Supports Murkowski and Mitch McConnell (over Trump).
Criticized Jan 6th, but was behind the BLM Riots.
He’s an Idiot first, then a RINO.
Had to see the Polls before he could decide whether the DoJ was biased.
Posted on 09/01/2023 7:16:19 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Who cares about Sen. Tim Scott’s marital status? Apparently, major GOP donors do, and it might be an issue for the presidential candidate’s campaign going forward.
Wealthy contributors to the Republican Party are reportedly pressuring Scott to provide more details about his love life, or lack thereof:
Top GOP donors and their allies privately are pushing Sen. Tim Scott's team for more detail about his bachelor status before deciding how much to support him in the presidential campaign, according to two people familiar with the conversations.
Why it matters: Many of the donors are in the market for a viable alternative to former President Trump — but still aren't sure about Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who's running second to Trump in GOP polls. Scott, 57, is among those trying to woo such fundraisers.
The U.S. hasn't elected an unmarried person as president in 139 years. It's typical for candidates to trot out their families to try to enhance their appeal to voters.
Scott's reluctance to say much about his private life has raised concerns among some conservative Republican donors, according to the sources, who requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue.
Driving the news: Responding to this reporting, a senior official for Scott's campaign told Axios the South Carolina senator will be discussing the issue in the coming weeks.
Is Sen. Scott’s bachelor status important when it comes to his candidacy or are concerns over the matter based on a dated, largely irrelevant view of what makes a contender viable for occupying the White House?
The question might be more complicated than it might seem at first glance. The United States electorate has not elected an unmarried president for 139 years. The most recent was Grover Cleveland in 1884. He married his bride while serving in office. Before Cleveland, James Buchanan also served as president while not being married.
On one hand, those suggesting that Scott should explain his lack of a spouse might argue that having a family is a sign of stability. Donors might be concerned about the candidate’s status turning off conservative voters who have more traditional values, which could jeopardize his chances of winning the GOP nomination. Given the amount of money they are likely considering investing in his campaign, it might be understandable that they might want to make sure there are no issues that could jeopardize their chosen candidate’s campaign.
On the flip side, however, others might argue that these views are antiquated and that it might not matter as much to conservatives as some might think. Author Kara Alaimo made this argument in a new Bloomberg op-ed:
These concerns are irrational and unreasonable. It’s time for American voters — who are increasingly single — to stop judging politicians by their marital status.
Today, Americans are more likely to be single than at almost any other time in history. In 2018, the marriage rate fell to its lowest since the federal government began keeping records of it in 1867. In 2022, the percentage of people who had never been married rose to 34%, up from 23% in 1950, according to Census Bureau data. So, it would be statistically unusual if one of our major presidential candidates weren’t single.
It is also worth noting that Scott has been making inroads with evangelical Christians for years. In July, he heavily targeted this demographic in Iowa with a new ad campaign. The senator has argued in the past that his bachelor status could be more of a benefit than a hindrance because it allows him “more time, more energy, and more latitude to do the job.”
Another point worth mentioning is that former President Donald Trump managed to win over evangelical voters despite being a twice-married man who wasn’t exactly faithful to his former spouses. This seems to suggest that right-leaning voters might be open to supporting someone who is not a traditional type.
In the end, Scott’s romantic life should not be a factor as it would not affect his ability to govern. What is most important are his policy stances, vision for the country, and whether he can do the job for which he is running.
What value is a first relationship, presumed, to a man in his 50’s?
Tim Scott endorsed Lisa Murkowski over her conservative opponent.
He’s just another member of the uni-party.
There’s no value in it (if he’s gay).
There is little value in it if he was straight either. If you’ve gone all your life as a single man, that becomes comfortable and lifelong single people don’t want to make time for somebody in their life.
Good for him. Think of all the moeny saved not having a wife spend it on white house trivialities. No special white house staffers for her either. Less SS/security costs.
This has been discussed a few times, here on Free Republic. Some Freepers hold it against Tim Scott, that he isn’t married. Those Freepers feel its required that you be married.
I disagree, but some of our fellow Freepers see marriage as a requirement.
See if some show up here to explain themselves.
.
We need a Senator for Prez like we need Martial Law.
We need another RINO like we need more Debt.
I’d much rather have a single man as president than a loser with a wife like Big Mike, Dr. Jill or Hillary.
“Scott, 57”
Many women of similar age are widows who might get a deceased husband’s Social Security when they reach age 62.
Marriage might also impact the divorce arrangements a lady friend might have made.
We don’t need evidence, here on Free Republic. People here drop these bombastic one liners, sometimes using vulgar language , and think they have made some impressive point,
Scott has reached the highest point in politics he is likely to get to.
I went to his web page and he seems to be even more money hungry than the Massachusetts warrior was.
It only matters to those who practice ID politics.
Today’s WSJ has an article about two guys splendidly fixing up exceptional mid-century houses in California.
I would vote for Tim Scott against the democrat. However, Tim Scott has been disappointing. He is my disappearing Senator.
If he’s not representing you or showing up to local events, that would be a reason to vote against him on merit.
If I were a representative, I’d think it would be my obligation to show up for local events and I shouldn’t hesitate to do so because of my willingness to represent my people.
Exactly. When you have children, you think about the world you will be leaving them.
One of my biggest concerns right now is if my kids will ever be able to own their own home. This trumps many of the concerns I had before I brought my own children into the world.
What are the donors afraid of? A second gay African-American president?
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.