# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  SC GOP Senate 2014 Primary Poll: Graham <50%, Bright 13%, Mace 10%, Cash 7%

## lib3rtarian

http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...ans-is-eroding
http://landmarkcommunications.net/po...indsey-graham/





> The poll, conducted by Landmark Communications and Rosetta Stone  Communications, shows Graham at 42%, Lee Bright with 13%, Nancy Mace  taking 10%, and Richard Cash at 7%. And though he fares better in  head-to-head matchups against his primary challengers, Graham is still  under 50%.


Crosstabs here: http://landmarkcommunications.net/wp...-CROSSTABS.xls

(2) If the Republican Primary Election for U.S. Senate were being held today and the candidates were Lee Bright, Lindsey Graham, the incumbent, Nancy Mace, and Richard Cash, for whom would you vote?




Gender
Age



Total
Male
Female
18-35
36-64
Over 64


Base
(500)
(245)
(255)
(54)
(249)
(197)



%
%
%
%
%
%

Lee Bright

*12.6*
18.0
7.5
24.5
14.8
6.6

Richard Cash
6.7
9.0
4.3
9.5
7.2
5.1

Lindsey Graham
*42.4*
37.5
47.0
24.5
39.6
51.1

Nancy Mace

*10.0*
15.1
5.1
7.5
10.0
10.7

Undecided

28.3
20.4
36.1
34.0
28.4
26.5




(3) And if a Primary Runoff Election for US Senate were being held today and the candidates were Lindsey Graham the incumbent, and Nancy Mace, a challenger, for whom would you vote?




Gender
Age



Total
Male
Female
18-35
36-64


Base
(500)
(245)
(255)
(54)
(249)



%
%
%
%
%

Lindsey Graham
48.2

42.8
53.4
40.7
44.8

Nancy Mace

23.2
32.7
14.1
13.0
27.2

Undecided

28.6
24.5
32.5
46.3
28.0




(5) And if a Primary Runoff Election for US Senate were being held today and the candidates were Lindsey Graham, the incumbent, and Lee Bright, a challenger, for whom would you vote?




Gender
Age



Total
Male
Female
18-35
36-64
Over 64


Base
(500)
(245)
(255)
(54)
(249)
(197)



%
%
%
%
%
%

Lindsey Graham
49.4

44.9
53.7
39.6
45.6
56.7

Lee Bright

23.7

38.8
9.0
34.0
26.8
17.4

Undecided

26.9
16.3
37.3
26.4
27.6
25.9

----------


## puppetmaster

Puke

----------


## James Madison

Struggling with female voters and the old. Never seen this one before...

----------


## MichaelDavis

The good news is that Graham is under 50%. A runoff with Bright would be fantastic, as he can decimate liberal Lindsey's record. The primary is over nine months away and Graham is already in bad shape against unknown challengers.

----------


## Barrex

> The good news is that Graham is under 50%. A runoff with Bright would be fantastic, as he can decimate liberal Lindsey's record. The primary is over nine months away and Graham is already in bad shape against unknown challengers.


I would say that this glass is not half full.

----------


## goRPaul

> The good news is that Graham is under 50%. A runoff with Bright would be fantastic, as he can decimate liberal Lindsey's record. The primary is over nine months away and Graham is already in bad shape against unknown challengers.


28.3% are undecided.  With a quarter of the undecided vote, Graham breaks the 50% threshold.  

There's lots of work to do, but lots of time to do it.  Primary date is June 10th, 2014.

Donated $25 to Nancy Mace.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Older voters are killing this country good grief.

----------


## Barrex

> Older voters are killing this country good grief.


Little of topic but is this sentence grammatically correct? People who speak English and are making mistakes are killing my learning curve

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

Are any of these candidate just obstruction to block gains on Graham?

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> Little of topic but is this sentence grammatically correct? People who speak English and are making mistakes are killing my learning curve


He missed a comma, but you started a sentence with an adjective. lol

----------


## mosquitobite

> Older voters are killing this country, good grief.


That's the correct version Barrex.

And he's correct.  It's the older voters, who are full of cold war fear, that will destroy this nation.

----------


## MichaelDavis

> 28.3% are undecided.  With a quarter of the undecided vote, Graham breaks the 50% threshold.  
> 
> There's lots of work to do, but lots of time to do it.  Primary date is June 10th, 2014.
> 
> Donated $25 to Nancy Mace.


*Utah 2010 Republican Senate Convention
*
2009 Polling: Tim Bridgewater 4.00% -- Mike Lee 3.00% -- (I) Robert Bennett 31.00%
2010 Result: Tim Bridgewater 39.00% -- Mike Lee 29.00% -- (I) Robert Bennett 19.00%

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDeta...?RaceID=408900

*Texas 2012 Republican Senate Primary*

2011 Polling: Ted Cruz 1.00% -- David Dewhurst 27.00%
2012 Result: Ted Cruz 57.00% -- David Dewhurst 43.00%

http://www.texaslyceum.org/media/sta...ll_Results.pdf

It's your money, but if I were you, I would donate to anti-Graham groups instead of individual candidates. There is a good chance Mace will not even make it to the runoff.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Graham at less than 50% is the goal. Name recognition of the challengers can only increase. Looking good.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Little of topic but is this sentence grammatically correct? People who speak English and are making mistakes are killing my learning curve


Mostly correct, add a comma to make it exactly correct.  It can also be adjusted to better match "formal" English which you would probably have an easier time with:




> Elderly voters are destroying this country, good grief.


On that note, yours can be cleaned up some also:




> Little of topic but is this sentence grammatically correct? People who speak English and are making mistakes are killing my learning curve 
> 
> This is a little off topic, but is this sentence grammatically correct? People who speak English while and are making mistakes are killing my learning curve.
> 
> This is a little off topic, but is this sentence grammatically correct? People who speak English while making mistakes are killing my learning curve.

----------


## eleganz

Scary to see such a wide margin but I'm glad he is under 50 for the first poll.

----------


## MichaelDavis

> That's the correct version Barrex.
> 
> And he's correct.  It's the older voters, who are full of cold war fear, that will destroy this nation.


I found it very interesting that Mace performs best with older voters, while Bright performs best with younger voters. Are we missing something? How do we know Mace is a liberty candidate? Bright has a pro-freedom voting record. Mace does not.

----------


## AJ Antimony

I wonder how these numbers will change when/if national conservatives really get involved in this race.

----------


## speciallyblend

if only bugs bunny could saw off sc along with florida, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiTM2HQ0g98

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I found it very interesting that Mace performs best with older voters, while Bright performs best with younger voters. Are we missing something? How do we know Mace is a liberty candidate? Bright has a pro-freedom voting record. Mace does not.


A voting record definitely helps but we can't preclude non-politicians from being considered liberty candidates. If she stays swinging from the Paul and Cruz tree like she has been, it's all to the good. In every instance, I'd take an anti-establishment candidate that may or may not be a Paul devotee over an insider. In this case, I think a woman of her caliber and background is a better rival for taking on Flimsey.

----------


## mosquitobite

> A voting record definitely helps but we can't preclude non-politicians from being considered liberty candidates. If she stays swinging from the Paul and Cruz tree like she has been, it's all to the good. In every instance, I'd take an anti-establishment candidate that may or may not be a Paul devotee over an insider. In this case, I think a woman of her caliber and background is a better rival for taking on Flimsey.



I will cordially disagree.

I understand she is to be proud of being the first female graduate of the Citadel, but to me, it makes me weary that she may be too easily swayed by the military industrial complex.

My money has and is going to Bright.  I'd rather take the liberty we know over the wild card.

----------


## Koz

My word, how $#@!ing stupid are the people in SC to put Lindsey Graham back into office. This is not encouraging.

----------


## goRPaul

> It's your money, but if I were you, I would donate to anti-Graham groups instead of individual candidates. There is a good chance Mace will not even make it to the runoff.


I don't play the odds with my donations, I use my conscience.  Mace is the best candidate in this election.

----------


## Brett85

> My word, how $#@!ing stupid are the people in SC to put Lindsey Graham back into office. This is not encouraging.


How is the poll not encouraging?  Graham is under 50%, which is the goal.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> My word, how $#@!ing stupid are the people in SC to put Lindsey Graham back into office. This is not encouraging.


It's very early in this process.

----------


## gnuschler

> My word, how $#@!ing stupid are the people in SC to put Lindsey Graham back into office. This is not encouraging.


If this poll is even remotely close to accurate, it is the best possible news we could have hoped for.  More polls like these will definitely draw in the likes of Club For Growth, Senate Conservatives Fund, etc.

----------


## lib3rtarian

I think this poll is very encouraging. If you add up the percentages of Bright, Mace and Cash, that's 29.3% and it's solid anti-Graham. 28.3% are still undecided and even if we don't convert any Graham supporters, if we grab 21.71% out of the 28.3% undecided, that will put us at 50.01%, which is winning the primary. The primary is still 9 months out, so bar some catastrophic events, Graham's numbers can only remain stable or go down, whilst the anti-Graham percentage will increase as more undecideds get to decide.

----------


## jkob

Under 50% is great, still got a long ways to go but forcing a run off is the first step.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

If Lee Bright pulled it off, what would become of _his_ seat? After all, given his work in the state, you wouldn't want to see it gained by some neoconservative or anyone who's like Graham.

----------


## ican'tvote

As long as one of them makes it in the runoff, I don't care. They had better play this smart and avoid attacking each other.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> If Lee Bright pulled it off, what would become of _his_ seat? After all, given his work in the state, you wouldn't want to see it gained by some neoconservative or anyone who's like Graham.


I keep saying I wish Mace would bow out and run for a state seat. It would give her time to build up a voting record and boost her name recognition.

----------


## eleganz

This is gonna have to be a purely grassroots election.  They need an army to make calls and knock on doors.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I think this poll is very encouraging. If you add up the percentages of Bright, Mace and Cash, that's 29.3% and it's solid anti-Graham. 28.3% are still undecided and even if we don't convert any Graham supporters, if we grab 21.71% out of the 28.3% undecided, that will put us at 50.01%, which is winning the primary. The primary is still 9 months out, so bar some catastrophic events, Graham's numbers can only remain stable or go down, whilst the anti-Graham percentage will increase as more undecideds get to decide.


Good breakdown of the percentages and what we need to pull off a victory here.  I wish the three amigos would've jumped in 6 months earlier than they did to help their name recognition.  We're just getting started here.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I keep saying I wish Mace would bow out and run for a state seat. It would give her time to build up a voting record and boost her name recognition.


Yep, this is what she should have done.

Which is another reason my gut is wary of her.

If she is active in the liberty movement she knew Lee Bright and knew he intended to run.  Running for Senate is not cheap, so who starts out gunning for that with so little name recognition?  Anyone big funding her?

----------


## Barrex

> I think this poll is very encouraging. If you add up the percentages of Bright, Mace and Cash, that's 29.3% and it's solid anti-Graham. 28.3% are still undecided and even if we don't convert any Graham supporters, if we grab 21.71% out of the 28.3% undecided, that will put us at 50.01%, which is winning the primary. The primary is still 9 months out, so bar some catastrophic events, Graham's numbers can only remain stable or go down, whilst the anti-Graham percentage will increase as more undecideds get to decide.


You dont make plans on best case scenario. 
Why would all of Bright, Mace and Cash go to anti-Graham candidate? Is there any presedent? I dont think so (guessing because it sound improbable).
Why would 21.71% out of 28.3% of undecuded go to anti-Graham? Why that vote wouldnt split 50-50?
Who got more money to spend?

----------


## lib3rtarian

> You dont make plans on best case scenario. 
> Why would all of Bright, Mace and Cash go to anti-Graham candidate? Is there any presedent? I dont think so (guessing because it sound improbable).
> Why would 21.71% out of 28.3% of undecuded go to anti-Graham? Why that vote wouldnt split 50-50?
> Who got more money to spend?


This was a poll of SC Republicans. Graham has been in office from 1995 to 2003 as a Congressman from SC-03 and from 2003 to present as a Senator. So I think it's safe to say that pretty much every Republican in the state would know him. If 10+ years doesn't make you a Graham guy, there is nothing which will. So I don't think he is going to gain anymore. If we manage to keep his popularity at 42%-43%, that's enough for us. Of course, I am guessing, but isn't everything a guesswork anyway?

----------


## Brett85

> Why would 21.71% out of 28.3% of undecuded go to anti-Graham? Why that vote wouldnt split 50-50?
> Who got more money to spend?


If you are asked if you are likely to be married to the same person next year, a vote of "undecided" does not bode well for your marriage.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> Yep, this is what she should have done.
> 
> Which is another reason my gut is wary of her.
> 
> If she is active in the liberty movement she knew Lee Bright and knew he intended to run.  Running for Senate is not cheap, so who starts out gunning for that with so little name recognition?  Anyone big funding her?


To be fair, everyone wavered on this going back as far as when people thought Tom Davis would run.  But then neither of these two declared, but then Richard Cash _DID_ declare first, then Mace and Bright both declared, like, within the same day.  Very annoying and would've been better if _one_ of them had just declared from the start, rather than this guessing game. If they were committed from the start, they would've declared early rather than waver and then do it within the same time frame.  Stranger things have happened.  Rand Paul, even though he had Paul's name, didn't hold political office prior to running.

----------


## mosquitobite

> To be fair, everyone wavered on this going back as far as when people thought Tom Davis would run.  But then neither of these two declared, but then Richard Cash _DID_ declare first, then Mace and Bright both declared, like, within the same day.  Very annoying and would've been better if _one_ of them had just declared from the start, rather than this guessing game. If they were committed from the start, they would've declared early rather than waver and then do it within the same time frame.  Stranger things have happened.  Rand Paul, even though he had Paul's name, didn't hold political office prior to running.



But he had the Paul name, that's the key difference.

Then we have Rubio... and look where that got us.  I'm sure others can name more.

I've said before, she may be a WONDERFUL woman and possibly even liberty leaning.  But Newt says he is these days too.  I don't gamble with my cash - it goes to those who have a record to back up their rhetoric.  I've been in this game since the Republican Revolution of 1994.  I don't trust many people.

----------


## Uriah

If Cash, Mace, and Bright don't attack each other and attack Graham, this could go well. All the candidates need to focus on taking Graham's positive image down. The more they do that the more likely they will have a run-off. In my mind, having three candidates running against Graham is better than one. Also, each candidate is different and will bring in different activists that will work the ground. That is potentially more than 3 times the amount of negativity that can be brought against Graham from one opposing candidate.

Things are looking up in SC. I would only hope that the candidates facing Graham stay focused on attacking him and not each other. And rally behind whichever of them heads into the run-off.

----------


## Brett85

> But he had the Paul name, that's the key difference.
> 
> Then we have Rubio... and look where that got us.  I'm sure others can name more.


Rubio never claimed to be associated with the liberty movement in any way.  He always said he was an internationalist/interventionist on foreign policy issues.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> But he had the Paul name, that's the key difference.


It shouldn't be, though. Liz Cheney has the Cheney name.  So?  Hillary Clinton has the Clinton name, should she run. So?  Lack of political experience is still lack of political experience, I don't care who your parents are.

----------


## mosquitobite

> It shouldn't be, though. Liz Cheney has the Cheney name.  So?  Hillary Clinton has the Clinton name, should she run. So?  Lack of political experience is still lack of political experience, I don't care who your parents are.


And I would assume Liz Cheney is a neo-con and Hillary Clinton is a socialist.

Just like everyone assumed Rand Paul was similar to his dad, especially since Ron Paul says he is.

Who vouches for Nancy Mace?  (actually I just googled that Tom Davis pushed her to run - anyone have more on that)?  What record can someone show me to prove she is truly a liberty candidate? 

Because I can show you some of  Lee Brights:
http://votesmart.org/candidate/47863...t#.Uivme9Ksj2w
http://benswann.com/hes-in-lee-brigh...paign-website/
http://www.leebrightsc.com/2012/05/s...or-lee-bright/

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> And I would assume Liz Cheney is a neo-con and Hillary Clinton is a socialist.
> 
> Just like everyone assumed Rand Paul was similar to his dad, especially since Ron Paul says he is.
> 
> Who vouches for Nancy Mace?  (actually I just googled that Tom Davis pushed her to run - anyone have more on that)?  What record can someone show me to prove she is truly a liberty candidate? 
> 
> Because I can show you some of  Lee Brights:
> http://votesmart.org/candidate/47863...t#.Uivme9Ksj2w
> http://benswann.com/hes-in-lee-brigh...paign-website/
> http://www.leebrightsc.com/2012/05/s...or-lee-bright/


And others can assume Rand Paul is a racist obstructionist.  See?

Anyway, on Mace, you can't have a _record_ without political experience. I feel like we've been down this road already.  No one's calling her ultimately _better_ than Bright, but if she didn't have any in her, why speak at RLC groups?  Never saw Rubio do that in an attempt to pander. Division is only going to give Graham the win, anyway. My main point is lack of political experience sometimes can harm you when running, but in the case of folks like Rand Paul- and not due to name recognition or nepotism- it doesn't harm you at all. Goal here should be to deprive Graham of his voter base and I think the combined effort of all three of them can do that.  Ideally I'd prefer either Bright or Mace since I've read more about them than Cash.

----------


## Saint Vitus

wtf is wrong with South Carolina?  They elect the most liberal/warmongering Senator, they boo the golden rule, they lick the boot of the MIC.  This is the same state that was the first to have the guts to secede from the union.  Now it seems to be the most anti-liberty state in all the U.S.   This state seems to spit out the most aggressive neocon $#@!s.  I know there has to be some good liberty-minded people there, but I don't see how they stay in that cesspool of a state.

----------


## mosquitobite

> And others can assume Rand Paul is a racist obstructionist.  See?
> 
> Anyway, on Mace, you can't have a _record_ without political experience. I feel like we've been down this road already.  No one's calling her ultimately _better_ than Graham, but if she didn't have any in her, why speak at RLC groups?  Never saw Rubio do that in an attempt to pander. Division is only going to give Graham the win, anyway. My main point is lack of political experience sometimes can harm you when running, but in the case of folks like Rand Paul- and not due to name recognition or nepotism- it doesn't harm you at all. Goal here should be to deprive Graham of his voter base and I think the combined effort of all three of them can do that.  Ideally I'd prefer either Bright or Mace since I've read more about them than Cash.


I agree the goal is to take out Graham.  They have a run off vote there though, so strategy there is different than it would be in my state.

I just go for the devil I know over the devil I don't.  I don't know why this seems like something I shouldn't say?

I have been voting for and supporting Republican candidates for almost 20 years now.  I've been burned. a lot.  I am skeptical is all.  I don't want someone else who can be bought by the military ind comp and her Citadel background does concern me.  It sucks, but that's where I am these days.

----------


## AJ Antimony

What's with the blind SC hate? This state elected Jim DeMint and Mark Sanford. Some of you need to take a breath.

----------


## MichaelDavis

> And others can assume Rand Paul is a racist obstructionist.  See?
> 
> Anyway, on Mace, you can't have a _record_ without political experience. I feel like we've been down this road already.  No one's calling her ultimately _better_ than Bright, but if she didn't have any in her, why speak at RLC groups?  Never saw Rubio do that in an attempt to pander. Division is only going to give Graham the win, anyway. My main point is lack of political experience sometimes can harm you when running, but in the case of folks like Rand Paul- and not due to name recognition or nepotism- it doesn't harm you at all. Goal here should be to deprive Graham of his voter base and I think the combined effort of all three of them can do that.  Ideally I'd prefer either Bright or Mace since I've read more about them than Cash.


I am sceptical about Nancy Mace for the same reason I was sceptical about Kerry Bentivolio last year. I am not going to trust someone just because they say they are a liberty candidate. She not only has no record, but she has no great accomplishments either. Her one defining charicteristic is that she graduated from college. I am sticking with Lee Bright.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> If Cash, Mace, and Bright don't attack each other and attack Graham, this could go well. All the candidates need to focus on taking Graham's positive image down. The more they do that the more likely they will have a run-off. In my mind, having three candidates running against Graham is better than one. Also, each candidate is different and will bring in different activists that will work the ground. That is potentially more than 3 times the amount of negativity that can be brought against Graham from one opposing candidate.
> 
> Things are looking up in SC. I would only hope that the candidates facing Graham stay focused on attacking him and not each other. And rally behind whichever of them heads into the run-off.


If they all focus on Graham and use him as a punching bag we can win this.  If they attack each other, they all lose.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> I am sceptical about Nancy Mace for the same reason I was sceptical about Kerry Bentivolio last year. I am not going to trust someone just because they say they are a liberty candidate. She not only has no record, but she has no great accomplishments either. Her one defining charicteristic is that she graduated from college. I am sticking with Lee Bright.


No one's saying you can't, mate. People are going to stick with whom they want.  Hell, some folks probably want Richard Cash to win over Bright or Mace.  Again, priority is chipping away at Graham's war chest through his voting record and credibility, not rip one another for who they personally want.  Not saying that's who they want, but each of the three is better suited than Graham.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> wtf is wrong with South Carolina?  They elect the most liberal/warmongering Senator,


No they didn't.




> they boo the golden rule


True. But there also cheered for drug legalization 




> they lick the boot of the MIC.


It is SC. The economy is in shambles down there. 1 of the few bright spots in the economy is lots of military jobs.




> This is the same state that was the first to have the guts to secede from the union.  Now it seems to be the most anti-liberty state in all the U.S.


Back when it left the US, it was controlled by wealthy, white slave owners. They didn't represent what the people of SC wanted in general, mostly just their own special interests. 

As for now, my guess would be it is about average, maybe even above average. Here is another take. http://freedominthe50states.org/overall/south-carolina




> This state seems to spit out the most aggressive neocon $#@!s.  I know there has to be some good liberty-minded people there, but I don't see how they stay in that cesspool of a state.


It did have a decent governor. Well, apparently he was abusive and rude, but he did usually stand for smaller government. And it now has that same guy in Congress and a decent Senator. And there are 3 decent state senators. I do agree that Graham is 1 of the worst neocons in the US (IMO, he is the worst neocon but still better than the majority of Senators).

----------


## Lucille

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/ny...anted=all&_r=0




> [Chris Christie] has also told South Carolina Republicans that he wants to help Senator Lindsey Graham, who is facing a conservative primary challenge next year.


The neo-Trots stick together.  

Man, conservatives really have a tough road.  They not only have to fight the progs in the blue jerseys, but the progs in the red jerseys too.

Polls: Lindsey Graham approval drops in South Carolina
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...#ixzz2jt2thiaP

----------


## compromise

Nancy Mace is a very poor candidate across the board.

Lee Bright is better in every way, he's both more electable and more ideologically pure.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> Nancy Mace is a very poor candidate across the board.
> 
> Lee Bright is better in every way, he's both more electable and more ideologically pure.


'Very poor' is subjective.  After all, none of Graham's challengers could get any sort of backing if people in South Carolina thought they were poor. No one's arguing that Bright has more experience than both Mace _and_ Cash since, you know, he's been a State Senator, but people will back who they want to. After all, look at the funding:

http://www.thestate.com/2013/10/17/3...r-outside.html



So rhetoric wise, they're all better than Graham, but as far as fundraising and having support across the state, they're still slacking.  A few backing from Facebook fans, Facebook pages and local groups has to go further, which is why, rather than debating which one is superior- that can really come later- it'd be better to just focus on lowering Graham's defenses.  After all, the whole let's get behind this one candidate because they look better is the same mentality the GOP used when trying to rally everyone behind Romney. No comparison rhetoric-wise, but having three- as of now- candidates gives more of an opportunity to focus on attacking Graham.

----------


## Hyperion

> wtf is wrong with South Carolina?  They elect the most liberal/warmongering Senator, they boo the golden rule, they lick the boot of the MIC.  This is the same state that was the first to have the guts to secede from the union.  Now it seems to be the most anti-liberty state in all the U.S.   This state seems to spit out the most aggressive neocon $#@!s.  I know there has to be some good liberty-minded people there, but I don't see how they stay in that cesspool of a state.


That's a tad strong. The SC house delegation is perhaps the best Republican delegation in the country.

----------


## T.hill

Nancy Mace is a successful small business owner, she's connected to Tom Davis and Mark Sanford. She enthusiastically supported Mark Sanford during the special election and Ron Paul has said he probably is gonna endorse her, but that was before it became a competitive race with 3 anti-graham candidates.

----------


## T.hill

She was vague and ambiguous in her interviews on Fox and TheBlaze, but that was more being unprepared and nervous then trying to dodge the issues. Those interviews were immediately after she announced.

----------


## eduardo89

This is good, and we haven't even gotten to the big groups like Club for Growth, GAO, and FreedomWorks spending against Graham yet. Not to mention anti-immigration groups.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't see why its presumed that all the "not Graham" people would  vote for ANY "not Graham" candidate.  I don't think that's the case.

I've heard enough from Bright that I believe he's solid.   Nancy Mace... I looked at her campaign page, and while she certainly seems "Better than Graham" I'm not sure exactly what she is.  I'm guessing she's probabbly more of a Cruz type, although that may not be the case.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> I am sceptical about Nancy Mace for the same reason I was sceptical about Kerry Bentivolio last year. I am not going to trust someone just because they say they are a liberty candidate. She not only has no record, but she has no great accomplishments either. Her one defining charicteristic is that she graduated from college. I am sticking with Lee Bright.


Kerry was a Reindeer Rancher, HS Teacher, Autoworker, Part Time Santa, and occasional actor who backed in to a House Seat because the real candidate got taken off the ballot.  When he filed those papers, nobody, least of all him, had any expectation that he'd come even remotely close to winning that primary.  He had no political experience and was looked at as an outsider and nuisance by the state GOP.  So to compare him to Mace is a bit ridiculous.  

Mace is a small businesswoman who runs a business that revolves entirely around politics.  She is BFF's with the man who is probably the most powerful Liberty Republican in any state legislature in all of America.  Her firm worked for Scott and Mulvaney.  The difference between Mace and Bentivolio is that even if Mace is a lightweight like him, she's lightweight that is firmly in our camp and she has a strong support network made up entirely of our people.  She's completely in bed with the Sanford/Davis wing of the SC GOP and since that is the ascendent strain of Republicanism in SC right now, there is no reason to thing she'd go off the rails even if she were some kind of cynical, finger in the wind type.      

Nacey Mace introduces Tom Davis before his big endorsement of Ron Paul back in 2012:




I like Bright and Mace, think both would make great Senators, and think both are good enough to beat Graham.  I'm pulling for Mace because ideologically, I don't think there would be an difference, and if there is no difference, all things being equal a Woman who is part of the Internet Generation is probably better for the overall image of the movement then another older, male, Southern conservative christian type.  Especially since Paul Broun (love the guy, hope he wins and believe he _will_ win but there is no denying he's the National Media's wet dream in terms of how they want to stereotype us) is probably going to be the Republican candidate in Georgia.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> wtf is wrong with South Carolina?  They elect the most liberal/warmongering Senator,


Since 1994, Graham has NEVER received any serious challenge to his seat.

----------


## Brian4Liberty



----------

