Well, the polls have closed now in South Carolina, and if the weather back home has been anything like the way it’s been where I am, the turnout was probably pretty low today for runoffs.
So here is a recap of some of the info I provided on primary day, plus some new stuff, starting with … my runoff predictions (which you can compare to my predictions from a couple of weeks ago, if you’d like):
- Treasurer: T-Rav. Duh.
- Lieutenant governor: Mike Campbell. I don’t expect him to run away with it, though.
- House District 96: Kit Spires. I don’t think Ken Clark can overcome the deficit from two weeks ago so quickly, not with turnout like this. If I were he I’d run as a write-in for the fall. He’s such a better representative than Mr. Spires could ever hope to be, and that is so obvious to anyone to whom he gets to present his case, that I cannot believe that any electorate would not choose him if he gets his message out well enough.
- Richland County Council District 1: William Malinowski.
- Lexington County Council District 7: This one is a tougher call, but I’m going to go with our endorsee John Carrigg over once-and-would-be-again councilman Art Guerry.
I think that’s all the ones we wrote about in the last couple of weeks. Let me know if I left somebody out.
Here are some more links you might find informative or conducive to dialogue as you contemplate returns:
- Handy election-night info
- Our endorsements
- Notes from endorsement interviews
- Why do we endorse?
- Candidate Web sites
Related Posts
Jeeze Brad…
What will it say about YOU and the STATE newspaper if Campbell does not run away this election? You did everything in your power to insure the outcome in Mr. Campbell’s favor…reporting endlessly on the warts of Mr. Bauer, and speaking glowingly of Mr. Campbell. It must surely be your best effort.
So on election night, dear Brad, kick back with your friends and a drink, and watch your work unfold. Arrogance is a fine tonic…and u have had your share, so enjoy.
And the rest of us can wonder what this man Campbell has done in his life to be elected to anything…let alone the second highest office in the state. I suppose spending Dad’s money can be trying…so maybe your man has learned something from his “toil”.
But at least the gambling interests and the outrageous payday loan people and the rest of the high dollar guys will be pleased. And so will Jenny…so you have had a good day.
Cheers
SO – my good friend Andre looks poised to win…despite the best efforts of Brad and The State.
Andre didn’t need my vote today. He won by over 4,000.
I guess South Carolinians prefer a daredevil over an empty suit.
I know how you feel tonight, Mr. Campbell.
I ran for school board in 2002 and finished last. You’ll find out who your real friends are tomorrow.
Maybe try and do something besides run on your father’s name next time.
Well, looks as if The State struck out on all 3 of tonight’s top races. Good!
Ken Clark lost. When I voted for Spires this afternoon, Clark was actually at my precinct. To his credit, we talked for about 30 minutes and I’m grateful to him for taking the time. He is undoubtedly a nice man and seems sincere in his beliefs. If it weren’t for politics we would probably get along great.
But politics is what it’s all about in this race so that’s what we talked about. Since he was there, I thought it the decent thing to do to personally let him know why I voted against him. Ken clearly isn’t much of a listener but instead likes to hear himself talk. Although I told him that I had visited his website and read his bio, voting record and platform, he still basically gave me a somewhat edited one-listener version of his stump speech. Instead of letting me simply take 2 or 3 minutes to give him my reasons for voting against him, and then maybe an equal amount of time for him to reply as he wished, he insisted on basically telling me why he was right and I, the voter, was wrong. In other words, he was the “enlightened” one and I just didn’t know what was good for the state. Bottom line was that he probably talked close to 25 of the 30 minutes or so. You just don’t win many elections with that attitude. And this was after I had voted already! You would think that knowing that my vote couldn’t be changed would make him more inclined to listen than talk, in hopes of learning from his mistakes and do better next time. You would think wrong!
Some of the things that stood out:
– he told me of his son, who in the last days of segregation attended one of those private academies that were all the rage back then to keep white kids out of public schools. Everything he heard from the school (somewhere around Swansea) was great and he thought his kid was doing really well. Then he moved up to Virginia and a couple of weeks later the public school there told him how badly his son was doing and that he was way behind where he should have been. That to him was “proof” that private schools weren’t better than public schools. Never mind that this was around 40 years ago or so. For one year his son didn’t do well in a private school so public schools must be better. Then I told him about my son who graduated from a public school 5 years ago and did so well that he got a complete free ride from Clemson. Yet when he arrived at Clemson the first thing he had to do was complete several remedial courses learning stuff that the public school already should have taught him. Stuff you definitely would have expected a top student to have learned already, especially with the great grades he kept getting. Faced with this direct failure of the public school system Ken Clark was clearly at a loss for words for the only time during that 30 minutes.
– one other time he took a couple of seconds before continuing when I explained the most painless way we could have school choice. Simply issue each student a voucher for roughly the same amount the school district is spending per kid. Then if the parent is happy with the public school and wants to keep the kid there, the voucher would simply be attached to the registration paperwork. Cost to the district would be minimal. Just the fact that parents now would have a choice and could pull out their kids if the school doesn’t measure up would light a fire under the educrats’ fannies.
– when I mentioned that I didn’t appreciate the fact that he supported the governor on only 13% of the budget vetoes, he tried to tell me that the overridden vetoes amounted to “only” 0.5 percent of the budget. The overridden vetoes for 2005 actually amounted to about $90 million which out of a state budget of almost $6B is about 1.5%, 3 times as much as Clark claimed. ONLY $90 million! Even at Clark’s claimed 0.5% (=$30 million) that amounts to the entire income tax revenue from about 5,000 citizens paying the same amount I do – all flushed down the toilet for some crazy boondoggles.That’s what happens to people like Clark when they find themselves in a position of power and able to spend other people’s money on their pork projects. ONLY $90 million! The arrogance! The hubris! You know what they say: a few $million here and a few $million there and pretty soon you’re talking about real money. Clark has clearly long ago left the realm of what most of his constituents would consider “real money”. For most, even $1 million or half a million would set them for life (heck, Kit Spires would probably sell his pharmacy for $1 million) but for Clark $90 million is in “only” territory.
Simply out of touch with his district.
yehaw!!!!!!!!!!!! Andre wins!
Now Brad…it is still early…so u can continue your work. Just repeat after me… Candidate Barber is great, Barber is perfect, Barber is wonderful…and, of course, Bauer is crap, Bauer is the devil, Bauer is ax murderer….
thats the mantra…so easy it is…start now, write bad things early and write bad things often…it is the Brad way.
Andre just credited his victory to “the Rialta”, or the “power of the Rialta”…does anyone know what this means?
Dear Brad and your uninformed cohorts,
Who would bet on a politician to win that has no support from the states largest newspaper, the TV media, his opponent is the former governors son, had all his bad publicity and none of the good work publicized at any time – how could that happen????? Welcome to a real person, a sinner like everyone else that relates and listens to the common people, works for his political paycheck, and tells the truth… Meet Andre Bauer!!!! Against all odds…now what are you going to write Brad??? How about an apology?? Even Andre admits his mistakes. Is anyone at The State able to admit their errors in judgement. You dont know the man, but you get to live with him for 4 more years as he is going to be the Lt Governor in November. Want to bet against him now????…
This blog certainly attracts some, uh … interesting personalities.
Heh. At least they aren’t jerks.
Well, there’s always that consolation.
Interesting math, though. "Struck out on all 3 of tonights’s top races."
Say what? Let’s see — I made five predictions. I was right on four. Of our endorsements (and I realize some folks still confuse the two despite all the times the difference has been explained), three out of five were successful.
I don’t know. Anyway, I’m on vacation. Maybe one of these smart folk who know so much more than I do will explain the numbers to me next week.
Let me rephrase that, Brad. I knew what I meant but wasn’t clear enough. Mea culpa.
What I actually meant is that your 3 out-of-favor candidates (Bauer, Ravenel, and Clark) all won. Just to head you off, Ravenel was not your initial endorsements so I don’t count him among your endorsements or preferred candidates.
In other words, this runoff election was a clear win of the smaller government side and a clear rebuff of your elitist, big-spender preferences.
Rats, getting late. Obviously Spires won, not Clark.
If only we could throw out all the bums who keep overriding the governor’s vetoes. Including the billboard giveaway crowd.
Exactly, Dave. That’s why I don’t vote for incumbents unless they’ve done a great job or their opponent is orders of magnitude more undesireable than the incumbent is.
Toss those rascals out!
“In other words, this runoff election was a clear win of the smaller government side and a clear rebuff of your elitist, big-spender preferences.”
That is almost too stupid to even consider.
You aren’t focusing on reality if you think Mike Campbell, Jeff Willis and Ken Clark were in favor of big government spending programs.
Saying that about Jeff Willis is like saying Bill Clinton didn’t enjoy the company of women.
Who’s Jeff Willis? Whatever his other merits might be, I wasn’t aware that he was ever a significant factor in this race.
As a general rule, politicians rarely ever get the State’s endorsement unless they tend to the big-government, big-spender variety. The only times I’ve ever seen this rule broken is when the opponents were some real bigtime doofuses or if incumbents disappointed the State’s high hopes and didn’t deliver big government programs.
Right
Let’s review….
Mark Sanford and David Beasley were all huge tax and spend guys. (umm, no)
The State endorsed Greg Ryberg for goodness sakes. Sen Ryberg is in Mark Sanford’s camp and one of the few senators that seems to fall in line with the huge liberal – Mark Sanford. (sarcasm thick)
George Bush was endorsed over John Kerry.
YOu may not like Mike Campbell, but screaming liberal he isn’t. Andre and Mike just have different approaches. Their conservative views aren’t in question.
I don’t think you pay attention. Just spout off some with no facts.
Reread the exceptions again!
LOL –
yeah, except for all the exceptions to your statement- you’d be right.
Such as…….?
In other words, this runoff election was a clear win of the smaller government side and a clear rebuff of your elitist, big-spender preferences.”
Did those preferences just surface in this past runoff?
Brad, and the editorial board were some of the biggest supporters of Mark Sanford I have ever seen out of a newspaper board.
No one thought Mark was a liberal and just changed when he got elected governor.
No “big spender” mentality person would ever, ever, ever, have even considered voting for Mark Sanford.
But even before than, a “big spender” newspaper board would have endorsed John Kerry – even though under the Bush watch, government spending has spiraled toward the sky fast.
David,
maybe you should stick to sportstalk – you’re not really good at comprehending. Here is my statement again:
“As a general rule, politicians rarely ever get the State’s endorsement unless they tend to the big-government, big-spender variety. The only times I’ve ever seen this rule broken is when the opponents were some real bigtime doofuses or if incumbents disappointed the State’s high hopes and didn’t deliver big government programs.”
Wouldn’t you agree that Hodges and Kerry clearly fell in that doofus category, thus making your last 2 or 3 posts utterly irrelevant?
Hodges had the additional disqualification of being for the lottery which Brad hates with a passion, plus he didn’t throw enough money at public education. There was no way Brad ever would have endorsed Hodges over Sanford. Even a 3-legged, one-eyed, yellow dog would have had a better chance at getting Brad’s endorsement.
Lex –
Brad doesn’t make up the endorsements by himself. Whether he was for the lottery or not really doesn’t matter – he gets one vote – not the sole vote on the matter.
THe lottery provided the perfect opportunity for a big government program. WE created an entire new oversight system and state agency with the lottery – a liberal big spenders dream come true.
I think The State paper has liked many various candidates over the years. Some more liberal, some more Conservative.
Most people just remember the ones the paper picked that they didn’t like.
People are funny that way.