Democratic challenger drops his bid for SC's 7th District 1 month after announcing it
John Vincent, of Myrtle Beach, launched his campaign for South Carolina's 7th Congressional District on Thursday April 17, 2025, at Victors restaurant in Florence. (Photo courtesy of John Vincent's campaign)
The first Democratic challenger for any of South Carolina's 2026 U.S. House races suspended his campaign Tuesday, less than a month after publicly launching his bid.
John Vincent, who announced his candidacy April 17 in Florence, announced in a Facebook post Tuesday he was suspending his campaign to challenge 7th District Congressman Russell Fry for the seat that spans the Grand Strand and much of the Pee Dee.
The decision comes exactly two months after Vincent filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission establishing his campaign.
'When we decided to enter the congressional race 60 days ago, the country was on fire, rule of law threatened and the needs of this district greater than ever. That has not changed,' Vincent wrote on Facebook. 'What is different for us, after an intense two months, is that the mood in this district, maybe the state, is apathetic.'
Neither Vincent nor the state Democratic party responded Tuesday to requests for comment.
When Vincent, a Myrtle Beach resident, officially kicked off his campaign at a restaurant in Florence, he told the SC Daily Gazette he felt certain he could pull off an upset.
His tone changed in Tuesday's post.
'We can't win without people who believe, and this district is not close today,' he said.
Navy veteran hopes to be first Democrat this century to represent Grand Strand, Pee Dee in Congress
The closest a Democrat has gotten to winning the 7th District since South Carolina gained it back following the 2010 census was in 2012, the first election with the recrafted voting map. That year, Democrat Gloria Bromell Tinubu received 44% of the vote, losing to Tom Rice, then-chairman of Horry County Council.
Rice, who angered Republicans in the ruby red district for voting to impeach President Donald Trump in 2021, was ousted by Fry.
The 40-year-old won re-election in November with 65% of the vote, the most decisive win for the seat this century.
Vincent, a Navy veteran who retired in 2003 as command master chief petty officer — one of the branch's highest ranks for enlisted sailors — was hoping to become the first Democrat to represent the Grand Strand since it was part of the state's 6th District. Jim Clyburn, the state's lone Democrat in Congress, has represented the reconfigured 6th District since 1992.
In Tuesday's post, Vincent said he's received positive feedback, but his crowds are small, and contributions are coming in small batches — probably from 'people who can barely afford it.'
Vincent had $7,500 in his campaign account as of March 31, according to the latest FEC filings. When he spoke with the Daily Gazette last month, he said his account had grown to $30,000.
That compares to more than $625,000 Fry had on hand at the end of March, according to his FEC filing.
'Those who can afford it, have a wait-and-see attitude, steeped in apathy that might not change until it's too late to win,' Vincent wrote.
Albeit brief, Vincent's experience as a candidate doesn't bode well for the party in a state where the GOP is becoming more dominant with every election cycle.
While he's not completely closing the book on his campaign, Vincent said he will focus on political activism so future Democrats eyeing a congressional bid don't have the same experience he did.
'We need to wake up this district, the state, and the country, to what is happening and what we could lose,' he said. 'We will aim to create better conditions for candidates.'
Since Vincent announced his bid last month, two other Democrats have submitted paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to run for the U.S. House in next year's elections.
Alex Harper, an assistant solicitor in York and Union counties, filed his statement of candidacy form on April 25 for the 5th District, represented by Ralph Norman since 2017. The Rock Hill developer is mulling a run for governor.
Harper is participating in a meet-and-greet event Tuesday evening in Tega Cay.
David Robinson II of Columbia filed with the FEC on Saturday to again challenge 2nd District Congressman Joe Wilson. The Lexington County Republican won re-election last November with 60% of the vote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next.
The Social Security trustees expect to deplete the trust fund in just a few years without changes. Cuts to the program will be even steeper than expected a year ago. There are several factors driving the increased deficit. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security is the backbone of many Americans' retirement plans. More than one-third of adults said the government program would be a major source of income in retirement in the most recent edition of an annual Gallup poll. That number has climbed higher over the last 20 years since Gallup started the survey. Meanwhile, six in 10 current retirees say their monthly check is a big piece of their budget. But with more and more Americans relying on Social Security, the future of the program has never looked more uncertain. Not only are seniors staring down the barrel of benefit cuts in just a few years, but the problem is only getting worse. Here's what seniors can expect and how they can plan for the future of Social Security. Retirees could see a significant benefit cut in just eight years if Congress doesn't act to change Social Security and improve its longevity. That's when the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates the program will deplete the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund. The Social Security trust fund was established to hold excess tax revenue from wages to pay out to retirees when they start collecting benefits later. In the meantime, the Social Security Administration invests those funds in government bonds to earn a steady return on the principal. Over time, the balance grew as the working population grew faster than the retirement population. But as Baby Boomers started retiring, life expectancies increased, and younger generations had fewer children, the demographic shifts started putting pressure on the trust fund balance. As a result, Social Security has been running a deficit in most years since 2018. And that deficit is getting worse each year as the retired population grows faster than the working population. Every year, the trustees analyze the current state of Social Security and forecast the future of the program. Changes in the workforce, life expectancies, or Social Security policies can impact those estimates. Unfortunately for seniors, the projections got even worse this year. While the 2024 Trustees Report expected retirees to face a 21% overall reduction in benefits starting in 2033, that number climbed to 23% in the latest edition. Here's why seniors could be facing bigger benefits cuts and what they can do about it. It's not just the growing retiree population that's negatively impacting the health of Social Security. After all, almost everyone collecting Social Security today paid into the system for years before retiring. One notable shift negatively impacting Social Security is the growing income inequality in America. Only 82% of earnings were subject to Social Security tax in 2022. That compares to the 90% benchmark Congress targeted in its 1983 Social Security reforms. But even if we returned to that benchmark, it would only make up a portion of the shortfall over the coming years. Another challenge is a slow-growing working population. That's exacerbated by a decline in immigration and further hurt by current immigration policies imposed by the Trump administration. That said, allowing more immigrants to work in the United States (and pay Social Security taxes) would provide only a small amount of additional revenue to Social Security. The biggest change over the past year that's led the trustees to increase their forecast of the Social Security shortfall is the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act. The law repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset, boosting Social Security benefits for 3.2 million retirees and many more in the future. It was also retroactive to 2024, further depleting the trust fund. So, while those retirees will see a step up in their benefits, many more could see deeper cuts in the future. That's not lost on most seniors, and it's led a surprising number of 62-year-olds to claim their benefits as soon as possible this year instead of waiting to maximize their benefits at age 70. But that might not be the smartest move. Here's why. While the program faces a major threat if Congress fails to act within the next eight years, it's still in most seniors' best interest to wait to claim Social Security on their own terms. There are two key reasons. First, it's highly unlikely Congress will allow Social Security benefits cuts. It may enact laws raising the full retirement age in the future, increasing the Social Security tax, increasing the amount of taxable wages, or some combination of all that and more. It could allow benefits to come out of the general fund instead of the trust fund (hopefully with a plan to return Social Security to solvency and reduce the overall government debt). But the clock is ticking for Congress to take action. Second, even if there are benefit cuts in the future, taking Social Security early (when you'd otherwise wait) could result in a much worse scenario for you in the future. The breakeven point for lifetime Social Security income will get pushed out further if you wait and Social Security is forced to cut benefits. But at its core, Social Security is longevity insurance. You'll be much better off in your late 80s if you waited to take Social Security and receive a bigger check than if you claimed as soon as possible. So, while the outlook for Social Security is getting worse, seniors shouldn't be in a rush to get their money while they can. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next. was originally published by The Motley Fool
New York Post
19 minutes ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' Kamala Harris interview at center of Trump lawsuit runs afoul of Cronkite-era CBS guidelines
The infamous '60 Minutes' interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris that sparked President Donald Trump's $20 billion 'election interference' lawsuit conflicted with Walter Cronkite-era CBS News guidelines. Cronkite, who was the face of 'CBS Evening News' from 1962 to 1981, was the premier anchorman of America's golden age of network news. In 1976, at the height of Cronkite's reign as 'the most trusted man in America,' CBS News president Richard Salant penned a 76-page document outlining CBS News standards. Advertisement Page 58 is focused on editing and suggests the '60 Minutes' interview at the center of Trump's lawsuit against CBS News would have been frowned upon during the Cronkite era. 'The objective of the editing process is to produce a clear and succinct statement which reflects fairly, honestly and without distortion what was seen and heard by our reporters, cameras and microphones,' Salant wrote in the 1976 document, which has come to the attention of the Trump legal team. Trump's lawsuit alleges CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with '60 Minutes' correspondent Bill Whitaker, who asked her why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't 'listening' to the Biden administration. Harris was criticized for the 'word salad' answer that aired in a preview clip of the interview on 'Face the Nation.' 3 60 Minutes election special, Bill Whitaker asks Vice President Kamala Harris how she'll fund her economic plan and how she'd get it through Congress. 60 Minutes / CBS Advertisement However, when the same question aired during a primetime special on the network, she gave a different, more concise response. Critics at the time accused CBS News of editing her answer to shield the Democratic nominee from further backlash leading up to Election Day. The raw transcript and footage released earlier this year by the FCC showed that both sets of Harris' comments came from the same lengthy response, but CBS News had aired only the first half of her response in the 'Face the Nation' preview clip and aired the second half during the primetime special. 3 Trump's lawsuit alleges CBS News deceitfully edited an exchange Harris had with '60 Minutes' correspondent Bill Whitaker. 60 Minutes / CBS CBS News, which has denied any wrongdoing and stands by the broadcast and its reporting, did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital when asked if the Cronkite-era standards have changed. Advertisement 'If more than one excerpt from a speech or statement is included in a documentary broadcast, the order of their inclusion in the broadcast will be the same as the order of their inclusion in the speech or statement, unless the broadcast specifically indicates otherwise,' Salant wrote in the 1976 CBS News Standards guide. When Cronkite died in 2009 at age 92, his Associated Press obituary said the famed anchor 'valued accuracy, objectivity and understated compassion' and 'always aimed to be fair and professional in his judgments' regardless of personal views on a topic. 3 Photograph of Walter Cronkite in the year 1950, doing the 6 o'clock news at WTOP-TV in Washington, D.C., taken from the book 'A Reporter's Life'. 12.18.96 Two polls pronounced Cronkite the 'most trusted man in America': a 1972 'trust index' survey in which he finished No. 1, about 15 points higher than leading politicians, and a 1974 survey in which people chose him as the most trusted television newscaster, according to the AP. Advertisement Salant, who was running CBS News when '60 Minutes' was launched, was lauded by The New York Times when he died in 1993. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 'He was credited with raising professional standards and expanding news programming at CBS,' the Times wrote. CBS News, along with parent company Paramount, are currently in mediation with hopes of settling with Trump. The mediator recently proposed the network end the president's $20 billion lawsuit with a $20 million settlement, according to the Wall Street Journal. Last month, Trump rejected Paramount's $15 million settlement offer as he sought at least a $25 million payout as well as an apology. According to the Wall Street Journal, Paramount 'isn't prepared' to give one.
Politico
28 minutes ago
- Politico
Louisiana hospitals warn Mike Johnson of 'devastation' from megabill
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
