S.C. Democratic Party Considers Overturning Alvin Greene Election Results

[jamesrage]

Sore losers do not like the fact their guy lost so now they want to overturn the vote of the people. How would this give them anything other than scorn by the voters? It looks like they just want to hand Jim DeMint a victory with this sore loser squabble they have with the rightful winner of the democratic primary winner.


FOXNews.com - S.C. Democratic Party Considers Overturning Alvin Greene Election Results

Alvin Greene said he has no plans to attend a meeting Thursday of party leaders deciding whether to overturn the primary election result that named him the South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee to challenge Sen. Jim DeMint in November.

In a brief phone interview with FoxNews.com, Greene said he was not attending the state party's executive committee meeting in Columbia to hear a protest by former state lawmaker Vic Rawl, whom he defeated in the June 8 primary.

South Carolina's Democrats are poised to decide the fate of the election in which Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed military veteran, shocked local officials by winning without raising funds, giving any speeches or holding any rallies.

 

[Deuce]

... I'm not really sure what to think. He won the primary, assuming there wasn't any election tampering. (I expect the discrepancies will be just minor clerical errors) Why should that result not be accepted?

On the other hand, the man doesn't seem to actually want to win. He didn't campaign or raise funds or anything, and he apparently doesn't even care enough to attend the meeting that is challenging his victory? Does he even want to be elected?

On the OTHER other hand, what the hell makes the SC Democratic party think that they'd have any chance in a race where they reversed the voters' primary choice? "Hey, I know you guys like Rawl less than Greene, but we hope just as many of you will vote for Rawl in the general if we replace Greene!"

 

[Hoplite]

Im failing to see why this is a problem. The results were odd so people are asking for verification.

 

[justabubba]

Im failing to see why this is a problem. The results were odd so people are asking for verification.

the results are odd?
he garnered the most votes and won the demo senatorial primary
i fail to see what is odd about that

 

[Hoplite]

the results are odd?
he garnered the most votes and won the demo senatorial primary
i fail to see what is odd about that

A candidate who does no work towards getting selected gets the vote? That isnt odd to you?

 

[danarhea]

the results are odd?
he garnered the most votes and won the demo senatorial primary
i fail to see what is odd about that

There are several facts that make this odd.

1) Greene is a lifelong Republican

2) Greene is unemployed, and has no money of his own.

3) Someone gave Greene the 10,000 bucks he needed to register.

4) Greene ran no campaign ads at all.

5) The day before the primary, he was 18% in the polls, but won the election with 59% of the vote.

6) The voting machines were electronic, with no paper trail, and very hackable.

Add it all up, and you can bet the bank that the sleaze factor is very strong is South Carolina.

 

[Renae]

There are several facts that make this odd.

1) Greene is a lifelong Republican

2) Greene is unemployed, and has no money of his own.

3) Someone gave Greene the 10,000 bucks he needed to register.

4) Greene ran no campaign ads at all.

5) The day before the primary, he was 18% in the polls, but won the election with 59% of the vote.

6) The voting machines were electronic, with no paper trail, and very hackable.

Add it all up, and you can bet the bank that the sleaze factor is very strong is South Carolina.

CT Forum material.

 

[Hoplite]

CT Forum material.

Got anything to actually add or do you want to keep trying to bury and derail the thread?

 

[RightinNYC]

Im failing to see why this is a problem. The results were odd so people are asking for verification.

It's a problem because a committee is considering overturning the results of an election despite no evidence of any wrongdoing. If they want to look into it, that's fine. Overturning the results is a huge step.

There are several facts that make this odd.

1) Greene is a lifelong Republican

Got a link for this? I haven't seen this anywhere.

2) Greene is unemployed, and has no money of his own.

He said he saved up the money.

3) Someone gave Greene the 10,000 bucks he needed to register.

Where are you getting this from?

5) The day before the primary, he was 18% in the polls, but won the election with 59% of the vote.

Do you have a link for this poll? I haven't heard this.

6) The voting machines were electronic, with no paper trail, and very hackable.

Where did you hear that they were "very hackable"? Is there any evidence that they were hacked? Why would anyone hack them?

 

[jamesrage]

There are several facts that make this odd.

1) Greene is a lifelong Republican

Any evidence to support this claim? Besides that politicians switch parties every now and then. It doesn't anything fishy is going on.

2) Greene is unemployed, and has no money of his own.

You are aware that even poor people save money too?

3) Someone gave Greene the 10,000 bucks he needed to register.

Any evidence of this?

4) Greene ran no campaign ads at all.

You never voted for someone who ran no campaign? The only thing this indicates is that the voters were sick of big name candidates. With scum bag politicians trying to remove Greene and attack his character and intelligence its no wonder why the voters chose a no name candidate.

5) The day before the primary, he was 18% in the polls, but won the election with 59% of the vote.

Any links from credible news sources to prove this?

6) The voting machines were electronic, with no paper trail, and very hackable.

Any evidence the machines were hacked? Perhaps this is why libs love electronic voting machines, they can falsely cry foul when ever they do not get their way.

Add it all up, and you can bet the bank that the sleaze factor is very strong is South Carolina.

The only sleaze I see is from the sore losers who are pissed their guy didn't win so now they are calling him everything from a republican plant to too stupid to run for office.

FOXNews.com - South Carolina Pol Questions Dem Senate Candidate's 'Mental Status'
A South Carolina lawmaker on Sunday suggested that new Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene may be intellectually incapable of participating in the general election race.

 

[Renae]

Got anything to actually add or do you want to keep trying to bury and derail the thread?

Keep trying?? It was my first post. Also, when someone comes in with a vast, plausible only IF scenario... it get's nominated for CTdom. And this whole "Greene is a GOP Plant" line of thought, with nothing more then "woah, this is so ODD" evidence just screams to be dumped down there.

 

[upsideguy]

... I'm not really sure what to think. He won the primary, assuming there wasn't any election tampering. (I expect the discrepancies will be just minor clerical errors) Why should that result not be accepted?

On the other hand, the man doesn't seem to actually want to win. He didn't campaign or raise funds or anything, and he apparently doesn't even care enough to attend the meeting that is challenging his victory? Does he even want to be elected?

On the OTHER other hand, what the hell makes the SC Democratic party think that they'd have any chance in a race where they reversed the voters' primary choice? "Hey, I know you guys like Rawl less than Greene, but we hope just as many of you will vote for Rawl in the general if we replace Greene!"

Yep, the Repubs did the Dems a favor here.... no need to waste money on this race. Move on.

 

[upsideguy]

Keep trying?? It was my first post. Also, when someone comes in with a vast, plausible only IF scenario... it get's nominated for CTdom. And this whole "Greene is a GOP Plant" line of thought, with nothing more then "woah, this is so ODD" evidence just screams to be dumped down there.

The black strawman is a very old South Carolina election trick. We were not born yesterday. That all said, no Dem is going to win statewide office in this backward state, so why worry about it?

 

[jujuman13]

A candidate who does no work towards getting selected gets the vote? That isnt odd to you?

Not if those who voted for him did so because in their belief the candidate they voted for, who won the Primary was a darn sight more honest, than the candidate the DNC wanted to win.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yep, the Repubs did the Dems a favor here.... no need to waste money on this race. Move on.

The black strawman is a very old South Carolina election trick. We were not born yesterday. That all said, no Dem is going to win statewide office in this backward state, so why worry about it?

Are you going to provide any evidence for your claim or are you just going to bounce from thread to thread, throwing out conspiracy theories?

 

[justabubba]

A candidate who does no work towards getting selected gets the vote? That isnt odd to you?

so, you are not as concened about the result as you are the process to achieve that result

rawls was such a poor candidate that it took nothing to defeat him in the primary

what IS odd to me is so many wanting to belive the election results are not valid - without having ANY basis in fact to come to that conclusion

 

[justabubba]

There are several facts that make this odd.

1) Greene is a lifelong Republican

so were jesse helms and strom thurmond - until they changed parties. what's your point?

2) Greene is unemployed, and has no money of his own.

and how does that impact the validity of the electoral results he attained?

3) Someone gave Greene the 10,000 bucks he needed to register.

who did that and when did they do it? in what manner was any contribution outside the law? we have the best government money can buy and folks are fixated on $10,000

4) Greene ran no campaign ads at all.

and the fact of the matter is that he did not need to. or maybe you posit that politicians should spend money they do not need to spend

5) The day before the primary, he was 18% in the polls, but won the election with 59% of the vote.

we have a government run election result and a privately run poll and you want to accept the latter instead of the former. please explain why the poll results should be found superior to the actual voting results

6) The voting machines were electronic, with no paper trail, and very hackable.

so this poor candidate with no job hacked the government's voting machines? were those machines not compliant with existing government standards?

Add it all up, and you can bet the bank that the sleaze factor is very strong is South Carolina.

add it all up and you have nothing
the one thing with which we agree is that SC politics are sleazy. but you echo the call for overturning valid election results ... supporting such political sleaziness

 

[American]

Sore losers do not like the fact their guy lost so now they want to overturn the vote of the people. How would this give them anything other than scorn by the voters? It looks like they just want to hand Jim DeMint a victory with this sore loser squabble they have with the rightful winner of the democratic primary winner.


FOXNews.com - S.C. Democratic Party Considers Overturning Alvin Greene Election Results

Alvin Greene said he has no plans to attend a meeting Thursday of party leaders deciding whether to overturn the primary election result that named him the South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee to challenge Sen. Jim DeMint in November.

In a brief phone interview with FoxNews.com, Greene said he was not attending the state party's executive committee meeting in Columbia to hear a protest by former state lawmaker Vic Rawl, whom he defeated in the June 8 primary.

South Carolina's Democrats are poised to decide the fate of the election in which Greene, a 32-year-old unemployed military veteran, shocked local officials by winning without raising funds, giving any speeches or holding any rallies.

Yeah, he stole the election. :lamo

 

[jamesrage]

The black strawman is a very old South Carolina election trick. We were not born yesterday.

What is this Black Strawman? And what actual evidence is there to support that is what Greene is?

That all said, no Dem is going to win statewide office in this backward state, so why worry about it?

What makes them a backward state? I can't imagine any democrat winning in that state when they try to remove candidates that are not their guy after primary elections.

 

[Deuce]

What is this Black Strawman? And what actual evidence is there to support that is what Greene is?


What makes them a backward state? I can't imagine any democrat winning in that state when they try to remove candidates that are not their guy after primary elections.

SC is a backwards state for many reasons not related to this particular election primary.

 

[justabubba]

Yeah, he stole the election. :lamo

if they could prove that, then the demo party would have an obligation to do whatever was in their means to overturn such a wrong
let's see how that turned out:

... The executive board of the South Carolina Democratic Party voted Thursday night not to overturn the results of the June 8 primary that saw Alvin Greene, a political unknown, defeat the establishment-backed candidate, Jim Rawl, with 59 percent of the vote. ...

Dems uphold Alvin Greene’s bizarre victory in SC primary | Raw Story

 

[Erod]

SC is a backwards state for many reasons not related to this particular election primary.

Why is it that liberals are the only ones alllowed to stereotype?

 

[Crunch]

Why is it that liberals are the only ones alllowed to stereotype?

Because they care so much?

 

[jamesrage]

SC is a backwards state for many reasons not related to this particular election primary.

So what makes it a backward state?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So what makes it a backward state?

Geographical prejudice.

It's almost always acceptable to take shots at any Southern state because they owned slaves a long time ago.