Posted on 08/03/2013 6:13:16 PM PDT by ClaytonP
Newcomer Nancy Mace and libertarian-leaning state Sen. Lee Bright are set to become the second and third GOP candidates to announce their intentions to run against the second-term senator, and political watchers in the Palmetto State believe the field may expand even further in the coming weeks.
At first glance, when gaming out Graham’s chances of surviving a multi-candidate primary and going on to win re-election, the logic seems simple: the more competitors, the merrier.
For a lawmaker who has long raised the ire of some rank-and-file conservatives with his deal-brokering and occasional breeches from Republican orthodoxy, there is a benefit to splitting the Tea Party vote into as many parts as possible.
But this line of reasoning has a potential flaw: South Carolina electoral law stipulates that a candidate must win at least 50 percent of the primary vote to avoid a runoff, and Graham’s chances of reaching that threshold could become even more difficult with additional names on the ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
That’s a good question. Its worth trying.
It’s particularly good because some of our candidates have been seriously defective, like Akin in MO. We need to weed such detectives out to get the strongest possible people. The most vital thing to remember is female reproductive physiology and fundamentalist Christian theology DO NOT MIX.
Absolutely. They must unite behind one candidate in the primary because SC has an open primary.
My very unscientific canvassing of Republicans in Newberry County SC tells me that Senator Amnesty will not be missed.
"To answer the press pool's important questions, no, Senator McCain does NOT mind if I prance about in my fluffy pink kitten heels. No he doesn't mind that they don't match match my frilly mauve undies. I wear bras that unsnap in both the front and back...and Johnny prefers my fiery redhead wig over the cheap bleached blond look. And frankly, I refuse to remind him of his wife."
That would be mighty interesting, wouldn’t it? I can’t imagine a principled argument against that, but I’m sure there would be lots of phony ones.
To just about any Republican other than McCain.
But this line of reasoning has a potential flaw: South Carolina electoral law stipulates that a candidate must win at least 50 percent of the primary vote to avoid a runoff, and Graham’s chances of reaching that threshold could become even more difficult with additional names on the ballot.
I am liking this.
It really is S.C. conservatives’ chance of voting for the best conservative candidate in the primary and then against Graham in the primary run-off.
We hope it will not be necessary in the General Election to see if many S.C. conservatives will vote for the Democrat nominee, who will be wild and woolly — like Alvin Greene.
Let’ see now...
Graham gets all the RINOs and
gets all the Democrat “cross-over” votes in the “open” Primary.
Conservatives divide their votes and are conquered.
Lindsay wins!
It’s not like we haven’t seen this dirty trick played before...
Nancy Mace was on Beck radio this morning (8/6/13).
This is a VERY basic summary of what he asked and what she answered.
I typed as fast as I could so don’t think that these are direct quotes, just the gist of what she answered.
Some is decent.
Much is bad because what I heard is a an unprepared, unknown candidate with very little campaign experience and no campaign chest running for one of the highest offices in our nation against an experienced and really mean little man who absolutely has to go.
I’m still not jumping on this bandwagon. I wish her all of the luck in the world. I really do.
Glenn beck asked her what motivates her:
He asked her twice because she had no prepared answer and no passion. She gave talking points.
She answered with platitudes about a “new” south carolina and inferred “change”. He asked her again because her first answer was a non-answer and she basically said that we should trust her because we should. That trust is a problem in Government and she would like to change that. Again, a non-answer. She didn’t seem evasive; she seemed unprepared. She did say - literally: “You should not trust me, you should trust me.” A literal quote.
She chuckled and then realized he was asking her a serious question. She answered with a policy answer and talking points. He asked her again: She said that she is self-reliant and strong in her convictions. A non-answer. Again: She didn’t seem evasive; she seemed unprepared.
“Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” She said that she learned so much from Citadel. Again: She didn’t seem evasive; she seemed unprepared.
Comprehensive immigration is a no-go “in one Bill.” The people don’t trust the Government to do it. She did not say literally that she is against a Bill, but it was definitely inferred by what she did say.
Build a grass-roots network around the state. Something people can believe in. It’s a run-off state; strategy is to force a run-off.
(Personal note on the above: Nancy, trying to run 2 consecutive campaigns is not a winning strategy. It’s a running defeat. Campaign to win. Pray for no run-off. It takes a lot of money to win a run-off. Money you don’t have. Again: an inexperienced candidate.)
I am. It’s what motivates me.
A school teacher who worked hard. The value of hard work. From both of my parents.
I am absolutely for them. (I believe her)
Trust in the government. They haven’t earned any trust. It’s dangerous for our nation.
Government is “mindless and soulless” (direct quote; very good quote). Repeal is the only path.
Not privy to the intel, but our foreign policy is in bad shape. Weakness has emboldened our enemies. Can’t prevent 100% of threats. You cannot forfeit liberty. We are a nation of laws. Against email scanning, &c.
Addendum: Nancy should run for a House seat first. She has no idea why she is running for Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.