As conversation fodder, here’s a quick recap of how the candidates we endorsed did on Tuesday:
WON — Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham,
the quintessential conservative Republican, is an erudite advocate of
reason and sound policy, taking courageous stands that make him a
leader in the Senate.
RECOUNT — Michael Cone appears to be the stronger of two
weak Democratic candidates for the same office.
WON — GOP Rep. Joe Wilson
is dedicated to the service of the 2nd Congressional District, and his
views come closer than his opponent’s to those of his constituents.
LOST — Democrat Blaine Lotz,
also seeking the 2nd District seat, is an Air Force veteran and former
assistant secretary of defense, and well grounded in both foreign and
domestic issues.
RECOUNT? — Democratic state Rep. John Scott
and his opponent have similar positions, and electing his opponent to
succeed Sen. Kay Patterson in District 19 would seem like a reward for
the unacceptable state of the Richland 1 schools he has overseen for 16
years.
WON — Democratic Sen. Darrell Jackson
(District 21) understands our state’s challenges and is focused on
fixing the way we fund education, and improving public health and
financial literacy. He has a good track record of working across party
lines to get things done.
IN RUNOFF — The pro-voucher/anti-government groups
that are trying to intimidate our Legislature would claim credit if so
powerful an incumbent as GOP Sen. Jake Knotts (District 23) was defeated, strengthening their hand in a battle that goes far beyond their immediate issues.
WON — Richland County Council Chairman Joe McEachern,
a Democrat running to succeed Mr. Scott in House District 77, would
work to free local governments from the constraints of meddling
legislators, overhaul the broken tax system, restructure state
government and provide a good public education for all children.
WON — Michael Koska’s
campaign for the Republican nomination in District 77 grows out of his
grassroots involvement in local transportation issues. He would be more
effective than his off-putting opponent.
IN RUNOFF — Republican David Herndon
seeks to replace Rep. Bill Cotty in District 79 to make sure an avid
voucher proponent doesn’t win. He is committed to improving the public
schools, in part to strengthen the economy, and he’s fairly
knowledgeable about tax policy.
WON — Democratic Rep. Joe Neal’s
(District 70) depth of knowledge in education and health care is
impressive, and he fights effectively for equal educational opportunity
for children regardless of their address, to force attention to the
medical needs of those too sick to care for themselves and to promote
civil justice.
WON — Democratic Rep. Jimmy Bales’
(District 80) work as a high school principal gave him the real-life
understanding of the challenges of educating poor children that most
legislators lack; and he appreciates the need to overhaul our tax
system and to give the governor more control over state agencies.
WON — Democratic Rep. Chris Hart
(District 83) is focused on the big picture that his challenger shows
little interest in, and he is committed to creating a stronger public
education system to help transform our state.
LOST — Republican Mike Miller
understands our state’s problems, wants to bring more services to
District 96 rather than more parades and seems more supportive of
improving public schools than the incumbent.
WON — Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott,
a Democrat, established a cutting-edge DNA testing lab, has been in the
forefront in the battle against gangs and engages citizens through his
innovative community advisory board and community policing programs.
WON — Lexington County Sheriff James Metts, a Republican, is an accomplished, experienced law enforcement officer who has implemented groundbreaking programs.
WON — Democratic incumbent Damon Jeter has the experience and broader focus to make him the better choice in Richland County Council District 3.
LOST — Democrat Johnny Bland has been active in the community and area schools and outshines his opponents in Richland Council District 7.
WON — Republican Val Hutchinson,
running for re-election in Richland District 9, is an effective leader
who has promoted good growth, called on developers to help provide
infrastructure, opposed the proliferation of billboards and objected to
an unneeded baseball park.
WON — In Richland District 10, Democrat Kelvin Washington has a firm grasp of issues, understands how county government works and would hit the ground running.
IN RUNOFF — Richland County Democratic Clerk of Court Barbara Scott
WON — Richland County Coroner
Gary Watts (Democrat)
WON — Lexington County Republican Auditor Chris Harmon
WON — Lexington County Republican Clerk of Court Beth Carrigg.
At least, I THINK all of those are right. I just worked up a ferocious headache ALT-TABBING back and forth and clicking. Please holler if you spot any errors.
Also, I’d appreciate it if someone would check my math. Among our endorsees, I count:
- 16 won.
- 3 lost.
- 3 are in runoffs.
- 2 are in recounts.
So that means that after the runoffs and recounts, our worst-case scenario would be 16 won, 8 lost (batting .667) and our best-case would be 21 won, 3 lost (batting .875). Logically, one would expect something between the two.
Of course, as I always explain, endorsements are not predictions. They’re about who should win, not who will win. But since some people like to say, inaccurately, "you got it right" or "you got it wrong," based on outcomes, I bow to the inevitable and try to at least give them the right numbers. (And again, holler if I got something wrong. I’m insecure because of the headache, and because no one’s here to check behind me.)
I’m gonna go home now.
Related Posts
You said it Brad-o!!!
“a battle that goes far beyond…immediate issues.”
Way, way, way out there beyond. It could potentially take an alternate universe to SETTLE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who did the song “Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere?”
If you hit 75% of the winners right, congratulations. You played it safe enough.
Da da da da da dum dum dee
Answer: Neil Young.
I just looked it up. I’m not as old as you people are.
And what, pray tell, do you consider to be the “safe” calls, p.m.?
If I were trying to be safe — and didn’t care which candidates really would be best, just trying to make the “safe” call — the easy thing would be to endorse those most likely to lose. Then I could strut around until the next election, saying everything would be better if the voters had only listened to me.
One of the hardest things for a journalist — and this may be counterintuitive for you — is to be FOR something, to affirm someone in a way that matters. The easy pose is to be against the person in office, or the person likely to win. By endorsing an incumbent, or the person most likely to win, I become in some measure accountable for how that person conducts himself in office.
Think about it — how much vehement criticism, even outright hostility, comes down on my head on this blog (and elsewhere) because we, however reluctantly, endorsed W?
Journalists like being the critic. It’s easier to field complaints for being “negative” than to accept blame for someone or something you supported going wrong, or being unpopular.
Now, all of that said, I can turn around and make the opposite argument — that it’s nifty to have people (who will insist on seeing endorsements as predictions, no matter what I say or do) see you as being “right,” by having your candidates win.
But if that motivates me, do you really think I couldn’t have HIGHER “success” numbers?
Bottom line, I honestly don’t know what the “safe” course is, in terms of any general rule of thumb to follow in endorsements. So it’s a good thing for me that I just do my best to choose the person that I think would do the best job in office. That most voters agree with me a lot of the time isn’t inherently a bad thing…
The safe course is to endorse the candidates most likely to win, thereby making the fewest enemies.
The safer course, and the one I think preferable, is to avoid local endorsements completely.
Man I haven’t seen such suck up comments since the last executive retirement party I attended.
Endorsements by editors of The State influence no one, but they do provide insight into their warped political philosophies.
p.m., you nailed it! The safe course is not to do endorsements.
Interesting that Lee thinks most voters have “warped political philosophies.” At least they’re not deviant, huh? I mean, statistically speaking…
Interesting Brad can’t respond like an adult to my observation that no one I know cares one bit about endorsements by the paper, but it does offer direct explanations by the editors of the warped political philosophies which drive their other editorials, columns, and news templates. Thanks for sharing.
As for who is influenced, it’s interesting. When Cindi gets back next week, I’ll have to ask her to remind me about some of the trends she’s noted in the past.
The broad version is that on statewide votes, or statewide movements, there is a tendency for our position on the issue or our chosen candidate to do better in the central counties where our circulation penetration is strongest than in the rest of the state. There’s no way to establish a cause-and-effect relationship, but I remember having seen intriguing figures.
An extremely unscientific and anecdotal example would be the governor’s effort to stack the Legislature with his allies. Tom Davis seems to have prevailed, and Rita Allison is a lock, but in the Midlands, the best Katrina Shealy and Sheri Few could do Tuesday was get into a runoff.
But such comparisons don’t hold water when you dig into them. For instance, you can’t really compare Tom Davis to Ms. Shealy or Ms. Few. We would have gone into that one, had it been in the Midlands, with a strong liking for Tom. Unless Catherine Ceips had been really strong (and frankly, I’ve never sat down and talked issues with her, so I don’t know), we’d have endorsed him.
The bottom line: Shouters like Lee love to dismiss the effect of endorsements. So do candidates who don’t GET endorsements. Those who do, or those who hope to, seem to think they’re really important. For my part, I make no claims one way or the other. The purpose is to provoke thought. The way Lee says that is “provide insight into (our) warped political philosophies.”
Taking off on something I said in that last graf — it’s amazing how quickly candidates can transform themselves from people who really, really want our endorsements and think they’re really, really important into people who couldn’t care less and are GLAD they didn’t get our endorsement. I think Aesop had something to say about that; it had to do with a fox and some inaccessible grapes.
Brad,
I think Lee’s question is valid. How many voters do you believe made their decision based on The State’s endorsement?
Circulation for the The State runs around 110,000. Of that number, how many people do you think:
a) Read the endorsement
b) Agreed with the endorsement
c) Used the endorsement as a factor in
making a final decision on who to
vote for
c) Actually went out and cast a ballot
Take Lindsey Graham for example. How many of the 70% of the votes do you feel The State is responsible for influencing enough to make a decision? And how many of the 30% who voted against him do you think did so because The State did endorse him?
I am highly skeptical about the power of editorial endorsements to impact any more than some tiny percentage of voters… my guess would be 1-2% at best.
Probably more voters, if they are unfamiliar with the candidates, will vote AGAINST the one endorsed by The State editors.
What puzzles me, Mr. Warthen, is how important The State’s endorsements seem to you, when most voters just couldn’t be subscribers and most subscribers probably didn’t pay much attention to the endorsements The State made.
Honestly, in the local races, why would you think your detail-free endorsements would mean much to anybody other than the candidates themselves?
Journalists live in an echo chamber, writing to impress each other.
Endorsements, like most of the stuff in the paper, is based on outdated templates.