Eddie Murphy: Saturday Night Live great, comedy pioneer, one of the biggest stars in his heyday. Prophet?

That description seems odd. You probably remember him as Mr. Robinson, Axel Foley or even Donkey from directors Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson’s Shrek (2001). I can recall hearing countless Coming to America (directed by John Landis, 1988) references in my house (it’s my dad’s favorite movie), and a former history teacher once told me his favorite movie was Murphy’s Harlem Nights (1989). 

While most people remember him for these roles, one of his lesser-known movies is more relevant today than ever. In 1992, Murphy starred in Jonathan Lynn’s The Distinguished Gentleman, playing a serial con man, Thomas Jefferson Johnson, who runs for a Congressional seat vacated by the death of Congressman “Jeff” Johnson. The con man omits his full name and runs for the seat as “Jeff” Johnson, with the slogan “the name you know.”

What was a satire in 1992 became a documentary in 2026. A South Carolina Senate nominee would now drop her married name and keep her maiden name, like her brother, the former Senator. “The name you know” made its way to South Carolina.

The death of Senator Lindsey Graham

On July 11, Lindsey Graham, South Carolina’s (SC) senior Senator, who served in the Senate for 23 years, tragically passed away from an aortic dissection in his Capitol Hill home. He was 71 years old. 

In this congressional session, Graham served as the Senate Budget Committee chair. He also had close ties to US President Donald Trump and a profound influence on American foreign policy. In addition to his responsibilities, he won the Republican primary the previous month, garnering 56.8% of the vote, and was on track for re-election. 

His death left big shoes to fill in the Senate. With his election cycle nearing its end, all eyes turned to his replacement.

Enter Darline Graham Nordone

Two days after Lindsey Graham’s passing, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster appointed Graham’s younger sister, Darline Graham Nordone, to fill his vacant seat. President Trump also endorsed this decision on Truth Social:

Darline played an influential role in Lindsey’s background. When Lindsey was 20, and Darline was 11, their mother died of Hodgkin’s lymphoma at the young age of 52. Then, just 15 months later, their father died of a heart attack at the age of 69. 

This left Darline orphaned at 13, but because Lindsey was in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, he could remain at the University of South Carolina and serve as her legal guardian. At the same time, she lived with her aunt and uncle. This story became a key political ad in Lindsey’s re-election bid, with Darline narrating his sacrifice. 

Darline later became a social worker. Through her work, she became commissioner and agency head of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind in 2019. In 2026, she was elected president of the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind and was scheduled to start her term in 2027.

Given her central role in Lindsey’s story and the fact that he never married, her appointment received mixed criticism. Much of the criticism stemmed from her lack of political experience and her rise to one of the country’s most powerful positions. However, many people said her appointment followed the precedent of widow succession, in which a politician dies, and their widow holds the seat for the remainder of their term. 

Indeed, numerous examples of widow’s succession exist in the US House and Senate. Also, when he ran for President in 2015, the unmarried Graham stated that his choice for First Lady would likely be Darline. 

For these reasons, many in South Carolina ultimately accepted her appointment as a fitting tribute for the long-time senator. When President Trump endorsed her to run for the full Senate term, sentiment changed.

President Trump’s endorsement

Just three days after Darline was confirmed as South Carolina’s next senator, President Trump gave his full endorsement to Darline for the upcoming Senate election. After she visited the White House, Trump said the following on Truth Social:

During her visit, I asked Darline, for the Good of our Nation, to run for the U.S. Senate. I hope Darline does this, in that there would be nobody better to honor the legacy of her beloved brother, Lindsey.

RUN, DARLINE, RUN!

With one post, a tribute became a coronation.

Trump did not just endorse Darline to finish out the term; he endorsed her to run for the entire next term as well. What was supposed to be a short-term tribute became, in critics’ eyes, a nepotistic line of succession in one of the country’s most politically important Senate seats. What made this move more striking was Trump’s previous misreads of South Carolina’s political climate.

Trump in South Carolina

After the Louisiana v. Callais decision, which ruled Louisiana’s racially gerrymandered congressional map unconstitutional, President Trump pushed for South Carolina to redraw its congressional map. However, on May 26, South Carolina’s supermajority republican state senate rejected plans to redraw its congressional map. It was a rare rebuke. 

One of the defectors, Senator Richard Cash of Anderson, stated that because the primaries were upcoming (just two weeks away at the time), a last-minute change would be improper. Regardless of the other senators’ reasoning, South Carolina’s congressional map did not change, and President Trump did not get this victory.

However, the biggest example of President Trump’s ignorance of South Carolina politics came just weeks later when the Republican Gubernatorial Primary went to a runoff. Yes, this is a big election year in South Carolina.

President Trump endorsed Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette as South Carolina’s next governor. She served under Governor Henry McMaster, who famously endorsed Trump early in the 2016 Republican Presidential primary. McMaster’s 2016 endorsement led Trump to appoint then-Governor Nikki Haley, who had criticized President Trump’s candidacy, as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Haley’s Senate confirmation led the then-Lieutenant Governor McMaster to become the next governor of South Carolina.

Furthermore, Evette held a 2024 event in Greenville, SC, that helped raise over $6.8 million for President Trump’s 2024 campaign. 

While Evette had significant ties to Trump, she had a lot of baggage as a candidate. She was relatively unknown in South Carolina when she ran for Lieutenant Governor, and she did not make as many headlines as Former Lieutenant Governors McMaster and Andre Bauer. Furthermore, a Winthrop University poll in November 2025 showed that McMaster had just a 50% approval rating. In addition, he faced heavy criticism for his proclivity for crony capitalism and budget mismanagement, namely a billion-dollar subsidy and a proposal to increase funding by $150 million for the Scout Motors plant.

She also faced stiff competition from the Republican pool. Her competition included long-time Attorney General Alan Wilson, self-proclaimed Trump Congressional allies Ralph Norman and Nancy Mace, and local businessman Rom Reddy.

In the initial primary vote, Evette and Wilson finished as the top two contenders for a runoff, with 28.9% and 26.2% of the vote, respectively. Norman, Mace and Reddy endorsed Wilson for Governor, and soon, Wilson’s poll numbers jumped to as high as a +42 advantage over Evette.

Seeing the writing on the wall, Trump made an unprecedented move for himself in the 2026 election cycle. He co-endorsed Wilson and Evette. After many saw the Trump endorsement as an almost dispositive factor in election outcomes, South Carolina’s political climate led him to endorse a candidate other than the one he previously endorsed, even while his other endorsement was still in the running. This was a move out of panic, not strategy. 

The move shocked many in South Carolina and underscored that Trump did not fully grasp the state’s political environment — or hold the infallible “kingmaker” status some had assumed. And yet, he doubled down on his endorsement of Darline.

The candidates

Trump’s preferred candidates tend to share two traits: a strong likelihood of winning, which protects his “kingmaker” image, and unwavering loyalty to his agenda.

First, there’s Congressman Ralph Norman, who placed third in the Republican Party (GOP) Gubernatorial primary and had an alignment percentage with President Trump of 95.33%, the highest of any member of Congress in the South Carolina delegation. Norman built a reputation for having one of the most conservative records in Congress and consistently ranks among the top Republicans in conservative voting. For example, he has the highest lifetime score of the South Carolina delegation of multi-term Congresspeople, according to Heritage Action.

Despite his record, Republicans criticized Norman a few times during this session. First, he was one of three House Republicans who did not vote for Mike Johnson for House Speaker. He said he wanted transparency on budget reconciliation, which aligns with his fiscally conservative record. He was also considered to be a “holdout” on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He defended this by saying that the original draft included subsidies for electric vehicles and that he convinced Trump to remove them. 

Locally, he faced criticism in the governor’s race for supporting Silfab, a solar plant in Fort Mill, SC, which residents say has caused numerous health issues. He defended this by saying that he does not pick business winners and losers, that the plant complied with local and state business laws, and received broad support from the state government. His defenses were fair, but these moves still gave room for other candidates to take advantage. 

The second opponent was Congressman Russell Fry, whom many said was a contender after Lindsey’s passing. Unlike Norman, Fry ran for re-election to Congress and was on the ballot to keep his seat. Despite his favorability among South Carolina voters, many were concerned about his replacement if he won the primary. Would there be another primary? Could a Democrat even win that seat and help the Democrats secure a majority? These questions mattered most to his candidacy. 

Many rumors also suggested that Fry might secure Trump’s endorsement, as Trump commented favorably on him. Maybe this inspired him to run. Maybe he was building a path to higher office. Whatever the reason was, he entered the race. 

The third candidate was Mark Sanford. Sanford was the former Governor of South Carolina who preceded Nikki Haley. He later served as a US Congressman. Despite favorable policies for South Carolinians as Governor, his personal life all but ruined his political career. In 2009, he went “missing” for six days. Not even Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer at the time or the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) knew where he was. 

He said he went hiking. It turned out that he actually went to Argentina to see his mistress, who he claimed was his “soul mate.” This was a huge story back then, and it severely hurt his career, especially considering he was being floated as a potential Presidential candidate for 2012. However, he still got elected to Congress years later.

When this happened, I was seven years old and didn’t grasp its severity. I asked a few family friends how big a deal it was, and responses ranged from criticism of using taxpayer money to fund his trip to accusations that he betrayed his wife. Regardless, I got the sense that no matter what happened, South Carolina voters would not fully trust him.

The fourth candidate was Mark Lynch, a Greenville businessman who ran his dad’s store, Jeff Lynch Appliance Center. Lynch ran on a solid conservative background against Lindsey in the first primary go-round, securing 28.9% of the vote compared to Lindsey’s 56.8%. If I had to make anything of this run, it was that he had unfinished business.

Other candidates included Danny Ford II, who lost the primary for South Carolina Agricultural Commissioner, and attorney Duke Buckner.

Meanwhile, Darline ran. Although she was previously introduced as Darline Graham Nordone, she ran as Darline Graham. To me, this reminded me a lot of The Distinguished Gentleman. I saw that she ran under her maiden name and immediately thought, “the name you know.”

I could see the slogan clear as day: “Darline Graham, the name you know.”

Norman, Fry or even Sanford could have been natural contenders. Still, the GOP establishment, including Senators John Barrasso, Shelly Capito-Moore and Tom Cotton, bent to Trump’s whims and elevated a political novice whose most visible credential was appearing in her brother’s campaign ads.

The first debate and the first round of the primary

The first debate made one thing unmistakably clear: The Republican field was split between candidates who understood the gravity of a Senate seat and candidates who treated it as an extension of Trump’s brand or their own family legacy.

When I called my dad to recap the debate, I had one big takeaway: Darline is not her brother. Lindsey was a trained lawyer and an excellent presence on TV. Even though I disagreed with him on many issues, I was impressed with his cadence and messaging on TV. He always seemed polished and intelligent. I cannot say the same about his sister.

To start, Norman did a fine job in the debate. I had seen him debate before and knew where he stood on the issues, so I didn’t pay as much attention to him. Darline and Fry raised the most concerns for me — but for entirely different reasons.

She ran on identity, not ideas. Darline spoke extensively about Trump’s endorsement and Lindsey’s record. She’s new to the political scene, so I give her a little more leeway, but I was concerned by her answers.

If you listen to Darline in interviews and debates, you will learn that Trump endorsed her. And that’s it. Nothing in her answers suggested she had a clear grasp of the policies she would enact to help South Carolinians.

Her biggest moment (negative) was when the moderators asked a question about data centers. To sum it up, she said data centers are critical in our fight against China and that we need to develop them, even saying Democrats are concerned with noise and dismissing the criticism.

To be fair, she was right that data centers matter in competition with China. But her response was tone-deaf to local concerns. Many people in my hometown of Union, SC, are concerned about a data center coming to town because of higher energy costs, noise pollution and water supply concerns. 

I think the right approach is to hold private property rights as paramount and allow private tort action against data centers, while requiring them to use closed-loop water systems, install noise-prevention measures and build their own power source. 

Many voters are concerned that her answer did not focus on these precautions. She said we needed data centers, then added a throwaway line about building their own power sources. Many South Carolinians thought her answer was tone deaf to their concerns. She lacked a nuanced answer that would have reassured voters.

Her answer wasn’t just tone-deaf; it revealed a candidate who didn’t distinguish between national security talking points and South Carolinians’ lived realities. A formidable Senate candidate should be able to bridge those worlds. Darline couldn’t.

Fry concerned me based on the substance of his answers.

One of the biggest questions of the night was “Should a US Senator Support the President’s Agenda or Represent South Carolina when Interests Differ?”

I knew Darline was going to say Trump because she was going to play his endorsement card and show her loyalty. Fry, who did not receive Trump’s endorsement, using a football reference, said, “[President Trump] is the coach. It is frustrating for our conservative voters to constantly see people grandstand and jump up and down and oppose him…”

That is not how the Senate is supposed to work. President Trump’s agenda does good things for South Carolina, but prioritizing it over our citizens showed me he does not understand the Senate’s goal. Anyone familiar with the Federalist Papers and US history knows the Senate is meant to represent the interests of the states it represents. 

Fry’s answer was not just incorrect; it was a confession. He does not view the Senate as a representative body that protects state interests, which is fundamental to protecting our republic. He sees the Senate as a body focused on a party agenda. 

As for the other candidates, I found Sanford to be remarkably literate in policy. Sometimes he drifted into details the average voter wouldn’t understand, which isn’t a good debate strategy. However, he reminded me a lot of the limited-government conservative that many people love. Lynch touted his Christian faith as a guiding force and said he wanted to fight for conservatism in South Carolina. In a normal election cycle, not tainted by Washington forces, these candidates made good cases.

Overall, Darline and Fry had the most negative moments for me, showing that they did not fully appreciate the role of the Senate.

Like Evette, Darline finished first in the larger primary round with 32.7%. Norman made the runoff with her, tallying 24.6%. Fry, Sanford, Lynch and the rest were eliminated. The race was now between a proven conservative in Congress and a candidate with an uncertain agenda. But again, she was “the name you know.”

The endorsements 

This was the most revealing chapter of this Senate race. To me, it showed the reliable conservatives versus the mouthpieces of the establishment that would not represent our needs.

In addition to President Trump, Senators Barrasso, Capito-Moore and Cotton, Darline received substantial endorsements from South Carolina politicians: Senator Tim Scott and Congressmen Russell Fry and William Timmons. In context, these endorsements seemed short-sighted and intellectually thin.

First, Senator Scott, a popular South Carolina senator and chair of the National Republican Senate Committee, endorsed Darline. Why he is using this platform to promote a certain candidate in a conservative state in a Republican primary is beyond me, especially considering that resources should be diverted to battleground states like Ohio, Michigan, and Texas.

Then there is Russell Fry. Judging by his debate answers, he was going to be unwaveringly loyal to Trump, and we could expect nothing else. His endorsement of Darline was unsurprising.

Congressman Timmons had the most interesting endorsement for me. He stated that his top priorities for making decisions in Congress were “Country. South Carolina. Constituents.” In contrast, he said Norman was an opportunist who tried to gain leverage for his own benefit. Timmons pointed to withholding votes and forcing President Trump or Speaker Johnson to negotiate for his votes. He then stated that Norman did this in Speaker Johnson’s election to secure a seat on the House Rules Committee. In contrast, Timmons stated that Lindsey Graham understood “relationships, trust[,] and results” and that the job was to deliver results for South Carolina.

Timmons’s endorsement sounded damning, but its merit was mostly on the surface. Digging deeper, his statements lacked perspective and context. What good is a congressional seat if it doesn’t deliver results for constituents? Rubber-stamping an agenda means that the establishment can count on your vote without extra work. Norman knew Johnson could not get the speakership without his vote, so he wanted guarantees about the legislative agenda that would deliver better conservative results.

Furthermore, securing a seat on the House Rules Committee is an accomplishment and allows Norman’s constituents to be better represented when bills reach the floor for a vote. Norman used his leverage, which Timmons abhorred, to give his constituents a voice.

However, leverage was a big reason why Lindsey Graham was a powerful senator. Graham often folded legislation and amendments into major legislative packages to help them pass. Graham understood the leverage he had to push bills and also push his agenda. For example, he helped get the Asset Seizure for Ukraine Reconstruction Act into the Senate’s 2025 Fiscal Year (FY2025) National Defense Authorization Act and passed it, even though it failed to pass as a standalone bill in a previous congressional session.

Separately, I find Timmons’s rule of “Country. South Carolina. Constituents.” inapplicable to his own record, considering his votes to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the government to spy on American people without a warrant, and his vote against releasing names of Congresspeople who used taxpayer dollars as part of a Congressional slush fund to settle claims of sexual harassment. Surely if “Country. South Carolina. Constituents.” was how Timmons actually governed, one would think he would have at least voted differently on one of these measures. 

Another problematic endorsement for Darline was Senator Lisa Murkowski, who routinely draws ire from Republicans as an impediment to passing the Trump agenda. This left an obvious question for South Carolina voters. If Darline was endorsed by Trump and Murkowski, who would she align with more?

Furthermore, the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition has spent more than $1 million against Norman. The coalition’s biggest donor, Chris Larsen, donated over $5 million to help former Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign in 2024. Critics say this fed the narrative that Darline was an unknown quantity at best, and a liberal at worst.

Meanwhile, Lynch, Buckner and Sanford endorsed Norman, pointing to the importance of conservative principles in the Senate seat. 

There were too many endorsements to name for both Darline and Ralph, but these are a few notable ones. 

Darline’s national security moment

Norman and Darline faced off against each other in another debate, but this time it was just the two of them. A few notable moments came from this debate.

The biggest moment, which made national headlines and drew satire from The Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon, came when the moderators asked Darline for her thoughts on national security threats from China and Taiwan. Darline gave a startling answer: “I’m not that informed on national security … but I do support the military.” 

I watched this live with my parents. That night, my mom turned into a Greek chorus member, repeating, “I support the military.” It was the kind of answer that should have ended the conversation in any serious policy room. Imagine if someone applying for an English professor position said: “Reading is not really my thing.” Would you hire them?

What is mind-blowing is that Senator Tim Scott maintained his endorsement of Darline, as did her other supporters.

I can understand not being an expert on national security issues, but not knowing the bare minimum about China and Taiwan is a ridiculous thing to say. She really showed that she had no business being on that stage. 

Shortly after, Sean Hannity invited her on her show and defended her flub, saying, “I wonder how many people around the country, if I gave them a map, could pick out Taiwan. I don’t think many.” I don’t expect the average person to find Taiwan on a map. I do expect Senators, who vote on sending troops to war, to understand the region. Evidently, Hannity does not have these expectations for our leaders.

Darline defended her blunder by saying, “I have said many times, I’m not a politician. Certainly not a career politician. I don’t speak politician. I was just honest, and I think that’s kind of a foreign concept.” So, despite her campaigning that President Trump is doing a good job, especially with bringing jobs back to the US, her not appreciating where much of our manufacturing moved to is worrisome.

I could spend an entire piece talking about how terrible this answer was and how unqualified she is for the job. Not knowing the reasons behind the talking points suggested she was repeating lines rather than leading on substance. “The name you know” seemed to know very little.

A few days after the debate, Trump hosted a rally for Darline in Myrtle Beach, SC, accompanied by other endorsing state leaders.

The results and what they mean

Life, in this case, imitated art a little too closely. In The Distinguished Gentleman, the con man won the Congressional race campaigning on the “name you know.” The “name you know,” Darline, won the runoff with 52.4% of the vote, with the upstate counties winning for Norman and the rest of the state winning for Darline.

The results were a stark reminder of how powerful political machinery can be. I thought Trump and the establishment were powerful, but I had no idea that it could push a completely manufactured and unqualified candidate.

Apparently, when you are the “name you know,” you can get away with a lot of things. A total lack of knowledge in a crucial area of a job will be seen as refreshing honesty. If you try to replace your sibling in their career when they pass away, people will support you because they liked your sibling on the job. People may even think you’re the best for a position because your staff can teach you. I saw each of these arguments for her on Facebook. It is a shame that anyone with above-room-temperature IQ could be persuaded by these nonsensical defenses.

I watched the results come in live with my Indian friend, who said this reminded him exactly of Rajiv Gandhi taking the place of his mother, Indira Gandhi, as the Prime Minister of India. Knowing his opinions, I didn’t feel much faith in it.

This race was a testament to the power of the Washington, DC, machine: With its support, even a profoundly unknowledgable and untested candidate can be pushed to the finish line. This race also proved that even when the establishment pushes a manufactured candidate, many voters, whose needs are consistently neglected, will gleefully help the machine. With all this help, who needs knowledge, principles or eloquence when you have “the name you know”?

Many Republicans will now rally behind Darline and say that voting for her is necessary to beat Dr. Annie Andrews. However, given the establishment’s comfort level with pushing an unknown and unknowlegable candidate, merely rallying behind the party is an irresponsible choice. It will be up to “the name you know” to make the case to voters on her candidacy in the coming months.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.