Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:08 AM
mercuryblues (1,340 posts)
Is it time
for new Democratic leadership in SC?
In the 2012 state election there were 24 districts out of 46 districts where R's ran unopposed, compared to only 9 districts where D's ran unopposed for state offices.
For the US house Joe Wilson ran unopposed. I don't care someone should have run against him. When You lie Wilson 1st ran in 01; he won 73% of the vote;
in 02, no candidate - 84%;
in 04 - 65%;
in 06- 63%
in 08 - 54%
in 10 - 53%
in 2012, no opposition.
His lead was being chipped away, so what happens? Let you lie Wilson run unopposed.
Now we have Demented's seat becoming open. All I hear is that his is a safe republican seat. Of course he won his last election by a landslide; his opponent was A. Greene, who had criminal charges pending for felony obscenity. If SC had a strong Democratic Party leadership the political makeup of the state might look different. This seat was held by a dem, from 1980 to 2004 until Hollings retired. It is possible to regain this seat, if the state and national party invest in the race, not just with money but get some heavy hitters to campaign for whoever runs.
The point I am trying to make is that I see unopposed seats as surrendering. Sure the Dem's might not be able to win these seats, but it does chip away at the gNOp's popularity if there is compitition. Paving the way for Dem growth in the state.
I realize gerrymandering of districts play a part, but how in the hell can the leadership expect change if they are not willing to even challenge the status quo at the state level? Why settle for the pie crust while the filling is being devoured by repigs.
2 replies, 553 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Response to mercuryblues (Original post)
Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:59 PM
SCantiGOP (2,789 posts)
1. couple of points
Every expert I've ever seen says SC is a 55/45 GOP state. The last Democratic governor was a result of the confederate flag single issue voters voting against the GOP governor. It looks like a trend line on Wilson't seat, but he was opposed both times by a very credible (Iraq war vet for one) and well-funded Democrat whose positions were virtually the same as Wilson's. The main point is that this is a result of gerrymandering. Obama got 44.1% of the vote. With 1/3 of the voters minority, you would think that would lead to a 4/3 or, at worst, 5/2 split in the House delegation, but careful gerrymandering insures one very minority district and all of the others firmly republican.
The answer is not new leadership, it is for that 44-45% to work harder to convince low and middle income residents that voting GOP is against their self-interest.