Clyburn says S.C. Dem Senate candidate a 'plant'; calls for probe

[Rightarrow]

Re: Elephant dung' all over S.C. Dem primaries

Thank goodness that in California we will have open primaries from now on where things like this won't happen. Tho I think that it is hilarious that the Democrats true colors showed (that they vote based more on color than on character, issues, or experience) I think that it shows an obvious flaw in the system, and makes the U.S. and democracy in general look like a joke.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Elephant dung' all over S.C. Dem primaries

No evidence?

I don't know if there was something shady going on, but there are a LOT of red flags:

- Completely unknown candidate
- Candidate has a pending felony charge
- Candidate did not campaign at all
- Candidate's interviews are strangely inept. Greene was military intelligence yet comes off as an idiot. He received three medals, but never mentions them. He just mentions his discharge was not voluntary.

Why are these red flags? As I noted above, crazies run all the time and frequently do fairly well. In 2005, a lunatic criminal spent $120 on his campaign and got 17,000 votes in the Democratic mayoral primary. How is this any more of a red flag than that?

Crazies be crazy, plain and simple.

- Fishy source of filing fee. (candidate was unemployed and recently signed an affidavit saying he couldn't afford a defense lawyer)

You're surprised that a lunatic guy accused of committing a crime might a) have some odd financial habits, and b) might lie or shade the truth on an affidavit?

- Massive discrepancy between absentee ballots and in-person votes cast. (Absentee ballots, Greene got only 16% of votes in Lancaster County, yet wins with a 17 point margin in election-day votes)

As I noted in the other thread, this is nowhere near as strange or unexpected as you're making it seem.

- Vote count discrepancies

And again, these kind of minor things happen all the time. I can't remember a single controversial election where there weren't claims of vote count irregularities. Until there is proof that the discrepancies are substantial or systematic, this is evidence of nothing. Even then, it would only be evidence of error, not of some criminal conspiracy.

Edit: If it does turn out to be election-tampering, I think the GOP is going to have a nasty fight on their hands, even if it's proven it wasn't them who did the tampering. The idea that someone tampered with the primary might get Democrats out to vote more out of sheer outrage.

If there was deliberate tampering and it wasn't by the GOP, why do you think that would energize Democrats to come out and vote for a lunatic against an astonishingly popular sitting Senator?

Edit 2: Of course, this "investigation" could just be sour grapes on part of the loser.

This is by far the most logical explanation, IMO. Imagine how embarrassing this must be for Rawl - the voters in his area literally picked a nutjob instead of him. If I were in his position, I'd be doing everything in my power to cast aspersions on the credibility of the process so as to salvage some shred of my political legacy. Even Clyburn only brought it up because it gave him the chance to attack the guy who had the temerity to challenge his seat.

 

[Deuce]

Re: Elephant dung' all over S.C. Dem primaries

Yes, my real point is the situation is weird enough to warrant some investigation.

 

[pragmatic]

.

Regardless of whatever rationalizing may be put forth. Something "funny" is going on here....



.

 

[RyrineaHaruno]

Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries | Raw Story

There is something fishy going on with this, if he really did get more votes than were caste. .

 

[Renae]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries | Raw Story

There is something fishy going on with this, if he really did get more votes than were caste. .

Yeah, this poor black man tried to upset the Democrat's plans, and they are putting him in his place.

 

[RyrineaHaruno]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

Yeah, this poor black man tried to upset the Democrat's plans, and they are putting him in his place.

Not really this poor black pervert man who is being soon to be jailed pervert black man. Is the reason I suspect election fraud.


South Carolinian's democrats are really that stupid, or voting machines were rigged.

 

[digsbe]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

I have to agree with Ryrinea on this. I smell fraud with this election and the Democrats have every reason to look into it. The guy is being accused of criminal charges (showing porn or something I believe). He was extremely underfunded, unpopular, and claimed he was broke (but somehow afforded the $10,000 fee to get on the ballot). The whole thing reeks of fraud and should be looked in to.

 

[Gina]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

I saw him on the news this morning. They used a segment from an interview he did with Olbermann and he admitted, he didn't hold but a few campaign strategizing sessions (I wasn't convinced he held one because he couldn't define his strategy) or that he held rallies. How does a candidate get elected without a strategy or rallies to meet the public? It's weird.

I have to agree with Ryrinea on this. I smell fraud with this election and the Democrats have every reason to look into it. The guy is being accused of criminal charges (showing porn or something I believe). He was extremely underfunded, unpopular, and claimed he was broke (but somehow afforded the $10,000 fee to get on the ballot). The whole thing reeks of fraud and should be looked in to.

Indeed, where did the $10k come from? He didn't even deny the allegations against him, just offered "No comment" as a response. Come on! I hope the authorities quickly get to the bottom of it.

 

[zimmer]

Re: Elephant dung' all over S.C. Dem primaries

Yes, my real point is the situation is weird enough to warrant some investigation.

Investigate, but also investigate Sestak and Romanoff.
We have admissions the WH was involved in illegalities.

.

 

[zimmer]

Re: Elephant dung' all over S.C. Dem primaries

No evidence?

Experts review S.C. Senate ballots - David Catanese - POLITICO.com

I don't know if there was something shady going on, but there are a LOT of red flags:

- Completely unknown candidate
- Fishy source of filing fee. (candidate was unemployed and recently signed an affidavit saying he couldn't afford a defense lawyer)
- Candidate has a pending felony charge
- Candidate did not campaign at all
- Massive discrepancy between absentee ballots and in-person votes cast. (Absentee ballots, Greene got only 16% of votes in Lancaster County, yet wins with a 17 point margin in election-day votes)
- Vote count discrepancies
- Candidate's interviews are strangely inept. Greene was military intelligence yet comes off as an idiot. He received three medals, but never mentions them. He just mentions his discharge was not voluntary.

Edit: If it does turn out to be election-tampering, I think the GOP is going to have a nasty fight on their hands, even if it's proven it wasn't them who did the tampering. The idea that someone tampered with the primary might get Democrats out to vote more out of sheer outrage.

Edit 2: Of course, this "investigation" could just be sour grapes on part of the loser.

So what is new.?
A bunch of Democrats pulled the lever for someone they knew nothing about, and the dude won?
Seems we just had that during the last Presidential election.

Seems dumb, but not odd.

.

 

[Groucho]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

Yeah, this poor black man tried to upset the Democrat's plans, and they are putting him in his place.

It's impossible for you to look at something objectively, isn't it?

 

[Gill]

How can he come up with proof without an investigation?

So, you believe any congress critter can demand an investigation strictly on "suspicion" of wrong doing, or should there be some type of proof that an investigation is warranted.

If the Obama justice department refuses to prosecute black panthers standing at a polling place with clubs, and seemingly are refusing to investigate the shennanigans with the recent offers of jobs to drop election bids, I would be really pissed if they investigated this.

 

[Renae]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

It's impossible for you to look at something objectively, isn't it?

This is me, acting like a lib, pretending this was a GOP issue.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

Moderator's Warning:

Threads merged...again. Please search before starting new threads.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

I have to agree with Ryrinea on this.

then i have to disagree with the both of you

I smell fraud with this election and the Democrats have every reason to look into it.

we are talking about an investigation of the senatorial primary winner. something more than 'smell' needs to be evident to justify such an investigation

The guy is being accused of criminal charges (showing porn or something I believe).

but he is innocent until proven guilty
he has not been indicted
and what kind of image would be illegal to share with a college co-ed?
so, before you treat him as guily, let's let this work its way thru the legal process, first

He was extremely underfunded, unpopular, ...

so underfunded and unpopular that he WON the demo primary for US senator. that he was successful indicates that he was funded enough and was popular enough to win. now, if you have a different take, please share it

... and claimed he was broke (but somehow afforded the $10,000 fee to get on the ballot).

when did he claim he was broke?
when did he post the $10,000 fee? were they the same time? if not, please show me all of his income and expenses during the span between those two events

The whole thing reeks of fraud and should be looked in to.

sure you aren't part hound, as you rely on that sniffer a lot. fortunately, law relies on facts, not one's nostrils
you don't get to go on a fishing expedition (investigation) just because you smell funny

 

[pragmatic]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

then i have to disagree with the both of you


we are talking about an investigation of the senatorial primary winner. something more than 'smell' needs to be evident to justify such an investigation


but he is innocent until proven guilty
he has not been indicted
and what kind of image would be illegal to share with a college co-ed?
so, before you treat him as guily, let's let this work its way thru the legal process, first


so underfunded and unpopular that he WON the demo primary for US senator. that he was successful indicates that he was funded enough and was popular enough to win. now, if you have a different take, please share it


when did he claim he was broke?
when did he post the $10,000 fee? were they the same time? if not, please show me all of his income and expenses during the span between those two events


sure you aren't part hound, as you rely on that sniffer a lot. fortunately, law relies on facts, not one's nostrils
you don't get to go on a fishing expedition (investigation) just because you smell funny

Guess we will need to confirm if this claim is true. But if it is, suspect it is enough to warrant a little closer "look see".....

"In 25 precincts, Greene received more votes than were actually cast; and while Rawl won absentee ballots by a whopping 84-to-16 percentage point margin, the election-day results showed Greene winning by 18 percentage points."


.

 

[Groucho]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

It may end up being merely unusual, but anyone who says it doesn't need investigating is obviously guided by partisanship. If the parties were reversed and this had happened to a Republican, you can bet these people would be asking for an investigation at least.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

Guess we will need to confirm if this claim is true. But if it is, suspect it is enough to warrant a little closer "look see".....

"In 25 precincts, Greene received more votes than were actually cast; and while Rawl won absentee ballots by a whopping 84-to-16 percentage point margin, the election-day results showed Greene winning by 18 percentage points."


.

When you're dealing with small numbers like this (there were less than 2000 voters in that county), things like this are not out of the ordinary. That breakdown is particularly unsurprising given the situation.

Rawl was the only one who actually campaigned, so it stands to reason that absentee voters (people who care more about politics and make their decisions ahead of time, with an opportunity to research the people on the ballot in front of them) would pick Rawl over Greene, while voters on the spot would be much less likely to know anything about either candidate and would have no opportunity to do any research.

...

If true (it's coming from the losing candidate's campaign manager, and the SC Election Commissioner says that the voting was proper), then that means there were probably some screwups on the local level. Allegations of errors like this pop up in pretty much every single controversial election. It's a massive leap to go from "there were some minor local screwups, probably on the scale of a few dozen votes" to "there was a huge republican conspiracy to commit massive voter fraud in order to help their handpicked secret plant win a completely unimportant primary race."


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...id-but-gets-368-000-votes.html#post1058803510

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...idate-plant-calls-probe-2.html#post1058803623

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

It may end up being merely unusual, but anyone who says it doesn't need investigating is obviously guided by partisanship. If the parties were reversed and this had happened to a Republican, you can bet these people would be asking for an investigation at least.

Given that there is supposedly evidence that there were voting irregularities in some precincts, the calls to investigate that issue are fine.

Given that there's absolutely no evidence that this was a "republican plant" or a conspiracy to throw the election, the calls to investigate those "issues" are unwarranted and seem to be driven by an attempt to blame Republicans for the idiotic result in the Dem primary.

 

[Groucho]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

Given that there is supposedly evidence that there were voting irregularities in some precincts, the calls to investigate that issue are fine.

Given that there's absolutely no evidence that this was a "republican plant" or a conspiracy to throw the election, the calls to investigate those "issues" are unwarranted and seem to be driven by an attempt to blame Republicans for the idiotic result in the Dem primary.

I'm not blaming anyone without evidence. But certainly it is worthy looking into how some guy who couldn't afford an attorney had $10,000 or so that he spent to get on the ballot, especially when he won't answer questions about it. You have to admit something deserves investigation by the media at least.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

More grasping at straws: washingtonpost.com

Greene's opponent -- a Charleston city councilman, former judge and four-time member of the South Carolina legislature named Vic Rawl -- filed a complaint Monday with the South Carolina Democratic Party, then laid out his own theories in a news conference. He has heard from voters who selected his name only to have Greene's appear. He also says the voting machines "were purchased surplus from Louisiana after that state outlawed them."

The implication of that last charge is pretty juicy. Louisiana, after all, does political shenanigans more colorfully and brazenly than most.

South Carolina's election commission begs to differ about the provenance of the voting machines. Spokesman Chris Whitmire says the state's 12,000 iVotronic voting machines were bought brand-spanking-new from Election Systems and Software, an Omaha-based behemoth that boasts of operations in 39 states.

Asked to clear up the claim about South Carolina using Louisiana's rejects, Rawl spokesman Walter Ludwig said in an e-mail, "That was what the word around the state was -- heard it from several people."

Rawl: "These voting machines were bought used from LA after they were outlawed!"
SC: "Uh, no they're not"
Rawl: "Oh. Well, we heard a rumor that they were, so there's no reason not to claim it as if it were fact, right?"

I'm not blaming anyone without evidence. But certainly it is worthy looking into how some guy who couldn't afford an attorney had $10,000 or so that he spent to get on the ballot, especially when he won't answer questions about it. You have to admit something deserves investigation by the media at least.

I agree that it's certainly deserving of investigation, which is why I'm astounded that the Democratic Committee didn't do a bit of it. They were in a much better position than anyone else to look into Greene's background and determine whether he was competent to run. I'm also not sure why Rawl didn't do a bit of research himself, or even try to make up for the fact that he had such little name recognition and support. If you rely on the media to do your research for you, you run the risk of getting embarrassed like they did here.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

According to Jon Stewart, South Carolina is "America's whopee cushion".

This is the republicans fault?" Stewart questioned. "Even if they fronted the patsy, y'all voted for him. They didn't trick you. They didn't enter a guy with a misleading name like Grit Gravybiscuit or Nascar Johnson or Robert E. Liebowitz. It was Greene versus Rawl and 100,000 Democrats walked into a polling place and said 'I don't know either of these guys. I guess I'm ill-informed and I could easily not vote, but **** it, I like the color Greene more than I like the color Rawl.'

Of course, Stewart is a comedian, and a darned funny one, not a newscaster or a political pundit. That doesn't mean he didn't get it right.

OK, SC, are you now boycotting the Daily Show?

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

According to Jon Stewart, South Carolina is "America's whopee cushion".



Of course, Stewart is a comedian, and a darned funny one, not a newscaster or a political pundit. That doesn't mean he didn't get it right.

OK, SC, are you now boycotting the Daily Show?

I haven't watched the daily show in a long time, but I was flipping channels after Always Sunny last night and came across this segment. I was pleasantly surprised.

edit: Here's the whole segment for anyone who's interested:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-14-2010/alvin-greene-wins-south-carolina-primary

 

[Areopagitican]

Re: Democrats increasingly convinced of election fraud in SC primaries

I'm not blaming anyone without evidence. But certainly it is worthy looking into how some guy who couldn't afford an attorney had $10,000 or so that he spent to get on the ballot, especially when he won't answer questions about it. You have to admit something deserves investigation by the media at least.

You know 10k < Attorney fees, right?