Category Archives: Elections

Columbia’s Donehue Direct becomes Push Digital

Wesley Donehue’s political tech outfit, which has helped campaigns across the country, is making a change, it announced today:

Top SC political internet firm rebrands as Push Digital

Columbia, SC – January 24, 2013 – Wesley Donehue, founder and CEO of leading political tech firm Donehue Direct, announced today the rebranding of his firm to Push Digital.

The new Push Digital will continue its nationally recognized work in website and application development, mobile marketing, online advertising and targeting, fundraising, brand management, and social media. Push is also reemphasizing its commitment to data collection, management and analytics, something that Donehue has working toward for several years.

“Four years ago when I was asked what the next big tech trend was, I said ‘data,’ and a lot of people rolled their eyes,” Donehue said. “Too many people think data is boring and it isn’t sexy, but we all saw firsthand the results of a data-driven campaign this year in the presidential race. Our goal, quite simply, is to be second to none when it comes to data, and that’s something that will mean big dividends to our clients in terms of their ability to target their message and raise cash.”

Push is one of the few political Internet firms that has run campaigns from top to bottom. Its team has been involved from the state legislative level all the way up to the presidential, as well as numerous marketing campaigns for state parties, issue groups and nonprofit organizations. The team has had broad experience running the political, finance, and communications operations.

Push Senior Vice President Joel Sawyer noted that too often, those branches of the campaigns are “siloed” from one another, and not integrated with regard to technology.

“Part of our new mission with Push is to give clients the tools they need to integrate tech into all aspects of a campaign, and more importantly, making sure all the data integrates,” Sawyer said. “We live in a world where the internet is completely pervasive in our lives, yet too many campaigns out there are run on a model from two decades ago.”

In addition to its political business, Push will continue its work with non-profits and issue advocacy groups. Push will maintain its office presence in both Columbia, South Carolina and San Francisco, California.

Learn more at www.pushdigital.com

Follow us on twitter: @pushdigitalinc

“Politics is always going to be our bread and butter,” Joel Sawyer told me this afternoon. But the kind of increasingly sophisticated data mining that the firm does can “apply to any persuasive endeavor.”

In the past, he said, many campaigns have had volunteers who are willing to wave a sign on a street corner on the one hand, and people who give $10 or $15 on the other — often missing that a sign-waver could well be a donor, and vice versa. What Push Digital will do is pull all of a campaign’s data together and make it work in ways it hasn’t in the past.

Y’all know Joel. He was for awhile Mark Sanford’s press secretary, and was the guy the gov left to hold the bag when he ran off the Argentina. Joel resigned shortly after that, although I don’t ever recall him saying that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between the events.

Wesley y’all will know from all those communications for the Senate Republicans, and from Pub Politics, which just kicked off its new season last night. (Joel fills in for Wesley occasionally, as their business often requires travel.)

Check out Pinterest for a look at the newly-renamed firm’s portfolio.

Good luck with the new identity, guys.

: One of the newly-renamed firm’s many national clients.

Senate passes bill to fix last year’s ballot fiasco

1 Reply

This moved last night but I’m just getting to it — from Wesley and the Senate Republicans:

Senate Passes bill to fix ballot issue

After a third reading today, the Senate the “Equal Access to the Ballot Act” to fix a technicality that kicked hundreds of candidates off the ballot in 2012.

The bill, S.2, sponsored by Senators Campsen, Martin, Cromer and Hayes, will make the requirements of incumbents and challengers equal. It also clarifies the law to state that candidates seeking Congressional, Statewide, or district office including more than one county must file a Statement of Intention of Candidacy (SIC) with the State Election Commission, and General Assembly Candidates must file a SIC with the election commission of the county in which they reside. Candidates must also file a Statement of Economic Interests (SEI) electronically with the State Ethics Commission. Incumbents and challengers will be treated equally, with both being required to file a SEI by noon on March 30 for any year which there is a general election.

Those who fail to file an SEI by the close of the filing period will be subject to a fine and then given a grace period to file the proper paperwork, rather than being immediately removed from the ballot. Candidates who intentionally refuse to comply with the filing requirements after repeated notices and fines will not be allowed to take office until a completed SEI is filed.

“Last year, voters were denied choices because of a small technicality,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin. “This bill will ensure that voters will be given the choices they deserve, and eliminate the potential for an issue like the one we had in 2012.”

Senator Campsen believes that the sooner we get the ballot issue taken care of, the better:

“An issue which removed more than 250 candidates from the primary ballot is definitely one that needed to be addressed as soon as possible,” Campsen said. “Voters can now be assured that they will have the opportunity to vote for the candidate they choose.”

###

Yeah, it would be nice if they get this passed and it does fix the problem. Because that was some seriously messed-up, um, stuff last year.

Yep, that’s Mark Sanford running all right…

23 Replies

Back on the day we’ll not soon forget.

Mark Sanford has now told the National Review — apparently his ability to charm SC media has worn thin — that he is running for his old seat in the 1st Congressional District, and he’s doing it in order to save the country from budget deficits.

There’s a bunch of other stuff in the interview should you like to peruse it. Me, I just wanted to check it for his verbal DNA, and make sure it really was Mark Sanford they spoke to.

At first, I worried, because he didn’t say “at the end of the day” or “soil conditions” a single time. But there is one “I would say” (which he used to say so often that I wanted to shout, “Well then why don’t you just say it?”).

And he says “look under the hood” no fewer than four times, which was reassuring. I am not making this up:

You have to, in essence, look under the hood. There’s a larger philosophical question. In life we’re all going to make mistakes, we’re all going to come up short. The key is, how do you get back up and how do you learn from those mistakes? . . . But I think that the bigger issue is, don’t judge any one person by their best day, don’t judge them by their worst day. Look at the totality, the whole of their life, and make judgments accordingly…

You’ve got to look under the hood. There’s that sensational headline, to look and say, “Wow, big ethics charge.” Beyond the headline, what does that mean? You say, “Hm. There were 37 counts the ethics committee brought, and did you know half of those are for taking a business-class ticket?” You look under the hood and you say, “Wow.”…

It’s important in this instance to look under the hood and say, “Wait a minute, they keep talking about default, and that’s just not true.” You can prioritize spending. When I was in Congress, I remember a GAO report that said that Treasury has the capacity. There’s no statutory requirement for them to default. They could prioritize their spending, and they’re doing things in the short run, to shuffle things around, all based on prioritization…

Yep, that’s Mark Sanford.

Oh, by the way, someone else is getting set to announce he’s running, too:

MEDIA ADVISORY
FOR RELEASE ON JANUARY 15, 2013

SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR LARRY GROOMS WILL ANNOUNCE RUN FOR SOUTH CAROLINA’S FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

WHO
South Carolina State Senator Larry Grooms

WHAT
Grooms will announce his bid for South Carolina’s First Congressional District.

WHEN
Thursday, January 17, 2013
3:00p.m.

WHERE
Scout Boats
2531 Hwy 78 West
Summerville, SC 29483
Next to Summerville Auto Auction

Maybe one of y’all would like to cover that for us. I’m not going to be down that way.

Everything that is wrong with our politics, in state & nation

56 Replies

Haley Palin

OK, so maybe it’s not everything — there’s personal pettiness, and anti-intellectualism, and an appalling willingness on the parts of too many to stoop to the lowest common public impulses for advantage — but it’s something that runs through it all, and ruins everything it touches. And besides, those things are more or less related to this thing.

It was on display in this story today about the campaign “warchest” — oh, let’s not forget that another thing that is wrong with our politics is that we pretend that it is war, with all that attendant “fighting for you” trash — that Nikki Haley has assembled for an as-yet-undeclared re-election campaign.

I’m not talking about Nikki Haley in particular here. I’m talking about something that is all too much a part of modern politics, and she just provides us with a good example, because she’s a particularly avid practitioner of what I’m talking about. The relevant passage:

Haley had six fundraisers last quarter, half of them out of state, in California, New York and Florida.

Donations from S.C.-based businesses and residents accounted for less than 60 percent of the total she raised during the quarter. Florida donations were next at 10 percent, followed by New Yorkers at nearly 6 percent.

Californians’ 51 donations ranked second in number behind the 418 reported from South Carolina, but their combined $21,000 ranked fifth in total amount, at 4 percent.

“It’s a strong showing,” Pearson said. “It shows that people in and outside the state want her to be re-elected gov

Haley had six fundraisers last quarter, half of them out of state, in California, New York and Florida.

Donations from S.C.-based businesses and residents accounted for less than 60 percent of the total she raised during the quarter. Florida donations were next at 10 percent, followed by New Yorkers at nearly 6 percent.

Californians’ 51 donations ranked second in number behind the 418 reported from South Carolina, but their combined $21,000 ranked fifth in total amount, at 4 percent.

“It’s a strong showing,” Pearson said. “It shows that people in and outside the state want her to be re-elected governor if she runs.”

And no, I’m not saying it’s awful that she goes after money where she can get it, or anything like that. The thing that I am saying is a problem is the fact that it is possible for a governor, any governor, to go outside his or her state to raise campaign money. It’s the fact that those outsiders will give, when asked the right way, that is the problem of which I speak.

Reading that story, I tried putting myself in Nikki Haley’s place. I tried imagining that I was running for governor, and I was on a fund-raising trip to New York or Florida or California or wherever, and I was standing in front of a well-heeled group of people with checkbooks in their pockets, and I thought:

What on Earth would I say to those people to get them to give money to me for my campaign for governor of South Carolina?

And I couldn’t think of a thing. I mean, I think about the reasons I would run for governor if I did, and they are many. I refer you to my last column at the paper for just a tiny few of those reasons. But not one of the reasons that could ever conceivably motivate me to run could ever possibly motivate someone who does not live in South Carolina and has no stake in South Carolina to give me money.

I would have nothing to say to them. Nothing that would be relevant to them, in any case.

But Nikki Haley, and other politicians who do what she does, have no problem in that regard. That’s because pretty much everything they say, and think, as political creatures is cookie-cutter stuff, the kind of stuff the national talking heads constantly spew out of the Beltway via 24/7 TV “news.” You can’t tell one from another.

That’s why it’s so easy and comfortable for someone like Sarah Palin to campaign alongside Nikki Haley, which they did with such aplomb and comfort in one another’s company during our governor’s first campaign. That’s because, even though they are from very different states with different issues and different needs, they think the same thoughts and say the same things. Henry Ford’s methods of mass production have been applied to politics, so that parts are interchangeable.

This is made possible by the fact that all these folks talk about is ideology — pure, simple, lowest-common-denominator ideology, unsullied by the specifics of reality, which is understood everywhere because of modern communications.

Their words and their thoughts have nothing to do with the messy, organic, ad hoc, practical, idiosyncratic business of governing — which to an honest person who engages it with an open and critical mind practically never meshes with the neat constructs of ideology.

And that’s what’s wrong. That’s what that story made me think about.

Mia keeps up a steady fire on election fiasco

7 Replies

We discussed this briefly on a previous post, but I thought I’d call attention to it more directly. Read this blog post from Mia McLeod:

Dumb and Dumber…

That’s obviously what they think you are. Otherwise, the Old Guard (a.k.a. “OG”) wouldn’t be brazen enough to “demote” and “promote” incompetence in the same breath. And all on your dime, too.

Let’s see…a newly created $75,000 taxpayer-funded position with a new title, less responsibility, same oversight (aren’t absentee ballots part of what got us here in the first place?) and absolutely no regard for your rights — particularly when it comes to restoring your confidence in our electoral process.

Even Attorney Hamm’s Investigative Report is of no consequence because it only confirms what we already knew. The election day disaster was directly caused by the Director’s actions, inactions and failure to lead. Those are the facts. But let’s not allow a few facts to get in the way, right?

Here’s the deal…the OG and our Governor have something in common. They’ll stop at nothing and spare no expense to get what they want. One of my previous e-blasts was entitled, “BAMN” or “by any means necessary.” It applied to our Governor’s actions then, and it certainly applies to the OG’s actions now.

And just in case you, like many others, mistakenly assumed that either of the former Director’s resignations might actually offer some semblance of accountability, albeit late…think again.

This sweet backroom deal has been in the works for weeks, but the OG needed a little more time to execute it. That’s why Rep. Rutherford messed up the original plan when he “outed” the first resignation before the OG was ready. After all, it takes time to appoint an interim OG director for the primary purpose of rehiring the former OG director. I know…it’s a hard job, but somebody has to do it. And neither the delegation nor the Elections Board has the legal authority.

Now that an interim director has been named and handsomely paid to rehire the former Director, the deal is almost complete. But to ensure that those of us who disagree are unable to dismantle their “master plan,” a few more things still need to happen:

The OG has to replace the vacated and/or expiring Elections Board seats with more OG members.

The OG has to also make sure one of their own remains in the position of Elections Director (on an interim or permanent basis).

The OG has to hold on to the position of Delegation Chair, so that the elections board appointments, as well as the director and (newly created) deputy director positions remain in tact.

So here’s where you come in. Since you’ve already been thrown into “the game,” it might be helpful for you to at least become familiar with the rules:

Rule #1 – The OG can make and change the rules at any time, for any reason.

Rule #2 – Actually, there’s no need for Rule #2 because you’ll rarely make it past Rule #1.

Obviously, you’ve elected us to represent your interests and your tax dollars are footing the bill for these expensive and unnecessary games we keep playing, but let’s not get too bogged down in those pesky little details, right?

The reality is…the OG cares much more about winning “the game” than they do about your rights, your representation or whether your confidence in the integrity of the process is restored. And why shouldn’t they? Earning your trust and respect really isn’t necessary, since you give it so freely anyway.

After all, “the game” protects their power. They’re the players who make the rules. Andyou…well, you’re the enablers who preserve their positions. Thanks to your unwavering support, they’ve been able to preserve and protect their own interests for all these years. Now that’s teamwork at its best. You pay.They play.

Oops…almost forgot. There’s one more rule, and it’s a doozie:

Rule # 3 – Voters…I mean enablers, get to change the players and the game every 2-4 years.

So in 2014, you can either cast a game-changing vote or leave Richland County’s future in the hands of the OG.

It’ll soon be game-day again. Next time, make it count…

Tavis said Mia was starting to lose him on this. Even though, had I been advising her, I might have recommended that she dial the tone down a bit, I’m not where Tavis is. I’m still prepared to give her credit for having the guts to take a stronger stand, by far, than anyone else in the Richland delegation. Maybe it’s because Mia and I are from Bennettsville. My uncle was visiting from there yesterday, and when Mia’s name came up, all he had to say was “You go, girl.” Nothing like B’ville pride.

Sure, the folks she categorizes as the OG probably think she’s just a grandstander trying to get political mileage out of all the folks out there saying “You go, girl.” But when she’s right and they’re wrong, I’m inclined to say she deserves whatever political boost she can get. There’s a point when you go, wait a minute — and my first stirrings of doubt about Nikki Haley came when she was doing her Joan of Arc routine in the House over roll-call voting. But Mia’s not there yet. Not with me, anyway.

Of course, her Twitter handle is “MiaforSC.” As opposed to “miafordistrict79” or something. Which would seem to speak of greater ambition.

Speaking of which, she has become perhaps the one Democrat in the Legislature most worth following, joining such GOP stalwarts as Harvey Peeler and Nathan Ballentine, and inheriting the mantle abandoned by Boyd Brown.

Is McBride’s new $75k gig-to-be an outrage, or what?

31 Replies

Initially, I would have been in the “or what” category.

If, early on in this process — before all the stonewalling, and the is-she-resigning-or-is-she-not stuff — I would have been in the “or what” camp. After all, she supposedly did the job they’re moving her to adequately (or at least not disastrously) before. So why not move her back there?

But now, after all that has passed, the idea that she would go back to the same job with an $8,000 raise from what she was paid in that job before is pretty hard to take. In whose universe is that an appropriate response to her performance running the 2012 election? What happened between 2011 and now that made her that much more valuable in the proposed new/old job?

Some of y’all have been commenting on this already on other posts, but now I’m finally getting around to doing a separate post on it. Here’s the news story from this morning:

COLUMBIA, SC — Former Richland County elections director Lillian McBride is on track to be offered a $74,600-a-year job as deputy director in a newly reorganized elections and voter registration office.

In that new position, McBride – who last week agreed to step out of her $89,124-a-year director’s job – would stay in the office, overseeing county voter registration efforts and absentee balloting. That’s the job she held 18 months ago before becoming the state’s highest-paid county elections director and presiding Nov. 6 over the most bungled county election in modern state history…

McBride was paid $66,429 in 2011 as the county’s director of voter registration when Mike Cinnamon ran the separate county elections office. She got a raise to $85,000 in mid-2011 when she was named director of the newly merged voter registration and elections office…

Have at it, those of you who haven’t sounded off yet…

Sanford vs. Sanford: Start your day with Ariail

5 Replies

aria130109_cmyk.byat61xdtndf4skg80ckks4c8.6uwurhykn3a1q8w88k040cs08.th

I’m not going to have a lot of time for blogging today, but I thought I’d share this with you, from my good friend Robert Ariail.

It ran a couple of days ago, but I just now saw it. As you see, it’s on the same subject that Gail Collins was having fun with last week.

Why have BOTH parties wasted our money on Voter ID?

65 Replies

This just in from Lindsey Graham and Trey Gowdy:

Graham, Gowdy Defend South Carolina Voter ID Law

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and U.S. Congressman Trey Gowdy (South Carolina-4) today sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder renewing their request for documents pertaining to the Justice Department’s costly opposition to South Carolina’s Voter ID law.

Last Friday, the Washington, D.C. District Court issued a unanimous decision awarding South Carolina certain litigation costs incurred while defending its Voter ID law against a Justice Department challenge. The case cost the State of South Carolina an estimated $3.5 million.

“Not only do we strongly support the Court’s decision to award costs, we request follow up on our previous letter regarding the reasons why this costly litigation occurred in the first place,” wrote Graham and Gowdy. “If some, or all, of the costs associated with these actions could have been avoided by following the recommendation of career Voting Section experts, then we would like to know the reason why they were overruled.”…

Good question. Of course, it would be just as good a question to demand that our governor and legislative majority why they have insisted on passing and then defending in court a completely useless Voter ID bill.

As I’ve said so many times before, I remain completely unconvinced by either Republicans’ claim that there is a need for such a law, or by Democrats’ claim that it constitutes an intolerable burden. Every taxpayer dollar that either party has caused to be spent on the bill has been a waste, in my book.

The State’s call for McBride to resign

11 Replies

This was several days ago now — on Christmas Eve eve — but what with the holiday and all you may have missed it, so I call your attention now to the editorial in The State Sunday calling on Lillian McBride to do what she has thus far (unless something has happened that hasn’t been reported) refused to do:

GIVEN THE gravity of Richland County’s Nov. 6 elections debacle, we don’t know if there is anything Lillian McBride could have said or done to restore public confidence in her leadership or to warrant her continuing as director of elections and voter registration. But it is telling and disappointing that she has failed to try.

Other than an early attempt to blame her predecessor and a belated apology at a Richland County legislative delegation hearing, Ms. McBride has done far too little to take responsibility for or explain the fiasco that had some voters waiting up to seven hours to cast votes and led to lawsuits, lost ballots and weeks’ late final results.

We see no other way forward but for Ms. McBride to step down as a majority of county lawmakers have requested, not simply because of the Election Day disaster, but because of her overall failure to properly prepare and manage the process leading up to Nov. 6 and her inability to lead through this crisis….

Spot on. The Election Day mess was one thing. Her utter failure to show us anything whatsoever that would give us even a wisp of confidence in her since then seals the deal. If any of you have seen anything that would make you want to hire her for a position of public responsibility, please share.

Yes, SC has 500 problems worse than election commission

19 Replies

For more than 20 years, I’ve taken every opportunity to apprise South Carolinians of just how amazingly fouled-up their system of government is. Whenever something that touches on the fact is in the news, I try to tell people. And while I was editorial page editor, the editorial board did so as well.

And the two remaining associate editors continue to do so, as Cindi Scoppe did in today’s column. An excerpt:

BY S.C. standards, the byzantine arrangement that produced perhaps the worst election debacle in modern state history — an inexperienced elections director hand-picked by state legislators who thought they reserved unto themselves the exclusive ability to fire her but in fact did not, and might or might not have given that authority to a commission that they also hand-picked and can’t fire, and an elections office over which the county council has absolutely no control but must fund at a level set by an almost certainly unconstitutional state law — is practically a governmental best practice.

After all, there are only 46 of these legislative delegation-controlled/uncontrolled election commissions, each one covers an entire county, and they don’t meddle in anybody else’s business.

For a truly remarkable example of legislative meddling gone mad, consider South Carolina’s special-purpose districts, each of which provides a single service, mostly to tiny segments of the population, most of which are operated by people who are at least two steps removed from even the theoretical possibility of accountability to the public, some of which have been disguised to make voters think they have some say, when they actually don’t.

They are the tail that wags our legislative dog: These legislative creations are among the most potent political forces at the State House, capable of stymieing an array of reforms that would make local government more efficient and effective and accountable to the public. Which they do.

Did I mention that there are more than 500 of these independent fiefdoms? Which means that, when you add them to all the counties and cities and towns and school districts, we have 900 local governments in South Carolina? Talk about fragmentation…

You should read the rest of it. Cindi, and I, have pointed these facts out many times in the past. And we keep hoping that one day, people will pay enough attention to demand change.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?…

No, wait! McBride says she HASN’T quit…

27 Replies

OK, so disregard the previous report. Check this out instead:

Columbia, SC (WLTX) – Richland County Election Director Lillian McBride is denying reports that she has resigned her position. Rep. Todd Rutherford (D-Richland) told reporters earlier that McBride has agreed to step down on January 8 and possibly take another position at the county.

A short while after those reports, McBride emailed the media saying that was not the case. Her email read: “Dear valued members of the press: This is to inform you that I have not submitted my resignation to the Board of Elections and Voter Registration or to the members of the Richland County Legislative Delegation. Any discussion of this is entirely premature and erroneous. Sincerely, Lillian McBride Executive Director of Richland County Elections and Voter Registration”…

Wow.

Of course the first question that arises is, if she hasn’t quit, why not?

The next question is, did we ever identify anyone who had the power to fire her? Because if so, it’s getting time to make a move…

Report: McBride quits as Richland elections chief

4 Replies

DISREGARD THE FOLLOWING! Lillian McBride now DENIES that she has quit!

Most of y’all will likely regard this as a positive development:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – Richland County’s embattled elections director has resigned six weeks after an election plagued by long lines and an insufficient number of voting machines.

Representative Todd Rutherford (D-Richland) says Lillian McBride’s resignation is effective January 8th. The decision comes two days after the commission’s chairwoman, Liz Crum, stepped down.

McBride’s attorney, John Nichols, submitted the resignation to the delegation Wednesday afternoon.

Rutherford says he does not believe there is any compensation tied to her resignation. He also believes the election board intends to try and find a position for her in the voter registration office where she worked with a good track record for 23 years.

This follows a story in The State this morning that showed most members of the county legislative delegation being in favor of her stepping down.

Rep. Mia changes her name again

13 Replies

How we knew her before

In case you needed a program to keep up with the players in the ongoing Richland County election debacle saga, take note that one of the key players just changed her name:

What’s In A Name?

Everything. Our names are a reflection of who we are, the strength of our word and the depths of our character.  After losing my Mom years ago and my Dad just last year, I began to embark upon a more introspective phase of my journey…one that has not only revealed more to me about their legacies, but my own.

I’ve always believed that God blesses us so that we can be a blessing to others.  And as I rely on His strength and draw from the lessons I’ve learned from my Mom & Dad, I’m convinced now more than ever, that “to whom much is given, much is required.”

That’s why I take my responsibilities as your House District 79 Representative very seriously, and have since you first elected me in 2010.  Each of you has become a part of my extended family, and I will always put your interests first.

I’m grateful to have come from “good stock.”  My parents are never far from my thoughts and always with me in spirit.  I am who I am because of them, and I wouldn’t take anything for my journey.

Our family-owned business will celebrate 100 years of service in 2014, and I couldn’t be more proud of my family’s commitment to and love for our community.  So as I reflect upon who I am and upon whose shoulders I stand, I realize that I’m blessed to have a name that means so much.

That name is McLeod…and with it comes a rich history and proud legacy that truly reflects the boldness, the passion, the compassion and the strength that I draw from daily to fight for you.

McLeod is my maiden name and the most authentic depiction of who I am.    With my family’s blessing, I have decided to return to the name that truly represents me, so that I can continue to truly represent you.

Many of you already know and refer to me as “Mia.”  While my last name may be changing, I’m the same person you’ve gotten to know over the last two years.   And as we continue to work together, there’s no limit to how much we can accomplish in the next two.

As we prepare to bring 2012 to a close, I wish you and your family a safe, peaceful and joyous holiday season…

— Mia

… which has me confused. I initially knew her as Mia Butler. Her first announcement that she was running for the seat being vacated by Anton Gunn used that name, and that’s what I called her when I interviewed her for the late lamented “Brad Show.”

Then, she started calling herself “Mia Garrick.” Which made me think that “Butler” was her maiden name. Anyway, for a long time after that I referred to her as “Mia Butler Garrick.”

But now I’m corrected. I guess.

Interestingly, this release comes on a morning when she has just appeared prominently in a front-page story in The State, referred to five times as “Garrick.”

That story paints her as being on one side of a generational divide among black Democrats in the county, with Sen. Darrell Jackson standing as an emblem of the Old Guard.

Which is really ironic. It wasn’t very long ago (OK, it doesn’t seem like long ago to ME, although I guess it’s been almost 20 years now) that Darrell Jackson was the Young Turk who was seen as too big for his britches by older black pols who felt he hadn’t paid enough dues to be heard. They were quite indignant about it. They seemed to believe that as a new senator he should be seen, but not heard from.

Now, he’s the Mustache Pete. I guess we’re all getting older…

The logo that was attached to today's release.

Garrick completely unsatisfied by hearing on Richland County voting debacle, and so am I

131 Replies

This latest release from Rep. Mia Garrick reminds me that I had meant to post something about yesterday’s fairly useless hearing on the Richland County voting debacle, but got sidetracked:

After yesterday’s “legislative fact-finding,” the public can now add a plethora of excuses to this real-life “reality TV” drama. From the nameless subordinate who screwed everything up to the mysterious numbers in red that just magically appeared, we can blame this debacle on broken voting machine batteries and phantom PEBs…but alas, there we were 20 days and a grueling 3.5 hours later, and very few new facts, if any, were revealed.

Here’s what we knew before Monday’s meeting:

The Richland County Election Commission broke the law on Election day, by deploying an inadequate number of machines at most Richland County precincts.

No one, including the Director, can tell us why.

Many Richland County voters stood in line for 3-6 hours or more, braving cold, harsh conditions regardless of age, physical conditions or disabilities

Many Richland County voters were not able to cast their ballots because of the extensive waits and were effectively disenfranchised.

Although these Ivotronic machines have been in use across SC for 8 years now, only Richland County had the types of issues we faced on Nov. 6. The other 45 counties executed their elections without significant incident.

Here’s what Monday’s 3.5 hour fact-finding hearing revealed:

The Richland County Election Commission broke the law on Election day, by deploying an inadequate number of machines at most Richland County precincts.

No one, including the Director, can tell us why.

Many Richland County voters stood in line for 3-6 hours or more, braving cold, harsh conditions regardless of age, physical conditions or disabilities.

Many Richland County voters were not able to cast their ballots because of the extensive waits and were effectively disenfranchised.

Although these Ivotronic machines have been in use across SC for 8 years now, only Richland County had the types of issues we faced on Nov. 6. The other 45 counties executed their elections without significant incident.

The technical aspects of how the machines work shouldn’t have been our primary focus and yet, the first half of our meeting was devoted to technical information that is of little or no value to voters who only want assurances that they can exercise their rights to vote and that their votes will be counted.

But this hearing wasn’t really about the voters of Richland County, was it? If it had been, members of the legislative delegation wouldn’t have been forced to “sign-up” like school kids, just to ask questions of the Director and Commissioner. What’s the purpose of having a “legislative fact-finding” hearing if legislators can’t ask probing questions? Why would any legislator be chastised for suggesting, as I did, that the delegation also give the public/voters an opportunity to be heard?

Yesterday’s meeting seemed to be more about confusing or minimizing the facts, rather than “finding” them. Like many of you, I don’t think they were ever “lost.” And although I’m one of the delegation’s newest members, I don’t need permission to host a public hearing in my District. I’ve already hosted several in the 2 years I’ve served and will host more over the next 2 years.

But this Election Day disaster was not unique to House District 79. In fact, every Richland County voter was impacted. So I simply argued that our legislative delegation should want to hear from every voter who wants to be heard. After all, we’re elected to represent you, so shouldn’t you be an integral and important part of this so-called fact-finding mission?

This is not about “throwing the Director (or anyone else) under the bus.” It’s about holding those responsible for this debacle, accountable. And even more importantly, it’s about the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of voters across Richland County who faced unprecedented and unnecessary impediments while trying to cast their ballots. It’s about the Richland County voters who were disenfranchised and denied their fundamental rights on that day.

Maybe some of my colleagues in the delegation didn’t witness the devastation of voters who were disenfranchised on Nov. 6^th, but I did. And I’ll never forget it.

After 20 days, we’re left with more questions than answers, more apologies, more confusion and more blaming. And yet, there’s no accountability and admittedly, no plan for moving forward.

That does absolutely nothing to restore my confidence in the county’s election commission leaders or its electoral process. So tell me…what does it do for yours?

Sounds like Rep. Garrick has a problem with delegation chairman Darrell Jackson, among others.

I agree that it’s absurd that we are still waiting for satisfactory answers as to how this happened, and more importantly, how it will be avoided in the future.

Keep watching, folks. This is what it’s like when a legislative delegation — an entity made up of people who were elected individually and separately for an entirely different purpose — tries to run something. Accountability is well-nigh impossible.

The hole DeMint’s been digging to bury his party in (and how that affects our OTHER senator)

11 Replies

Juan Williams (isn’t he a TV guy?) wrote a piece that appeared in The Wall Street Journal today about what has led to the irrelevance of Republicans in the U.S. Senate. After noting that John McCain and Lindsey Graham can huff and puff all they like, but won’t be able to blow Susan Rice down, Williams says of Senate Republicans in general:

They have only themselves to blame. Six months ago, a GOP takeover of the Senate was plausible. Yet in the Nov. 6 elections, Democrats expanded their hold, to 55-45, from 53-47. (Two independents caucus with the Democrats.) By any pre-election reckoning, Democrats should have lost seats. They had to defend 23 seats while the GOP had to defend only 10.

In the aftermath of the vote, there is no better place than in the U.S. Senate to observe the current war over the future of the Republican Party.

The 2012 vote was the second cycle in a row when the GOP had a clear shot at winning control of the Senate but blew the chance by nominating ideologues. Conservative activists who dominate the GOP primaries selected hard-line, right-wing candidates without any regard for their ability to win the general election and increase the number of Republicans in the Senate…

This, of course, is what Jim DeMint and his ilk have wrought, running about the country pushing extremists.

And as we all know, one of the prime targets of such efforts is our other U.S. senator:

And now conservative and tea party activists look to be doubling down for 2014. They are already talking about primary challenges to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican; to Maine Sen. Susan Collins; and to Mr. Graham in South Carolina…

Mr. McConnell is far from alone in this fight for the future of Senate Republicans. Sen. Graham is known in Washington for his battles with Mr. Obama over everything from budgets to Benghazi. But the head of the conservative group Club for Growth, Chris Chocola, said in September that his group “has a lot of interest” in finding a more conservative candidate to take the Senate seat for South Carolina. “Our first focus is open, safe Republican seats,” Mr. Chocola said. “Our second focus is incumbents behaving badly. Regardless of whether you win or lose, you scare the heck out of the rest of them.”

Scaring incumbent Republicans from the right wing of the political spectrum is proving to be effective at keeping them in line. GOP senators know the danger of moderating their views—there is a political penalty attached to any political compromise with Democrats…

That seems to be a major pastime for extremists on the right — scaring people. Nikki Haley has referred to making mainstream pols afraid as “a beautiful thing.”

The column doesn’t mention Tom Davis. I guess he’s not quite on the national radar yet.

One wonders what they think they are accomplishing. It must be a terrible thing for one’s mind to be in the grip of an ideology. Sort of like the fable about the scorpion and the frog. That’s just what scorpions do, even if it means drowning themselves.

Did the ‘war on women’ meme even work?

6 Replies

Ralph Reed (answering the question, What ever happened to that guy?) had an op-ed piece in the WSJ today (“Round Up the Usual Social Conservative Suspects“) bemoaning — as you would expect him to — that once again, social conservatives are being blamed for a Republican defeat.

The main thrust of his piece is that the GOP would push the culture warriors away only at its peril.

Nothing new there. What interested me was this one paragraph in which he was speaking not about Republicans, but about Democrats:

Despite the Obama campaign’s accusation of a Republican “war on women,” Mr. Obama actually won women by a narrower margin than he did in 2008; he lost married women by seven points. Nor did single women—who went heavily Mr. Obama’s way—vote on reproductive issues. Forty-five percent of single women voters listed jobs and the economy as their most important issues, while only 8% said abortion.

That was welcome news to me, given my repeated complaints about the Dems overemphasizing Kulturkampf stuff this year. (I would like very much for the president’s victory to be because of other factors, and for both parties to know that, and in the future act accordingly, so that I don’t have to be quite so appalled at the tenor of campaigns to come. And on the immigration front of the Kulturkampf, there are actually some signs that some Republicans learned something.) Of course, considering the source, I immediately wondered how accurate his characterization was.

That led me to this interesting 2012 exit polls graphic at the NYT site (if you don’t get anything else from this post, go check that out). While the words on the graphic seem to contradict Reed, saying, “Mr. Obama maintained his 2008 support among women,” when you call up the actual numbers (just scroll your cursor over the blue and pink bubbles), you see a slight drop — although it’s only one percent, which is well within the 4 percent margin of error.

But in looking further at the numbers, I saw something that I had forgotten about, if I ever knew — that in 2008, President Obama edged out John McCain among men — the only time the Democratic nominee has done that in the last four presidential elections. Maybe, if they believe their “war on women” meme worked, Democrats should have claimed the Republicans were conducting a “war on men” as well.

I knew without looking that Reed was accurate in saying Obama won among single women and lost among married ones. As for what he said about single women caring far more about the economy than abortion — well, that makes sense (think about it — I would expect pretty much every broad demographic group to cite the economy as a bigger issue than abortion), but I haven’t found data that back it up. Has anyone seen that subset analyzed along those lines? I have not.

I have always believed that we don’t look hard enough at exit polls after elections. Yet in the polling world, that’s where the substance is. Ahead of the election, political junkies mainline polls in their desperate desire to know what might happen. Exit polls are the only kind that tell you what the actual voters who actually showed up were actually thinking on Election Day. Maybe you have to allow a bit for a Democratic bias (Republicans are more likely to refuse to participate in exit polls), but it’s still valuable stuff.

Romney campaign, other Republicans still blaming Christie

72 Replies

Gov. Christie on SNL over the weekend.

There’s an interesting NYT story today about how Chris Christie got a chilly reception at the Republican Governor’s Association meeting in Vegas. It also goes into just how much the Romney campaign people blame him for their loss. Some experts:

But in the days after the storm, Mr. Christie and his advisers were startled to hear from out-of-state donors to Mr. Romney, who had little interest in the hurricane and viewed him solely as a campaign surrogate, demanding to know why he had stood so close to the president on a tarmac. One of them questioned why he had boarded Mr. Obama’s helicopter, according to people briefed on the conversations.

It did not help that Mr. Romney had not called Mr. Christie during those first few days, people close to the governor say.

The tensions followed Mr. Christie to the annual meeting of the Republican Governors Association in Las Vegas last week. At a gathering where he had expected to be celebrated, Mr. Christie was repeatedly reminded of how deeply he had offended fellow Republicans.

“I will not apologize for doing my job,” he emphatically told one of them in a hotel hallway at the ornate Wynn Resort…

Inside the Romney campaign, there is little doubt that Mr. Christie’s expressions of admiration for the president, coupled with ubiquitous news coverage of the hurricane’s aftermath, raised Mr. Obama’s standing at a crucial moment.

During a lengthy autopsy of their campaign, Mr. Romney’s political advisers pored over data showing that an unusually large number of voters who remained undecided until the end of the campaign backed Mr. Obama. Many of them cited the storm as a major factor in their decision, according to a person involved in the discussion.

“Christie,” a Romney adviser said, “allowed Obama to be president, not a politician.”…

Gee, folks, do you think it could be, as this story suggests, something as simple as the fact that Obama was taking an interest in what was happening in New Jersey, and his opponent was not?

From a member of the Richland County legislative delegation…

25 Replies

… which, as you will recall, in our bizarre SC mockery of Home Rule, is responsible for the county election commission. Mia Garrick sent this out at about 6 a.m. today:

Friends,

I would like to take a moment to personally apologize for the reckless and unconscionable conditions so many of you encountered at Richland County polls on Election Day.
Like you, I’m livid about the senseless waits, poor preparation and other infractions that only seem to get more egregious with each passing day.

Just last evening, we learned that more uncounted ballots are still being “discovered” by the Richland County Election Commission and like you, I want answers.

You deserve accountability, transparency and every assurance that your fundamental right to vote will never again be compromised. Thank you for your phone calls and emails. I hear you. I’m with you. And I won’t let up until your confidence in the integrity of Richland County’s electoral process is restored.

Take a look at my letter to our legislative delegation and let’s continue to fight for what’s right, together…

To carry out a conspiracy requires COMPETENCE

59 Replies

A reader asked me via email whether I should give any credence to Michael Letts’ suggestion that the royal foul-up of the basic mechanics of voting in Richland County was intentional, meant to accomplish some specific election result — such as passing the penny sales tax.

My short answer was no.

But a mere “no” is entirely inadequate. The fact is, it’s hard to imagine anything less consistent with the known facts.

Never mind the fact that I know the people who were pushing the referendum, and can’t imagine them being a party to such a thing. That would not be persuasive in any case to people who believe anyone wanting to raise a tax to be beyond wicked.

No, the reason it’s an absurd idea is that everything we’ve seen in this case points to gross incompetence. The idea that there was a criminal mastermind deftly manipulating the lines at polling places so that the people who were against the sales tax, or for any particular candidate, became discouraged and went away without voting, while making sure that the votes FOR whatever cause the conspirators favored were counted, is laughable.

Gross incompetence just drips from every aspect of this thing. I suspect that if voting officials in Richland County were party to a plot to try to pass the referendum, that would have ensured the failure of the proposal…

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits