What the heck is up with this?

[classicman]

Mystery S.C. nominee has pending felony charge

Alvin Greene has been on the phone all day. That's to be expected for the guy who just won South Carolina's Democratic Senate primary and is facing incumbent Republican Jim DeMint in November. But everyone calling Greene has just been trying to find out who the heck he is — and one thing reporters learned Tuesday is that a criminal complaint was sworn out against him last year for allegedly showing obscene photos to a South Carolina college student and suggesting they go to her dorm room.

Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed military veteran who lives with his parents, defeated Vic Rawl on Tuesday for the Democratic Senate nomination despite having run essentially no public campaign — no events, no signs, no debates, no website, no fundraising.

The result has baffled political observers, who had heavily favored Rawl — a former state legislator, attorney and prosecutor who had the edge inasmuch as he actually campaigned and tried to win. Many in South Carolina (which has grandly lived up to its reputation as a political circus this year) suspect that somewhere, a crafty GOP political operative is snickering.

[skysidhe]

Maybe people were thinking politics are so full of crooks what does one more matter?

[Spexxvet]

It's South Carolina, people.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

It's South Carolina, people.

Too small for a republic, too big for an insane asylum.

[classicman]

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) called for in South Carolina to investigate the circumstances that led to Alvin Greene winning the Democratic Senate primary in his state earlier this week.

"There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary," Clyburn said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press radio show. "I don't know if he was a Republican plant; he was someone's plant."

Despite having no real campaign or prior political support in the state, Greene won the primary with nearly 59 percent of the vote.

The South Carolina Democratic Party called on Greene on Wednesday to drop out of the race after The Associated Press reported that the candidate is facing felony charges for having allegedly displayed pornographic images to a college student.

Link

I'm still having trouble figuring out how this guy who ran virtually, if not literally, no campaign came out with 59% of the Democratic votes. Srsly??

[Pie]

As seen elsewhere:

There are two factors that I think played a part. First, Democratic voters had a choice between Rawls and not Rawls, and they chose not Rawls.
Second, Republicans voting in the Democratic primary. It may be dirty, but it's legal.

[glatt]

This is wild speculation on my part, and I have absolutely no proof, but this has fraud written all over it. Diebold?

Edit: Aw, Pie. why did you have to go and ruin a good conspiracy theory with a logical explanation?

[Pie]

Hey, don't let me stop you!

[classicman]

Can the R's vote in a D primary there? Aside from the obvious switching of party to do just that. Wouldn't that have raised a red flag or two having tens of thousands of them? That would be really serious.

@glatt... maybe the D's planted him trying to blame it on the R's and thereby . . . .
Yeh there is something seriously wrong here - maybe the machines - I hadn't thought of that.

[BigV]

59 percent of what number?

Strategic voting is a bit of a perversion, I agree. I think it simply reflects a fundamental weakness in our two-party-winner-take-all de facto electoral system. This system is not in place everywhere. And there are a number of other systems, just as democratic, that offer a what I believe to be a better result, specifically proportional representation.

[Happy Monkey]

The theory I saw is that nobody knows Rawl either, and Greene was first on the ballot.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by classicman

Can the R's vote in a D primary there? Aside from the obvious switching of party to do just that. Wouldn't that have raised a red flag or two having tens of thousands of them? That would be really serious.

@glatt... maybe the D's planted him trying to blame it on the R's and thereby . . . .
Yeh there is something seriously wrong here - maybe the machines - I hadn't thought of that.

Yes, S.C. has an 'Open Primary' where party affiliation is not required to vote for a candidate.

However

That would make sense if the two Democrats got more votes combined than there were registered Democrats in South Carolina, and if Demint vote fewer R votes than one normally expects in a primary.

Let's see.

http://www.enr-scvotes.org/SC/16117/27397/en/summary.ht...


~ 424,000 Republican ballots cast
~ 197,000 Democratic ballots cast
~ 2,600,000 total registered voters in S.C. --> turnout was 24%

Jim Demint and Susan Gaddy got almost 412,000 of the 424,000 Republican votes. That's about 97%.


Greene and Rawl got almost 170,000 of the 197,000 Democratic votes. That's about 86%.


If anything, Greene won by about 30,000 votes, which is almost the difference in number of Democratic votes cast for U.S. Senate and total Democratic votes.

There was no huge Republican push to put in an unknown Democrat. 97% of Republicans that voted, voted for a Republican in the U.S. Senate primary.

So... I withdraw my speculation. Go ahead, glatt!

[jinx]

Originally Posted by BigV

I think it simply reflects a fundamental weakness in our two-party-winner-take-all de facto electoral system. This system is not in place everywhere. And there are a number of other systems, just as democratic, that offer a what I believe to be a better result, specifically proportional representation.

Agree.

[classicman]

Thirded. I believe these alternatives spread the money around more evenly as well reducing outside influence - maybe not?!

[TheMercenary]

At least he will be in good company among the rest of the criminals ithat make up our Congress.