent them, not someone who represents George Soros, or Karl Rove.

This is something that bears watching for 2014.

Chris of Rights on May 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM

You may be onto something. Of course, Tammy Baldwin’s 1 1/2-month-long unchallenged presence on Wisconsin media funded by outside interests bought her and Obama Wisconsin.

Steve Eggleston on May 8, 2013 at 9:01 AM

DOJ monitored this race, didn’t it?

I’ll look forward to hearing to how this race compared to, say, Cleveland in November 2012.

EastofEden on May 8, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Good comment, amigo. Amazing how seldom quality control is discussed except to send a fox to count chickens.

If this was a +18 Dem district and the D won by +9, and the winner was Maxine Watters or Rangel, it would prove about the same thing as this race.

IlikedAUH2O on May 8, 2013 at 9:06 AM

The next special election race to watch is the Senate seat in MA, Ed Markey, who you don’t want to win, and Gabriel Gomez for the republican/independent side.

Yes it’s murky. Yes it’s Massachusetts, but I am telling you, you don’t want Markey rewarded with a Senate seat. All you need to know about Gomez is that he was a Navy Seal. Any help informing the Masses in MA about how bad Markey is, from 501c groups will be appreciated, just a little sunlight on this lazy incumbent entitled politician. Advertisments teaching conservative or American principles would be helpful too. People know only the name Markey here since he has been in office since the 1970′s but they don’t know anything about him, and he has spent little time in the state, preferring his home in MD, which is nice. Markey calls his deceased mother’s house home for the purpose of residency.

This is a great Youtube video from a recent campaign for congress, for a few laughs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2m3NWplkJM

Fleuries on May 8, 2013 at 9:08 AM

But I am happy to report that MSNBC is reporting it was close. NINE POINTS.

Bensonofben on May 8, 2013 at 8:20 AM

…yeah…well…Chris Mathews probably thinks…he has six inches… too!

KOOLAID2 on May 8, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Sorta OT: Local elections yesterday…school levy was the big item.

Teachers union, a number of local Dems, statewide Dems, all put a ton of money into a local election…they demanded a 6.5 mil addition to the ongoing levy…and it failed. 1/3 for…2/3 against.

In a town this size, 178 teachers/administrators….3000 students…$36 million current operating budget….+$26 million going to salaries and benefits…in a town where $32k is the average total income…

This morning they are vowing to force the issue on the next ballot, and the next, until the stupid people and mean conservatives who voted this down are shown a lesson.

They predict major cuts to student programs…no more sports, no music or art, shutting down labs for various sciences…not one word about teacher/admin salaries and benefits being cut…they are still demanding “competitive” wages and benefits.

Enough is enough…and it all starts local.

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Chubs McCain had a major meltdown over this. lol

Blake on May 8, 2013 at 8:51 AM

Oh-oh, the Ben & Jerry’s cooler is going to be empty again.

slickwillie2001 on May 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM

The other thing to learn here is you can’t be a ‘stealth’ candidate when you’ve spent the previous 10-15 years being an activist in the area.

When Rahm Emanuel recruited all those Dems to run in swing districts in 2006, he focused on people without reputations as being militantly liberal. Seven years later, as YouTube and Twitter make it even tougher for an activist pol to hide their true beliefs, the Democrats tried to run Colbert Busch is SC-1 as a moderate. Add to the fact that her own brother on national TV was helping to blow her cover as a moderate among undecided voters and you have a candidate who not enough people were either fooled by, or willing to take a chance that maybe she wouldn’t be as bad as Sanford.

jon1979 on May 8, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Mark Sanford for President-2016! /

Deano1952 on May 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM

take a chance that maybe she wouldn’t be as bad as Sanford.

jon1979 on May 8, 2013 at 9:39 AM

That’s gonna be the next gold standard for Dem candidates…

And Conservatives (large C) and Libertarians are going to have to get serious about fielding candidates who actually bring something to the table. +9 million North Carolinians…75% of them adult…and Sanford is the best they could come up with?

We can do better.

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM

The South Carolina voters have spoken. Apparently, Christian forgiveness trumps atheistic socialism.

Which makes this agnostic capitalist pretty happy.

M240H on May 8, 2013 at 8:17 AM

As a Christian, I would agree.

We may dislike Mark Sanford for his contribution to the poison that collapsed Republican support, but redemption is a story every Christian should understand.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sure I like him, considering the scandal. But I don’t have to like him.

I will give him credit, he swam upstream to win this seat, with no party help and a liberal nation against him. I heard Joe Biden laughing with Democrats while I was driving through South Carolina last week about Sanford in particular and Republicans in general. Who’s laughing now?

Hopefully he will understand the position he’s in and work to keep it.

itsspideyman on May 8, 2013 at 9:52 AM

I think what it really indicates is that the “yellow dog Democrats” are still alive and well in the south, but they’re all Republicans now. Aside from their DOJ-enforced minority districts, the Democrats are finished in the deep south.

LukeinNE on May 8, 2013 at 9:56 AM

The thing I’m noticing about Demmies is that they may out raise their opponents but do they out spend them? And do they pay their campaign debts?

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2013 at 9:58 AM

+9 million North Carolinians…75% of them adult…and Sanford is the best they could come up with?

We can do better.

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM

North???

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 8, 2013 at 10:01 AM

And do they pay their campaign debts?

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2013 at 9:58 AM

The Kerry-Edwards Campaign defaulted on over $50k in this town alone for a major photo op campaign stop back in…when the hell was that??? They simply dissolved the “corporation” that funded Kerry-Edwards. We, the people, ate the debt.

Pay their way? Silly…that is what other people’s money is for…read the memo. :-)

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 8, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Now that is a major size ooops right there…try to multitask…can’t do any of it right…my apologies to all.

dammit.

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 10:04 AM

And coincidentally (or not) Southpark had on “Douche or Turd Sandwich” last night.

LtGenRob on May 8, 2013 at 10:08 AM

The duplicity of Democrats is revealing. If anything, the amount of money signifies importance. Ergo, these elections can be bellwethers and momentum changers. The DCCC knew that as did other major donors. Yet they lose, and lose big, then demur and dissemble.

Right.

Mostly, they realize if this is a sign of things to come then Democrats are in big trouble come the midterms. When people are energized on a local level to this degree, it means the previously disaffected are engaged. That story does not end well for Democrats.

Everyone knows that Republicans have been their own worse enemy. They wring hands and rend garments over candidates who may be strong politically, but perhaps have some potential character issue. Democrats have continually piled on that tale of woe by focusing on a candidates personal issues hoping to stoke the flames of discontent.

Guess what? I think that ship may have sailed. So now we get to talk about who has the best chance of helping their constituents. Constituents, by the way, who have been suffering under the Obama regime and by extension, Democrats who have voted in lock-step for all of the policies responsible for people’s current malaise.

Colbert-Busch has truly become a joke. But my guess is Democrats aren’t laughing.

Marcus Traianus on May 8, 2013 at 10:14 AM

I don’t think we can discount what this means heading into 2014.

DTTS on May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM

This raises an interesting question about campaign finance. Does it have a diminishing rate of return? Is there a point in fundraising where any more cash really doesn’t help a candidate, and maybe hurts him, because he’s wasting time raising it? If we’ve reached that point in our politics, maybe any more CFR really serves no purpose.

EricW on May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM

And coincidentally (or not) Southpark had on “Douche or Turd Sandwich” last night.

LtGenRob on May 8, 2013 at 10:08 AM

A favorite.

If we’ve reached that point in our politics, maybe any more CFR really serves no purpose.

EricW on May 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM

There is an entire class of political consultancies built on not letting such an idea live.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 8, 2013 at 10:22 AM

so one could argue that losing by nine to a Republican is a moral victory

There’s one thing I have about moral victories.

I hate them.

Colbert Busch was an even more unsavory candidate than Sanford.

rbj on May 8, 2013 at 10:26 AM

He painted his opponent as Nancy Pelosi’s protege and told voters in SC-01 that their decision wasn’t Sanford vs Colbert Busch, but South Carolina vs Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid all rolled up into one — and Colbert Busch’s flashy fundraising had to have helped sell that message.

In short: “Do you want Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House again?”

GarandFan on May 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM

It was interesting that Colbert Busch was listed twice on the ballot. One listing was, I believe a Socialist leaning party. I wonder if that turned anyone off.
A lot of my fellow South Carolinians said they wouldn’t vote for Sanford because of his issues which is pretty stupid if the opposition can’t ever articulate substance to “increasing jobs and reduciig waste” and Sanford has an actual record of accomplishent.

Art on May 8, 2013 at 10:34 AM

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Sounds a lot like Racine Unified, a perpetual candidate for Wisconsin’s worst school district and a district which, at no longer than every other year, pleads poverty to con the voters to bust revenue caps despite the fact that the previous busting got baked into the current cap.

Steve Eggleston on May 8, 2013 at 10:44 AM

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM

The average House district has roughly 800,000 in it, and given the Rats gave us the likes of Hank “Guam-Tipper” Johnson and Shelia “Martian Lander” Jackson Lee, it’s a minor miracle that Sanford isn’t even worse than he is.

Steve Eggleston on May 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Hysterical…
5 to 1 money advantage… a corrupt media that hid her leftist background by ignoring her facebook and twitter posts that supported Obamacare and gay marriage…. a republican candidate with tons of flaws… and they lose by NINE POINTS!

But I am happy to report that MSNBC is reporting it was close. NINE POINTS.

Bensonofben on May 8, 2013 at 8:20 AM

…media also never mentioned that she’d been in prison.

Schadenfreude on May 8, 2013 at 10:56 AM

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 10:01 AM

The first time I heard about this habit was a news story about John Glenn when he ran for president. I guess the vendors just write it off and keep quiet so that they don’t anger potentially half the market (something Hollyweird doesn’t “get”) but I wish they would speak up. It is obviously a direct example of how they will run the country. You know if Republicans did it, it would be a NYS front page story.

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM

According to a South Carolinian who comments here, when Sanford was a Congressman before becoming governor he use to give back money from his office budget. Like Rand Paul has. As Tip O’Neil pointed out we, as a nation, have defined deviancy down, so we have no one to blame when our candidates are flawed.

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2013 at 11:06 AM

In all this talk about “redemption” we must not lose sight of the old saying: Once bitten, twice shy.

JoseQuinones on May 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Cook’s R+18 is for Presidential elections. But Democrats haven’t competed in this district for a long time – going back to Mendel Davis in the ’70s, who had been the legendary Mendel Rivers’ chief of staff until the latter died in office. Back when there were real conservative Democrats, not phony “blue dogs” who come running when Pelosi whistles.

I put the over/under for Sanford at 53 before his runoff. Looks like all the nay-sayers lost their money. Too bad.

Next time, when you know nothing about the state, the district, the candidates, or the issues beyond what you’ve been spoon-fed by out-of-state media and self-styled experts, just sit back, shut up, watch, and learn.

Adjoran on May 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Adjoran on May 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM

I’m all for watching and learning but not shutting up. HotAir would go out of business and telling people to shut up is a Democrat trait I’m not willing to live with. I’m all for you taking your “I was right!” gloating victory lap, I’ll even enjoy it but please don’t tell people to shut up.

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Perhaps, this shows that Americans weariness with Busch rates higher than “family values”

J_Crater on May 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM

I congratulate the Democrats on dumping lots of money into a special election race that they were probably destined to lose. Less money to spend on competitive races in the midterms.

Illinidiva on May 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Big money wins regardless of who gets elected….

libfreeordie on May 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM

libfreeordie on May 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Hmmmm, so Republicans are big money but just not the biggest money? At least S.C. still got Boeing which the Dem did not want.

Cindy Munford on May 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Adjoran on May 8, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Good to hear from somebody who remembers “what it was like”.

Tommy Hartnett was my first Representative, followed by ‘Ahthuh’ Ravenel, then Sanford, before I moved.

I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a “I’m-more-conservative-than-you” critic call Sanford the Establishment Candidate, because you and I know that Mark Sanford has been setting the R Establishment on its ear his entire political life, from 1992 when they had hand-selected Van Hipp for that SC-1 seat, through the governor’s mansion when they, not the Dems, led the ethics investigation that was fairly trivial.

However, I do consider Sanford to be a little bit of a wildcard right now; since his previous career was managed so stringently by Jenny, I’m not sure what the voters of SC-1 are going to get now that he can chart his own course.

But I really think you’ll be pleased, because he certainly doesn’t owe anything to the national party now, does he?

rwenger43 on May 8, 2013 at 1:03 PM

+9 million North Carolinians…75% of them adult…and Sanford is the best they could come up with?

We can do better.

coldwarrior on May 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Oh come on now. Sanford got less than 37% in the initial primary, meaning there were at least 2 better candidates in the race, and the people of SC had 2 chances to choose that better candidate (there was a runoff too).

The people chose Sanford. They simply didn’t prefer the better candidates.

And yes, Im making the assumption that any other reps in the race were better than Sanford. Elections have consequences.

runawayyyy on May 8, 2013 at 2:05 PM

The woman hardly campaigned. Wouldn’t sit for interviews or answer questions. Democrats thought they could win the seat on an old scandal alone. Its hard to beat something with nothing. Not a fan of Sanford, but this woman is a pathetic loser.

MPan on May 8, 2013 at 7:18 PM