The headline in the paper over the weekend said, “S.C. Democrats: ‘We’re coming back'”:
S.C. Democrats still are smarting from a brutal November that stripped them of one of their two congressional seats, their only statewide office and a handful of General Assembly seats.
But, after some serious post-election number crunching, the state party contends Palmetto State Democrats fared better than Democrats in other states — whose candidates were clobbered by wide margins, too — and actually grew their ranks, laying the groundwork for a comeback.
“We’ve grown our base. These new numbers show we’re not dead and done like some people say,” said Jay Parmley, director of the S.C. Democratic Party. “Yes, we lost everything, but we’re coming back.”…
And what that headline tells us is, SC Democrats are delusional.
Oh, I’m not saying that it’s impossible that some new megatrend that has not yet been spotted by anyone could begin a reversal of the process that started in 1964, when Strom Thurmond joined the Republican Party, and white folks across the state started following him — first in a trickle, then in an accelerating flood.
What I’m saying is that there is no evidence extant at this time to believe that the Democrats are reversing nearly five decades of history trending against them in this state.
Certainly not the main “evidence” the optimists, whistling past their own partisan political graveyard, cite.
Vincent Sheheen’s strong showing is by no means a good sign for Democrats. Vincent Sheheen didn’t do that well because he was a Democrat. He did that well in spite of being a Democrat.
Vincent Sheheen was obviously a stronger candidate, who would clearly have been a better governor, than Nikki Haley. This could not be hidden from SC voters. They liked him better. But he lost, barely, because there are so many white folks in this state who would rather poke themselves in the eye with a sharp stick than pull the lever for a Democrat. His being a Democrat was therefore a huge liability.
If he had NOT been a Democrat — if he and Nikki had both run as Republicans, or if voters had somehow been kept ignorant of the party identification of the two candidates or, if you’ll allow me to dream (and Lord, hasten the day!), no candidate had had ANY party label — then he would have won.
This was obvious. Other statewide Republican candidates, in this huge year for Republicans nationally (and if you will recall, Nikki did everything she could to make the campaign national, running against Barack Obama instead of Vincent Sheheen, who was more likable than she) won in landslides. We’re talking double-digit margins. As I wrote right after the election:
It was so evident that Nikki was the voters’ least favorite statewide Republican (yes, Mick Zais got a smaller percentage, but there were several “third party” candidates; Frank Holleman still got fewer votes than Vincent). I look at it this way: Mark Hammond sort of stands as the generic Republican. Nobody knows who he is or what he does, so he serves as a sort of laboratory specimen of what a Republican should have expected to get on Nov. 2, 2010, given the prevailing political winds. He got 62 percent of the vote.
Even Rich Eckstrom — and this is truly remarkable given his baggage, and the witheringly negative campaign that Robert Barber ran against him — got 58 percent…
Oh, for those of you who don’t know, Mark Hammond is the secretary of state. Voters, by and large, don’t know that. All they knew was that he was labeled “Republican.”
That Nikki Haley, with her 51 percent, didn’t come anywhere close to their margins testified to voter discomfort with her (as opposed to a generic Republican like Hammond), and to the strength of her opponent (because SOME of those voters who went for the GOP in every other race voted for Vincent).
If she hadn’t had an R after her name, and he hadn’t had a D, he would be governor now.
And Democrats who say otherwise are fooling themselves.
Related Posts
Quick – those of you who voted for Vincent Sheheen – what were the two or three primary issues Sheheen ran on? Your answer cannot include the words Sanford or Haley.
The only way a Democrat can win in this state is if they pick ONE issue and beat it to death. Jobs or education. Pick one. And then have the guts to say things like “I WILL TAKE DOWN THE CONFEDERATE FLAG” or “THE PRESENT CONDITIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA IS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF BOBBY HARRELL AND HUGH LEATHERMAN”.
A candidate with any sort of fire-in-the-belly and the ability to motivate the Democratic base should have been able to beat Haley. Sheheen never made a compelling argument. He didn’t win votes, he gained the ones Haley lost. Big difference.
And he’s disappeared into the woods ever since his loss. Where’s the supposed leader of the Democratic party?
FWIW, I have used the services of Mark Hammond, Secretary of State, as well as those of the Secretaries of State of pretty much all 50 states–they register corporations and LLCs,among other things, and I have to say that Mark Hammond runs a very customer friendly office. I’d vote for him despite his being a Republican.
I’m reminded of what Timothy Leary said about Ireland, that anyone with any brains left during the Potato Famine.
I’d say that SC going further down the tubes and Gov. Haley herself would be two of the best things going for Democrats in the near future in this state, but voters here have this weird tendency to blame the party out-of-power for the ills of the state, to respond to farcical government by saying “let’s get MORE conservative, let’s vote MORE Republicans in.” So SC Dems can forget that.
Seriously, though, in the longer term, that recent census data about which you posted some days ago stands as the most promising news for the revival of two-party politics in this state. That will take some time, however.
“But he lost, barely, because there are so many white folks in this state who would rather poke themselves in the eye with a sharp stick than pull the lever for a Democrat.”
As I’ve said several times over the past three months, put an “R” after Stalin’s name and even he’d win in South Carolina. I was half joking at first, but now I’m not so sure.
For people who take such pride in being “independent and free,” South Carolinians certainly have a herd mentality. It amazes me a great deal, I guess, because I remember when “everyone” was a Democrat, and it was sometimes truly dangerous to be an outspoken Republican in this state. Now Stalin probably would win if he could run as a Republican here. Fascinating but not in a good way. Of course, many current South Carolina Republicans are really Libertarians. Sad that more of us don’t care enough to take the time to try to understand what is happening to our state. See Cyndi’s new editorial about SC’s per capita tax collections. We are choking ourselves to death. South Carolina—the Suicide State.
We do have a two party system in South Carolina: Republicans and Tea Party adherents. It’s the same as before; when the Tea Party was basically the Dixiecrat wing of the Southern Democrats. The Republicans then were as much of a mash-up of discordant views (just like today).
Democratic or Republican political affiliation is such a misnomer in the South. We need new names – like the Socially Reactionary Party and the Liberal Conservative Party – to better reflect what’s really going on around here.
Perhaps age is a factor, but many people do not recall the Democrat law that required a political party to field a full slate of candidates. It was called the “Full Slate” requirement. In the days when there were no Republican office holders in the State the law required people to vote for the number of people to be elected to the State Legislature. So, if the county had four votes in the State Legislature the voters had to vote for four. When the Party began its revitalizetion, in 1959, people were fearful of sating they were Republicans and few would offer as candidates. Thus if only one Republican ran for for the Legislature the voter had to vote for three Democrats. Plainly this made it arithmetically impossible for a Republican to win. This was a law specificically to maintain clomplete Democrat control of the State Legislature and other offices. Nothin since has been so corroupt and it is likely the reason many people today are dissatisfied with the Legislature regardless of Party label.
A Democrat getting 47% in an open gubernatorial election in SC is pretty respectable. Then again, that was largely attributed to a larger than expected anti-Haley vote – Sheheen certainly didn’t fo that well by offering any sort of appealing message to the voters. But it doesn’t look like the SCDP is doing much at all to build on their “success” in the 2010 gov’s race.
The best thing for the SCDP would have been to never have Joe Erwin leave the picture and for him to have run for governor in 2010 (which was the plan all along). That type of charismatic businessman who can put together a real campaign would have been their best hope.