Behind Closed Doors, Republicans Raise Concerns Over Darline Graham’s Senate Bid
Six Republican campaign operatives and lawmakers expressed broad skepticism that Graham will reach the 50% threshold required to avoid a runoff.
Ahead of the August 11 special Republican Senate primary in South Carolina, Sen. Darline Graham — appointed to complete the term of her late brother, former Sen. Lindsey Graham, after his sudden death last month — joined her opponents on the debate stage Monday night.
While nine Republicans qualified for the ballot, five of them participated in the debate. Others included Reps. Ralph Norman and Russell Fry; former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, and businessman Mark Lynch, who lost the Senate primary to Sen. Lindsey Graham in June by nearly 30 points.
Whoever prevails, the Republican nominee will head into the general election with a substantial advantage over Democratic nominee Annie Andrews in deep-red South Carolina.
An Emerson poll released ahead of the debate showed Norman leading the Republican primary with 22% support. Graham was close behind at 19%, followed by Fry at 12% and Sanford at 11%.
Most notably, 25% of respondents remained undecided, while 88% said a candidate debate ahead of the special election was important. Taken together, those findings suggest many voters planned to use the debate to help inform their decision.
If the filibuster is the only thing standing in the way of passing the SAVE America Act, then I'm a YES vote to end it.
There's too much at stake. Democrats refuse to protect our elections or our children from the transgender agenda.
It's time to get this done for President… pic.twitter.com/ToXK1n381W
— Darline Graham (@DarlineGrahamSC) August 3, 2026
In interviews with Jewish Insider following the debate, six Republican campaign operatives and lawmakers expressed broad skepticism that Graham will reach the 50% threshold required to avoid a runoff. The consensus is that she is struggling to win a majority of support from Republican primary voters.
However, they do believe she will be one of the two candidates to advance to the August 25 runoff.
Pointing out that Graham is new to public office, still finding her footing, and is largely unknown to many voters, the group questioned whether President Donald Trump’s endorsement would be enough to propel her to victory.
Doug Heye, a Republican strategist and a former Republican National Committee communications director, told JI:
The sense that this is going to go to a runoff seems pretty clear. What happens after that is anyone’s guess.
Ultimately, it’s going to be a question of what Republican voters in South Carolina want to do and how they view the new Sen. Graham. You can’t really factor in what she’s done yet, but you know what she says she’s going to do. She doesn’t have a high name ID, although that is increasing every day, whereas the others who are running have much higher name ID and not just necessarily in their districts.
According to JI, Republicans are concerned about Graham’s ability “to develop a full policy platform and hit the campaign trail as she mourns her brother’s recent death.”
A current Republican senator, who spoke to JI on the condition of anonymity, weighed in:
It’s being said and unsaid by a lot of people on Capitol Hill right now. Up to this point, most people here have been more concerned about her personally than figuring out her political philosophy, asking if it’s fair to her to put her in this situation. This has got so many consequences. I’ve been very concerned about it. The people who express concern the most are still mainly worried about her personally, which is heartwarming, but the stakes are also very high.
A GOP campaign source emphasized voters’ unfamiliarity with Graham, her positions on the issues and her lack of a proven record. “Love them or hate them, folks know what Ralph and Russell’s records look like. Love them or hate them, you know where they stand. Darline is largely an unknown.”
While William F. Buckley once famously said he’d “rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard,” there is something to be said for experience and familiarity.
Republicans also questioned Darline Graham’s fundraising ability.
Dr. Annie Andrews (the Democratic nominee) actually outraised Lindsey Graham in the first two quarters of 2026.
JI noted that despite Andrews’ fundraising success, “national Democrats declined to commit resources to the race against Graham, which the Cook Political Report continues to rate as solid Republican even after his death.”
But it remains possible that, in light of Graham’s death and the current uncertainty around selecting a new GOP nominee, Democrats could decide that victory is possible and that the party should commit resources to the race.
[Convinced that Democratic nominee Jaime Harrison could topple Graham in 2020, out-of-state money poured into the state, making it one of the most expensive congressional races in U.S. history. In the end, however, Graham defeated Harrison by more than 10 points.]
Finally, Republicans are concerned that if this primary advances to a runoff — which many think will be the case — opponents will be afraid to take aim at Darline Graham, given that she just lost her brother.
A senior GOP campaign official told JI:
She’s still grieving. Nobody wants to be seen hitting someone whose brother literally just died — and then was vaulted into a very public, very national spotlight — but at some point the gloves are gonna have to come off at least somewhat.
A senator echoed that sentiment, saying, “If they get to a runoff, at that point, it is a whole new ball game and she’s no longer a grieving sister. She becomes a semi-incumbent obstacle to whoever wants to win.”
Regarding Trump’s endorsement, Heye noted, “Not everything that happens in a Republican primary is about Donald Trump. His endorsement is always a boost, but that’s it.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m no fan of family taking over seats of dead politicians.
I hope whoever wins though gets the full support from the other two. The GOP cannot afford to lose his seat to the left.
Unless the relative has serious political qualifications of their own, it’s a pure chick move. It’s governing with your feelz, not good governance.
Now… she was appointed to keep the seat warm for a very short time, so I’ll give that a pass. She’s not automatically going to inherit it, she chose to put herself through a primary, so there’s no smoke-filled-rooming going on (as there was for Biden’s and Platner’s replacement).
What shakes out shakes out, and it’s all according to the rules. Whatever happens, it will be the voters’ (bad?) judgment, and no one else’s.
You mean the other eight.
No, the GOP can’t afford to lose the seat. However, none of the adults in my family intend to vote for her in this primary. We are that opposed to family dynasties in politics, and we thought SC had broken that pattern years ago. (I can’t remember what year but a Thurmond son ran in the primary for one of the Congressional districts and didn’t make it past the primary.)
Lindsay Graham and his daughter hardly represent a “family dynasty” in politics.
Look elsewhere.
None intend to vote in the primary? This is cause for an INTERVENTION. Immediately.
So… this is basically a reprint of some folks trying to create a bandwagon effect against her.
Maybe but also.serves to point out some obstacles.
1. Many of us despise the notion of spouses/family members ‘inheriting’ a seat. Most of us were willing to grant a pass here b/c it was initially sold as only to serve out the 6 months remaining of her Brother’s term, clearing and equalizing the field for a competitive election. The Gov of SC appointed her on that basis, at least that’s the take from every contemporary media report I’ve seen.
2. Someone talked her into running, maybe DJT given his immediate endorsement.
3. Either she is capable of taking the rough/tumble sharp elbows of a competitive political contest or she isn’t. No sympathy or mercy, no grace should be shown just stiff jabs, body shots and upper cuts to see if she can handle getting hit. Whomever the d/prog candidate is and their allied PACs won’t be holding back in the general.
4. What are her policy positions? Is she a clone of her Brother? If so is she also gonna champion neocon fever dreams of endless wars? Another champion of corporatism?
IMO her run is a bad idea. It comes across as opportunistic and kinda selfish. Lots of resistance to family political dynasties within the center/right populist base to overcome. She’s already rebranded herself from Darline Nordone to Darline GRAHAM which seems to indicate she’s trying to maximize her maiden name for political profit and it might also be seen to devalue her Husband’s name which she took/used prior to now.
Since she’s doing a primary she’s not trying to inherit a seat, so that’s off the table.
Being talked into running means there’s no ‘power hungry’ motive. So that’s off the table.
She’s going into a primary, so she’s willing to take the rough and tumble.
The only issue is the policy positions.
You do realize she is currently a serving US Senator and was appointed by the Gov of SC to finish the term of her brother ….that’s an inherited seat. It isn’t as if she was selected at random from the phone directory. She’s a serving US Senator today only b/c of her brother’s death in office …aka she inherited his seat.
Now had she rejected the appointment and the advantage however briefly held of incumbency instead choosing to run on her own hook for the open seat then you’d be correct about a lack of inheritance.
Every politician is to some degree power hungry. For this woman it seems that it really kicked in after her acceptance of the appointment to serve out her brother’s term. An appointment the SC Gov publicly made with the understanding she would be a caretaker and wouldn’t use the position to run for a full term. Seems pretty hungry to me. Especially considering she rebranded herself and her name for the campaign from Nordone back to her maiden name of Graham. Seems clear she’ll dump or at least downplay her marriage and the name she used since then and use the much more well known name Graham to gain an edge.
Ready for rough and tumble? Ok, if you say so but I suspect she, her campaign surrogates, allies in the party, DC establishment and many in conservative corporate media will begin clutching pearls the first time negative ads run and every time thereafter. Especially when Lindsey is brought into it and since she’s rebranded herself as Darline Graham to capitalize on her brother’s name recognition ….his entire record and personal history is absolutely made fair game. No whining about negative ads, no crying about ‘leave Lindsey alone’ or speak no ill of the dead.
I’m politically engaged; I live in South Carolina; and I’m still trying to figure this thing out. 🙃
Vote in the primary for what’s his name… Norman. If she is anything like her brother, a Pox on her!
For me the number one thing she has going for her is that she is NOT a politician! I am sick of these roaches puting their re-election above everything else including the country! I am not a politician and could do a better job than 90% of the ones I have witnessed. The issue becomes what they must do to get re-elected almost immediately upon entering office. The leaders of their party tell them what they must do or they will not get the support of their party for re-election. Term limits would help with this but for some reson many think term limits ar a bad thing. If you look at the structure of DC and Congress, term limits would dramatically change the status quo and take power away from the few who no longer work for the people but themselves. God speed for her election!
I’m one of those people that is against term limits and I can qualify that position with a simple statement:
If you have to institute term limits to save the people from themselves, then you have a country not worth saving
A Republic, if you can keep it
—-Benjamin Franklin
Would you repeal the Roosevelt Amendment?
I don’t agree with the 22nd Amendment, if that’s what you’re asking.
I stand with the founders who, although had strict rotation rules for delegates regarding the Articles of Confederation, rejected them at the Continental Congress when drafting the Constitution.
Does that answer your question?
Term limits would require a constitutional amendment.
Funny, and right on cue. I don’t recall any prominent Democratic figures discouraging Hillary Clinton from running for Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Senate seat, even though she had never lived in New York State or participated in New York State politics before 2000.
When Obama picked Hillary as his Secretary of State, where was the political opposition to appointing Kirsten Gillibrand to fill her seat? Yes, these unnamed GOP officials and lawmakers in this story are consummate backstabbers and disgusting people.
Huh?! How were either of those nepotistic, or even give the appearance of it? Hillary Clinton ran for a seat like anyone else. The voters chose her, stupid them.
And why would anyone have objected to Gillibrand’s appointment? As opposed to whom? Do you think someone else deserved that appointment?! If so, who, and why? There was a vacancy, so someone had to be appointed to temporarily fill it, and why not Gillibrand?
Here’s what this story reminded me of when I wrote my comment. I remember how NY Governor David Paterson’s selection process started with prominent names and high-profile New York Democrats, including Andrew Cuomo, Fran Drescher, and Caroline Kennedy, all vying for Hillary’s seat.
Gillibrand quietly campaigned for the position, meeting with Paterson in secret on more than one occasion. She said she made every effort to highlight her successful House elections, adding she could be a good complement to Chuck Schumer. It was later reported that Gillibrand’s appointment was kept secret for weeks before the official announcement.
The response to the appointment in New York was mixed. Upstate New York media was elated about appointing an upstate senator, as none had been elected since Charles Goodell left office in 1971.
Many downstate residents were disappointed with Gillibrand’s selection, with some stating that Paterson ignored New York City’s electoral influence and questioning whether Paterson’s administration was aware of where statewide elections are won.
At the time, Gillibrand was relatively unknown, and many NY voters found the choice surprising. There were bruised egos when Paterson selected an unknown legislator from outside Albany.
None of that is comparable to this case. She wasn’t appointed based on her family or anything like that. As I recall the only real opposition to her appointment was because in the house she’d built up a pro-2A record. But they needn’t have worried; as soon as she switched to the senate she turned into the same rabid anti-2A activist as all the rest of them.
Fewer women in congress would help us all
I don’t see where the problem is. Competitive primaries make us stronger and help us select the best person for the job.
Debbie Dingell waving a “No Kings” sign is pretty rich.
I wasn’t a fan of Graham’s sisters appointment. Never in the limelight. Then she came out swinging on the SAVE Act. I hate the rino wing of the Senate more than I hate familial dynasty’s. Also which of the candidates running against her in the abbreviated primary are beholden to Thune. Watch and see who gets money from a PAC that the rino’s control.
Aren’t there more pressing issues that should attract voters’ attention?
Yes, there are: communists winning primaries comes to mind; communists running for governor, an Islamo-Marxist-communist running the biggest city in the country comes to mind; Republicans focusing on getting out the vote might be useful.
I am absolutely not a fan of political dynasties, especially in the United States.
Her coming out against the filibuster is a disqualification (for me) in and of itself.
Leave a Comment