Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Lindsey Graham Wins GOP Nod in South Carolina [How Did We Get This Catastrophe?]
CBSNews ^ | June 10, 2014

Posted on 06/10/2014 9:24:49 PM PDT by Steelfish

Sen. Lindsey Graham Wins GOP Nod in South Carolina

COLUMBIA, S.C. - U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham won South Carolina's Republican party outright on Tuesday, defeating six tea party challengers and avoiding a runoff.

Graham, 58, had about 59 percent of the vote in early returns, far more than what was needed to avoid the runoff. State Sen. Lee Bright came in second, with nearly 14 percent.

Aside from Bright, those arrayed against Graham included Columbia pastor Det Bowers, Upstate businessman Richard Cash and Charleston-area businesswoman Nancy Mace, the first female cadet graduate from The Citadel, South Carolina's military college. Orangeburg County attorney Bill Connor and Columbia lawyer Benjamin Dunn were also seeking the nomination.

Graham, who has been in office since 2002, had a hefty fundraising advantage: He has raised more than $12 million since his last re-election bid in 2008, while none of his opponents passed the $1 million mark.

The challengers have hammered away at Graham, saying he's not conservative enough for South Carolina. That didn't matter to Ben Lister, a 48-year-old financial planner from Greenville who voted for the senator.

"I know that some people are saying he should be more conservative, but what does that mean?" Lister asked. "I want a politician who actually thinks about the issues instead of going along with the crowd."

Meanwhile, Graham's fellow Republican U.S. Sen. Tim Scott won his primary by a wide margin, setting the stage for South Carolina to elect a black person to the U.S. Senate for the first time.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 06/10/2014 9:24:49 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Well, I am happy to see Tim Scott won.


2 posted on 06/10/2014 9:26:19 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Resist in place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Lee Bright simply failed to be South Carolina’s Chris McDaniel. You can put the loss on him and the idiot voters.


3 posted on 06/10/2014 9:26:47 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

If folks split the vote, that’s what they can expect. Most of the time.


4 posted on 06/10/2014 9:28:25 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

How did we get this catastrophe?

Must have been his Bette Davis Eyes that mesmerized. (I seem to remember he had a picture of the actress on his website a while back and a picture of himself that emphasized his large and heavily lashed eyes.)


5 posted on 06/10/2014 9:29:23 PM PDT by lulu16 (May the Good Lord take a liking to you!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; All

We ended up with this because Lindsay didn’t out right attack the tea party like that arrogant SOB Cantor


6 posted on 06/10/2014 9:34:01 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

SC just voted to take it in the behinds from Lindsey Graham. Bet he does not kiss them before he leaves.


7 posted on 06/10/2014 9:34:28 PM PDT by MtnClimber (Just doing laps around the sun and shaking my head that progressives can believe what they do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Does South Carolina have an open primary?

I’ll guess Lindsey is fairly popular with Blacks and Hispanics, who make up more than 33% of state residents.

By the way, Graham is an excellent and charming politician.

Many people in SC like him on a personal level.


8 posted on 06/10/2014 9:39:28 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Because useful idiots continue listening to GOP sycophants who spread the lie that a Republican siding with Democrats is better than a Democrat.

Then they complain when the closet Democrat sides with Democrats.

then they vow to never do it again.

Then they do it again.

Thank those GOP sycophants because many make FR their home.


9 posted on 06/10/2014 9:39:32 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart (How's that 'lesser evil' workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The deeply entrenched are extremely hard to unseat. I’m sure that there were many crossover votes to ensure this RINO stayed right where he is. SC needs to stop allowing open primaries!

We have our losses, but we are winning the game. TEA is the only group in the nation that is infiltrating and making a big difference. The movement is only 5 years old. We need to look at the successes. They are simply amazing!


10 posted on 06/10/2014 9:40:52 PM PDT by stilloftyhenight (...staying home isn't an option.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Someone over saturated the field with lots if so called tea party candidates . If there had been just one minnie mccain might have joined Cantor.


11 posted on 06/10/2014 9:41:52 PM PDT by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
Graham has dropped to 56.4% but almost all votes are counted. Winner L. Graham (i) 56.4% 177,428 L. Bright 15.4% 48,572 R. Cash 8.3% 26,039 D. Bowers 7.3% 22,988 N. Mace 6.2% 19,518 B. Connor 5.3% 16,772 B. Dunn 1.0%
12 posted on 06/10/2014 9:43:04 PM PDT by Steelers6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stilloftyhenight

What were his final numbers? Last I saw he was around 55/56%, hardly a trouncing of six under-funded, inexperienced politicians. Especially when he bragged he had $13 mil going into this race and a statewide organization in place.

He probably shouldn’t be crowing quite so loud or someone’s probably going to pick up on his underwhelming victory.


13 posted on 06/10/2014 9:44:21 PM PDT by Kenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: amihow

BINGO!!
the Candidates split the vote six against one uber rich fairy? Puhleeze!


14 posted on 06/10/2014 9:45:44 PM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: amihow
Someone over saturated the field with lots if so called tea party candidates . If there had been just one minnie mccain might have joined Cantor.

Gramnesty needed 50% +1 vote to win outright tonight and avoid a runoff, which he did. Even if all the votes of every challenger tonight had gone to just one challenger, Gramnesty still would have received over 50% of the vote.

15 posted on 06/10/2014 9:48:38 PM PDT by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

“defeating six tea party challengers”

Which part of “divide and lose” don’t you understand?

If six conservatives had split the vote against Cantor, there wouldn’t be anything to celebrate tonight.


16 posted on 06/10/2014 9:50:11 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Well he must have had some fear of the possibility of a runoff, since he dropped the “I-word” (Impeachment) last week.


17 posted on 06/10/2014 9:50:42 PM PDT by Mygirlsmom (No Mo (zilla). I'm going to the Opera instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Gramnesty needed 50% +1 vote to win outright tonight and avoid a runoff, which he did. Even if all the votes of every one of his challengers had gone to just one challenger, Gramnesty still would have received over 50% of the vote and won outright.


18 posted on 06/10/2014 9:53:09 PM PDT by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

CROSS OVER VOTING FROM THE RATS.


19 posted on 06/10/2014 9:55:21 PM PDT by ZULU (Impeach Obama NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

again. too many challengers. split the conservative vote. depressed the conservative vote. split or stopped the inflow of conservative money. i gave to brat. could never figure out who was the conservative leader in SC, so i never sent any money.


20 posted on 06/10/2014 9:56:12 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

“He probably shouldn’t be crowing quite so loud or someone’s probably going to pick up on his underwhelming victory.”

I don’t think Graham really cared whether he got 52% of the vote or 74% of the vote.

He got what he needed and now the worthless POS is on his way back to DC and it’ll be another six long years of watching this asswipe undercut the GOP.


21 posted on 06/10/2014 9:57:39 PM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kevao
Gramnesty needed 50% +1 vote to win outright tonight and avoid a runoff, which he did. Even if all the votes of every one of his challengers had gone to just one challenger, Gramnesty still would have received over 50% of the vote and won outright.

Is there a single instance when 6 (or more) candidates ran against an incumbent in a primary and forced a runoff?

22 posted on 06/10/2014 10:01:53 PM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I hope this will be the last we hear (and we heard it until our ears bled) about how packing the primary field is a sure fire way to keep an incumbent under 50, drag him into a run off, and then beat him.

just because it worked for cruz doesn’t mean it will ever work again, anywhere else.

my God, some of the people here were relentless on that point. relentlessly wrong, as it turns out.


23 posted on 06/10/2014 10:09:58 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BradyLS
If folks split the vote, that’s what they can expect. Most of the time.

South Carolina provides for a runoff. Runoffs are supposed to make vote splitting safe.

In this case, the sum total of the vote splitters didn't add up to 50%. If it had, then Graham would have been forced into a runoff with the most popular of the vote splitters' candidates. Then, assuming the vote splitters could be bothered to turn out for the runoff and vote for the second guy, the third+ having been eliminated, the second guy would have won, and Grahamnesty would be gone.

24 posted on 06/10/2014 10:14:04 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
Is there a single instance when 6 (or more) candidates ran against an incumbent in a primary and forced a runoff?

There was little dust-up in 2012 in Texas, in which eight candidates went after the GOP-e's guy (who was not an incumbent), and the GOP-e guy lost badly in the runoff.

Results[edit]

Primary[edit]

Republican primary results[58]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican David Dewhurst 624,170 44.6%
Republican Ted Cruz 479,079 34.2%
Republican Tom Leppert 186,675 13.3%
Republican Craig James 50,211 3.6%
Republican Glenn Addison 22,888 1.6%
Republican Lela Pittenger 18,028 1.3%
Republican Ben Gambini 7,193 0.5%
Republican Curt Cleaver 6,649 0.5%
Republican Joe Argis 4,558 0.3%
Totals 1,399,451 100%

Runoff[edit]

Republican runoff results[59]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Ted Cruz 631,316 56.8%
Republican David Dewhurst 480,165 43.2%
Totals 1,111,481 100%

25 posted on 06/10/2014 10:31:16 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Steelers6

It is truly stunning how easily people let themselves be lied to. Or how willingly.

How does a person look at that mans public comments and positions and then vote for him? Especially when there are alternatives?

Not a single one of those people has any right at all to complain about what the GOP has done to America, nor what they will do. they had ample chance to help correct it and instead willingly chose to help.


26 posted on 06/10/2014 10:36:02 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart (How's that 'lesser evil' workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Thanks for nothing SC. You deserve Linda but the rest of us don’t. SC joins AZ, OH, and KY as RINO HQ.


27 posted on 06/10/2014 10:39:23 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevao

True, but having so many candidates really dilutes the message that someone would be a viable and appropriate alternative to Graham...instead he just dominated the race and the rest of the candidates were just background noise because there were so many of them...and with the nearest challenger having 14% apparently none of them were very organized at all. It’s a shame...out of all of the incumbents that it would have been beneficial to defeat, this guy would have been the most beneficial to replace. Oh well...


28 posted on 06/10/2014 10:39:41 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody

Thanks for the education! I forget important things like that from time to time.


29 posted on 06/10/2014 10:40:20 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JohnBrowdie

Three works pretty well in forcing a runoff if one of the two really resonates. In MS, unfortunately, the third guy took just enough votes to force a runoff for McDaniel. Had it be the other way around, with McDaniel a point down on the incumbent, we would have been thrilled to have that guy in the race. As it is, it prevented the out and out victory.

I agree...a crowded field doesn’t help. It also doesn’t help that none of them got any real traction. There just wasn’t anyone to be ‘the one’ be able to take on Graham.


30 posted on 06/10/2014 11:03:24 PM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Unless some of Lindsey’s went to a stronger opponent, which would have likely happened if all the energy had been poured into just one strong candidate who could articulate the conservative message. Need to think smart.


31 posted on 06/10/2014 11:05:02 PM PDT by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kenny

55-56% in a 7 candidate race is far from underwhelming. We were assured over and over by FR experts on SC elections that it was actually just great having a large number of challengers, because that would keep Graham under the requisite 50%.


32 posted on 06/10/2014 11:10:21 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Too many assumptions there. People today are mostly uneducated. Large majorities won’t be able to tell the name of the US Chief Justice. They don’t read. They are fed one-liner campaign commercials. Women voters skew things up. They tend to vote Democratic and vote “soft”:i.e. Graham-type candidate. Even without looking at the internal poll numbers there’s no question Graham would have won a lop-side female vote.


33 posted on 06/10/2014 11:13:57 PM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Does South Carolina have an open primary?

We do, but there was also a democrat primary taking place as well.

34 posted on 06/10/2014 11:42:02 PM PDT by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Not at all. Every word you wrote reinforces fully my assertion of how willing people are to be led.

The fact that they voted at all puts the majority of them in a ‘smarter’ more aware bracket than most. Remember this was a republican primary. Most of them can read and aren’t full subscribers to the gibdsmedat mentality of the Dems. Or at least shouldn’t be.

Ultimately there is no excuse to be an uninformed voter. None. Any assertion that there is is itself an excuse. Are there uninformed voters? Sure. Some of these morons just hit the party button as usual without a conscious thought given. Which is exactly WHY we have a Uniparty system with closet case Republicans.


35 posted on 06/10/2014 11:47:28 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart (How's that 'lesser evil' workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BradyLS

Exactly what genius couldn’t see they’d split the conservative vote and get most to drop?


36 posted on 06/10/2014 11:48:33 PM PDT by Yehuda (Search youtube and listen to "Islams Not For Me".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Linda reached out to democrats, encouraging them to vote for him in the primary. And they did.


37 posted on 06/10/2014 11:53:48 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Wagglebee, welcome home we missed you! ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Goober's like a festering hemorrhoid. He just won't go away.

Not that I've ever had one.... Besides this Goober.

38 posted on 06/11/2014 12:03:47 AM PDT by Bullish (You ever notice that liberalism really just amounts to anti-morality?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynwoody
The problem was none of the candidates were running against Graham i.e. vocalizing his short comings, or censures, or down right deceit. They were all very cordial and complementary of the Sr. Senator as if planning for his victory and not wanting to get on his bad side........
39 posted on 06/11/2014 2:04:42 AM PDT by JParris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

As much as I’m enjoying Cantor’s loss I would have traded that seat for this one. I real thought there was a chance of forcing a runoff.


40 posted on 06/11/2014 3:41:35 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

Not me. I voted against him.


41 posted on 06/11/2014 4:05:27 AM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

I asked those around me “why?” They were afraid to vote for a newcomer because he/she could be beaten by the Democrats in November. That’s the consensus I’m hearing. But in heavily Republican SC, that wouldn’t happen. But this was the thinking. I won’t be voting for Lindsey in the general.


42 posted on 06/11/2014 4:55:17 AM PDT by ThePatriotsFlag ("There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Many people in SC like him on a personal level.

Then they are idiots. The low-information Republican will be the death of this country.

43 posted on 06/11/2014 5:24:35 AM PDT by Count of Monte Fisto (The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Evidently the people of S.C. like him pretty much. The race wasn’t even close but we should feel pretty good about the fact that we have pulled even the rinos to the right. Cantor losing will send shock waves through the party and immigration reform is dead.


44 posted on 06/11/2014 5:42:07 AM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: amihow
Need to think smart.

If we're ever to get out of this mess, then ultimately it's the voters who need to think smart. Those in VA-7 did; those in SC didn't.

45 posted on 06/11/2014 9:31:56 AM PDT by kevao (Biblical Jesus: Give your money to the poor. Socialist Jesus: Give your neighbor's money to the poor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Agree that voters need to think smart. But the conservstive activists do also. Divide the slate. Divide the vote.


46 posted on 06/11/2014 10:45:49 AM PDT by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
How we got there? You've got to be kidding? We ran 6 against one. Duh!

Beyond stupid.

47 posted on 06/11/2014 10:47:29 AM PDT by Chgogal (Obama "hung the SEALs out to dry, basically exposed them like a set of dog balls..." CMH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
No. We ran 6 against one. We R STUPID.
48 posted on 06/11/2014 10:48:20 AM PDT by Chgogal (Obama "hung the SEALs out to dry, basically exposed them like a set of dog balls..." CMH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart

The fact that most of them can read is not the point. It’s being informed. We are viewing the average primary voters through the lens of our own understanding because we keep ourselves informed of the Senator Graham types. But the average voters (and again, this is mainly women voters) have no clue. They are too busy either reading the gossip magazines, disciples of Oprah or at most simply catch a glimpse of the day’s major headlines. This group is swayed by last minute self-serving promotional ads. To put it differently, outside of the usual die-hards, the reasonably informed primary voters would NOT have voted for Graham. In California an indicted state senator (Leland) whose name appeared for a statewide office garnered 300,000 votes!


49 posted on 06/11/2014 11:39:08 AM PDT by Steelfish (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The bottom line is that there is ZERO excuse to not be informed. Especially being a supposed right wing republican. An uninformed voter is the problem. they elect liberals, whether GOP or dem.


50 posted on 06/11/2014 11:41:49 AM PDT by Norm Lenhart (How's that 'lesser evil' workin' out for ya?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson