Stephen Colbert's sister running for Congress in SC

[Simplicio]

@Simplicio

Sanford doesn’t appear to be helping himself. His ex-wife claims to have caught him trespassing in her home this February and is taking him to court over it. Weird.

According to the complaint, he entered her residence without her permission several times despite several warnings from her not to do so (and the fact that the divorce settlement specified that he can’t enter her property without her permission). So it wasn’t a onetime thing.

Granted we only have one side of the story, so maybe there’s a good explanation for his actions. But right now Sanford comes off as looking kinda nuts.

[RTFirefly]

The Republican Party has pulled its $$ support from Sanford’s campaign.

[zut]

@Simplicio

Granted we only have one side of the story, so maybe there’s a good explanation for his actions. But right now Sanford comes off as looking kinda nuts.

Mark Sanford admits to entering his ex-wife’s home in February, in order to watch football. “I did, indeed, watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14-year-old son because as a father, I didn’t think he should watch it alone.”

[RTFirefly]

@zut

Mark Sanford admits to entering his ex-wife’s home in February, in order to watch football. “I did, indeed, watch the second half of the Super Bowl at the beach house with our 14-year-old son because as a father, I didn’t think he should watch it alone.”

And Sanford had no TV of his own, so he couldn’t bring his son over to his own place and watch the game together there?

Yeah, that makes sense.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

OTOH, this is going to get even more national attention than it would otherwise because it’s an off-year election. I wonder if that means a lot of out-of-state money will get poured into it.

@RTFirefly

The Republican Party has pulled its $$ support from Sanford’s campaign.

Or maybe not . . .

[Ludovic]

@RTFirefly

And Sanford had no TV of his own, so he couldn’t bring his son over to his own place and watch the game together there?

Yeah, that makes sense.

If he had just called ahead to warn her that “I need to see the Big One! I’m coming home!”, then everything would have been fine for Sanford and his son.

[Jenaroph]

“I’m losin’ to 'Lizabeth!”

[Steve_MB]

The plot thickens:

“We were completely blindsided by this information. He hasn’t been honest with his own campaign and with us, and the path to victory has narrowed now,” a national Republican strategist said.

“We’re hearing rumors out there that there’s more stuff out there – that this is just the first shoe to drop.”…

Apparently, this “more stuff” includes a pattern of stalker behavior:

Defendant/former Husband has entered into a pattern of entering onto Plaintiff’s property, both at her former and current residences, without her permission and against her wishes.

[aceplace57]

This should give Elizabeth Colbert Busch a fighting chance in the election. I’ve read that it’s a very conservative district. Beating Sanford won’t be easy unless more negative revelations come out.

Meet the Press: Inside Takes on the Latest Stories with Kristen Welker

NRCC pulls the plug on Sanford: Here are all the developments in South Carolina’s special congressional race after the political world learned that Mark Sanford had been charged, according to a court complaint, of trespassing at his ex-wife’s home: NBC News confirmed that the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided – for now – not to assist Sanford in the race… MSNBC’s Jessica Taylor adds that the NRCC “was completely blindsided by the Sanford news and was incredibly upset not just over the incident but by the lack of advance warning.”… House Majority PAC, a Democratic Super PAC, announced that it will begin airing a new six-figure TV ad hitting Sanford for his affair and misuse of taxpayer dollars…

[adaher]

Sanford’s a mess. Probably my favorite politician for a long time, sad to see him lose his damn mind.

[Chronos]

Wait, Sanford completely blindsiding his own staff with the revelation of his misdeeds? Who could have seen that one coming?

[BrainGlutton]

@Chronos

Wait, Sanford completely blindsiding his own staff with the revelation of his misdeeds? Who could have seen that one coming?

And just when he was starting to pull ahead in the polls, too!

[Bricker]

And Sanford wins.

[BrainGlutton]

Can’t wait to see what Stephen does with that tonight. Don’t commiserate with your Sis, Stephen! Gloat! Play the sib-rivalry angle!

[joebuck20]

@BrainGlutton

Can’t wait to see what Stephen does with that tonight. Don’t commiserate with your Sis, Stephen! Gloat! Play the sib-rivalry angle!

Or the “As a conservative…” angle.

[BrainGlutton]

John Nichols of The Nation attributes Sanford’s win at least in part to Republican-controlled redistricting/gerrymandering.

“On Nov. 6, Democrats won the most votes in contested House races,” explains Richie. “FairVote’s post-election analysis of partisan voting trends suggests an underlying national preference toward Democrats of 52 percent to 48 percent. (If there had been no incumbents and each party had run a candidate in every district, the Democrats would have won 52 percent of the votes.) With a comparable edge in 2010, Republicans gained sixty-four seats to take the House. But this year, winning a House majority would have required a much bigger swing toward Democrats, as much as 55 percent of the vote, a historical high.”

This brings us back to Tuesday’s special election in South Carolina’s 1st district. Colbert Busch’s capable campaigning—or, perhaps, Sanford’s imperfect campaigning—resulted in a significant swing by voters to the Democratic column. But the district was designed to withstand a significant swing.

In 2012, the Democratic nominee took just 29 percent of the vote. Colbert Busch took 46 percent. So, in what was probably a best-of-all-worlds scenario for the Democrats, their candidate raised the party’s percentage of the vote by almost sixteen points. But she needed a swing of more than twenty-one points.

[adaher]

That’s been a common complaint, but a fair apportionment would produce more Republican districts than Democrat, because Democrats are clustered in small areas. The only gerrymandering is racial gerrymandering, which has the effect of further clustering Democrats in overwhelmingly Democratic districts.

[Boyo_Jim]

@adaher

That’s been a common complaint, but a fair apportionment would produce more Republican districts than Democrat, because Democrats are clustered in small areas. The only gerrymandering is racial gerrymandering, which has the effect of further clustering Democrats in overwhelmingly Democratic districts.

What is “fair”? What evidence do you have that the only gerrymandering done (in SC? everywhere?) is based on race?

[adaher]

I was sloppy there. I should have said the only decisive gerrymandering is racial gerrymandering. Of course minor gerrymandering occurs nearly everywhere, but it usually doesn’t affect overall partisan outcomes so much as protect current incumbents.

As for what is fair, just look at any map of any state by partisan breakdown. You’ll notice huge red areas and clustered blue areas. There’s just no way to draw districts without benefiting Republicans a little.