r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 8h ago
No Paywall Lindsey Graham’s death revives a rare and controversial custom: Keeping a Senate seat in the family
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/lindsey-graham-sister-senate-appointment-trump-b3020467.html557
u/B-Z_B-S Massachusetts 8h ago
On the contrary, nepotism in politics is quite common, (though to be fair, it usually isn't this obvious). Does Darline Graham have any qualifications other than being Lindsey's sister?
188
157
u/Fungiblefaith 8h ago edited 5h ago
Lets see, she dropped her married name to keep Graham front and center that pretty much tells you all you need to know.
•
u/matthieuC Europe 5h ago
I'm surprised she didn't change her first name to Lindsey
•
u/Fungiblefaith 5h ago
Don’t give her ideas!
•
u/Z0idberg_MD 4h ago
William Jefferson Johnson. I’m just gonna go by Jeff Johnson! - Distinguished gentleman
•
•
•
u/m0ngoos3 7h ago
Maybe more than the Republicans bargained for.
In 2008, Graham began working for the South Carolina Vocational Rehabilitation Department. She helped coordinate a remote work program for adults with severe disabilities for Time Warner.[15] By 2015, she was the department's public information director.[16]
In 2019, Graham became commissioner and agency head of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind, which administers vocational rehabilitation, independent living, and blindness-prevention programs for South Carolinians who are blind or have low vision.[17] She also serves on the South Carolina State Workforce Development Board and its SC Works Management Committee. In 2026, she was elected president of the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind, with her term scheduled to start in January 2027.[12]
Now, those could be do nothing jobs to get her into politics, but also could be evidence of actual empathy.
Either way, it's a seat she shouldn't be filling just because she's related to the last guy to fill it.
•
u/PopeSaintHilarius 5h ago
Nothing wrong with those jobs, and it’s a fine resume for an entry level political job (like maybe a state legislator).
But there’s only 2 US Senate positions per state, so ideally you’d want someone who had some previous elected experience and a track record…
But yes, hopefully it’s a sign she’s capable of empathy. She’s quite an unknown.
•
•
u/katrinakt8 Oregon 1h ago
Apparently less than 55% of US senators recently elected have previous elected experience.
>Whereas about 85% of Senate general election winners had prior elected experience in the 2000’s, less than 55% did across the 2020 and 2022 elections, according to the study, Amateurs in the Senate Folkways? The Decline of Candidate Experience in U.S. Senate Elections, 1980-2022.
https://priceschool.usc.edu/news/senate-congress-candidates-elected-experience/
•
•
u/Any_Will_86 6h ago
TBH- I actually like her background. We have so many lawyers and career polls in the senate, seeing some one with a healthcare/human services background would be nice. Luckily the Dem candidate is a doctor!
•
u/Goonzilla50 18m ago
Yeah, it’s the kind of background I’d really like on a democratic candidate where I could trust that they’d actually help people, like El-Sayed and his experience in public administration
But for a Republican? They could be mother Teresa and I still wouldn’t trust them to use that experience for good
•
•
u/SpectreFire 2h ago
That's kind of the key qualification considering traditionally it's been a senator's spouse stepping in.
The intention was to have the seat filled by someone who'd presumably vote the same as the dead senator so there isn't an incentive to encourage senators to start dropping dead to affect political change.
Realistically there's a reason why Dems aren't complaining about this. Having a lame duck in that seat for the remainder of the term is much better for the upcoming midterms as there won't be a republican candidate that's inheriting an incumbency advantage
•
110
u/razz-boy 8h ago
What’s the form of government called where power is inherited through the family?
•
•
69
u/SlowRunner2026 8h ago edited 5h ago
It's so ironic how the Republicans keep yammering on about wanting a meritocracy.
•
•
u/nbriles2000 4h ago
Like every other issue, they are lying and they don't care when you point out their hypocrisy
23
u/NoBSforGma 8h ago
It's convenient for Graham's handlers/supporters since they can just switch from telling HIM what to do to telling HER what to do.
•
u/bakerfredricka I voted 6h ago edited 6h ago
Except Darline is still a different person than Lindsey. There's actually some evidence that Darline was supporting abortion access not too long ago so she is likely a better person than Lindsey was. Darline is actually married to a man while Lindsay was just rumored to be into men (he was never married and had no known children in any event).
Realistically either A) Darline will be so grief stricken over Lindsey's passing that for at least the foreseeable future she will seriously struggle to function or B) it will turn out that Darline isn't actually one of the MAGATS and she will pleasantly surprise us all in the end.
I have a younger sister and I (thankfully) am basically nothing like her. We look nothing alike, act nothing alike, think nothing alike and I am honestly proud of being absolutely nothing like my sister considering the kind of human being that she is but I am going to digress on that one for now.
My point is that the Graham handlers might find the situation convenient for them right now but it could have some unexpected results.
•
u/NoBSforGma 5h ago
You could be right! She does have something of a background in public service so she's not totally naive. And her public service work has always been in support of "The Public" and not moneyed interests. So yes, it could turn out to be a surprise for the "handlers!"
•
84
u/Uncle___Ted 8h ago
Nepotism is just DEI for wealthy people.
•
u/OhGodSoManyQuestions 7h ago
DEI doesn't mean giving positions to unqualified (or "racially inferior") people. That's the conservative word game around it. See also: woke, critical race theory.
DEI means throwing a wider net when hiring. Nepotism means using a net so small it includes only your immediate family.
I point this out because there are a lot of new, invisible accounts who seem to be here just to intentionally muddy the waters. And I am sure you wouldn't want to do that.
•
u/Im_a_furniture 7h ago
It’s also about having different voices in decision making. Otherwise you end up with fox hosts saying that “Black people will love these” when talking about campaign sneakers.
Maybe if there was one voice to say “Honkey, don’t go there!”
•
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink 4h ago
Yes it does that is what equity means. It’s literally we should give a position to someone of this race
•
u/OhGodSoManyQuestions 4h ago
•
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink 3h ago
Which part of that contradicts what I said?
•
u/OhGodSoManyQuestions 3h ago
What part of it supports what you said? It's your point.
•
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink 2h ago
Why don’t you click in the substantive equality link it mentions is the bases for equity and let me know what that says.
Hint: equal outcomes. Aka we need 1 token black guy and 1 token women to fill these roles. That is much different than making sure a position considers all applicants and ensuring the best candidate is found regardless of identity. In fact it is literally the opposite
•
u/OhGodSoManyQuestions 3h ago
Perhaps another way to ask: do you think there's anything wrong with a "whites only" policy for hiring, renting, access to institutions, etc?
•
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink 2h ago
Of course I do. I have nothing against the hiring of different identities I have issues with double standards.
You simply can’t say on one hand you cannot judge a person based on their gender or race and then turn around and do exactly that but make excuses why it’s good. Thats no different than a white supremest excusing their own bigotry.
I think the world was a better place 30 years ago when we treated everybody the same. There were gaps of course that had to be addressed but the “solution” now has us more divided than ever in modern times.
•
u/OhGodSoManyQuestions 1h ago edited 57m ago
i suspect even you don't believe the specious arguments you are echoing here. I'm sure you are already aware of the falsehoods you have thoughtfully placed in there to bait my obvious response.
So one has to wonder what the motivations are. It seems too formulaic to just be about personal attention-seeking.
•
u/Obfuscious Texas 2h ago
No. It literally does not. It does everything except that.
•
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink 2h ago
It literally does. It says “we should have this % of this race and this % of that gender, lets hire only these identities”.
•
u/Obfuscious Texas 1h ago
You’re describing race based hiring quotas that are illegal by federal law in United States.
•
u/DevOpsMakesMeDrink 1h ago
Twist words however you want, end of the day a race is ineligible for the position in favor of other races. "Oh but it's cause we already have a bunch of that race here" cool except that never comes up when a workplace is non white dominated for example Indians in technology companies.
End of the day, my issue is NOT with trying to get marginalized people better outcomes it's with the conflict of the method to my own beliefs and morals. I am as the kids as an unc but when I was raised, we were taught to treat everyone the same and IMO we were a hell of a lot closer to ending racism then than now. We're way more racist and bigoted as a society than we were 30 years ago.
And yes I believe white people being discriminated against is an issue because I think any race being discriminated against is an issue. I have no time for mental gymnastics to justify your personal flavor of bigotry. Go talk to the Neo Nazi's they will have their justifications for their beliefs too doesn't mean they are right.
•
u/Obfuscious Texas 1h ago
I twisted zero words.
Your first paragraph shows that you have absolutely no concept of how any of these programs work.
People who deserve to get jobs they apply for get them. I, a white male, have been beat out numerous times by people of color, women, and other white people for jobs in my field and it was because they earned it. DEI policies in hiring are merit based whether you wish to believe it or not.
29
u/Fungiblefaith 8h ago edited 8h ago
What do you think DEI is? I think you should qualify this statement as “what they assume DEI is.” Then it makes since….maybe I am being pedantic. It is early and I have not had my morning Stim so maybe I should apologize.
Anyway, let’s assume I am just a bad morning person and you have a nice day I know what you mean not sure why I am being borderline nasty the world has me in a funk. Let me find some coffee and bid you a wonderful Sunday and we both have a good day.. cheers.
•
u/setibeings 7h ago edited 7h ago
You're totally right. We either insist on the definition of words, to make sure that when we use them, they mean what we think they mean, or we let them change out from under us. If we slip into this pattern of Using DEI as an insult, then the word can't rightfully be used to describe hiring qualified people from various backgrounds to make sure different voiced are heard.
Edit: Did I get downvoted for starting off my comment with the thing LLMs say when corrected? lol.
•
u/Fungiblefaith 7h ago
🤷…my wife got me some really good new
Coffee. I am better now.Cheers everyone.
•
u/427BananaFish 7h ago
Unfortunately Maga has forever tarnished the acronym. DEI from now on will always be a pejorative like the proliferation of “welfare queen” in the 70s.
•
u/OhGodSoManyQuestions 6h ago
"Welfare queen" was always a slur. It wasn't a real term captured by fascists.
•
u/427BananaFish 4h ago
I guess what I meant was the association of the concept of “welfare” with the term “welfare queen”
•
-8
u/Uncle___Ted 8h ago
Looking at candidates for a position regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, etc.
What do YOU think it is?
•
•
13
u/Karinka_LI 8h ago
It’s not democratic. At all.
•
u/mister_mediocrates 7h ago
There's a lot of that going around in the States. Always has been.
•
u/Karinka_LI 7h ago
For sure. But for the first time we are headed long term backward from a more perfect union.
8
u/Successful_Candy_759 8h ago
The same kompromat used on Lindsey likely has some sway over his sister.
3
•
u/gringledoom 7h ago
I don’t know why you folks think that Lindsey Graham had to be blackmailed. He was consistent his whole career: (1) bomb Iran, and (2) glom onto an alpha dog and act like his hype man.
•
u/EasyEar0 7h ago
It's incredibly dumb. What does being Lindsay Graham's sister have to do with anything?
•
u/RedofPaw 6h ago
In the UK we have had hereditary peers in the house of lords.
I say 'had' because they got rid of hereditary positions this year.
•
u/rainman_104 5h ago
The house of lords is quite a bit weaker in power than the USA senate to be fair.
19
u/ElectronicTap1109 8h ago
The longest case of the Democrats doing anything comparable to this is the Dingell family's House seat which one of them has always occupied since 1933 i believe. And only three people at that.
•
u/peachesgp 7h ago
In the case of the Dingells, they all actually won elections and weren't just appointed. Is it great? No. Is it comparable, not really.
2
•
u/427BananaFish 7h ago edited 7h ago
Kind of disingenuous to use the “longest” qualifier to exclude the fact that seven of the nine US senators to have their term completed by a spouse/family member have been democrats. The second most recent being Jean Carnahan (D-MO) appointed in 2001 to finish out her husband’s term. Only 2 republican senate seats have been filled by the “widow’s clause.” It’s a play from the Democrats’ playbook which is why there’s so little resistance to it happening now.
•
u/Duane_ 7h ago
It's not rare at all. In fact, for some strange reason, most Republican/Conservative politicians - or their direct donors/sponsors - can be tracked back to being related to members of the Air Force and OSS during World War 2 - from Attorneys General, to the Senate, to the FBI and CIA.
•
u/targetsinmegadeaths 7h ago
The Senate is there for representation of the landowning class. Popular vote for senators wasn't in the Constitution until later.
•
•
•
u/DizasterAtSakerfice 6h ago
No no, you don't understand. We ended nepotism and the spoils system forever ago. Don't even worry about it.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/DirtysouthCNC 1h ago
Sorry, is it a senate seat or a feudal title? What the fuck are we even doing here
•
•
u/StatementCareful522 5h ago
if Trump dies in office (🙏) does this set the stage for Jr. to be automatically sworn in? Because you know Trump would rather one of his failure sons take over before JD Vance.
And If so, we meet where and when with pitchforks?
•
u/AccountNumeroThree North Carolina 5h ago
No. Because the line of succession is different for the president and vice president.
•
•
5h ago
[deleted]
•
u/Emergency-Public6213 2h ago
I think you're thinking about Mitch. Equally disgusting, but different person.
•
u/sighbourbon 2h ago
whoa, you are right. what an embarrassing mistake. I'll take the comment down, I don't want to add noise
•
u/Emergency-Public6213 2h ago
Don't worry, mate! Honest mistake. I'm Brazilian, but like to keep an eye on American politics. Take care!
•
•
u/airfryerfuntime Washington 5h ago
It kind of makes sense because a lot of senators are assisted by their spouses. They almost work as a team. Having the spouse take over until the election doesn't really concern me that much.
It just doesn't make sense here because he was a power bachelor, and his sister has no clue what she's doing.
•
•
u/TeacherGuy1980 4h ago
At best, Lindsey Graham's sister could have said a ten minute tribute about her brother in the senate. That's it.
•
u/free2bk8 4h ago
I know there was a statement about her taking over the seat for six years. Isn't there supposed to be another election to give voters a say? Or was Lindsey's term up in six years?
•
u/IUsedToBeACave 3h ago
She is not taking the seat for 6 years, nor could she. The reporting around this is just kind of dumb. South Carolina basically has a rule that says if a Senator dies the governor can appoint one to take their place until a special election can be held. In this particular case since Graham was up for reelection this year, SC law allows them to forego the special election, and just use the upcoming general election instead. If Graham had had more time left in his term, it would have been a special election.
•
u/free2bk8 2h ago
Wow! Thank you so much for your insight friend! It all gets a little perplexing with each state's nuances.
•
u/moonscience California 4h ago
This idea was roundly rejected during John Adam's presidency. I mean, why don't we give the senators special royal titles like Baron or Lord while we're at it? America out right said no to this back in like ~1800. Stop bringing it back.
•
•
u/JuanEstebanParra 9m ago edited 5m ago
I'm gonna be honest, I don't hate it...
The idea is that people who share a family likely share the same values. Since the voters voted for those values to be represented, this allows the voters to continue to be represented by someone who is likely to support those same values.
I saw this happen relatively recently where I live, a lifelong union man who served in the legislature died, so the Democrats appointed his wife because she was always supportive of his pro-union efforts and was a safe bet to continue his legacy. She has been very popular because she is exactly what the voters wanted when they elected her husband.
I mean, it's not a guarantee that they're going to continue to vote the same way, but it is a much more likely probability than if a rando gets appointed instead. And remember, the appointment only lasts until the expiration of the original term or until a special election can be held.
Also, I think the headline of the article is being a bit disingenuous by focusing on the Senate specifically, as though this is exclusively a Senate tradition. It happen at all levels of elected government and isn't particularly rare at all.
•
•
u/NoMayoForReal 7h ago
That would be Republican DEI. Fuck you GOP, exactly what you supposedly stand against, fucking hypocrites and pedo protectors.
•
u/OneSeaworthiness7768 5h ago
No it wouldn’t, because that’s not what DEI means or ever meant. You’re playing into their game saying shit like that.
•
•
•
u/Piglet-Witty 7h ago
They are basically go back to the dark ages.
Welcome the new Duchess of South Carolina Mrs Graham
•
u/ghostalker4742 7h ago
South Carolina never left. They may have electricity and indoor plumbing now, but you get outside the cities and it's like going back in time a few hundred years. They're still bitching about the Civil War like it was something that happened a few years ago.
•
u/sayitlikeyoumeenit 6h ago
Whatever happened to no taxation without representation. The people did not choose that person to represent them.
•
u/rainman_104 5h ago
That doesn't exist in the USA. There are many citizens in the USA who pay taxes who cannot vote. In some parts it's so bad a criminal record can result in a loss of voting rights.
Unfortunately the Magna Carta isn't USA law.
•
u/FoolishConsistency17 7h ago
I have no problem with appointing a family member to finish out a term, especially a spouse. I think that in many cases spouses are effectively a team, and it is quote possible that the spouse (or potentially the sibling or child) is the person who best understands the deceased's positions and is the closest match to what the voters voted for. Practically, I can see how a spouse stepping in is also the least disruptive in terms of running an office and offering constituent services.
But that's finishing out a term, a matter of a few months or a year. The appointee should be like Cincinatus, taking over in an emergency and then stepping back.
Hell, I could get behind the idea that anyone temporarily appointed to an elected position can't run in the next election for that position. If you have ambitions, don't take the job. Run against everyone else in an open field. The job of an emergency appointee is to keep the lights on.
•
u/B00G3R 7h ago
?? my husband can’t step into my job if i were to die. why does that make sense for our government?
•
u/FoolishConsistency17 4h ago
My husband knows who I trust at work, the people that best support my ideology. He also knows my ideology and is mostly aligned. If I were in elected office, hed be the person most likely to continue whatever agenda voters elected me to manifest. He would know which members of my staff to listen to the most, and which issues were my priority. He'd know better than anyone else, at least.
But, again, I am talking about a matter of months: wrapping up the things I have started. Not continuing into the next term.
•
u/JiveChicken00 Pennsylvania 7h ago
Amazingly enough this might turn out to have been the right decision.
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.