Alvin Greene? Who the F* is Alvin Greene?

[Pangloss]

Alvin Greene is the Democratic candidate for Senate for the state of South Carolina, running for election this fall against incumbent Republican Senator Jim DeMint. What's interesting is how Greene got to be the Democratic candidate for Senate.

 

Apparently the unemployed former Army supply specialist, who lives in a run-down home along a rural highway, simply walked into a State office one day last spring and paid the $10,440 candidacy fee and walked out again. He never campaigned, never met any officials with the Democratic Party, didn't go to the state convention, never did an interview, and until last week apparently never even wore a tie.

 

State Democrats are so outraged by the situation that they've asked him to step down, suggesting that he was a "Republican Plant" (see NY Times article below), or that voting machines were tampered with. State Republicans can barely stop laughing long enough to aim barbs through the press.

 

I think it's hilarious. I don't know if it's an indictment of the system or just a great example of little-guy-done-good, but at the very least it seems to be making a statement about good-old-boy political networks and how they react when challenged. However, it does seem to raise questions about suitability in candidates, not to mention underscoring the importance of voter turnout in "lesser" elections. Only ~170,000 votes were cast in this state-wide election (the state has a population of almost 4.6 million).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12greene.html?scp=1&sq=alvin%20greene&st=cse

[DJBruce]

The democrats screaming that this candidate was a republican plant have no ground to stand on. South Carolina uses an open primary so even if the republicans backed this guys campaign it would be perfectly legal, although it would be unsavory.

 

Jon Stewart did a piece on this last night.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/sc-democratic-primary-getting-weirder.html

 

FiveThirtyEight is suggesting that election fraud is to blame. Or perhaps people just not knowing who the candidates were at all.

[ecoli]

He won the primary in an election?

 

This seems more likely in a general election than a primary. During a general election, party identification rules outcomes. In a primary, people have to care enough to actually join the party and turn out to vote. You'd think they'd at least recognize candidates names from billboards and ads.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

South Carolina has open primaries, so you can vote for whichever party you want.

[Phi for All]

I think this is an indication of things to come for this fall. Incumbents and insiders beware. The Greene Party is coming, and it doesn't like politics as usual.

[JohnB]

Two things come to mind.

 

1. There is hope for America yet. Insanity is alive and well.

 

2. This ends forever the concept that nations with "non compulsory" voting have better informed electorates.

 

The only way this could get better is if SCs next Governor was "Aaron A. Aardvark".

 

On a more serious note, does this show that anti-incumbancy feelings are running way too high?

[DJBruce]

Apparently a majority of the precincts uses voting machines, which have a long history of malfunctions and errors. These machines, the ES&S iVotronic, have been banned by multiple states for being easy to tamper with. So it seems possible that someone might have been able to successfully hack the final vote totals. So the question becomes:

 

-Is Alvin Greene a brilliant computer programmer who secretly hacked an entire election?

-Or is DeMint stupid enough to hire someone to hack the primary for him?

[iNow]

On a more serious note, does this show that anti-incumbancy feelings are running way too high?

I would say so, yes. The anti-incumbency feelings have been stoked for so long that it's become a bit irrational.

[DJBruce]

I would say so, yes. The anti-incumbency feelings have been stoked for so long that it's become a bit irrational.

 

For all the hype around anti-incumbency feelings it seems like it is not causing an significant results. So far 215 out of the 217 houses members seeking reelection have been able to win their primaries. This is consistent with recent records.

 

Number of Incumbents to loss in Primaries

2010 2

2008 3

2006 2

2004 2

2002 8

 

Although this does not mean all the incumbents will win their general elections. It seems at least during primary season the anti-incumbent sentiments is more hype than actual results.

[iNow]

Thanks for the numbers. The context is much appreciated.

 

Anti-incumbency!!! OMG!!!! TWO... yes... 2 as in one plus one... people lost their seats.

 

 

 

We'll see what November brings. Wake me up when September ends.

[JohnB]

Sorry, still not sure if I understand your system properly.

 

Aren't the "Primaries" sort of internal elections where the people of each party decide who their Candidate will be at the General Elections?

 

Say it's a Democrat held position, the Democrat primaries are to see if the incumbant is going to the polls in defence of his seat while the Republican primaries are to decide who will challenge for the seat?

 

So a sitting Democrat would only have to worry about anti incumbancy within his own party. Anti incumbancy by the swinging voters and Republicans wouldn't come into it. Their votes only enter into the equation at the General election, don't they?

 

Or am I not understanding the system properly?

[iNow]

John - My sense is that you understand it fine.

 

During closed primaries, the anti-incumbency threat is always within their own party.

During the general election, the anti-incumbency threat is from any and all challengers who may be on the ticket beside them.

Edited June 16, 2010 by iNow

[DJBruce]

Yes the primaries are elections held to narrow down the number of candidates so that in the general election only a few choices appear. In the US there are basically two types of primaries: open primaries and closed primaries. In an open primary a person goes to their local polling place and then asks for either a Democratic or a Republican ballot, and then votes amoungst the candidates for who they believe should run in the general elections. In an open primary it does not matter if you have party affiliation. In a closed election only people can only vote for the party they are affiliated with.

 

So for example in an open primary for a senate seat there is a ballot with a list of Republicans and a ballot with a list of Democrats that wish to represent their party in the general election. Since the primary is open republicans, independents, and democrats can vote on either ballot. So an incumbent Democrat would have to worry about anti-incumbent feelings from fellow Democrats, indpendents, and cross over Republicans.

 

So in contrast if this was a closed primary the incumbent Democrat would only have to worry about anti-incumbent feelings from fellow registered Democrats. Which is what you described in your post.

[swansont]

Sorry, still not sure if I understand your system properly.

 

Aren't the "Primaries" sort of internal elections where the people of each party decide who their Candidate will be at the General Elections?

 

Say it's a Democrat held position, the Democrat primaries are to see if the incumbant is going to the polls in defence of his seat while the Republican primaries are to decide who will challenge for the seat?

 

So a sitting Democrat would only have to worry about anti incumbancy within his own party. Anti incumbancy by the swinging voters and Republicans wouldn't come into it. Their votes only enter into the equation at the General election, don't they?

 

Or am I not understanding the system properly?

 

The basics yes, but it's actually more complex than that. Sometimes you have primaries in which you need not be registered with the party affiliation in order to vote. I recall the '92 election in Oregon in which I was permitted to vote in the Republican presidential primary because it was open (to independents, at least), but not the Democrat primary, because they limited it to registered party members. In Virginia, you do not register with a party affiliation at all; if there are primaries for both major parties you can only vote in one.

 

So there is potential in instances such as this to skew the results; you can vote for a primary candidate despite having no intention to vote for that candidate in the general election.

[JohnB]

I know this is getting OT but,

 

In an open primary, what is to stop the Republicans from getting some of their people to vote for the biggest dead head on the Democrat ticket? Thereby ensuring a very poor Democrat candidate goes to the General election?

 

Done right, with a good enough "machine" backing you, you could influence who your opponent is at the general election. Why isn't the system rorted?

[DJBruce]

I know this is getting OT but,

 

In an open primary, what is to stop the Republicans from getting some of their people to vote for the biggest dead head on the Democrat ticket? Thereby ensuring a very poor Democrat candidate goes to the General election?

 

Done right, with a good enough "machine" backing you, you could influence who your opponent is at the general election. Why isn't the system rorted?

 

Technically nothing is stopping the republicans from doing that. However, if a party were to attempt to sabotage the oppositions candidate they must be careful that they have enough people voting in their own elections so that the opposite party cannot sabotage their candidate. Also my guess is if a party formally did this the bad press and publicity would much out-way and gains they were to get.

[Pangloss]

And good luck convincing 100,000 people to vote in the opposition party's primary without the media finding out about it.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Time Magazine has an interesting piece out today about the candidate, who suggested to the reporter that he should be Time's Man of the Year!

 

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1997061-1,00.html

 

"I am the best candidate for the United States Senate in South Carolina," he says, hitting his talking points, as he is apt to do. "And I am also the best person to be TIME magazine's Man of the Year." He is speaking now, between trips to the kitchen, in the living room, while his 81-year-old father James Sr., barefoot under a flannel blanket, dozes on the couch.

 

I enjoyed this bit as well:

 

Greene's election has become the whodunit of the political year, with a formal protest filed with the state Democratic Party, a legal challenge before the Federal Election Commission and endless local chatter about how a man with no real campaign, who gets information "mainly" from television, defeated the party-endorsed standard bearer, a retired judge who had printed 10,000 bumper stickers, logged 17,000 miles crisscrossing the state in his hatchback and paid for 220,000 autodial phone calls before election day.

 

Hm... 220,000 dreaded robocalls... margin of victory 30,000... I think we're on to something here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The Democratic Party in South Carolina itself upheld Greene's nomination today, with an overwhelming vote from the party's state executive board essentially certifying the vote. The board heard objections from state officials, such as the complaints about voting machines and Republican spies, but rejected them as assumptions.

 

http://www.live5news.com/Global/story.asp?S=12669678

[rigney]

Hey!!, best I can recall; we had a couple guys come out of Illinois who made the transition from mediocre, to prominance, to president; and no one knew who they were either. Don't remember their names, but some years ago, the first one dreamed up some silly assed expression of, "Four score and seven years ago", etc. etc. etc.

Don't know what this new feller has in mind, but I'm sure he'll think of somethin'. Sure hope he has better luck too.

Edited June 24, 2010 by rigney

[Moontanman]

South Carolina? Surprise at anything that happens there? Until recently the age of sexual consent was about 3, you could drive an automobile before you could count. Being a judge only required you have low friends in high places, experience with the law other than breaking it was not a prerequisite. In another 100 years the state might get it's act together but even as southern states go SC is a bad joke...

[Genecks]

I'm not for a military state nor country, but from studying history, I've often appreciated the idea of the government having people with military experience rather than a bunch of philosophers and rich prodigies. There have to be people who know how to take action.

 

What if Nathaneal Greene had taken place of George Washington?