So it seems that Lindsey Graham's little sister, Darlene, has won the special run-off election here in S. Carolina and will run...and most likely win...the November election to fill the seat come January, barring some wild error on her part. She had secured the endorsements of both the sitting and outgoing governor, Henry McMaster, and Donald Trump. So her win goes to the win column for Trump-endorsed candidates, which is still greatly favorable to his influence in that regard. That's cool, but doesn't affect my own choices in the slightest. It's nice to know when his picks align with mine, but never has any bearing on my choices in the slightest.
I find it a bit curious in a state considered red and thus conservative, that she would win over someone with a far better conservative ranking than her brother had. I don't believe, from what I've gleaned thus far about her, that Darlene is even as conservative as Lindsey was. Both Russel Fry, who didn't make the cut for the run-off Darlene just won, and Ralph Norman, who she defeated in the run-off, ranked in the mid to upper 90s in conservative ranking systems, like the American Conservative Union and Conservative Review's Liberty Score. Graham only managed to be ranked somewhere in the 80s. Norman didn't run against Lindsey in the original primary before Lindsey died. He ran in the gubernatorial race and lost. There was a run-off for that, too, and he wasn't a part of it. (If I recall, he fared better than my personal choice who was an outsider) I don't recall if Fry was among the original cast of candidates at that time.
Norman had the backing of gun rights organizations because he's always been a 2nd Amendment stalwart. In surveys sent to candidates, Graham didn't respond, and she's said to have backed a state politician who opposed 2nd Amendment legislation in the state (I don't recall the specifics). She's also been a rather D.E.I. supporter in her previous state position. I hadn't seen her debate, so that's about as far as I can go in speaking on her conservative bona fides, which to me seem less than compelling. Again, it doesn't mean she's not a conservative, but simply not as conservative as I believe she should be, given how desperately we need the most conservative people in the most solid majority we can muster for the sake of the nation.
I will of course cast my vote for her in the November midterm election. "Mostly" conservative is always better than not conservative at all, and that's pretty much her opponent, Annie Andrews based on what I've learned of her so far. It will be interesting to see how Graham performs throughout her six year term, and in the meantime, I hope a true conservative from our state rises up to challenge and replace her if she doesn't prove me wrong about her being only "mostly" conservative. In the meantime, I'll be content if she proves to be no better than a rubber stamp for Trump and his successor (provided that person is a Republican), and a decided thorn in the side of the Democrat marxists.
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
Sis Wins!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
FWIW, I suspect that she will be a RINO and not be helpful to any conservative legislation moving forward. I get that the circumstances which propelled her to victory sucked, but I'm not hopeful that she'll be particularly helpful.
As I indicated, as a conservative, I'm not impressed. I think she's legitimately "conservative enough", and I think it's too soon to write her off as a "RINO". At this point she seems to be a Trumper, and that'll have to do. Her Dem opponent's best characteristic is that she doesn't seem to be a full on marxist. These days that might make her a "DINO", but if the right chooses not to blow off this midterm election, Darlene will prance about as SC's first female senator as if that means anything significant.
I tend to think she'll be a rubber stamp for Trump unless there's some issue of which I'm unaware on which she is already totally at odds with the president. What comes after Trump, and how she'll operate them, is of far more concern to me at this time. This idea of carrying on her brother's political legacy is hardly compelling to me. I just hope she turns out to be no less a conservative he was at worst.
They both deserve to lose during the general election.
Are you actually suggesting you'd prefer the Democrat candidate?
More that they both suck seems more likely.
Who are you and why do you say this? I'd prefer an explanation for such comments from anyone who thinks such a worth posting all on their own. They're not. They're meaningless without an explanation.
Given that they both got as far as they did means they got support. That one of them won over the other, means that person got even more support. Getting the support of the majority who choose to actually vote means the one who did deserves to be in position for the next step, which in this case is the general election. Should Darlene Graham prevail over her Dem opponent, then she deserves to be Senator. We can only vote for those who run. You don't like any who are running? It's your duty to choose from among them anyway to get the best choice...or the least threatening...the win. That's how it works.
That was me, and I said it because everything I've heard (including from you) is that Graham is at best "conservative enough" (whatever that means) and is likely one of the RINOs you often complain about. I suspect that Jesse's point is that there were more attractive candidates to conservatives and that they lost to Graham because of name recognition and/or pity. That the best thing you have to say about hers is that she is to least bad of the two options is hardly a ringing endorsement. I agree that it is possible that she will be slightly less bad in terms of how she votes than a democrat and that she is the only viable candidate for conservatives. In a state like MN, were used to voting for the least bad choice because MN republicans are not usually very conservative and we take what we can get. It's a little more disappointing that she's the best option that a typically red state can offer.
I know how it works, yet I can also acknowledge the reality of that she's likely to vote with the DFL than the GOP on many important issues.
First, it seems we're each pretty good at identifying each other by the comments we leave anonymously (intended or not). We both need to be more conscious of signing our names.
You know what "conservative enough" means. It means where such is the only conservative available to run against someone who's "not conservative", "not conservative enough" or a straight up leftist, it's the conservative for whom a conservative must vote.
Graham may indeed turn out to be a total RINO, which is often defined as "insufficiently conservative" or not "conservative enough". It's really to early to tell and that's too bad since it was an unnecessary risk taken by voters of SC. As I said, Norman has a great track record on conservative issues. He is ranked against Lindsey Graham as follows:
The Conservative Review's "Liberty Score" ranks politicians like schools grade papers: A letter grade based on the percentage of correct answers, which in this case would be conservative positions supported:
Ralph Norman got an A for being 92% "correct".
Lindsey Graham got an F for being only 43% conservative.
The American Conservative Union's "CPAC Score" was as follows:
Norman ranked 96.81%
Graham ranked 80.87%
The above are lifetime scores. Graham has a much larger samples size which goes back farther than Norman's. Norman's earliest grade was in the high 80s or mid 90s (as I recall...I looked at it over an hour ago and only wrote down the lifetime score) but his grades since have been steady 100%. Conversely, Graham's earliest scores were as high as 100 in two or three different years, but in recent years (maybe 10 or so) plunged down to the 50s.
The Heritage Foundation:
Norman: 100%
Graham: 76%
(Darlene shows up, but with an "N/A")
So if we look at Graham's numbers and try to compare him to Sis, there's not really enough to make such a comparison and what I said in the post reflects what little I've heard of her actions on the state level. But naturally, as seems to have been the case for most every GOP candidate for every office to be filled, each is "the conservative we need" (or words to that effect). I have little to go specifically regarding Darlene, but Norman's record according to each of the ranking bodies listed made him the guy SC should be running in November...at least in a race between the two of them. (Again, Russell Fry scored very similarly to Norman, and I hadn't heard him speak of term limits, while I did for Norman, which is why I went with Fry in this special election.) Not that Darlene is the GOP nominee, she's still the lesser of two evils at worst when considering her opponent come November. That would have been true of her brother, who won the original primary by enough to easily avoid a run-off, unlike Sis had to endure. I didn't support Lindsey, but would have voted for him in November. Now, I'll be voting for Darlene and hope she's no worse than he's been over the last ten years or so.
It should also be kept in mind that these ranking systems are based on the "definition" of conservative from the perspective of each. What they consider to be a conservative position on a bill, might not be conservative enough. Or, the bill was deemed not the conservative position because of all else which came with it which may have not been conservative. Heritage ranked Nancy Mace at 100%. But Mace voted for SSM on as many as three separate occasions and has defended keeping abortion legal. How does she get a 100% ranking? I'd have to study how Heritage makes their determinations.
Regardless, generally speaking can be confident of the conservative bona fides of any candidate by looking at and comparing each of these. (I think Club for Growth ranks politicians and on the state level, too, but I've not checked them out yet. I also don't know if they do that nationally.)
So, with all that said, and given whom Darlene will be running against in November, she's certainly "conservative enough" to get my vote. I want to see more GOP seats on both the House and Senate and if I have to accept an actual RINO, I'll do so, because I believe the more conservatives we have in each, the more RINOs will vote with the conservative crowd.
I get it, I really do, you have a suboptimal choice in an election and you want to find some justification for voting for someone who isn't as conservative as you'd prefer. Yet, there's no track record to predict how she'll perform. No one is being critical of having to vote for a "bad" candidate to avoid a potentially worse candidate. The problem is bigger than your individual vote.
Which is why I couldn't support her in the special election. I've little idea of what I'd be supporting. Merely being the sister of a GOP senator, as well as one who claims to be conservative isn't nearly enough when the choice is between her and a guy with a proven conservative record. Now, I have to hope...as I did with Trump...that she's what she claims to be, which is more conservative than Annie Andrews, and will conduct herself as such when she wins.
I mean you really don't have much of an option at this point. Even a 3rd party conservative is likely to lose and split the GOP vote also. Likewise, I am also faced with the same situation in virtually every election. I have no real idea how conservative Tafoya is, but she'll be exponentially better than Flanagan. Likewise Demuth doesn't appear to be as conservative as I'd like, but she'll be better than Kolbuchar. Unfortunately, Klobuchar has massive name recognition and is running as more moderate than Walz which will probably be enough for her to win.
It's really a sad state of affairs, but really we must deal with it to one degree or another in every election and primary. The aversion to talking politics is part of the problem as it's difficult to persuade or be persuaded if folks won't engage because of foolish fears of negative outcomes simply for daring to promote one's perception of good and evil. So, we make do with the what's available and hope for the best. I try to nag my reps as often as possible. I want them to know what a conservative expects from those who claim to be conservative as well. And where I've been forced to tolerate absolute morons and evildoers (like Durbin, Duckworth and Krishnamoorthi when I was still in Hellinois), I nag them even more.
Post a Comment