PDA

View Full Version : Bravo! Fake GOP Dems, Lose in Wisc!! Dems Win BIG



Gayle in MD
07-13-2011, 09:36 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/wisconsin-election-results_n_896679.html

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- All six fake Democrats lost to Democrats supported by the party in primaries Tuesday that are the first in a series of recall elections targeting nine Wisconsin state senators for their positions on Republican Gov. Scott Walker's divisive union rights restrictions.

The winners advance to take on incumbent Republicans targeted for recall on Aug. 9.

The state Republican Party orchestrated the placement of the fake Democrats on Tuesday's ballot, thereby delaying the general election for a month. That gave the Republican incumbents more time to campaign and distance themselves from the turmoil over the union law that they voted to support in March, spurring the recall efforts.

Five of the six winners had at least 65 percent of the vote, based on unofficial results. The sixth, Shelly Moore, had 54 percent.



</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Tuesday's primaries marked the first of four recall elections during the next five weeks. The six targeted Republicans voted for Walker's bill and the three Democrats fled to Illinois for three weeks to delay a vote on the measure that takes away collective bargaining rights from most public employees.

The stakes are huge. If the Democrats gain three seats, they will take majority control away from the Republicans and be in a position to stop Walker and the GOP's agenda.

Republicans can vote in the Democratic races because Wisconsin has an open primary, raising the possibility of further mischief in the elections. State Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said he was concerned Republicans would attempt to vote for the fake Democrats on Tuesday, but he was confident the real ones would prevail.



</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim Krivitz, a 66-year-old retired museum executive, called the primary "phony." He said he was voting for Pasch in part to register his disapproval of Darling and her GOP colleagues.

"I don't like the way the current Republican administration is moving precipitously to the right on everything," he said.



</div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also Tuesday, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin public policy director Chris Taylor emerged from a field of six Democrats to win a primary for a seat in the Assembly representing a portion of Dane County that was vacated by Joe Parisi when he left in April to serve as Dane County executive. Taylor has no opposition in the Aug. 9 general election.
</div></div>



<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Whoopie!!! </span> </span>

llotter
07-13-2011, 10:30 AM
The only reason that there were fake Dems running was to delay the actual election for a month and that was accomplished, so the Repiglicans won that one. you should wait till the actual election before to pop your cork or the bubbles will be all gone.

Soflasnapper
07-13-2011, 11:42 AM
You are correct to a point, and then incorrect.

The OTHER purpose was to create plurality winners, and therefore cause further delays with runoffs. As that didn't happen (or mainly didn't happen, I haven't looked at this in detail), that was a loss for the GOP strategy.

Moreover, as it has become known to the WI voters, and as the quote shows, p-d them off more, they probably stepped on their own strategy of getting the people to simmer down and forget how angry they've been, rekindling that anger in [t]his fairly clumsy tactic.

As you rightly say, the real rubber hits the road later, and we'll all have to wait to see. But if this tactic riles up WI voters even more, and maybe it did, they may have reduced their chances, even with the modest delay they created to enhance their chances.

Gayle in MD
07-13-2011, 01:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are correct to a point, and then incorrect.

The OTHER purpose was to create plurality winners, and therefore cause further delays with runoffs. As that didn't happen (or mainly didn't happen, I haven't looked at this in detail), that was a loss for the GOP strategy.

Moreover, as it has become known to the WI voters, and as the quote shows, p-d them off more, they probably stepped on their own strategy of getting the people to simmer down and forget how angry they've been, rekindling that anger in his fairly clumsy tactic.

As you rightly say, the real rubber hits the road later, and we'll all have to wait to see. But if this tactic riles up WI voters even more, and maybe it did, they may have reduced their chances, even with the modest delay they created to enhance their chances. </div></div>

The people of Wisconsin, according to what I've been reading, are even more angry at the Repiglicans, due to this, their latest, deceitful tactic.

G.

Soflasnapper
07-13-2011, 02:14 PM
Tactics like this work best when unknown.

When they become known, they tend to backfire.

Amember that Greene guy in SC, was it? Apparently, both his candidacy in the first place, and his taking the nomination, were engineered by the GOP and fellow travelers.

Gayle in MD
07-13-2011, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tactics like this work best when unknown.

When they become known, they tend to backfire.

Amember that Greene guy in SC, was it? Apparently, both his candidacy in the first place, and his taking the nomination, were engineered by the GOP and fellow travelers. </div></div>

Yes, I recall.

This Wisconsin trick will backfire as well, in fact, it already has.

G.

Sev
07-13-2011, 02:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/wisconsin-election-results_n_896679.html

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- All six fake Democrats lost to Democrats supported by the party in primaries Tuesday that are the first in a series of recall elections targeting nine Wisconsin state senators for their positions on Republican Gov. Scott Walker's divisive union rights restrictions.

The winners advance to take on incumbent Republicans targeted for recall on Aug. 9.

The state Republican Party orchestrated the placement of the fake Democrats on Tuesday's ballot, thereby delaying the general election for a month. That gave the Republican incumbents more time to campaign and distance themselves from the turmoil over the union law that they voted to support in March, spurring the recall efforts.

Five of the six winners had at least 65 percent of the vote, based on unofficial results. The sixth, Shelly Moore, had 54 percent.



</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Tuesday's primaries marked the first of four recall elections during the next five weeks. The six targeted Republicans voted for Walker's bill and the three Democrats fled to Illinois for three weeks to delay a vote on the measure that takes away collective bargaining rights from most public employees.

The stakes are huge. If the Democrats gain three seats, they will take majority control away from the Republicans and be in a position to stop Walker and the GOP's agenda.

Republicans can vote in the Democratic races because Wisconsin has an open primary, raising the possibility of further mischief in the elections. State Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate said he was concerned Republicans would attempt to vote for the fake Democrats on Tuesday, but he was confident the real ones would prevail.



</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jim Krivitz, a 66-year-old retired museum executive, called the primary "phony." He said he was voting for Pasch in part to register his disapproval of Darling and her GOP colleagues.

"I don't like the way the current Republican administration is moving precipitously to the right on everything," he said.



</div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also Tuesday, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin public policy director Chris Taylor emerged from a field of six Democrats to win a primary for a seat in the Assembly representing a portion of Dane County that was vacated by Joe Parisi when he left in April to serve as Dane County executive. Taylor has no opposition in the Aug. 9 general election.
</div></div>



<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Whoopie!!! </span> </span> </div></div>

They had no intention of winning. That would have been a unexpected bonus.

Sev
07-13-2011, 02:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are correct to a point, and then incorrect.

The OTHER purpose was to create plurality winners, and therefore cause further delays with runoffs. As that didn't happen (or mainly didn't happen, I haven't looked at this in detail), that was a loss for the GOP strategy.

Moreover, as it has become known to the WI voters, and as the quote shows, p-d them off more, they probably stepped on their own strategy of getting the people to simmer down and forget how angry they've been, rekindling that anger in [t]his fairly clumsy tactic.

As you rightly say, the real rubber hits the road later, and we'll all have to wait to see. But if this tactic riles up WI voters even more, and maybe it did, they may have reduced their chances, even with the modest delay they created to enhance their chances. </div></div>

The recalls will be interesting. I have a feeling most of the negativity is being enhanced by the media and may not reflect the overall feeling of the state.

I would love to see how the media spins it if all 6 republicans retain their seats and the democrats lose.

I suspect Gayle will take another brake from the forum if that occurs.

LWW
07-13-2011, 03:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tactics like this work best when unknown.

When they become known, they tend to backfire.

Amember that Greene guy in SC, was it? Apparently, both his candidacy in the first place, and his taking the nomination, were engineered by the GOP and fellow travelers. </div></div>

Evidenced by?

What's that?

You made that up also?

Imagine that.

Soflasnapper
07-13-2011, 04:22 PM
So you don't amember that guy?

No skills, no money, no campaign. Even the filing fee he didn't have that he got from somewhere.

Against an office holder with strong name id? Who campaigned? Who had money?

What do you think happened, other than what I said?

Soflasnapper
07-13-2011, 04:25 PM
Here's how Fox covered it:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Greene admits he had no campaign headquarters, no party support, no contributions, no job, no computer and no cell phone.

Yet, somehow, he managed to pull off the most unlikely of victories, and -- unless state Democratic Party officials have their way -- will face incumbent Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in November.

Greene's improbable victory over Democratic candidate Vic Rawl, a former state legislator who officials expected would win, has unleashed a flood of questions, including how the unemployed Army veteran managed to pay $10,400 to get on the ballot before running a "low budget" campaign with no ads, website or fundraising.

Voters also are wondering how the 32-year-old Greene, facing a felony charge for allegedly showing pornographic images to a college student last October, managed to capture 59 percent of the primary vote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/.../#ixzz1S1jC8zRT (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/greenes-south-carolina-primary-defies-odds-leaves-democratic-party-perplexed/#ixzz1S1jC8zRT)
</div></div>

Sev
07-13-2011, 04:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you don't amember that guy?

No skills, no money, no campaign. Even the filing fee he didn't have that he got from somewhere.

Against an office holder with strong name id? Who campaigned? Who had money?

What do you think happened, other than what I said? </div></div>

I remember some threads on that guy. Turned out he had a criminal record and some other problems.

It really gave the Dems a headache.

Gayle in MD
07-13-2011, 11:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only reason that there were fake Dems running was to delay the actual election for a month and that was accomplished, so the Repiglicans won that one. you should wait till the actual election before to pop your cork or the bubbles will be all gone. </div></div>

Problem with that is that the people of Wisconsin know, in advance, that the Repiglicans want the dely for one reason, so they can jury rig the redistricting to their advantage.

Another Repiglican crooked tactic, which has been used over and over again.

Everything the Repiglicans in Wisconsin are doing, is only going to hurt them more at the polls.

The Dems will win enough seats to destroy the Commie governors, unAmerican, unconstitutional efforts to take money from the middle, and give more to the corporate thieves.

Hence, YOU should wait till the next election, before you pop your cork,...but, eh hem, you already popped it, or didn't have a cork at all, gee, I forgot!

G.

LWW
07-14-2011, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you don't amember that guy?

No skills, no money, no campaign. Even the filing fee he didn't have that he got from somewhere.

Against an office holder with strong name id? Who campaigned? Who had money?

What do you think happened, other than what I said? </div></div>

I never said he didn't exist, in fact, he was pretty much a typical democrook candidate for congress ... a raving lunatic with criminal charges pending.

Your claim was that he was an R plant.

LWW
07-14-2011, 04:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's how Fox covered it:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Greene admits he had no campaign headquarters, no party support, no contributions, no job, no computer and no cell phone.

Yet, somehow, he managed to pull off the most unlikely of victories, and -- unless state Democratic Party officials have their way -- will face incumbent Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in November.

Greene's improbable victory over Democratic candidate Vic Rawl, a former state legislator who officials expected would win, has unleashed a flood of questions, including how the unemployed Army veteran managed to pay $10,400 to get on the ballot before running a "low budget" campaign with no ads, website or fundraising.

Voters also are wondering how the 32-year-old Greene, facing a felony charge for allegedly showing pornographic images to a college student last October, managed to capture 59 percent of the primary vote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/.../#ixzz1S1jC8zRT (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/greenes-south-carolina-primary-defies-odds-leaves-democratic-party-perplexed/#ixzz1S1jC8zRT)
</div></div> </div></div>

And?

At best ... your argument is that rank and file democrooks can easily be convinced to vote for moonbat crazy fools with criminal history. In that, we can find agreement.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BRAVO!</span>

Qtec
07-14-2011, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greene admits he had no campaign headquarters, no party support, no contributions, no job, no computer and no cell phone. </div></div>

Who put him up to it, Democrats?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">your argument is that rank and file democrooks can easily be convinced to vote for moonbat crazy fools with criminal history. </div></div>

How could they be convinced if the guy NEVER ran a campaign?

Truth is he was put in as a spoiler and somehow got votes when nobody had ever heard of him or knew anything about him!

Q

LWW
07-14-2011, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greene admits he had no campaign headquarters, no party support, no contributions, no job, no computer and no cell phone. </div></div>

Who put him up to it, Democrats?

Q </div></div>

The investigation found that he used his own money to get ion the ballot, and the electorate was so sick of the democrooks of the past that many voted for any alternative available.

LWW
07-14-2011, 05:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How could they be convinced if the guy NEVER ran a campaign?

Q </div></div>

I'll take "THE NUTTY 25% WILL VOTE FOR ANYTHING THAT HAS (D) FOLLOWING THEIR NAME ON THE BALLOT" for $1,000.00 Alex.

BTW ... your puppetmaster Charlotte would have voted for him, and is on record saying so several times.

Qtec
07-14-2011, 05:28 AM
YOU SAID,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">rank and file democrooks <u>can easily be convinced to vote for moonbat crazy fools with criminal history.</u> </div></div>

Now you say,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"THE NUTTY 25% <u>WILL VOTE FOR ANYTHING</u> THAT HAS (D) FOLLOWING THEIR NAME ON THE BALLOT" </div></div>

Which is it in this case?

Q

Soflasnapper
07-14-2011, 11:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greene admits he had no campaign headquarters, no party support, no contributions, no job, no computer and no cell phone. </div></div>

Who put him up to it, Democrats?

Q </div></div>

The investigation found that he used his own money to get ion the ballot, and the electorate was so sick of the democrooks of the past that many voted for any alternative available. </div></div>

Hmmm. Never heard of this investigation. Who ran it? Republicans?

Soflasnapper
07-14-2011, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Greene admits he had no campaign headquarters, no party support, no contributions, no job, no computer and no cell phone. </div></div>

Who put him up to it, Democrats?

Q </div></div>

The investigation found that he used his own money to get ion the ballot, and the electorate was so sick of the democrooks of the past that many voted for any alternative available. </div></div>

Yep, it was the GOP (heading the SC AG's office, SLED)who 'investigated' this guy and cleared him of.. well, not this charge, but as to a year before, when he applied for a public defender on the basis that he was broke.

They cleared him on that, while stating he 'used his own money' to get into the race, although admitting they never subpoenaed his bank records to find out how that money BECAME 'his money.'

Evidently, that he may have written that check against funds in an account with his name on it is all that they checked, not whether someone else put those funds into his account, for that purpose.

And they did not in any way look into the oddities of his winning a 59% vote to take the nomination, still less clear that result of the obvious appearance of voting fraud.

Gayle in MD
07-14-2011, 11:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's how Fox covered it:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Greene admits he had no campaign headquarters, no party support, no contributions, no job, no computer and no cell phone.

Yet, somehow, he managed to pull off the most unlikely of victories, and -- unless state Democratic Party officials have their way -- will face incumbent Republican Sen. Jim DeMint in November.

Greene's improbable victory over Democratic candidate Vic Rawl, a former state legislator who officials expected would win, has unleashed a flood of questions, including how the unemployed Army veteran managed to pay $10,400 to get on the ballot before running a "low budget" campaign with no ads, website or fundraising.

Voters also are wondering how the 32-year-old Greene, facing a felony charge for allegedly showing pornographic images to a college student last October, managed to capture 59 percent of the primary vote.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/.../#ixzz1S1jC8zRT (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/10/greenes-south-carolina-primary-defies-odds-leaves-democratic-party-perplexed/#ixzz1S1jC8zRT)
</div></div> </div></div>

Repiglicans put Greene in place to destroy, or take away from the votes for the Democratic Candidate, clearly.

In any other state, he probably wouldn't have gotten any votes at all.

When it comes to throwing elections, Repiglicans are unparalleled, as we all know from the book, by a Repiglican Operative, from Ohio, who wrote a book titled "How To Throw An Election" after he got out of jail for doing the bidding of the Repiglicans when they threw the Ohio election in 2004 for GWB.

Anyone who would have voted for Greene, had to be a nutcase, but it was, South Carolina, after all.

It was an obvious fix, by Repiglicans.

G.

LWW
07-14-2011, 03:08 PM
So why did these democrooks vote for him in the primary ... other than they decided the other democrook candidate wasn't moonbat crazy enough for them?

LWW
07-14-2011, 03:09 PM
And you, as usual, ignore reality.

He won the democrook primary in which only registered democrooks could vote for him.

How, in a sane manner, do you explain this?

Soflasnapper
07-14-2011, 04:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And you, as usual, ignore reality.

He won the democrook primary in which only registered democrooks could vote for him.

How, in a sane manner, do you explain this? </div></div>

I'd check for touch screen voting machines without a paper record or auditable backup record, as a first guess.

Other types of voting fraud would be my second guess.

Look, the occasional unknown may win against a known candidate, if that known candidate has major problems, a horrible scandal or something, and/or, if the race is split 5 ways to Sunday, and/or if they somehow get a lot of money and attack ads going or something.

This, however, doesn't happen, absent some big factor like what I mention.

If the other candidate had such major issues, this would be slightly more likely. I haven't heard of any such issues, however.

LWW
07-14-2011, 05:28 PM
Then why did the SC democrook party vote 5-1 against holding a new primary?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In response to an official protest filed by Rawl, the executive committee of the South Carolina Democratic Party conducted a formal hearing on June 17, 2010, to review questions regarding the legitimacy of the primary election results.[67][68][69] Greene neither attended nor sent a representative to the hearing.[67] The executive committee found insufficient evidence of impropriety, and voted to uphold the June 8 election results.</div></div>

So ... in spite of your claim that it was a crooked R serving as SC AG that investigated and cleared Greene ... it was, in fact, the SC democrook party.

OH DEAR! (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/06/green_light_for_alvin_greenes.html)

OH MY! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene)

LWW
07-14-2011, 05:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd check for touch screen voting machines without a paper record or auditable backup record, as a first guess.

Other types of voting fraud would be my second guess.</div></div>

Or uneducated voters ... or racism.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Though his primary victory baffled many, several explanations have been offered. Some observers, including State Representative Bakari Sellers, have stated that the fact that his name appeared above Vic Rawl may have caused voters who were unfamiliar with either candidate to vote for Greene.[58] South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford claimed that the surname "Greene" is common among African-Americans, and suggested that fact may have caused African-American voters to identify with him </div></div>

Another myth dies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene)

Qtec
07-15-2011, 06:12 AM
The point here is really that the GOD Party will stoop to any low to get what they want.
When it comes to elections, they can justify any dirty trick in the name of the Lord. Its all for a good cause.


Lying, cheating, trashing the good name of opponents is all OK , IF its for the grand cause.

Q

Sev
07-15-2011, 06:15 AM
The point is the maneuver is legal in WI.

It would be interesting to see who passed the law in the first place.

Gayle in MD
07-15-2011, 12:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The point here is really that the GOD Party will stoop to any low to get what they want.
When it comes to elections, they can justify any dirty trick in the name of the Lord. Its all for a good cause.


Lying, cheating, trashing the good name of opponents is all OK , IF its for the grand cause.

Q </div></div>


Swift Boaters??? Good example of the filthy tactics of the Repiglicans.

The Rah Rah War party, that demonizes and slanders multi-amputee Veterans, and hires with no bid contracts, their own former corrupt corporations, that kidnap and gang rape American women. Same no bid corporations that executed our soldiers in their showers, only to be held in place by the radical RW Fascist Supreme Court, which made it impossible for American women who were raped by war profiteering contractors, in bed with Bush/Cheney et all, to have their day in court...

Truly, they are pigs.

G.

Soflasnapper
07-15-2011, 03:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd check for touch screen voting machines without a paper record or auditable backup record, as a first guess.

Other types of voting fraud would be my second guess.</div></div>

Or uneducated voters ... or racism.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Though his primary victory baffled many, several explanations have been offered. Some observers, including State Representative Bakari Sellers, have stated that the fact that his name appeared above Vic Rawl may have caused voters who were unfamiliar with either candidate to vote for Greene.[58] South Carolina State Senator Robert Ford claimed that the surname "Greene" is common among African-Americans, and suggested that fact may have caused African-American voters to identify with him </div></div>

Another myth dies. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Greene)

</div></div>

Hahaha! Sure, speculative offered reasons really prove the opposite point, I'm sure.

What happened when this same man later ran for a House seat?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> On December 24, 2010, Greene filed as a candidate in the Democratic primary special election for the South Carolina House of Representatives seat left vacant by the death of Representative Cathy Harvin.[16] That primary was held on February 15, 2011. The Democratic primary was won by Kevin Johnson who received 2369 votes, 65.23% of the vote. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Alvin Greene came in a distant fourth, receiving only 36 votes out of the 3789 total cast.</span>[17]</div></div>

If unsupported claims prove anything, as you said the myth was dead, why not include all of them from that source? To wit:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rawl has said there were problems with the voting machines.

Some speculated that Greene might have been a Republican plant. South Carolina Democratic Party officials noted that the practice of running select candidates to pressure candidates and influence election outcomes has occurred in the past, in both Democratic and Republican primaries. Nu Wexler, the former executive director of the South Carolina Democratic Party, commented "You have consultants doing this kind of thing just because they get bored, and they want something to tell good stories about. It's almost like fraternity pranks."[59] House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, the first African-American elected to either the House or the Senate from South Carolina since Reconstruction, said that he suspected that Greene was a plant, and although there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, Clyburn called for an investigation into the primary.[60] Clyburn also alleged that two other African-American candidates, Gregory Brown and Ben Frasier, were plants. Brown campaigned against Clyburn for the 6th Congressional District seat, and Frasier beat state Democratic Party-backed candidate Robert Burton for the nomination in the 1st congressional district. Clyburn said he "just felt this was 1990 all over again", referring to the events in the 1990 primary in South Carolina when political consultant Rod Shealy recruited an unemployed black fisherman to run in a Republican congressional primary in order to boost white turnout for a different election on the same ballot.[61][62] </div></div>

There is a placement bias, where the 1st named person gets more than would be expected at random by being first. But that effect is small, around a 4% difference, from what I've read, iirc.

Many elections require that candidates' names be randomized as to ballot placement, for that exact reason (in different districts, say, for a state-wide candidacy). Does SC do that? Not sure, likely not I suppose.

LWW
07-16-2011, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hahaha! Sure, speculative offered reasons really prove the opposite point, I'm sure.</div></div>

Being that you are denouncing exactly what you did ... I find your post to be quite amusing.