Mark Sanford wins: "That’s good news for Democrats." (updated)

[ProSense]

Last edited Wed May 8, 2013, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Mark Sanford might win on Tuesday. That’s good news for Democrats.

Posted by Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan

Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford is the momentum candidate heading into Tuesday’s special election in the state’s 1st district. Should he win, it’s a bit of short-term pain for the potential of long-term gain for House Democrats...Yes, you read that right. Losing a potentially winnable seat in a special election might wind up helping Democrats nationally more than emerging victorious would.

Here’s why.

Sanford is damaged goods, politically speaking, thanks to his acknowledgment in 2009 that he had disappeared from the state to visit his mistress in Argentina as well as more recent revelations that he had trespassed in his ex-wife’s house...And it’s not just in South Carolina where people know about Sanford and his transgressions over the past four years. His initial defense of his 2009 absence — Sanford told staff he was “hiking the Appalachian Trail” (thereby ruining any actual hiking trips for married men everywhere) — became a national story and made the then-governor a punchline for late-night comedians.

A Sanford victory puts that guy in the House Republican Conference. That means that not only do the late-night jokes start again but, more importantly, every GOPer in the House and Senate will be asked whether they support Sanford and what they think of serving with him.

That reality is why the National Republican Congressional Committee essentially washed its collective hands of Sanford once the trespassing revelations went public. The party establishment wanted (and wants) to make clear that they have nothing to do with Sanford. It won’t matter. The narrative that Republicans have a woman problem will have new life — with little the GOP leadership can do about it.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/05/06/mark-sanford-might-win-on-tuesday-thats-good-news-for-democrats/

Lemonade is good!

<...>

"House Republicans' outreach to women voters now has Mark Sanford as the face. Republicans now have to defend him and stand with him until Election Day," Rep. Steve Israel, DCCC chairman, said in a statement. "In this deep red Republican district that Mitt Romney won by 18 points, the fact that the Democrat made this competitive is a testament to the strength of Elizabeth Colbert Busch as a candidate and the Republican habit of nominating flawed candidates."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/politics/sanford-house-race/index.html

Updated to add:

Sanford wins: South Carolina voters reject family values, honesty, integrity and responsibility
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/07/1207618/-Sanford-wins-Now-watch-the-GOP-hypocrites-celebrate

[graham4anything]

1. Everything is coming into place for Hillary2016 and a 7 to 2 SCOTUS in the next 10 years.

Wars are won by losing battles.
The winning the war is what is important
not individual battles.

[ProSense]

3. You know,

"Everything is coming into place for Hillary2016 and a 7 to 2 SCOTUS in the next 10 years."

...Hillary isn't the only Democrat in the country, and there is still an election to deal with in 2014.

She probably isn't going to run.

Bill Clinton: Hillary ‘Hasn’t Mentioned’ 2016 To Me
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/bill-clinton-hillary-hasnt-mentioned-2016-to-me

Warren/O'Malley 2016

[graham4anything]

16. 90% of the country wants Hillary. 99% of Hillary's voters & 95% of Obama's.

Ron and Rand and Christie and Jeb don't want her

Makes no sense to have O'Malley on a ticket with someone from the Northeast.

Janet Napolitano or Kathleen Sebelius make more sense as both are beloved in their states which means more coattails.
Janet to bring the SW in

Maryland is a small blue state that is solid democratic and there is no reason to pick that

JFK/LBJ
Carter/Mondale
Obama(Chicago)/Biden(NE)

Even Hillary/Jerry Brown (though not gonna happen) would be a great ticket

if the nominee wants someone from a small NE state, they would pick Joe Biden who would be a great choice

And let's joke a little and say Warren(who is not going to run, but let's say she does,
She would ask Hillary as the strongest candidate to be her VP
but why would Hillary not run?

Unless one is floating a conspiracy theory like Muckrucklebee is doing, no reason at all
(and being that Hillary and ELiz are the same age, one can't use the ageism thingy).

and Jerry Brown was going to pick Jesse Jackson in 1992
and if one remembers, Clinton asked three other people before asking Gore

it's usually territorial when a democratic candidate wins
1960 1964 1976 2008 2016

btw, OMalley should stop putting Hillary down, I am sure he will be begging Hillary to be his vp
so putting her down is not the way to go there. But he brings nothing electorally to the table in 2016.And coattails are needed, in all 50 states, only hillary can do so.

Of course, how about Warren/Michelle46 if Hillary don't run
remember- you need 95% of President Obama's voters to care and vote.
Only Hillary and Michelle guarantee that.

[ProSense]

17. This is

"90% of the country wants Hillary."

...is pure silliness, and Bill Clinton has some advice:

Clinton added,“I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I know this: that is the worst expenditure of our time.”

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/bill-clinton-hillary-hasnt-mentioned-2016-to-me

[graham4anything]

18. he is correct- the OTHER neverwillbees should stop wasting time on a 100% money waster

he is telling the others to do the job they were elected for as TEAM PLAYERS on team Obama.
Hillary is not in office now, therefore, it don't apply to her.

[ProSense]

20. Denial, it's what's for dinner. n/t

[graham4anything]

24. Truth is-Sanford would have lost if this was 2016 and a presidential w/ Hillary

[ProSense]

30. Who cares? It wasn't. n/t

[leftynyc]

23. I'm a Hillary supporter and I think

you are doing a major disservice to her by your actions here. There are other very fine Democrats who could decide to run and should be given the same chance as Hillary. Pretending it's a done deal is unfair and frankly, after what happened in 2008, moronic.

[graham4anything]

27. There were 2 candidates in 2008 who could win and a fraudster named Edwards & others far behind

none of the other 12 was in the top tier.

In 2016 the only other viable choice would be Mass. most popular person, Deval Patrick,
but he won't run if Hillary does. He won't be in office, and can campaign freely.

I myself would want Michelle to run, but that is for 2024.

Remember-Hillary did not lose in 2008. She like President Obama would have beaten McCain.
No other Democratic person in 2008 could have said that.
Only reason Hillary wasn't the nominee was President Obama's voters

It is possible Hillary will pick Deval Patrick or Cory Booker for VP.
But Cory will be in his first term as Senator.

and if Markey doesn't start to resonate, (he is an awful statewide candidate, that only his district knows who he is), there is no way anyone would want Warren to give up her powerful senior senator seat.(even if he wins, why would she toss that aside only a few months after entering the seat? Totally illogical.

HIllary will need her voice in the Senate

[ProSense]

31. Guess what?

"Remember-Hillary did not lose in 2008."

She did lose, and you should come to grips with that.

[graham4anything]

32. It would be like having Koufax & Gibson pitch against each other. Two winners

at least Hillary didn't sulk and quit and leave the arena
and the greatest thing President Obama did was making Hillary the SOS, and Hillary becoming the #1 greatest SOS of all time. It will be decades or centuries before anyone else comes close.

And Hillary as SOS was so much better than Hillary as VP, and it is far better to have HIllary as 45 instead of 44 as she won't be hit with the crap she would have been hit with had see served the public first.
Because, though it won't be racism, it would have been sexism.

By 2016 and when she annhiliates Jeb, there won't be opposition anymore.

[ProSense]

35. Actually: "It would be like" she lost, which she did. n/t

[graham4anything]

49. Sometimes, like in the NCAA or Tennis, you have the Top 64

64-32-16-8-4-2-1

and in the semi finals, often the two best are together
only one from each side can get to the finals

but the two in the semis going against each other often are the two best

and add the two best together=the winner in 2016

nothing was ever more true than in 2016
one will need Barack Obama's voters and HIllary's voters to win
without those, the other side will win the biggest landslide since Dukakis or McGovern or Goldwater or Obama in 2012 and 2008.

so the constant hate Hillary campaign will just keep voters home if those fringe candidates were to be the nominee.
Why, when the fringe so clearly hates Hillary and her voters, should they then vote for the fringe?
Makes no sense.


Now I will vote straight democratic as always no matter what.
But, most won't bother if that occurs.

[jeff47]

33. 90% of the country wants what they think is Hillary

Your statement is exactly like what happened with Obama.

A large group of people wanted who they thought Obama was. They're now disappointed that the real Obama doesn't live up to their dreams.

You're repeating the cycle with Hillary Clinton. She is not the embodiment of all your political hopes and dreams. Because no one is.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. HUH? Maryland is not a small state.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. Actually, I read that 65% of Democrats are rooting for Hillary. I thought that number was low...

Here:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1891


May 2, 2013 - Hillary Clinton Owns 2016 Dem Nomination, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Support For Immigration Reform Drops

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a huge lead over other potential 2016 candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, and if she doesn't run Vice President Joseph Biden has almost as large a lead on the rest of the field, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Ms. Clinton would get 65 percent of Democratic votes compared to 13 percent for Vice President Joe Biden, 4 percent for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and 1 percent or less for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. If Clinton is not in the race, Biden would get 45 percent, with 15 percent for Gov. Cuomo, 6 percent for, Gov. Patrick, 3 percent O'Malley and 2 percent for Warner.

-----

Even though she is the overwhelming favorite, I was shocked that it's not higher, given her formidability.

Also, can you provide a link where Governor O'Malley "puts Hillary down"? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[billh58]

25. And so it

begins...

Shades of 2008, and all of the nastiness that those memories contain.

[Bake]

53. I agree things look good for HRC, but you're dreaming on a 7-2 SCOTUS.

Who's going to leave or die? OURS, that's who. The conservatives are all pretty young with the exception of Scalia. Roberts isn't going anywhere. Alito's not going anywhere. Thomas isn't going anywhere. And unless we've got 60 votes in the Senate, we're not getting true liberal justices confirmed. They'll be middle of the roaders who's votes may not be as predictable as you'd like to think.

Bake

[kenny blankenship]

54. That's enough, Mr. Carville,

at long last, enough.

[frazzled]

2. I disagree: it only proves that Republicans will elect a ham sandwich in gerrymandered districts

And those districts favor Republicans in the House. 2014 isn't going to be all that happy for us. And it has nothing to do with issues or even personalities or what the public wants. It has to do with red-drawn districts across the nation, whose populaces will literally elect anyone wearing the "R" label.

[ProSense]

4. That's true, but

"I disagree: it only proves that Republicans will elect a ham sandwich in gerrymandered districts"

...the point of the piece is making him the face nationally. Use every tool.

[northoftheborder]

7. I'm having difficulty finding anything positive in Sanford's win.

[frazzled]

8. But nationally doesn't mean much in Congressional races

It could have impact on the 2016 presidential race, further marginalizing the Republican party as a whole, but House and even Senate races don't seem to be impacted.

Why is the MA special senate race seemingly so close right now? I pray that Markey will win it, but I don't think Sanford's House win in SC will have one iota of effect on a Republican's chances for the Senate in Massachusetts again.

[ProSense]

12. That's not what I meant.

"But nationally doesn't mean much in Congressional races"

It's the same as using Akin or Ryan. Linking every Republican to him.

As the first piece in the OP states: "every GOPer in the House and Senate will be asked whether they support Sanford and what they think of serving with him."

"Why is the MA special senate race seemingly so close right now? I pray that Markey will win it, but I don't think Sanford's House win in SC will have one iota of effect on a Republican's chances for the Senate in Massachusetts again."

Maybe for the same reason the race between Brown an Warren was close...in the polls, and that was during a Presidential election cycle.

[randome]

5. So the GOP will continue to have a women's issues problem? That wasn't enough to stop him this time.

'Washing their hands' of Sanford is not the same as denouncing him.

[rbrnmw]

6. I knew the Lying Scumbag was going to win

I was living in SC when he went on his Argentine tryst and there were many people who said he shouldn't step down. So I am not at all surprised by his win.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. Thanks, Bill Clinton. Why? Because I'm reading a lot of shit from wingnut scumbags who use

Bill Clinton as an excuse for Vitter and Sanford.

I point out that the difference is Bill Clinton never abdicated his constitutional duties, nor did he misuse taxpayer dollars to wine and dine his girlfriend. What's more, he's not a hypocrites who, on the one hand, runs on family values, but on the other hand, does anything even remotely close to adhering to values.

Still, Bill Clinton did us no favors. Now asshole wingnuts can just use him as a scapegoat for any sexual dalliances they engage in.

[rbrnmw]

56. Bill Clinton leave the Country on taxpayer's dime

Slimeford did BIG difference

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

57. Yeah, I know, but part of me is still angry at Clinton. Wingnuts use him as an excuse to shame

Democrats. There's a big difference between what Bill did and what Slimeford did. HUGE!

[old guy]

9. Repubs could just put an "r" on the ballot and tell the voters,

"We will name the person later" and the repub voters would still vote without knowing who they voted for.

[madville]

11. Exactly

2014 is going to be bad I think, the right will be all fired up over the usual god, guns, gays, abortion pills, etc, etc. It's going to come down to turnout of the left and right since independents don't get very energized for midterms.

[jeff47]

36. Satan (R) would probably do well on the ballot in much of SC. (nt)

[madville]

10. Very few nationally care about an oddball in the House

Wiener didn't bring down the Democratic Party, nobody thought Cynthia McKinney was the face of the party, etc, etc. He fits right in with the GOP anyway lol, nobody cares about one nut job when he is surrounded by 100 other ones.

[ProSense]

13. Actually,

"Very few nationally care about an oddball in the House

Wiener didn't bring down the Democratic Party.."

...the GOP didn't use Weiner, likely because that is an individual case and he resigned.

Democrats did successfully use Akin and Ryan in Congressional races. Christine O'Donnell, who wasn't even a member of Congress, was also used strategically.

This is not a blowout-creating development, but it's fascinating the resignation being expressed when there are clear instances of such a strategy being employed.

[Puzzledtraveller]

21. I agree, in fact the Kidnapped girls story completely drowned out this story.

People in SC probably cared less, as evidenced by the outcome.

[mnmoderatedem]

14. just another example of "family values" republicans and their blatant hyprocisy

see Vitter, David, among others....

[ProSense]

15. Yup, see the update in the OP. n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

42. Yes it's finally official.

"Family Values" is no longer a talking point the GOP can run on. No Republican from political office seekers to the ignorant rubes who file in to vote for them every election day can ever pretend "Family Values" matter one damn bit to them. It's over and the term "Values Voter" is nothing but a joke.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I will leave this here

Gerrymandering...this is one reason



Last edited Wed May 8, 2013, 08:21 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

The only reason, John Boehner is speaker of the House. More people voted for Democrats last cycle for Democrats for the House...I want all of you to realize this.

As to SC-1, it's a 30 year republican district...it should have been an easy pickings due to the Candidate, but from what I read Colbert Bush did not run a good campaign. And this is a heavily gerrymandered, it's that again, district. It is white, it is Republican.

In my view one step the whole country should take, won't, is what California has done...have citizens, not the legislature, draw the districts. It is still bad, see Daryl Issa's and Duncan Hunter, and Susan Davis's districts. But not as bad as it used to be. Some districts around the country are so safe, that you could run a zombie, that zombie will win. SC-1 is such a district.

And it's a special election, GOP gets it's people out, DNC, not so much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022814582

Chris Szilizza is wrong and don't get the actual dynamics

[ProSense]

26. Agree and disagree

Gerrymandering...this is one reason

The only reason, John Boehner is speaker of the House. More people voted for Democrats last cycle for Democrats for the House...I want all of you to realize this.

As to SC-1, it's a 30 year republican district...it should have been an easy pickings due to the Candidate, but from what I read Colbert Bush did not run a good campaign. And this is a heavily gerrymandered, it's that again, district. It is white, it is Republican....And it's a special election, GOP gets it's people out, DNC, not so much.

Yes, Gerrymandering is a factor, but it didn't prevent Democrats from picking up seats, and it likely will not prevent them from picking up more. Democrats have to use every tool at their disposal to pick up seats and try to regain the House.

Also, the fact that "it's a 30 year republican district" doesn't make sense that's it's an easy pickup. It's SC (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022814024). Finally, 2014 isn't a special election, and again, Democrats have to use every available strategy to make gains.

Pretending that whole unpleasant Richard Mourdock thing never happened
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022814791

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Pretending this does not matter

You need very strong candidates, with smart campaigns. Due to the flawed candidate SC-1. Should have been a pick up...the fact it wasn't is a sign of a weak candidate and deep gerrymandering.

But hey...whatever...we never can point the obvious...

I am so glad I am not a partisan, which is good, I can see the reality around me.

By the way, as usual, Daryl Issa's district and Duncan Hunter's in San Diego will be ignored by the Ds...why? They are so heavily gerrymandered, that like SC -1 you need a flawless campaign, a flawless candidate...money, and a scandal in Republican land. They got the scandal...after that...not really.

Oh and Issa is a damaged candidate, if anybody was willing to expose him for the car thief and shyster he is. But, don't expect that from the Ds.

[ProSense]

29. No one is pretending that gerrymandering doesn't matter.

"You need very strong candidates, with smart campaigns. Due to the flawed candidate SC-1. Should have been a pick up...the fact it wasn't is a sign of a weak candidate and deep gerrymandering. "

I said it does, but it's no reason to give up the strategy mentioned in the OP.

You always need strong candidates, and even after gerrymandering, they can win. That is why Alan Grayson was able to win back his seat (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002690464).

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Grayson ran a flawless campaign

Against a very flawed candidate.

Nobody is giving up, just pointing the damn obvious.

IMO some congressmen, like Issa, should be targeted. That won't happen.

Will we take a few seats in 2014. Yup...last time Pelosi said the dems could retake the House (at the California Democratic Convention in February, yes I was there for the Presser). She was right about California, partly because the gerrymandering was partially undone by the citizen's Commision. The rest of the country, she really was not.

I don't believe the house will be retaken in '14, and the Senate is at risk...real risk.

I won't pretend.

At this point people need to concentrate on creating deep benches...it starts at city councils, school board of education, fire boards, equalizing boards...not in Congress.

Yup, ray of sunshine, I know. But at times I spend time looking at the make up of districts the way the parties do, in the internals. Speaking of boards...I really need to outline the article on the fire board we went to last night. These folks, all of them are Republicans. And if they ever decide to move to higher office, all of them will be good candidates. That is where the Republicans build their farm teams, very much at the bottom...with these boards dems mostly ignore.

And the sausage making...is epic...

[ProSense]

40. Are you

Grayson ran a flawless campaign

Against a very flawed candidate.

Nobody is giving up, just pointing the damn obvious.

IMO some congressmen, like Issa, should be targeted. That won't happen.

Will we take a few seats in 2014. Yup...last time Pelosi said the dems could retake the House (at the California Democratic Convention in February, yes I was there for the Presser). She was right about California, partly because the gerrymandering was partially undone by the citizen's Commision. The rest of the country, she really was not.

I don't believe the house will be retaken in '14, and the Senate is at risk...real risk.

I won't pretend.

...debating with yourself?

Gerrymandering will benefit Republicans. Grayson won because he was a strong candidate. Democrats shouldn't give up on the strategy mentioned in the OP. Democrats did/can pick up a few seats despite gerrymandering.

No where did I state definitively that "the house will be retaken in '14."

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. No, I am not

Have a good day.

I forgot.

[ProSense]

48. Well,

"Have a good day. "

...you do the same. I pretty much agreed with you, but that evidently upsets you.

[City Lights]

22. They'll probably give him a standing ovation.

Their hypocrisy disgusts me.

[rl6214]

37. Simply mind boggling that he was able to win

With all the f'd up things he did leading up to the election.

[librechik]

43. yeah, Southern politicians this damaged are only allowed to hold office

until they die, if recent history is any measure--so long as they swear to give lip service to Confederate values. Christian values are mandated, of course, but need not be personally followed.

[frazzled]

44. Sorry to rain on Chris Cillizza's parade ...

and sorry to be a negative Nelly. But it's important to be realistic about the voting habits of our beloved American republic. This depressing poll hot of the presses from Pew:

Pew: Despite Low Popularity, Republicans Run Even With Dems On Key Issues

Fewer than a quarter of Americans approve of the job Congressional Republicans are doing, according to new findings from Pew Research Center released on Wednesday, but the party still holds its own with Democrats on the domestic issues currently consuming lawmakers in Washington.

Only 22 percent of Americans said they approve of GOP leaders on Captiol Hill, while Congressional Democrats notch a stronger approval rating of 32 percent. President Barack Obama, meanwhile, topped both groups in the poll with a 51 percent approval rating.

Nevertheless, Republicans run even with Democrats on the economy, immigration and guns. Forty-two percent of respondents said that the GOP would do a better job on the economy, outpacing the 38 percent who gave the nod to Democrats. Republicans claimed a similar advantage on gun control, 42 percent to 39 percent. On the issue of immigration, voters were evenly split: 38 percent went with Republicans, the same percentage that said Democrats would do a better job on the issue.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/pew-despite-low-popularity-republicans-run-even-with

I don't think a single House member among 435 with a tawdry indiscretion is going to rise to the level of affecting anything about the elections in either 2014 or 2016. (It doesn't even rise to the level of an Aiken, who was proposing policy for all women regarding rape and abortion). Turning lemons into lemonade, alas, does not seem to be on the menu.

Mark Sanford getting elected is a real downer, and not something that will redound to our benefit.

[ProSense]

46. I don't know

...the Pew poll isn't earth shattering. Dems have been polling slightly better than Republicans.



More Democrats (60 percent) approve of their members of Congress than do Republicans (42 percent). Democratic disapproval is at 32 percent and Republicans' is at 51 percent.



On the issues:



Obama Maintains Approval Advantage, but GOP Runs Even on Key Issues
http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/08/obama-maintains-approval-advantage-but-gop-runs-even-on-key-issues/

Still, I don't see what this has to do with the point of making Sanford the face of the GOP on women.

[frazzled]

50. I find Republicans polling better than Dems on the economy truly depressing.

If we're talking about predictions about future elections, this is more fodder for analysis than Mark Sanford is.

[ProSense]

51. It's one poll, but

"I find Republicans polling better than Dems on the economy truly depressing."

...it shows 22 percent of Democrats siding with Republicans. I find that odd.

[Erose999]

47. Republican voters are perfectly ok with the likes of Mark "Argentine Trail" Sanford and "Diaper Dave

Vitter. And Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, Newt Gingrich, etc etc

It seems the more hypocritical and/or morally bankrupt their exploits, the more the Southern voters love these guys.

We should have ran Anthony Wiener in SC instead of Elisabeth Colbert-Busch.

[tabbycat31]

55. they need to run Mark "To Catch a Predator" Foley again

[KharmaTrain]

52. How Did The Women In That District Vote??

...not sure if there's a bteak-out of the vote yet, but I'd be real interested to see if the women in this district think the rushpublicans have a problem. If a majority of the women in that district voted for his over Ms. Colbert-Busch...that tells you a lot...