South Carolina Elections - Results and Analysis -

The results of the South Carolina Legislature elections are now tabulated here. The short answer: an overall slight victory for us. One concrete overall gain in the House and one concrete overall gain in the Senate in freedom supporter over anti supporter (primary and general election results combined) - see more below.

Actual election listings, ratings and results - Scroll way down.

There are reasons to both celebrate and lament the results as I scrutinize them.

We can lament the fact that some dangerous anti incumbents were retained. As much as so many people whine about the state legislature, there were a great many uncontested races this go around - and while many of those incumbents are good people, some of them were definitively not. We can also lament the fact that in many contested races, it would appear that incumbency, blind party affiliation and, possibly, blindly following the advice of the local liberal rag won the day.

I think it is also greatly lamentable that, clearly, not many South Carolinians were interested in a candidate’s stances on this issue of freedom. Sure, no candidate website (if it existed at all) managed to mention this subject matter, one way or the other. But, all they had to do was google search with a search term like, “South Carolina Elections Smoking” and they would have been shown this website on page one of results. “South Carolina Elections “candidate name” “ also would have brought up this site in one or two pages of results. My traffic did increase during the last week before the elections, but nowhere near what I would have hoped.

Pathetic - so many people affected by the actions of anti but so few willing to take definitive action on the one day out of two years they can.

BUT, we can also celebrate a few things.

As mentioned above, there was a slight gain in freedom supporters over anti-supporters. These were concrete gains - there might be more of a gain, and things hint at that, but I am not sure enough to declare it.

It is also worth mentioning is the fact that in a several cases in these elections, proudly declared supporters of freedom retained or won open seats in cases where the open seat was an unknown and the defeated challenger was an anti.

We can also celebrate the fact that before these elections, freedom supporters already had the edge in our legislature - so this election bolstered that. And, as many of you may be witnessing, Anti is losing ground. As the world starts to become aware of the lies of the antis, the true economic damages of bans and the fallacy of raising sin taxes to fund things effectively and fairly, this local election does bode well for us - but our vigilance must not falter. As soon as you can, write your new or re-elected representative and tell them to support freedom and oppose tax increases... at this point, this is all you can do individually.

Links of Use and Interest:

The South Carolina Races of Interest

How I tabulated wins/losses/washes

A slash through a name indicates that the candidate LOST

The word “OPEN” or “defeated” written in incumbent slots indicates that the incumbent either retired or was ousted in the primaries. If the word is in black, that means the incumbent’s voting record showed no support for anti. If the word is in red, that means the incumbent was against freedom in voting record.

A loss for us is if an unknown or friendly to freedom incumbent (Green, Violet, Black)has been replaced (either in retirement or by defeat) by a known supporter of anti (Red) challenger.

A win for us is if a known anti incumbent (Red) has been replaced (either by retirement or defeat) by at least a Green, Violet or Black candidate. Now, granted, an unknown person (Black) with no legislative history or response to my inquiry one way or the other might turn out to be anti... but lets try and have a little hope here.

Most of the races are a wash. I will consider a race a wash if an anti incumbent (Red) candidate retains his seat, a red candidate replaces a red candidate or if a friendly to freedom candidate (Green, Violet, Black) replaces a like candidate or is re-elected. None of these results effectively changes the composition of the legislative body.

The case of an Orange victory: In most cases, I have no definitive idea where they stand - largely because there is no indication on them and they have not responded to requests for their stance. Again, one would like to have hope that they’d do the right thing and I’d rather not pigeon-hole them here, so I’ll just ignore these races.

How to Read these Listings

Below, based on their Bill authorship/sponsorship, voting record, public declarations of the past and present and, in some cases, personal correspondence, I can attempt to tell you who is what according to the following color scheme (from worst to best):

House District: 3

Counties: Pickens

Incumbent

Skelton, B. R. - R

House District: 22

Counties: Greenville Score: Win

Incumbent

Defeated

Challengers

Nanney, Wendy - R

House District: 69

Counties: Lexington

Incumbent

Pitts, Edward H. “Ted” - R

House District: 74

Counties: Richland

Incumbent

Rutherford, J. Todd - D

House District: 66

Counties: Orangeburg

Incumbent

Cobb-Hunter, Gilda - D

House District: 79

Counties: Kershaw and Richland

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Herndon, David - R *

Gunn, Anton - D

House District: 99

Counties: Berkeley and Charleston

Incumbent

Merrill, James H. - R

House District: 112

Counties: Charleston Score: Wash

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Sottille, Mike - R

Senate District: 2

Counties: Pickens Score: Wash

Incumbent

Martin, Larry A. - R

Challengers

Defeated

Senate District: 6

Counties: Greenville

Incumbent

Fair, Michael L. - R

Comment:

Wash

Senate District: 16

Counties: Lancaster and York

Incumbent

OPEN

House District: 45

Counties: Lancaster and York

Incumbent

OPEN

Senate District: 22

Counties: Kershaw and Richland

Incumbent

Lourie, Joel - D

Comments:

Wash

Senate District: 23

Counties: Lexington

Incumbent

Knotts, John M. “Jake” - R

House District: 117

Counties: Charleston Score: Win

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Scott, Tim - R

House District: 16

Counties: Greenville and Laurens

Incumbent

OPEN

House District: 21

Counties: Greenville and Laurens Score: Loss

Incumbent

Defeated

Challengers

Wylie, Bill - R

House District: 81

Counties: Aiken Score: Loss

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Young, Tom - R

House District: 32

Counties: Spartanburg

Incumbent

OPEN

House District: 105

Counties: Horry Score: Wash

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Hearn, George - R

Senate District: 10

Counties: Abbeville, Greenwood, Laurens

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Compton, Dee - R

Nicholson, Floyd - D *

Senate District: 32

Counties: Florence, Georgetown, Horry and Williamsburg

Score: Wash

Incumbent

McGill, Yancey - D

Challengers

Defeated

Senate District: 19

Counties: Richland Score: Not over yet, see Senate Races

Senate District: 17

Counties: Chester, Fairfield, Union and York

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Bennett, Mark - R

Coleman, Creighton B. - D

Senate District: 12

Counties: Spartanburg Score: Wash

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Bright, Lee - R

defeated

House District: 36

Counties: Spartanburg Score: Win

Incumbent

Open

Challengers

Allison, Rita - R

Senate District: 7

Counties: Greenville

Incumbent

Anderson, Ralph - D

Senate District: 13

Counties: Greenville, Spartanburg and Union Score: Not over yet, see Senate Races

Updated: 11/10/08

House District: 20

Counties: Greenville Score: Wash

Incumbent

OPEN

Challengers

Hamilton, Dan - R

House District: 108

Counties: Charleston and Georgetown

Incumbent

Miller, Vida O. - D

House District: 77

Counties: Richland

Incumbent

Open

Challengers

Koska, Michael - R

McEachern, Joe - D

House District: 25

Counties: Greenville

Incumbent

Allen, Karl - D

House District: 23

Counties: Greenville

Incumbent

Defeated in primary

Challengers

Alexander, Justin - R

Dillard, Chandra - D

Senate District: 28

Counties: Dillon, Horry, Marion and Marlboro

Incumbent

Elliott, Dick - D

House District: 34

Counties: Spartanburg

Incumbent

OPEN

House District: 35

Counties: Spartanburg Score: Wash

Incumbent

Kelly, Keith - R

Challengers

Defeated

House District: 97

Counties: Dorchester

Incumbent

Knight, Patsy - D

House District: 119

Counties: Charleston

Incumbent

Stavrinakis, Leon - D

Senate District: 11

Counties: Spartanburg

Incumbent

Reese, Glenn - D

Senate District: 33

Counties: Horry Score: Wash

Incumbent

Rankin, Luke - D

Challengers

Defeated

Senate District: 35

Counties: Lee and Sumter

Incumbent

Leventis, Phil - D

Senate District: 38

Counties: Charleston and Dorchester Score: Not over yet, see Senate Races

Senate District: 42

Counties: Charleston

Incumbent

Ford, Robert - D

Senate District: 46

Counties: Beauford

Incumbent

Defeated

Comment: Wash

Comment: Young, unfortunately, does support a tax increase. Don’t know his position on a ban - He won’t answer email... coward!

Comment: Wash

Comment: ?

Don’t know Willis’s stance on bans, though I suspect he supports tax increases.

Comment: Wash

Comment: ?

Cole has no email, website and has not responded to paper mail.

Comment: Wash

Comment: Win

Comment: Loss

Comment: Wash

Comment: Win

Now that the Primary races are over - which has decided to finality some South Carolina House and Senate seats, we can tabulate how freedom did thus far in this election year cycle.

How I will tabulate:

A defeat for us is if an unknown or friendly to freedom incumbent has been replaced by a known (red) or suspect (orange) challenger. If an incumbent is unknown, this means that he has not actively voted for anti legislation in the past three years.

A win for us is if a known anti incumbent has been replaced (either by retirement or defeat, by at least an unknown (black) or friendly to freedom (green) candidate. Now, Granted, an unknown person with no legislative history or response to my inquiry one way or the other might turn out to be anti... but lets try and have a little hope here.

I will consider the replacement of one anti with another anti or the re-election of an anti a wash, as it does not change the composition of the current legislative body one way or the other.

Comment: I originally considered Sottile a suspect anti simply because he’s the mayor of stuck-up Isle of Palms, BUT I recently read of his reluctance to pursue a smoking ban there, so maybe he might be a victory for us.

Comment: A reader of the website has indicated to me that his contact with Nanney indicated that she does not support the draconian bans as seen in Greenville or Charleston.. well, it’s something, and better than the incumbent.

Comment: Wash

House District: 76

Counties: Richland

Incumbent

Howard, Leon - D

Comment: Wash

Kocher did receive about 9% of the vote, so that is encouraging to Libertarians.

Senate District: 1

Counties: Oconee and Pickens

Incumbent

Alexander, Thomas - R

Comment: Wash

Senate District: 19

Counties: Richland

Incumbent

OPEN

Comment: Loss

Senate District: 38

Counties: Charleston and Dorchester

Incumbent

OPEN

Comment: Win

House District: 109

Counties: Charleston

Incumbent

Mack, David - D

Comment: Wash

House District: 110

Counties: Charleston and Georgetown

Incumbent

LImehouse, “Chip” - R

Comment: Wash

Senate District: 13

Counties: Greenville, Spartanburg and Union

Incumbent

OPEN

Comment: Wash

House District: 37

Counties: Spartanburg

Incumbent

OPEN

Comment: Wash

House District: 38

Counties: Spartanburg

Incumbent

OPEN

Comment: ?

Millwood never responded to emails.

Senate District: 26

Counties: Aiken, Lexington and Saluda

Incumbent

Setzler, Nikki - D

Comment: Wash

This is our enemy. They have proven by deed or declaration that they definitely support all smoking bans and other anti legislation.

A dubious candidate. Either by media article, website hints or their personal attributes (i.e; medical doctor), AND a failure of them to set the record straight with me in correspondence, these people are strongly suspected to support smoking bans, especially state-wide, and probably tax increases.

Orange will also be used for people who do not want to share their views or have no contact info for sharing their views - which is, in and of itself, pretty damn suspect - and unprofessional.

Unknown. What separates them from orange is that their website or public declarations have not hinted at all that they are anti and I have reason to give them the benefit of the doubt.

This would mean that I know concretely that the candidate is opposed to smoking ban legislation, in businesses, of any form (state or local) and, thus, truly supports individual and private property liberties.

Since we have the unfortunate reality that there are candidates that are against smoking bans but have some support for a tax increase, I will use a red asterisk to denote support for a tax increase, orange for a hesitant support for a tax increase or support for a small tax increase.

RED

ORANGE

BLACK

GREEN

* , *

VIOLET

Violet (Purple) indicates the candidate does NOT support a state-wide smoking ban, but does support local governments in imposing smoking bans. Not ideal, but better than red or orange.

Comment: Wash