Back to MyDD Weblog

SC Senate choice

In South Carolina, Graham and Sanders debate Social Security, liberalism; The State carries that wrap-up, as well as Debate Buzz, and the Keys to the debate. Here's a few lines I noticed:

If there are any questions about Graham, most have to do with his personality and manner. At times he came across as strident, causing some observers to question whether he's a good coastal candidate.... Sanders appeared more steadfast as he looked directly into the camera to address viewers. Graham directed his responses to the questioners, rather than to the camera, so voters only saw his left profile most of the evening.

Social Security -- Graham said allowing the option of private investment is the only way for the system to stay viable. Otherwise, the number of retirees is increasing so dramatically, there soon will be only two workers supporting every one retiree.

Sanders favors keeping the Social Security trust fund as is. He opposes Congress' "raiding" it to fund other programs. One of the night's liveliest exchanges came over Social Security:

Graham: "Alex is a nice guy, but this is a national game being played by Democrats that I resent."

Sanders: "It's not me who's scaring Social Security recipients, it's Lindsey Graham's failed scheme."

Graham: "His plan is no plan. Sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing is going to let this system go bankrupt."

Sanders: "I'm the last person to sit on the sidelines and do nothing."

Let's face it, Sanders is kicking the dog out of Graham on the latter's SS privatization plans. All Graham wants to talk about is the flag, but even then, Sanders is able to kick in that it's just a diversionary attack ad to deflect from substantive matters. Even Republicans think it's silly.

WIS has a good 4 minute mini-debate between Graham and Sanders.

Here's the story about the GOP group formed to support Sanders, the Democratic Senate candidate in SC:

Weston Adams announced the formation of the 19-member Republicans for Alex Sanders Committee at a Thursday press conference at his Saluda Avenue home. Adams was ambassador to Malawi under President Reagan. His son, Robert Adams, managed Lt. Gov. Bob Peeler's campaign for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.... Other committee members include: Ken Powell, former state Republican Party chairman; former S.C. House member Weems Baskin; and Lt. Gen. James D. Vaught. Some of the members worked with Sanders in the Legislature or have been lifelong friends.

That's some serious Republican heft in the short-list that's backing Alex Sanders. It points toward a rift that's in the SC GOP: between what amounts to the establishment and the upstarts. The establishment headed up Bush's 2000 campaign, and control most of the state's tri-divided infrastructure. The upstarts, Graham and Sanford, were not asked by Bush to head-up his 2000 campaign, but McCain did ask them. The 2000 SC primary was a nasty intra-party affair, with character assassination,in the tradition of Atwater, nailing McCain to a tree.

Post-Bush winning 2000, the battles were seemingly put behind, and Graham was given a pass from primary competition; in large part (alongside the buckets of cash he raised), because he didn't endorse any of the many Republican Governor candidates. Peeler was the frontrunner whom Sanford overtook in the run-off, in-part due to Graham's endorsement-- or so the Peeler campaign upholds. The wounds of 2000, which were on behalf of Bush and McCain, were re-opened-- this time with SC candidates. Blood has spilled, and the upstarts, whom emerged victorious, are in place to firmly take control of the GOP for decades -yes decades- to come. Graham will replace Thurmond, and after a couple of terms as Governor, Sanford will replace Senator Hollings. Peeler, and the GOP establishment behind/below him, know that if Sanford/Graham win, they are relegated to has-been status; conversely, if Sanford/Graham lose, they will remain the GOP Party's leadership. That's one angle, which is likely the impetus of the Republicans for Sanders movement.

Another part is Sanders himself. As the article states, he's a fiscal conservative, and pretty socially conservative as well (except for the death penalty, which he's against). He's been showcased nationally, in the NYT's, New Yorker, and MetroBEAT. He's on schedule to be financially competitive, and is competitive in the polls-- remember, Thurmond only won his last election with 54 percent of the vote.

Then there's the dynamics of the candidates and this election. As GA6thDem pointed out in earlier comments: Graham has only 1/3 of the state as his natural constituency. Sanders has 2/3 of the state. What gives Sanders the advantage right now is that the part of the state that decides the elections,(upstate always goes GOP, low country goes DEM), the midlands, is part of his constituency. 2002 is a crucial election year for Democrats in SC. With Hodges running as a more-or-less popular Governor, the GOTV efforts needed for a Sanders victory seem plausible. Especially alongside the statewide candidacy's of African-Americans Benjamin for AG, and Wade for SoS-- the SC Democrats have a Dream Team of their own.

Sanders plays the patriarch Senator role well. Alongside his wife Zoe, the personality test between him and Graham is no contest, with Sanders winning hands-down. Still, at this point Sanders winning is still a longshot, as Sabato points out:

Sabato calls Graham a "good bet" to defeat Democratic nominee Alex Sanders. Sanders is "an interesting opponent." But just because The New Yorker magazine gave him a warm, fuzzy profile doesn't mean he'll win.

Graham and Sanders will knock heads on MTP with Russert.-- they will debate during part of the Sunday, Oct. 13 program.

An Atwater-like whispering campaign has been underway for some time that concerns the single-status of Graham, and claims he is gay. I don't expect that to become an issue-- the Sanders campaign has reportedly rejected leaking out information on Graham. It's probably fair game, considering that when asked in the recent debate about supporting the same-sex benefits for surviving partners of 9/11, Graham cast it in terms of Sanders backing an initiative of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., as part of "an effort to force the homosexual agenda beyond what is appropriate." The race for Governor in SC has gotten downright silly in the attack and counter-attack games. I don't expect Sanders to exploit this issue, true or not, it's not his style to go for diversion over substance; besides, he doesn't need to, he's got Graham up a tree trying to explain why he want's to put the $2Trillion of Social Security into the sinking Dow.

Redford's coming to SC for Sanders, there's three more debates, and the only recent polling (Survey USA & Democrat) show the margin as only 2-8 percent. It still looks on track to me as an upset in the making. A slight lean to Sanders.

Back to MyDD Weblog