I loved that podcast interview with Colom. He's on point, highly qualified and relentlessly attacking Hyde-Smith as "High Prices." And he's right on the math statement.
If I could pick an upset Senate loss this year, Hyde-Smith would be in my top 3.
Hyde-Smith is already a pretty bad underpeformer, in a blue wave with a competent opponent she very well could lose even if I wouldn't put it on my radar for now
I would agree except for the fact that Ty Pinkins (who was the Democratic nominee in 2024) is also running in this race as an Independent. What keeps me hopeful though is the possibility for a runoff if Hyde-Smith can be kept below 50%
I'm not exactly sure what Ty Pinkins thinks he's accomplishing with his bid, aside from increasing the likelihood of a Hyde-Smith victory. If it ends up close enough to need a runoff, it would likely juice up Republican turnout in the runoff. I assume a runoff would probably get a lot of Republicans who sat out in the initial election to suck up their disapproval of the Iran war, shit economy, Epstein files etc in order to stop something even worse: A black, democratic senator.
But there's also a chance that, if the midterms are bad enough for Mississippi to become competitive, Republican voters might be even further deflated if it went to a runoff, vis a vis Democratic voters being even more pumped up if it goes to a runoff
Pinkins initially ran in this cycle as a Democrat before switching his bid to Independent, all before Colom entered the race. I think Pinkins saw how Osborne did in NE last cycle and wanted to try it in Mississippi (which, to be fair, I don't think is a terrible strategy in red states). I think he also thought his chance of being a spoiler was much lower than in other states (such as South Dakota) since Mississippi uses a runoff system (also not a terrible calculation in my opinion). Overall, though, I agree with you that it likely doesn't help the Democratic candidate to have Pinkins also running (unless he can manage to pull enough votes from Hyde-Smith to keep her under 50%).
If there is a runoff, I'm hoping that having a bunch of national attention on the race can help boost Democratic turnout
It's an interesting quandary in SC poltical regulations. If Fry runs in the special primary and wins, if he can't run for two seats at once, his line on SC07 should become vacant, which would then potentially trigger another special primary. There's not time for that in the calendar. Senate special primary is Aug 11 and runoff Aug 25. One month for filing would be Sept 25, 2 weeks to prep election is roughly Oct 14 and run off would be Oct 28. But early vote starts Oct 19. Even with no run off there isn't time for ballot prep for overseas and absentee.
If he can run for both at once and wins both, 😡, then he'd vacate his house seat on Jan 3. Which would trigger a special that would occur in mid/late February. But running for two seats at once seems problematic. So if he vacates the house line, either the D, John Vincent, wins, or somehow they have to refill the line, but I don't think SC has an option like Maine does, or the deadline has passed.
I don't know South Carolinian election laws but it would be incredibly funny if we ended up winning a seat in deep red territory simply because Trump decided he wanted this random representative instead of just endorsing one of the many other candidates that wanted to/plan to run for the seat
SC doesn't seem to allow dual candidacies, but it's not unheard of (Biden famously won reelection to Senate along with VP in 2008). But Mace had been exploring contesting it on the grounds that the text bars running under multiple ballot lines for one office, rather than barring multiple offices.
"SECTION 7-11-10. Methods of nominating candidates...
(B) A candidate must not file more than one statement of intention of candidacy for a single office for the same election."
But looks like there's no barrier to a write-in candidate, so they could go that route?
"SECTION 7-13-360. Place on ballot for write-in names.
The ballots shall also contain a place for voters to write in the name of any other person for whom they wish to vote except on ballots for the election of the President and Vice President."
Also interesting to game out the competition for Dr. Andrews now in SC. My gut said she was better running against Graham because there are many Rs who dislike him. But he dispatched Mark Lynch and Thomas Dismukes pretty easily. So probably better for Andrews now.
Lynch was damaged pretty badly by Graham. I'm surprised he didn't dent Graham more. And Lynch is very far right. Doubt he can beat Norman in a primary but Lynch wouldn't be a strong candidate vs Andrews.
Nancy Mace is likely to run and that would be a tasty race vs Dr Andrews. Mace will default to her worst instincts about trans and gay bashing because she's done that with Andrews before. Andrews could turn a lot of female voters against Mace. Easily Andrew's preferred opponent, I'd think.
I think Evette would be the strongest candidate against Andrews, but considering how little support she got in the run off, maybe Rs don't like her as much as I thought. Or they're just sexist.
Norman is probably the strongest R who could run. He has DC experience and Maga bona fides and just did reasonably well in Gov race, but only 5% better than Mace. If Dr Andrews is correct and the Nikki Haley Rs in the state are ready to jump ship from the Maga right, then that could be a problem. But he's older than Graham was.
Fry is Norman but younger + and less well known -.
Regardless, I think Andrews loses, but she has a better shot now. As to which R candidate will win...search me...as the Gen X kids said back in the day.
I have no idea *how* to look at the race now, honestly.
Respectfully, I don't really think Graham was as strong/popular among Republicans as you say. He was a four term incumbent, endorsed by Trump, outraised Lynch four times over, and he still only captured 57% of the vote. Less than what Andrews got in her primary, hell less than what Paxton got over incumbent Cornyn. It wasn't close at all, but when you're running for re-election in a wave year, you don't want to have a voter base that isn't *overwhelmingly* supportive of you.
At the same time, Graham was also the most vocal cheerleader of continued war with Iran, which is only getting more and more unpopular with just about everybody. That, combined with a not very enthusiastic base, while being intimately tied to Trump and all of his problems, created an opening for a bit of an upset. Now most of those factors are gone.
Of course whoever comes next will still be tied to Trump and will likely support continuing the Iran war, of course, but they won't really have the baggage that Graham carried (unless they nominate Mace or Lynch who have their own, somehow worse baggage). I don't think Graham was ever able to truly shake off the "RINO" stuff and his initial opposition to Trump, whereas the new nominee will basically be a clean slate.
But at the same time, Graham was an incumbent, one that was admittedly pretty adept at campaigning. And I feel like Graham's previous opposition to Trump and his... "uniqueness" in the Republican caucus probably helped him out with independents. But that said, I don't know if his incumbency would've outweighed the potential for MAGA faithful like Lynch voters to sit this one out.
Here's my viewpoint: This race was already a peripheral pick-up opportunity that was heavily dependent on Graham's unique shortcomings, sort of like Texas in 2018 or a less intense version of Alabama in 2017. Now, I'd say it's gotten harder initially, but how much harder or if it'll stay that way depends on both the nominee the Republicans choose and how that nominee campaigns. My gut feeling is that almost every candidate is stronger than Graham, with Evette maybe being on par given how badly she imploded in the governor's race, and Lynch and Mace being weaker.
SC-Sen: Treasury head Scott Bessent and former Gov. Nikki Haley, considered to be potential dark horse candidates, will not make runs, which was to be expected.
Man, I hope Ed Case loses. He’s been a pointless pain in the ass for decades. I’m willing to be a lot more forgiving of Democrats like Jared Golden and MGP in tough seats, but I have zero patience for anyone in a blue seat doing that crap.
I’m also surprised by the Slotkin endorsement of Maasdam in MI-7. It had seemed like the establishment was coalescing behind Brink, but it seems like Brink has her own issues.
I loved that podcast interview with Colom. He's on point, highly qualified and relentlessly attacking Hyde-Smith as "High Prices." And he's right on the math statement.
If I could pick an upset Senate loss this year, Hyde-Smith would be in my top 3.
Hyde-Smith is already a pretty bad underpeformer, in a blue wave with a competent opponent she very well could lose even if I wouldn't put it on my radar for now
I would agree except for the fact that Ty Pinkins (who was the Democratic nominee in 2024) is also running in this race as an Independent. What keeps me hopeful though is the possibility for a runoff if Hyde-Smith can be kept below 50%
I'm not exactly sure what Ty Pinkins thinks he's accomplishing with his bid, aside from increasing the likelihood of a Hyde-Smith victory. If it ends up close enough to need a runoff, it would likely juice up Republican turnout in the runoff. I assume a runoff would probably get a lot of Republicans who sat out in the initial election to suck up their disapproval of the Iran war, shit economy, Epstein files etc in order to stop something even worse: A black, democratic senator.
But there's also a chance that, if the midterms are bad enough for Mississippi to become competitive, Republican voters might be even further deflated if it went to a runoff, vis a vis Democratic voters being even more pumped up if it goes to a runoff
Pinkins initially ran in this cycle as a Democrat before switching his bid to Independent, all before Colom entered the race. I think Pinkins saw how Osborne did in NE last cycle and wanted to try it in Mississippi (which, to be fair, I don't think is a terrible strategy in red states). I think he also thought his chance of being a spoiler was much lower than in other states (such as South Dakota) since Mississippi uses a runoff system (also not a terrible calculation in my opinion). Overall, though, I agree with you that it likely doesn't help the Democratic candidate to have Pinkins also running (unless he can manage to pull enough votes from Hyde-Smith to keep her under 50%).
If there is a runoff, I'm hoping that having a bunch of national attention on the race can help boost Democratic turnout
It's an interesting quandary in SC poltical regulations. If Fry runs in the special primary and wins, if he can't run for two seats at once, his line on SC07 should become vacant, which would then potentially trigger another special primary. There's not time for that in the calendar. Senate special primary is Aug 11 and runoff Aug 25. One month for filing would be Sept 25, 2 weeks to prep election is roughly Oct 14 and run off would be Oct 28. But early vote starts Oct 19. Even with no run off there isn't time for ballot prep for overseas and absentee.
If he can run for both at once and wins both, 😡, then he'd vacate his house seat on Jan 3. Which would trigger a special that would occur in mid/late February. But running for two seats at once seems problematic. So if he vacates the house line, either the D, John Vincent, wins, or somehow they have to refill the line, but I don't think SC has an option like Maine does, or the deadline has passed.
Could be a very busy year for us poll managers.
I don't know South Carolinian election laws but it would be incredibly funny if we ended up winning a seat in deep red territory simply because Trump decided he wanted this random representative instead of just endorsing one of the many other candidates that wanted to/plan to run for the seat
SC doesn't seem to allow dual candidacies, but it's not unheard of (Biden famously won reelection to Senate along with VP in 2008). But Mace had been exploring contesting it on the grounds that the text bars running under multiple ballot lines for one office, rather than barring multiple offices.
"SECTION 7-11-10. Methods of nominating candidates...
(B) A candidate must not file more than one statement of intention of candidacy for a single office for the same election."
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t07c011.php
https://www.live5news.com/2025/11/20/fact-check-can-candidates-run-two-offices-simultaneously-south-carolina/
But looks like there's no barrier to a write-in candidate, so they could go that route?
"SECTION 7-13-360. Place on ballot for write-in names.
The ballots shall also contain a place for voters to write in the name of any other person for whom they wish to vote except on ballots for the election of the President and Vice President."
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t07c013.php
Also interesting to game out the competition for Dr. Andrews now in SC. My gut said she was better running against Graham because there are many Rs who dislike him. But he dispatched Mark Lynch and Thomas Dismukes pretty easily. So probably better for Andrews now.
Lynch was damaged pretty badly by Graham. I'm surprised he didn't dent Graham more. And Lynch is very far right. Doubt he can beat Norman in a primary but Lynch wouldn't be a strong candidate vs Andrews.
Nancy Mace is likely to run and that would be a tasty race vs Dr Andrews. Mace will default to her worst instincts about trans and gay bashing because she's done that with Andrews before. Andrews could turn a lot of female voters against Mace. Easily Andrew's preferred opponent, I'd think.
I think Evette would be the strongest candidate against Andrews, but considering how little support she got in the run off, maybe Rs don't like her as much as I thought. Or they're just sexist.
Norman is probably the strongest R who could run. He has DC experience and Maga bona fides and just did reasonably well in Gov race, but only 5% better than Mace. If Dr Andrews is correct and the Nikki Haley Rs in the state are ready to jump ship from the Maga right, then that could be a problem. But he's older than Graham was.
Fry is Norman but younger + and less well known -.
Regardless, I think Andrews loses, but she has a better shot now. As to which R candidate will win...search me...as the Gen X kids said back in the day.
I have no idea *how* to look at the race now, honestly.
Respectfully, I don't really think Graham was as strong/popular among Republicans as you say. He was a four term incumbent, endorsed by Trump, outraised Lynch four times over, and he still only captured 57% of the vote. Less than what Andrews got in her primary, hell less than what Paxton got over incumbent Cornyn. It wasn't close at all, but when you're running for re-election in a wave year, you don't want to have a voter base that isn't *overwhelmingly* supportive of you.
At the same time, Graham was also the most vocal cheerleader of continued war with Iran, which is only getting more and more unpopular with just about everybody. That, combined with a not very enthusiastic base, while being intimately tied to Trump and all of his problems, created an opening for a bit of an upset. Now most of those factors are gone.
Of course whoever comes next will still be tied to Trump and will likely support continuing the Iran war, of course, but they won't really have the baggage that Graham carried (unless they nominate Mace or Lynch who have their own, somehow worse baggage). I don't think Graham was ever able to truly shake off the "RINO" stuff and his initial opposition to Trump, whereas the new nominee will basically be a clean slate.
But at the same time, Graham was an incumbent, one that was admittedly pretty adept at campaigning. And I feel like Graham's previous opposition to Trump and his... "uniqueness" in the Republican caucus probably helped him out with independents. But that said, I don't know if his incumbency would've outweighed the potential for MAGA faithful like Lynch voters to sit this one out.
Here's my viewpoint: This race was already a peripheral pick-up opportunity that was heavily dependent on Graham's unique shortcomings, sort of like Texas in 2018 or a less intense version of Alabama in 2017. Now, I'd say it's gotten harder initially, but how much harder or if it'll stay that way depends on both the nominee the Republicans choose and how that nominee campaigns. My gut feeling is that almost every candidate is stronger than Graham, with Evette maybe being on par given how badly she imploded in the governor's race, and Lynch and Mace being weaker.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/congressional/4648442/scott-bessent-no-chance-run-for-lindsey-graham-seat/
SC-Sen: Treasury head Scott Bessent and former Gov. Nikki Haley, considered to be potential dark horse candidates, will not make runs, which was to be expected.
https://www.tmj4.com/news/local-news/in-your-community/milwaukee-county/milwaukee-alderman-suspends-congressional-campaign
WI-1: Democratic Milwaukee alder Peter Burgelis is out, instead endorsing physician Mitchell Berman. Milwaukee is not in the 1st district.
Berman now faces nominal opposition in the primary, as ironworker Randy Bryce also dropped his bid.
Man, I hope Ed Case loses. He’s been a pointless pain in the ass for decades. I’m willing to be a lot more forgiving of Democrats like Jared Golden and MGP in tough seats, but I have zero patience for anyone in a blue seat doing that crap.
I’m also surprised by the Slotkin endorsement of Maasdam in MI-7. It had seemed like the establishment was coalescing behind Brink, but it seems like Brink has her own issues.
He's more like a headcase...