The Democrat, with her brother.
I was just talking this morning with Taegan Goddard of Political Wire, and looking at his site while we spoke, I saw this:
Democrat Could Win if Sanford is Nominee
John Fund says that many believe former Gov. Mark Sanford (R) could lose the congressional special election — assuming he wins an upcoming runoff — “to a Democrat — especially a business-oriented woman such as Colbert Busch. Her platform is pitched perfectly toward moderates: protecting retirement benefits, an expansion of engineering and science education and reducing the deficit by eliminating waste.”
Said pollster Pat Caddell: “If Sanford is the final GOP candidate he could lose a 58 percent Romney district based on his weakness with women voters over the affair he had while governor.”
The Week: Is Mark Sanford vs. Stephen Colbert’s sister political gold?
… which just happens to be the very thing I was thinking about this morning.
Here are five reasons to think it’s possible for Elizabeth Colbert Busch to beat Mark Sanford:
- She, too, has name recognition in the district (and outside of it). And none of it is negative, at least insofar as it would reflect on her character.
- She’s a woman and a mom, running against a guy who’s famous not only for cheating on his wife in a spectacularly public way, but for deserting his four sons on Father’s Day weekend in order to do so. Not to mention being governor and disappearing from the state without telling anyone where he was going.
- Another woman and Democrat came within four points of beating the incumbent Republican in 2008, largely due to Barack Obama’s coattails.
- She’s touting herself as a businesswoman, while Sanford hasn’t been known to work in the private sector since the early 90s.
- People in that district know Sanford better than people in the rest of SC. In my experience, the better people know him, the less likely they are to vote for him.
But here are three reasons to think the opposite.
- Obama’s coattails weren’t enough in 2008 for that other Democrat to win, even against the lackluster Henry Brown — and they’re a good bit shorter now. In fact, except for Jimmy Carter, this district hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since 1956.
- The district has been redrawn since 2008, and it’s more Republican now. And remember, no Democrat has been elected to Congress from the 1st since Tommy Hartnett rode in on Reagan’s tails in 1980.
- Poll after poll, and yesterday’s vote, show that voters are remarkably forgiving of Sanford. And after all these years, they don’t seem to know him well enough for my number 5 above to kick in.
Those three may cancel out the five. In fact, if you forced me to bet right now, I’d bet on Sanford. But there are variables that could lead to a different result.
The almost-certain Republican nominee.
Related Posts
Isn’t it a bit premature to declare Sanford the GOP winner? I suspect the vast majority of the folks who voted for another candidate will likely vote against Sanford (and hence for his remaining challenger) come runoff day. That extra 13 or so percent might be hard for Sanford to pick up. Whover wins will easily defeat Ms. Colbert.
The negative campaigning hasn’t even begun against Colbert Busch yet. We all know who Sanford is and what he did.
I’m guessing she’s never experienced the mud slinging that is sure to occur. Will she be able to hold up under the expected attacks?
Democrats are certainly hoping the five will outweigh the three. State Chair Dick Harpootlian put this out this morning:
Does anything Harpootlian say really matter? I compare him to static on the radio… nothing but noise.
“she is in this race for the right reasons: to fight for the middle class families, small businesses and members of the community who work hard and play by the rules but have been forgotten by career politicians.”
What? She’s not going to try and help the poor and disadvantaged? Isn’t that the Democratic base?
The express lane between hollywood-style fame and Washington DC political power continues to run without impediment. Rep. Bono, President Reagan and must be looking down and smiling. I’ll wager that Senator Franken and former Senator Thompson also approve. Next we’ll probably see the entire Kardashian clan running for congress. Congresswoman Kimberly Kardashian-West from Calabasas, Senator Kourtney Kardashian from Florida, Rep. Khloe Kardashian Odom from Los Angeles. I can see it now, it’ll make great ratings on “E!”
I don’t think it’s fair to list Fred Thompson in that category. He was a Washington hand well before he became an actor. For instance, he was chief counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee. He sort of fell into acting by accident. He was the attorney for a whistleblower who helped bring down Gov. Ray Blanton in Tennessee. When Hollywood made a movie about her, they got Fred to play himself. The rest is cinema history…
Fair enough. I retract Fred Dalton Thompson and nominate “B-1” Bob Dornan.
I tend to disagree with #1 — I think among Republicans, being closely related to Stephen Colbert would be a pretty strong negative.
You may hate identity politics, but it likely will come down to the women voters in a general election.
However, it does seem possible that in a run-off primary that Sanford wouldn’t see a pop over 40%. Who will have the more motivated base in two weeks?
It’s interesting that some of y’all don’t see Sanford’s victory in the runoff as a foregone conclusion. Well, y’all could be right, but it seems like a pretty sure thing to me.
If either of the candidates who might make it into the runoff with Sanford has a chance, I’m thinking it would be Larry Grooms, since he’s better known. At least to me, but I’m thinking also to a lot of voters in the district.
But what do I know? I didn’t foresee this Curtis Bostic guy doing so well — probably because Charleston County Council isn’t very prominent on my radar screen…
If all the anyone but Sanford voters stick together, the other guy will win.
Colbert Busch is not a celebrity. Her brother is. She has solid credentials.
But the only reason she’s getting any attention is because she’s related to Stephen Colbert. If she wasn’t, we wouldn’t be having a conversation about her.
People love to forgive. Sanford – count on it.
Why would anyone want to put Sanford back in any office? Obviously the man couldn’t find a job that pays as well as congressman. Why do we want to pay him a big fat salary to do next to nothing?
Because it would be far worse if he DID something? 😉
All Sanford has to do is get everyone who voted this week to vote next time. If he can get any of the also rans to endorse him, it will be a done deal. I don’t think there are enough people mad enough at him to make the effort to go out and vote against him, especially when only 1/8 people voted for his opponent. If it was a 37-25 split, maybe.
It’s pretty much a mortal lock. Colbert Busch may be a nice person but she has zero legislative experience and a resume that is very narrow in its breadth. Although from her website, she’s not going to win too many die hard Democrats with statements like these:
“Washington is failing us. For more than two years the President and the Congress have stumbled from one crisis to the next. Democrats and Republicans are both to blame. ”
“The Government Accountability Office, a non-partisan agency that serves as the government’s internal watchdog, estimates that the Medicare program makes $44 billion in improper payments each year, most of which are overpayments. It is fraud too: The Rand Corporation estimated that fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid cost taxpayers $98 billion in 2011 alone.” (This is something Obama talked about five years ago and has done little to fix – and we want MORE government run health care???)
But then if you read her Policy statements, it gets very repetitive. She uses the same “Medicare is full of fraud and abuse” argument as a key point in her economic policy, healthcare policy, and senior policy views. Seems like she’s a little light in the details.
Another thing to note: Colbert Busch got 96% of the Democrat vote and that equaled
15,776 votes. Sanford only got 37% of the Republican vote and still received 4000 more votes (19,812) than Colbert Busch. There were over 50,000 votes cast in the Republican race.
She would have to get an enormous number of crossover Republicans to win.
Although from her website, she’s not going to win too many die hard Democrats with statements like these: …
-Doug
I guess both the “die hard Democrats” from that district will stay at home on election day.
rimshot!
The Rand Corporation estimated that fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid cost taxpayers $98 billion in 2011 alone.”
-Doug
I’ve always wondered about the so-called fraud in these programs, especially Medicaid. IF most of the Medicaid fraud goes to the treatment of people who do not actually qualify on the basis of income then I don’t see much of a problem. Let’s say someone makes a few hundred dollars more than the income cutoff but finds a way get needed medical treatment for some legitimate ailment then there is no net loss to society. Why? Because that person will be treated anyone. The only difference is the taxpayers pay in one situation and the insurance system pays in the other. Not sure we should lose sleep over that situation.
Contrast that to the hundreds of billions of excessive salary and profits raked in by executives of hospitals, insurance companies and the drug industry through the financial rape of patients in the private sector and the fraud claim seems rather minor.
“Contrast that to the hundreds of billions of excessive salary and profits raked in by executives of hospitals, insurance companies and the drug industry through the financial rape of patients in the private sector and the fraud claim seems rather minor.””
Billions? With a B? And Hundreds of them? Exaggerate much? And any excessive salaries are approved for any public company by the board of directors… who work to maximize SHAREHOLDER value (you know, like the pension funds and mutual funds owned by millions of Americans).
The fraud in Medicare and Medicaid is because there is little incentive for the government to police the payments BEFORE the fruad occurs (which is what insurance companies do). They pay the fraudulent claims, then create additional government departments to track down the fraud. There is no incentive to do any better.
Bud, Doug is right. “Billions” in executive compensation are not at issue. However, the mantra “our mission is to maximize shareholder value” never seems to get in the way of outrageous compensation packages for execs; witness the current flap over J.C. Penney’s management. In any case, what about the customers? You know, those people who keep you in business?
I do think that the fractured ownership of modern corporations does lead to a lack of shareholder oversight. I almost never fill out my proxy voting cards, even for companies I have sizeable investments in. I don’t really know enough about the directors to make an informed decision, and my small block of shares doesn’t count for much when it comes to approving or opposing proposals. With mutual funds it’s even more remote. Sometimes big activist shareholders can have some effect on executive compensation.