Sanford wins SC GOP run off, shows television can trump tradition(Sanford 58, Peeler 42)

The State ^ | June 25, 2002 | JIM DAVENPORT

[jern]

Sanford wins, shows television can trump tradition
JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Former U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford handily won the Republican gubernatorial runoff Tuesday, advancing to the November election where he will take on first-term Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges.

The primary and runoff contest shows South Carolina's voters can be swayed by a campaign that relied more on television time than traditional get-out-the-vote efforts.

With 91 percent of the state's precincts reporting, Sanford had 58 percent to Peeler's 42 percent. Sanford had won the June 11 primary by about 3,100 votes.

"It's the triumph of a different style of campaigning," Scott Huffmon, a Winthrop University political scientist said.

It was also a demonstration of how not to wage a negative campaign.

Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler had been running ads questioning Sanford's U.S. House voting record since the June 11 primary. Observers said Peeler had to do something immediately to move voters away Sanford.

But Peeler went too far, Huffmon said.

"Peeler's ads, I think, backfired," he said. While negative campaigns can be successful, Peeler's were off in taste and tone, he said. It "was not a well-executed negative campaign."

That showed up in voter's voices as they headed to the polls Tuesday.

"I voted for Peeler in the primary. I felt like he had eight years experience here, and Sanford had experience there," in Washington, said Scott Thigpen, 41, of Columbia. "But the attacks and the negative campaigning swayed me.

"I think Peeler hung himself," Thigpen said.

Thigpen wasn't the only one turned off by the ads. Former Gov. Carroll Campbell, who helped unify the state's modern Republican Party, came to Sanford's defense and endorsed him in a television ad after a Peeler ad said Sanford voted against military and veterans issues.

Kay Miller, a 47-year-old Chapin housewife, said she also was turned off by negative commercials and backed Sanford.

"I think Peeler got shocked by the runoff, and I think he hit below the belt," she said.

But Peeler didn't turn all voters off.

Karen Miller, a 21-year-old University of South Carolina student, said she typically votes for Democrats but cast her ballot for Peeler. "For me to like Republicans is really rare," she said. "I just want to make sure he gets into the race. If Peeler doesn't get it, I'd vote for Hodges."

Roger Wood, a production manager at Michelin, didn't vote in the primary, but came out to support Peeler in the runoff.

"I guess the deciding factor was the voting record of Sanford," Wood said. "That notion that he was a rebel, an outcast, pushed me over to Peeler. I think the facts show that Sanford was a loner."

Sanford will have to move quickly to raise money as he faces Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges, who has raised $4.5 million for his re-election campaign.

"It's like looking up the side of Mount Everest," Sanford said.

Hodges wasted little time trying to set the agenda for the months of campaigning ahead. Before the polls even closed, he called on Tuesday's winner to agree to four televised debates in different parts of the state with the first Monday in Columbia. "We need to get back to talking about our schools," Hodges said.

"Give me a break," Sanford said. "It's a political gimmick." Sanford said he welcomes future debates, but not so close to the end of a "the most exhausting two weeks of my life." Later, he wants detailed debates that don't boil down to sound bites, "but really more the Lincoln-Douglas, full-scale, comprehensive debate where you get into details on issues," Sanford said.

[Theodore R.]

How many voted in the GOP runoff? If it is a low number, would that be considered an advantage for Hodges. Not being in SC, I don't know for sure, but I would think Sanford will be a more effective general election campaigner than would Peeler. However, I dislike the fact that both Graham and Sanford were McCainiacs. I think I read some while ago that Sanford is a distanct cousin of the late NC Democrat liberal Governor and Senator Terry Sanford. Is this correct?

[DoughtyOne]

[OldFriend]

Bloomberg beat Mark Green in New York with an almost totally TV commercial campaign. His ads were brilliant.

[SoCar]

About 300,000 people voted in the primary run-off today. I'm new to the state but they're saying that the turn out was good.

I voted for Peeler and I'm disappoined that I'll have to vote for two McCainiacs this November, but I will.

[Anotherpundit]

I was at the Sanford victory party here in Charleston. Lots of folks.

I honestly think that sanford was the better candidate -- his focus is more on real economic issues, and that's where South Carolina is really far behind.

[Lady In Blue]

Did you see this?

[SoCar]

I think they were both focused on economic issues and actually pretty close on most things. I thought it was a bit phoney the way all the sudden in the Republican primary he says his support of McInsane was a mistake. Sure, when he saw it might hurt him. It was tough for Peeler, Sanford was the media darling throughout, much like McInsane.

Sanford also has to learn to toughen up and not be so thin skinned. His constant whining and playing the victim turned me off. If he think Peeler's ads were tough, how's going to handle Hodges. But hey, what do I know? People here must like the "poor victim" role since Sanford won in a landslide.

Sorry if I sound bitter, but I am a little. I can't believe so many of my fellow Republicans actually went for Sanford over the Bush supporter and better guy Peeler.

No problem. I'll get over it and hold my nose to vote for Sanford in November.

[agrandis]

Geeze! South Carolina is a great and conservative state - can't y'all do better than a runoff between Hodges and Sanford?? Why is a conservative, no-nonsense population stuck with two statist, stomach-turning, phoney balognas? Doesn't make sense.

[SoCar]

I don't get it either. I cannot figure out why so many conservatives voted for Sanford. It's pathetic that such a great state has Hodges and Hollings.

I've only been here a little over a year so you'll have to get an explanation from someone else.

[Anotherpundit]

I think a lot of conservatives were swayed by three things:

1) Sanford said he'd only be up there for six years. After six years, he left. I don't personally support term limits, but I have to respect a man that abides by his word on things like that. An incumbency in south carolina is, essentially, a career for life; you have to be impressed by someone who walks away like that just to keep his word.

2) Sanford is cheap. He really is. He takes fiscal responsibility to whole new levels -- he slept on the floor of his office in Washington for chrissakes.

3) Also, I felt that Peeler didn't really have enough experience in office. Lt. Governor in South Carolina is essentially a sinecure, and he hadn't held any significant office. Sanford has.

Finally, while Peeler and Sanford are both conservative, Peeler comes a little more from the cultural side of the conservative movement, while sanford's focus was a little more economic, imho -- and SC needs economic work more than it needs cultural work. It also seemed like Sanford had more concrete ideas and specific proposals than Peeler did.

[wimpycat]

Sanford is relatively conservative, but quirky and eccentric, which ought to suit the people of South Carolina very well, IMHO. He is very cheap; he'll do his best not to waste taxpayer money. Aside from sleeping in his office, one time he sent his staff to pick up the "trash" left outside the door of a lame-duck congresswoman. The "trash" was her new shipment of congressional letterhead, which she would not be needing anymore. So Sanford's staff picked it up and used it as fax paper.

[hchutch]

Style, I think also had a lot to do with it. From the report, it looks like Peeler was playing slash-and-burn, and if you burn too many bridges, you will ultimately lose elections.

Let's take Hodges down, and hope Peeler or Condon can take Hollings down in 2004.

[CWW]

Mark was one of my fraternity brothers at Furman University. He's a great guy. I wish we had him here in Alabama!

[Mamzelle]

I voted for Sandford. Didn't like Peeler's red-meat ads...I began to think that Harpootlian (Head of the SC Dems, and also the President of the Trial Lawyers--owns Hodges and Hollings and their first born) might be behind the ads, trying to wound the GOP canididate so that his lapdog Hodges would have an easier time of it.

Sandford is a standup guy...I don't want a demagogue, but more of a George Bush type.

[rohry]

"Didn't like Peeler's red-meat ads..."

Those ads were unbelievable! For people who don't live in SC, you can't understand what a "fingernails across the chalkboard" experience they were. I listen to a lot of AM radio and there were 5 or 6 negative ads per hour. There was never any discussion of issues. I heard that Peeler was more conservative but I never heard any evidence of that. All I heard was bills that Sanford voted on in 1995, or that they go to church, drive a pickup etc.

[Redbob]

"Karen Miller, a 21-year-old University of South Carolina student, said she typically votes for Democrats but..."

Oh yeah, she's been voting for Dims for a long time, I can tell!
</sarcasm>

[RightWinger]

South Carolinians didn't vote for Goober Hodges, they voted against David Beesley. Beesley was a liar and wouldn't give them the lottery. The lottery is Goober Hodges's only accomplishment. He has a lot of negatives.

I voted for Peeler too but Mark Sanford will be very good fiscally for the state.

Go Mark!!!

[Big Steve]

I have seen this, LiB. Check this post out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/news/706488/posts