Skip to main content

Unless you've been under a rock, you've heard about the surpise win by political nowhere Alvin Greene, victorious on Tuesday in the Democratic primary in South Carolina, winning the right to go up against incumbent Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC).  Greene was on nobody's radar.  The NYTimes asked in response "Who is Alvin Greene?"  

Greene's opponent was not a political unknown: Vic Rawl was elected to the South Carolina State House of Representatives 4 times, serving 1977-78 and 1980-86.  With the law degree he earned from University of South Carolina School of Law in 1973, he also served as a circuit court judge from 1991-2003.

It's been suggested that Greene won, because black voters recognized his name as belonging to a black person, and voted overwhelmingly for him. I show here that that's not possible.

Greene won soundly, widely and deeply: he had a majority in 42 of 47 counties of South Carolina.  His average percentage of votes across all 47 counties was 61% (that is, in a typical county, he had 1.5 votes for every 1 vote his opponent had).  For all Democratic votes cast in the contest, Greene won 59% of all votes between him and Rawl.

The Caucus blog at the NYTimes asks:

So how did this come about? Was it his top ballot position? The fact that he’s African-American, which some have suggested might have swayed the sizable numbers of black primary voters? Or was it something else?

...

Here’s what the Post and Courier reported from its interviews:

   State Representative Bakari Sellers, D-Denmark, suggested Greene might have benefited from being listed first on Tuesday’s ballot, but Fowler said the party’s two relatively little-known Senate candidates in 2008 polled at nearly 50-50.

   State Senator Robert Ford, D-Charleston, who lost his gubernatorial bid Tuesday, said race could have played a role. The Democratic primary electorate is majority black, as is Greene, but not Rawl. "Vic Rawl had money, but he didn’t have enough. He wasn’t able to identify himself with black voters," Ford said. "No white folks have an ‘e’ on the end of Green. The blacks after they left the plantation couldn’t spell, and they threw an ‘e’ on the end."

I don't know how to quantify the advantage of having your name first on the ballot after the election is already over. Clearly, the technique to use to mitigate this effect is to randomize the order across all ballots - but that wasn't done.

However, we can do something to investigate if Greene's race played a role: we can use the census figures, and make a few reasonable assumptions.

To do this, I used the 2000 census figures, grabbing the percentage of residents by county who reported their race to be black.  In South Carolina, this percentage varies from 6.8% (in the county of Pickens) all the way up to 71% (Allendale).  

I assumed that the racial makeup of Democratic voters reflected that of the County.

Now, it doesn't matter that the likelihood that a black resident is a Democrat (and so voted in the Democratic primary) may be greater than another resident being a Democrat, as long as this relative likelihood is unrelated to the percentage of residents who are African American in the county in which they vote -- a reasonable assumption.

Just to give you a preview of what's to come.   In the five counties with the lowest percentage of African-Americans:  Pickens (6.8% population is black) Greene won with 57%; Oconee (8.4% black) it was 58%; in Lexington (12.6% black) was one of the four counties Greene lost, garnering 47.7% of the vote; county Horry (15% black) Greene had 62.3% of the vote; and county Anderson (16.6% black) Greene had 64.7% of the vote.  In the five least black counties in South Carolina, Greene did almost as well in the election than he did across the state, garnering 57% of the vote.  That seems highly improbable if it was the black vote which was responsible for Greene's victory.

I ran a simple statistical indicator. I looked for a correlation between the percentage of votes Greene won with in each county and the percentage of the county population which is black (according to the 2000 census).  The answer: there is no correlation between the percentage of the votes for Greene with the percentage of the black population reported in the county in the 2000 census.  Using the Pearson correlation test, I determined that the likelihood of seeing the trend between these two values is such that it would be observed about 16% of the time if one just randomly associated the two numbers.  This is what statisticians call "no significant correlation" -- about 1 in 7 elections could have a result like this even if black voters were no more likely to vote for Greene than for Rawl. It's about as likely as like calling "six" at the roll of a dice and getting it right.  This number is about the same (16%) if I remove Charleston from consideration, which is Vic Rawl's home county (and a populus one, and one which Rawl won).  

Thus, there is no evidence here that counties with larger black populations turned in greater victories for Alvin Greene.  But, if there were, would we be certain to detect such a correlation?  I did a simple check, making the following assumptions:

  1. Assume blacks exhibited enough preference for Greene in order to win him

    the vote total he got (>100,000 votes).

  2. Assume all other voters exhibited no preference (split their votes between Greene and Rawl evenly).  
  3. Otherwise, assume the same number of ballots cast in each county; and the percentage of black voters was equal to the percentage of blacks in each county according to the 2000 census.
  4. Exclude Charleston County from consideration (Vic Rawl's home city) and use only the results of the other 45 counties.

I simulated this, assuming simple poisson statistical distributions of votes, with a Monte Carlo simulation.  First, Greene breaks about 100,000 votes when blacks prefer him about 85% vs. 15% against Rawl statewide.  At that point, he's winning about 44 of the 45 (remaining) counties.  However, if that's the case, blacks are voting for Greene in such high numbers that suddenly a strong correlation appears between the percentage of votes Greene receives in a county, and the percentage of population who are black in that county.  

How strong is the correlation? Again, the way to express the strength of the correlation is to give the probability of the observed correlation occuring (via the Pearson test) if there were no actual correlation between the two values. And, I find the correlation is improbable the level of 1e-22. That's about one billionth of the probability of South Carolina winning Lotto 6/49 if they bought a single ticket.

In other words, if the reason that Alvin Greene had won the nomination  was that blacks voted for him in disproportionate numbers, then the correlation between the percentage of the population of each county who are black, and the percentage of the vote Greene received in each county would be so strong, we couldn't possibly miss it.  But we don't see any such correlation in the actual voting and census records.  It's just not there.

Is there some way to mask such a correlation?  The only possible scenario is that, in counties with small black populations, the other voters were disproportionately and overwhelmingly more likely to vote for Greene. To repeat: voters in racially segregated counties with very few blacks would have to have overwhelmingly preferred Greene to Rawl.  There is no reason to believe that's the case.

I conclude from this: it's not possible that Alvin Greene won the primary because of overwhelming support from black voters.  We'd simply see the booming correlation with the percentage population of each county who are black, and we don't.

That leaves only one non-illegal possibility: that voters picked Greene preferentially, at random -- regardless of the voter's race.  It's been put forward that perhaps it's because he was at the top of the ballot, and people didn't recognize either candidate, so they randomly chose the top name.  I have no evidence against this interpretation at this time.

There is, of course, the illegal possibility: that the election was fixed.  For that to have occurred, it would have to have been fixed by someone who had at least the ability to change voting outcomes in every single county, but also the ability not to change the outcome in Rawl's home county of Charleston, where Rawl won.

Post Script
After I completed this analysis, I saw the similar analysis by jeffmd at the swingstateproject. I'll digest it and write more later.

Originally posted to rerutled on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:29 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (17+ / 0-)

    Our houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed in them. -- Henry David Thoreau (Walden: Economy, 1854).

    by rerutled on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:29:31 PM PDT

  •  I am awed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miniaussiefan, YaNevaNo

    by your ability to handle statistics. I can't wrap my brain around a lot of it, but I am awed nonetheless.

    Thanks for the write up. I will reread when I'm a little less brain dead.

    Knit, purl, or get out of the way!
    Economic: -8.25 Social: -7.44

    by mcronan on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:40:52 PM PDT

  •  Nate Silver's website, fivethirtyeight.com also (19+ / 0-)

    shows there is no correlation between race and voting for Greene.

    Personally, I think voting machines were hacked.  His candidacy is part of a right wing dirty trick.

    Greene shows no interest in discussing policy, spreading a message, asking for votes, or anything.

    He just showed up with a mysterious $10,400 to file (although just three months earlier he qualified for a public defender, which means he would not have had $10k in the bank at that time) then disappeared until election day- no campaign, no campaigning.

    The truth will come out as reporters dig into this.

    Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

    by Happy Days on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:43:10 PM PDT

    •  It was updated slightly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      litho, Happy Days, kyril

      when they saw jeffmd's that the diarist refers to at the end of the diary and another person's analysis:

      The main point of both of these analyses is that the effectively zero relationship between race and Greene's performance that Sides and I independently found at the county unit of analysis is a bit less non-zero (and specifically positive) at the precinct unit of analysis--but still very weak. So, there may be a very slight racial component to the voting pattern[...]

      http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/...

      Y'en a pas un sur cent et pourtant ils existent--Leo Ferré, Les anarchistes

      by Anak on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:51:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or maybe no ability: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teharper428

      Greene shows no interest in discussing policy, spreading a message, asking for votes, or anything.

      Don't believe everything you think.

      by Miniaussiefan on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 04:44:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Alvin Greene was nominated... (10+ / 0-)

    because he's a stooge...and being black certainly played a part in it.  Right now some members of the GOP plumbing team are peeing themselves watching this guy give interviews on Keith Olbermann.

    These are the same people who chose Mr. Steele to run the RNC and who treat Obama like their "boy" in the media.

    If most of these people here really had any depth of appreciation for the still lingering tendrals of White Supremacy in American culture they would be able to see that the the Jim Crowesque criticism of Barack Obama is nothing but a concerted campaign to ensure no black man will EVER sit in the oval office ever again.

    For those who will complain...No..that doesn't mean you can't critique Barack Obama...criticize him all you want...that's your right.  Just remember both the valid and unvalid go into the same kettle of stew.

    •  most people who voted for Greene didn't even know (11+ / 0-)

      who he is.  They didn't know he gives a poor interview, comes across as dumb as a rock, doesn't seem to have any interest in policy, or anything else.  They literally had never heard of him.

      I think they voted for him because they saw him as "None of the Above" -- a generic non-politician -- and they didn't want to support the politician who was running against him.

      I don't think race had much to do with it, nor Republican dirty tricks, although maybe both played some small factor.

      I diaried on the subject here: http://www.dailykos.com/...

      I WILL agree with you that to the extent that Republicans were supporting Greene behind the scenes, it's probably because they see him as a classic racist stereotype of the "dumb black man."  Greene gives the impression of having a very low IQ: he talks slowly, has a blank expression on his face, doesn't say much, and what he says is mostly non-substantive.  But I really don't think racist Republican operatives could have pulled off getting Greene nominated.  I think mostly he just got nominated because people are so angry at the establishment politicians that they'll vote for a no-name guy who might be dumb as rocks, rather than an establishment politician on the ballot whom they have heard of and dislike.

      "Get busy living, or get busy dying." ~ Andy Dufresne

      by Eric Stetson on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:53:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They thought he was Al Green... (7+ / 0-)

    I read that somewhere.

    "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -- Milan Kundera

    by LV Pol Girl on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 07:49:17 PM PDT

  •  I don't get your logic... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ben masel

    It is not the percent of blacks to white in the county, but the percent of blacks to whites among the democrats of the county.

    It is the correlation with the latter to the percentage of primary votes that he won that would determine whether race was the determining factor.

    •  What you write is true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      notrouble

      And as I discuss, as long as the % of black democrats is not correlated with the % of blacks in the county, then this distinction will have no effect.

      Our houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed in them. -- Henry David Thoreau (Walden: Economy, 1854).

      by rerutled on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:01:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's racist to think that an inarticulate (4+ / 0-)

    black man cannot and should not run for office, and if he wins, to think that he must be a stooge or worse.

    •  I do think there are many strange things about (0+ / 0-)

      this but some of the comments about Mr. Greene have been over the top.  He is a veteran and a political science major.  I would think that democrats would want to be the first to give a fellow democrat the benefit of the doubt.  I thought wrong.

      Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. Henry David Thoreau

      by Sydserious on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:22:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I watched several videos of Greene (6+ / 0-)

        and I must say that he is the least articulate candidate for public office I have ever seen... ever.

        That doesn't mean his political views aren't good, but he doesn't seem to have the ability to express them, either orally (watch his interviews) or in writing (he has no website promoting his campaign or his platform).

        Somebody who is not able to talk intelligently about why he's running for office and what policies he supports, or who doesn't want to do so, should not run for office.  JMHO.

        "Get busy living, or get busy dying." ~ Andy Dufresne

        by Eric Stetson on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:28:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then don't vote for him. The only people he needs (0+ / 0-)

          to appeal to are the people in SC who will vote for him and they may relate to him and he to them.  Palin was so bad at first they had to hide her from the fucking cameras.

          Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. Henry David Thoreau

          by Sydserious on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:31:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  actually I want Greene to succeed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lordcopper

            I'd vote for him over DeMint, because even though Greene is inarticulate and likely has a low IQ, he almost certainly shares more political views in common with me than does Jim DeMint or any other conservative Republican.

            I think it's very unfortunate that Greene seems to have so much difficulty with public speaking.  He needs to hire a coach to help him with that, and he also needs to hire somebody to write a website for him.

            "Get busy living, or get busy dying." ~ Andy Dufresne

            by Eric Stetson on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:34:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I have stated before - neither candidate has a (0+ / 0-)

              chance in hell of winning.  We are only making matters worse by insulting a guy who was a veteran and was a political science major.  I do not see how he could have made it through school with a low IQ that you assume he has but whatever.

              As of right now, he won.  This may change tomorrow. But right now, in front of the world we are coming off as elitist arrogant snobs and I don't see how this would convince many people to join our cause.  It is very depressing to me.

              Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. Henry David Thoreau

              by Sydserious on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:42:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I don't want to see DeMint win either, but I'd (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              teharper428

              like to see the charges against Greene resolved in court, before I'd vote for him, either.  As a woman, I find the the allegations against Greene very, very disturbing. Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but I'd want to see him get his day in court before voting for him.

              Plus, I'm pretty cynical when it comes to the money situation.  That $10K has a story that hasn't been told, yet.  Frankly, either this is a bizarre dirty trick, or I think Greene is completely irrational.

              If this is Greene's personal money, then why the public defender?  Did he commit fraud in claiming he didn't have the funds to hire a lawyer?  Or, didn't he have the money at the time, and somehow got some sort of windfall in the next few weeks?  If so, what's the source?

              If it's Greene's personal money, then he's the first person I've ever heard of who was living at home with a parent who invested what must have been a significant part of their total net worth to file to run for a Senate seat they had no chance of ultimately winning while they had an extremely disturbing felony charge pending against them ... and, um, a political science major somehow doesn't know that a pending felony charge would come up in a national election?  And after putting up more than it seems than he even ever had to run for a seat, this person can't produce even a flyer with some position statements? I can't even begin to fathom a shred of logic or thread of rationality in this string.

              It would seem that SC voters may have actually blindly rolled the dice on an unknown, but I'm hoping that more will be known about this situation, and soon.

               

               

        •  He's not just inarticulate. (5+ / 0-)

          He is stupid.

          He doesn't know what "free trade" means. He doesn't konw what "indictment" means. He has no idea how many campaign flyers were supposedly printed for him or who printed them. He doesn't even know exactly what his cat's name is.

          Just because Republicans defend Palin doesn't mean we have to defend this guy.

          Y'en a pas un sur cent et pourtant ils existent--Leo Ferré, Les anarchistes

          by Anak on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:34:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why should a polished TV presence (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          irishwitch, Sydserious

          make a person qualified for public office/  I am wary of any politician who has a polished and slick delivery, because more often that not he is lying and conniving, like most politicians.  Maybe we need common people in office who are not slick TV pros.

          •  well, you do have a point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis

            In theory, maybe somebody who is medically mute should have an equal chance to run for office and be taken seriously.  But the problem is, how is such a person going to campaign, if they can't talk about their beliefs?

            Greene seems unable to articulate a platform in front of a TV camera, and it's not even clear that he has a platform.  So I think his problems go far deeper than lack of a slick delivery.

            "Get busy living, or get busy dying." ~ Andy Dufresne

            by Eric Stetson on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:40:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you put a camera in front of me and (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sydserious, dskoe

              Keith Olbermann started interviewing me live on Countdown, I would freeze up, too, and look pretty stupid (which I suppose I am anyway).

              •  if he's not good in front of the camera, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                auron renouille, irishwitch

                as many people -- probably most people -- would not be, then he needs to be good at presenting his platform in writing, such as on a website.  The problem is that Greene is not good at presenting his platform either orally or in writing (he has no website).

                I would think that by now, he would have at least hired somebody to make a website for him, outlining his ideas for what he would support if he gets elected to the Senate.  The fact that he hasn't, shows me that he's not a bright guy.

                "Get busy living, or get busy dying." ~ Andy Dufresne

                by Eric Stetson on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:52:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  and you're not running for US senate. n/t (0+ / 0-)
          •  Oh, dear God. (0+ / 0-)

            That's the "I want someone as ignorant as me in office" line of thinking.

            Not healthy.

            Don't believe everything you think.

            by Miniaussiefan on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 04:50:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That would elimiante many of (0+ / 0-)

          the current Republicans in office, and especially GWB. Of coruse, that just proves your point.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 10:17:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, if this kind of debate was happening among (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sydserious

        Repubs about a minority repub nominee, this site would have 20 diaries sounding cries of "racists".

      •  My problem is there is a long (0+ / 0-)

        long history of shenanigans by the SC GOP.

      •  Congressman Clyburn is questioning his credential (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        teharper428, 417els, blueoasis, Anak

        and I guess that he is in a position to know.

        "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

        by lakehillsliberal on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 09:21:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's Not Racist to Think an Inarticulate Human (10+ / 0-)

      should not win an election for political office.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:56:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not racist, though, (0+ / 0-)

      to think that someone who is inarticulate, who hasn't prepared a campaign, who can't/won't discuss where/when he campaigned to get all those votes, who has at least a questionable source of $ for the filing fee, who has a felony charge hanging over him cannot and should not run for office.

      And if he wins, I do think he must be a stooge or worse.

      Don't believe everything you think.

      by Miniaussiefan on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 04:48:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A lot of fishy stuff happened here, but rigging (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrebLoc

    the machines wasn't one of them.

    Rigging the results in Richland County (Columbia), but not Charleston?  That doesn't happen.

    GOP=Grand Obstructionist Party

    by Christian Dem in NC on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:34:27 PM PDT

  •  Comgressman Clyburn thinks it's fishy but the (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, 417els, blueoasis, lordcopper

    question is where was the DNC down there. I would have thought they would have vetted anyone that was on the ballot.

    "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

    by lakehillsliberal on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 08:38:04 PM PDT

  •  I immediately suspected (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Stetson

    the racial identification factor.

    As someone who has voted in Illinois and New York, I know it was common knowledge that for down-ballot races, particularly judges, that if no one knew any of the candidates, other than newspaper endorsements the ethnic suggestion of the name was often the determining factor.

    One out of five votes in the California Dem Senate primary this week went to two candidates other than Barbara Boxer. Mickey Kaus - who ran something of a campaign and got some media attention - got 5% of the vote. But another candidate - totally unknown, no campaign - got 15%. Why? Most likely because he had a Latino name.

    That leaves us with is Greene an identifiable black name. It would have my guess if asked. And assuming that it is not uncommon among blacks in the south, but less common among whites, then add to the fact that this was the Dem primary, I'd say that this was not a random selection among enough voters to make the difference in his win.

  •  People need to move on from this Greene (0+ / 0-)
    Story. The guy won a fluke election fair and sqaure, things happen. All this hand ringing and people trying to force Greene off the ballot will only piss off the African American community. Let it go already.
    •  This is exactly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teharper428, 417els, blueoasis

      why I believe this has Republican fingerprints all over it. Someone (most likely a Repub) selected a specifically a Black guy to run against Rawl, with the knowledge that some gaming of the system was going to be done. They must have calculated that it would be a lot more difficult to unendorse a Black guy than a White one, and since the Black Dems in SC would be be mad if Greene was unendorsed by the Democratic party.

      This election does not add up and the discrepancy between the absentee ballots and in-person ballots is VERY significant. I don't think we should be moving on yet. Something illegal was committed and in the coming weeks, we will find out.

  •  Or perhaps Greene became the nominee ..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miniaussiefan

    because the voters of the state chose the name of the guy they had heard the least from and therefore had little or no opinion about.

    Greene's nomination is proof that sometimes it might be best to just stay home if you don't educate yourself about the candidates and the issues before you punch a ballot, pull a lever or mark a box.

    Gone: other things to do.

    by emsprater on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 09:09:42 PM PDT

  •  Lorne Greene, the late TV star (5+ / 0-)

    This means he was African-American?

    jest sayin'

    You cannot save the Gulf. But you can make its death mean something. -- Crashing Vor

    by Land of Enchantment on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 09:28:43 PM PDT

  •  Alvin Greene (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    amk for obama

    It is a black name and everyone knew Vic Rawl was white. You have a nominating electorate that is probably 30-50% black that went 100% for greene.  It is how obama got the nomination - off of pressure filled caucus rooms in iowa and packed primaries in the south, while Hillary went after the anemic white dem vote in primaries.  It says alot about the monolith.  

    Buy gold and chinese stocks in industries that america used to prosper in (oil, steel and agriculture).

    by trustadvice on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 09:50:12 PM PDT

    •  But the Blacks (4+ / 0-)

      did not know who he was. Blacks do not simply vote by name, and if a Black person (or any other person)is interested enough to actually go to the voting booth, they most likely know exactly whom they are voting for.  People who are not interested or do not know the difference between two candidates usually stay home.  And why this large discrepancy between the absentee ballots and in-person ballots?

    •  So he polled well with Ras then, troll? (0+ / 0-)

      He didn't even campaign.

      How many offices in SC are held by Black politicians?

      "Political Correctness" is a term coined by those who trivialize the scars of others and minimize the suffering of victims while highlighting their own wounds.

      by Coss on Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 11:32:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Assholish comment. (0+ / 0-)

      BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
      I want a no-drama Obama, not an emobama.

      by amk for obama on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 04:45:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think you read my diary (0+ / 0-)

      The conclusion of my analysis is that there is no correlation between the % of black voters by county, and the % of vote Greene received in that county.

      I also showed that if black voters voted preferentially for Greene, my analysis would definitely have detected it.

      Therefore, there's absolutely no way that the explanation you give is the reason Greene got the nomination.

      Our houses are such unwieldy property that we are often imprisoned rather than housed in them. -- Henry David Thoreau (Walden: Economy, 1854).

      by rerutled on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 07:09:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Inarticulate? Yes, and he looked terrified... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Anak

    KO specified that a lawyer was with Mr. Greene, coaching him.

    Mr. Greene also said he had been 'involuntarily' separated from the military, but with an honorable discharge.  His presentation is compatible with head trauma/brain injury. Also compatible with serious medication.

    This whole situation stinks to high heaven.  It has nothing to do with racism (white OR black) on the part of S.C. voters OR people commenting on this diary.

    Mr. Greene is a victim - of whom it is yet to be discovered - but, hopefully, it will eventually come out.  Has he, or his family, been blackmailed?  Somehow threatened? Dirty tricked?  

    Very cruel, brazen manipulators are behind this.  And anyone who claims that tampering with e-voting machines cannot possibly be involved (where tabulations can't be verified) is dead wrong.

    "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

    by 417els on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 12:02:21 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, except for the coaching part. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      417els, blueoasis

      It turns out that during the KO interview, it was Greene's public defender who was on the sidelines. In a subsequent Washington Post interview, that public defender was there as well, but only to prevent Greene from saying anything about the felony charge against him.

      In short, what happened on the Countdown interview was a bit misleading. From all that I've read, watched, and listened to about this, Greene is sadly very alone and helpless.

      Y'en a pas un sur cent et pourtant ils existent--Leo Ferré, Les anarchistes

      by Anak on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 12:45:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't know it was his public defender, but that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis, Anak

        makes sense.

        Greene is sadly very alone and helpless.

        This is so obviously true.  Whoever has put him in this position should be sent to solitary confinement at a Super Max.  Only very warped, criminal sociopaths (or worse) would do this to Alvin Greene.  Several familiar names come to mind, of course...but I'm sure they have many cockroaches doing their bidding, scurrying around in the mold under their expensive oriental rugs.

        "Evil is a lack of empathy, a total incapacity to feel with their fellow man." - Capt. Gilbert,Psychiatrist, at the end of Nuremberg trials.

        by 417els on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 01:44:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Someone needs to go to jail in South Carolina... (0+ / 0-)

    This type of nonsense has been going on for far too long in the South...Clyburn suspects foul play...anybody with a lick of sense can see the guy is not all there...

    Someone above said leave it alone or you'll piss off the black community...they have been pissed on for so long in South Carolina, I doubt they'd mind if someone pushed the envelope to see if the guy is really all there...

  •  Maybe Alvin Greene is typical SC HS graduate. (0+ / 0-)

    They have been pushing the stupid for so long in their non-support of education this may be the best the Republicans can get to play stooge who doesn't even know he is being played.

    Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, and the Buddha would all be on the no-fly list today.

    by OHdog on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 05:03:48 AM PDT

  •  What Alvin Greene is, (0+ / 0-)

    is our yellow dog.

    Don't believe everything you think.

    by Miniaussiefan on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 05:51:52 AM PDT

  •  Electronic voting machines (0+ / 0-)

    It's that simple.  As long as it's legal to conduct elections where the actual votes can never be checked separate from the stated results, you will continue to get these kinds of results: and they will be more and more egregious as the people who control the machines realize that they can get away with anything.

    And all of the rationalizers and explainers will be very patiently telling us why a well-financed, well-known incumbent President (for instance) got zero votes in his own home precinct: "Well, I guess he was unpopular!"

    The only intelligible explanation for this result is that the voting machines were set up ('rigged', if you like) to produce an erroneous result.  The easiest way to do this is miscalibration: the on-screen display of names doesn't correspond to the touch-screen logic, so that if you press "Vic Rawl" a vote is registered for "Alvin Greene".  This is not necessarily a "conspiracy"; it could be an unintentional error, though obviously the lack of testing (by the company and by poll workers) is an issue that needs addressing.

    Note that nobody has examined, or has claimed to have examined, the voting machines; nobody has shown how the names were displayed on the screen; nobody has conducted interviews or surveys with the voters in South Carolina (surely the obvious check: do people say that they voted for Alvin Green?).  This is unacceptable.

    Representatives of the company, independent computer experts, poll workers, voters, and the South Carolina Secretary of State need to be subpoenaed and required to show, under oath, what happened here.  In fact, that should have been done already.  Why hasn't it been?

  •  Speaking of voting machines, (0+ / 0-)

    how is a recount done on touch-screen machines? Are there back-ups within each machine that must all match up in a recount?

    And why the hell do we get receipts for groceries, for ATM withdrawals, for library book check-outs, for gasoline credit-card purchases, but not for something as important as voting?

    Don't believe everything you think.

    by Miniaussiefan on Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 07:51:57 AM PDT

  •  Rigged Voting Machines (0+ / 0-)

    in all probability was the cause. Republicans do what works. The rigged the Democratic outcome.

    If they had the power to rig Florida and Ohio, it was child's play to rig South Carolina.

    If this man had NO money just find out who gave him the money. Find out who his has been associating with and check his financial trail.

    He is not an island. The people who have been his
    close associates BEFORE he got this recognition know
    who he has been associating with.

    Also, the man must have family, ask them. They know him best.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site