Debate Season in South Carolina

Image from the Republican Gubernatorial Debate at the College of Charleston

There was another round of primaries on Tuesday night in Idaho, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska. I thought about making that the main subject of this week�s blog, but there is not much to discuss in regards to the topic. The most interesting news came from Pennsylvania where there is a lot of Democratic enthusiasm. For the first time in the state�s history, a woman will be in their Congressional delegation. This is because the only candidates in the general election for Pennsylvania�s 5^th District are women, Republican Pearl Kim and Democrat Mary Scanlon. Also, over 100,000 more Democrats turned out to vote than Republicans which is an early indicator of what the turnout will be in November. If the same gap between Democratic and Republican voter turnout holds, there could very well be a blue wave in Pennsylvania, a state where Donald Trump won in 2016 by a very small margin (less than 50,000 votes).

            In South Carolina, the primaries are not until June but things are starting to heat up as election day approaches, especially in the gubernatorial race. We are currently in debate season and on Tuesday night the Democrats faced each other on TV for the first time. Because of this spotlight, the relatively unknown outsiders in the race tried to make a name for themselves by making bold statements and attempting to make some headlines. For example, Marguerite Willis said to Phil Noble and his running mate Gloria Tinubu that, �They�re losers� because they have previously run for office and lost.

          

Image from the Democratic Gubernatorial Debate

  While that particular soundbite turned some heads, the majority of the attacks were leveled against James Smith, who is the political insider in the race. He faced attacks from Willis who blamed him for many of South Carolina�s problems because he has been a state representative for twenty-two years and he had the power to pass bills and make change. Noble repeatedly slandered Smith because of his past A rating from the NRA during questions about school safety and gun control.

            Smith responded to Willis�s criticisms by stating that he served as a Democrat in a deeply-Republican state where his party was greatly outnumbered. Willis rebutted that her running mate State Senator John Scott served in the legislature and was able to get things passed even though he was in the minority party. Smith responded to Noble�s swings by stating that he has never received �a penny from the NRA.� He also stated that he was the most qualified candidate to discuss gun control on the stage because he has experience with guns after being stationed in Afghanistan during his service to the Army.

            In my very biased opinion, I think Smith won this debate. It may look suspicious that I am proclaiming Smith to be the winner just days after meeting with him and his running mate and vocally posting about it on social media. However, my judgement of Tuesday�s winner is not related to that factor, even though it may look that way. Willis and Noble looked desperate to knock Smith down and in terms of electability, Willis and especially Noble do not appear to be viable in this state. If these two were running in California, I would have declared them the winner of the debate. But this is taking place in South Carolina, a place where uber-liberal Democrats have no chance in a general election. A winning candidate in this state proves that he or she can attract swing voters and even some Republicans, and Smith was able to do that. Noble and Willis have good arguments and they both bring energy, but they do not bring electability to the table.

            On the Republican side of things, their debate was held on Wednesday night which I attended. If you follow my Facebook page, I discussed my thoughts on each candidate�s performance. For this article I will only focus on one thing: Henry McMaster�s strategy.

            You may have noticed, but McMaster has been absent from most of the debates and events involving the Republican candidates for governor. His repeated absences have earned him a wave of insults and criticisms from his fellow Republican candidates and their supporters. But is this strategy actually helping McMaster?

            On the surface, it may appear that the Governor is being a coward for not showing up to these events or that he does not care about being present. However, looking deeper into the sad reality of American political literacy, this may prove beneficial. A lot of Americans do not follow politics so they vote (if they vote) based on simple things like name recognition. McMaster is the governor. Chances are that even if a person does not follow politics one bit that they will recognize McMaster�s name when they go to vote because he is the governor and his name is constantly being broadcasted on airwaves across South Carolina. The Republicans who are at these debates show up so they can reach voters, not to actually debate each other. There was very little arguing or actual debate happening on Wednesday night. They are there to make a name for themselves. McMaster does not need to do that and it would make no sense for him to go and get attacked for an hour by members of his party.

            That�s all for this week.