As you may have heard by now, Lindsey Graham “suspended” his moribund campaign for the Republican nomination for president this morning.
He congratulated himself on having pulled other candidates more toward talking about national security, pre-Paris.
But he should also take some pride that, while his poll numbers were even lower than fellow amigo Joe Lieberman’s were in 2004, he was the star of the undercard debates, to the point that a couple of pundits in this, the last week of his campaign, have called for the rules for eligibility for the main events to be changed, so that Lindsey could shine at the big table.
Beyond that, the main significance of his exit is that suddenly, key talent and support in South Carolina is now up for grabs for other mainstream Republicans such as Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.
A lot of people have been sidelined by the Graham candidacy, such as campaign consultant Richard Quinn and former SC House Speaker David Wilkins (who played a key role in the past in Bush primary victories here).
Graham’s departure leaves just barely enough time for those players to have an impact before the Feb. 20 South Carolina primary.
It was fun, Lindsey, but you probably made the right call.
Related Posts
Maybe there will be some political consultants freed up now, I don’t know about all that. The real question is where do Graham’s voters go?
I’m guessing Rubio gets one, and Jeb! gets the other.
Well, I probably would have voted for Lindsey — although, like most voters, I haven’t made up my mind (which helps to explain Trump’s position in the polls).
And I don’t know whom I go for now — Jeb? Rubio? Christie?
There’s little point voting in the Democratic primary, although there would have been had Joe Biden decided to run. That one’s a foregone conclusion. So my dilemma lies among the Republicans…
At this point, I’m undecided also, but the way I see it (again, as of right now, and subject to change), my job is to cast the vote that will most likely serve to damage Trump’s chances of winning the nomination. My sense is that Trump will likely lose Iowa, and depending on his showing in New Hampshire, his polling lead here in South Carolina may shrink, but he may still be the leader, or a close second. If that scenario plays out, then I’m thinking I’ll support the candidate with the best chance to beat him here, be it Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc. If Trump doesn’t win here, and then continues to fade in states like Nevada, etc., then I’ll have done my job, and I’ll be happy to let other states sort out the rest of the non-Trump Republican candidates.
Please don’t do that, Jeff — at least, don’t do it if the candidate you think has the best chance of stopping Trump is NOT the one you see as the best candidate.
Don’t try to be clever with the right to vote. If you don’t think someone would be the best (or at least the least bad) to become president of the United States, don’t vote for him or her…
I’m kind of a purist on this stuff.
I take your point very seriously, and have argued similarly to others in past elections. And I’m not yet absolutely committed to the strategy I described. However, I believe the danger of Trump becoming the nominee is serious enough that it might outweigh the differences I may feel regarding, for example, Cruz vs. Rubio.
Just as a simple hypothetical (albeit absurdly improbable):
Suppose Trump and Cruz have received the same number of votes, and I’m the last one to vote. Say Rubio has received a hundred fewer votes than Cruz.
Say I agree with Rubio 94% of the time, with Cruz 89% of the time, and with Trump 48% of the time. I think it can be argued that in this scenario, the vote which would most effectively convey my preferences would be a vote for Cruz.
Outlandishly improbable example, I know, but there it is.
Of course, you couldn’t know those things at the time you’re making those decisions.
Personally, I can’t imagine voting for anyone but Bush, Rubio, Christie and maybe Kasich. For me, Cruz is only marginally better than Trump.
Actually, that’s misleading. It’s hard to compare them. I find Trump unthinkable for one set of reasons, and my problems with Cruz are different. The difference is qualitative, not quantitative…
You’re exactly right that I couldn’t possibly know those things. It would all be based on my sense of what’s likely going on with the primary voters as a whole, and even late polls are unreliable as predictors, so there will be great uncertainty, which gives great weight to the “don’t try to be clever” argument.
Still, I haven’t been able to definitively settle on a favorite based on other considerations…
At home enjoying a long holiday break. Hope to see some of my kids and grandkids.
Personally, I can’t imagine voting for anyone but Bush, Rubio, Christie and maybe Kasich.
-Brad
Is it possible to vote for 3 people at once? Shouldn’t that read … Bush, Rubio, Christie or maybe Kasich. Or am I interpreting grammar rules incorrectly?
No, I get it. Jeff’s hypothesis is: “All other candidates are preferable to Trump, all to varying degrees. Therefore, whichever candidate makes the only unacceptable candidate (Trump) lose is the preferable choice in the overall sense.”
I get the logic there. Sure, it’s sort of a guessing game, but I think Jeff would be making a highly calculated/educated guess.
All the candidates have differences of opinion with me to varying degrees, but I hold with Lucky Jack’s admonition when I have to select candidates for political office.
In my case using Jeff’s logic I would vote for Trump in the GOP primary to ensure an easier opponent for Hillary. But on this I’m inclined to agree with Brad. I’ll vote for Bernie.
And by the way Brad, to take your purist position on this to it’s logical conclusion wouldn’t you vote for your favorite candidate even if it happened to be one of the Democrats regardless of whether it’s a foregone conclusion or not? Hypothetically speaking, if your first choice is Martin O’malley then you should vote for Martin O’malley.
No one’s first choice is Martin O’Malley.
I know. I was just suggesting that if Brad is true to his convictions he should vote for the guy he wants the most and if HYPOTHETICALLY, that was Martin O’Malley then according to his stated conviction he should vote for O’Malley. Instead Brad suggests there is no point in voting in the Democratic primary. Just as a practical matter O’Malley isn’t polling much worse than Jeb! And Brad appears to be leaning to Jeb!. Seems like an obvious contradiction to me.
Why would you be voting in the Republican primary? I mean other than to cast a vote against Trump who will take the state in a landslide… so standing in line will likely be pointless.
Other random thought/trivia: Neither senator from SC is married. I can’t imagine any other state can make that claim.
I wonder how far back through history you’d have to go to find that anywhere else.
“players to have an impact ” translates into “bill other also ran candidates and make them think they have a chance”
Every way you look at it you lose…it’s sc who cares
That may rank up there with the top five “Worst Covers of a Song”. Gah. Excuse me while I go get some ear bleach.
Nilsson’s worst song ever-Merry Merry