Alvin Greene: Who the H--

The Mad Hatter

So the democratic party in South Carolina seem to have reached into even deeper recesses of obscurity than the ones Sarah Palin was plucked from two years ago and pulled out this weird, weird candidate for the senate. As far as I can tell, nothing whatsoever is known about this guy, other than the facts that he grabbed 58% of the vote, despite having virtually no visible campaign - no website and not even any yard signs. He claims to have campaigned by word of mouth and door-to-door canvassing. This seems odd, given he has no personal charisma and doesn't seem to have any policies.

He also has an outstanding felony for obscenity, and he's unemployed. As far as I can tell, these are virtually all the facts that are known about him right now.

Quizzed on news shows, he also seems to lack any sort of policy or even the ability to answer questions. In his interview with Keith Olbermann, he seemed to need a prompt to answer every question put to him, including (and I'm not kidding) "Thanks for your time tonight." (Watch that interview, even if you hate Olbermann. I've never seen anything like it.)

He said in an interview with the Washington Post:

"I'm the Democratic Party nominee. I mean, I mean, the people have spoken. The people of South Carolina have spoken. The people of South Carolina have spoken. We have to be pro-South Carolina. The people of South Carolina have spoken. We have to be pro-South Carolina."

That something is very odd here seems to me beyond doubt. But the suggested explanations seem as absurd as the idea of his election in the first place. The house majority whip Jim Clyburn thinks he's a plant, and has called for an investigation, but precisely why anyone would bother when DeMint is a shoe-in is less clear. His Wikipedia page suggests two further reasons: that his surname is common among African-Americans so they may have voted for him without looking at his policies, and that his name appeared alphabetically above that of his rival Vic Rawl, but surely these two facts could not have garnered him a few per cent of the vote. Certainly not sixty!

So, I don't know. I honestly don't know what to make of this candidate. So I throw it open here: what do people think?

Mjollnir

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

So the democratic party in South Carolina seem to have reached into even deeper recesses of obscurity than the ones Sarah Palin was plucked from two years ago and pulled out this weird, weird candidate for the senate. As far as I can tell, nothing whatsoever is known about this guy, other than the facts that he grabbed 58% of the vote, despite having virtually no visible campaign - no website and not even any yard signs. He claims to have campaigned by word of mouth and door-to-door canvassing. This seems odd, given he has no personal charisma and doesn't seem to have any policies.

He also has an outstanding felony for obscenity, and he's unemployed. As far as I can tell, these are virtually all the facts that are known about him right now.

Quizzed on news shows, he also seems to lack any sort of policy or even the ability to answer questions. In his interview with Keith Olbermann, he seemed to need a prompt to answer every question put to him, including (and I'm not kidding) "Thanks for your time tonight." (Watch that interview, even if you hate Olbermann. I've never seen anything like it.)

He said in an interview with the Washington Post:



That something is very odd here seems to me beyond doubt. But the suggested explanations seem as absurd as the idea of his election in the first place. The house majority whip Jim Clyburn thinks he's a plant, and has called for an investigation, but precisely why anyone would bother when DeMint is a shoe-in is less clear. His Wikipedia page suggests two further reasons: that his surname is common among African-Americans so they may have voted for him without looking at his policies, and that his name appeared alphabetically above that of his rival Vic Rawl, but surely these two facts could not have garnered him a few per cent of the vote. Certainly not sixty!

So, I don't know. I honestly don't know what to make of this candidate. So I throw it open here: what do people think?

It's pretty obvious that he's most likely a plant. Just wait for the money trail to clear up.

scallioneater

The Democrats could run Jesus Christ as their candidate and they still wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in South Carolina. The reason Greene won is that the Democrats had already given up on winning a Senate seat in South Carolina before the election.

The result is newsworthy, but only in the sense of "dog bites man", not in the sense that this has any national implications. We already knew this election cycle is going to be tough for Democratic candidates.

Mjollnir

scallioneater wrote: »

The Democrats could run Jesus Christ as their candidate and they still wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in South Carolina. The reason Greene won is that the Democrats had already given up on winning a Senate seat in South Carolina before the election.

The result is newsworthy, but only in the sense of "dog bites man", not in the sense that this has any national implications. We already knew this election cycle is going to be tough for Democratic candidates.

No, not really.

An unemployed man, living with his parents, with pending felony charges, magically comes up w/$10,400 to register as a candidate and he doesn't campaign.

There's fish in the wind.

scallioneater

Mjollnir wrote: »

No, not really.

An unemployed man, living with his parents, with pending felony charges, magically comes up w/$10,400 to register as a candidate and he doesn't campaign.

There's fish in the wind.

I don't deny that someone on the Republican side bankrolled this guy, but that's what you expect in politics. What you don't expect is that the 'official' Democratic candidate only had a 4% 'favorable' polling among Democrats.

http://www.live5news.com/Global/story.asp?S=12637260

No serious Democratic contender was willing to throw their campaign warchests and reputation into an obvious losing proposition. They left it to a minnow (Rawls) and he lost to an unknown (Greene).

You can't blame the Republicans because Rawls was a lousy candidate. Also, whether Rawls or Greene won, both would and/or will lose in the General Election.

I think it is a little breath of fresh air to not have an apparachik running for a D.C. post. I'd vote for him just because he is not juiced, might make the others a little less crooked.

Amerika

So it’s the Republican’s fault that Democrats elected this guy to represent them in the race for Senate? :pac: and I repeat :pac:

(Looking at his credentials, looks like he would fit right in with Congress.)

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

So it’s the Republican’s fault that Democrats elected this guy to represent them in the race for Senate? :pac: and I repeat :pac:

(Looking at his credentials, looks like he would fit right in with Congress.)

No, you're the only one even hinting at that.

The Mad Hatter

Amerika wrote: »

So it’s the Republican’s fault that Democrats elected this guy to represent them in the race for Senate? :pac: and I repeat :pac:

Well, I'm sure you can come up with a more plausible mechanism by which someone can win the candidacy without mounting a campaign.

Amerika

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Well, I'm sure you can come up with a more plausible mechanism by which someone can win the candidacy without mounting a campaign.

I almost wish it was the Republicans who were responsible for the night they drove old Dixie down. That would mean the Democrats were foolish enough to fall for the most lamebrained maneuvers ever of political tomfoolery. A tactic anticipating that Democrats were daft and wouldn't even bother vetting one of their own candidates, and that voters were too foolish to not vote for a unqualified candidate to represent their party (oh wait, that part is true no matter what). Seems to me like Obama’s kind of people.

I’ve looked at reports, and I can’t find one situation in which someone was holding a gun to voters heads urging them to vote for Greene. And I laugh at the idea that if Republicans did have something to do with his filing, it is soooooo bad while the Obama administration bribing candidates not to run is just considered hardball politics.

Come on, it all boils down to the fact that the entire state Democratic Party and voters acted stupidly in this matter. I'm pretty sure they won't ever repeat such a boneheaded system of events.

Overheal

It really doesnt matter if he was a GOP plant or not. And Im not saying one way or the other.

The fact remains he still got 60% of the vote.

sceptre

I've deleted six posts from this thread that were almost entirely or entirely personalisation of the discussion aimed at fellow forum members rather than actually addressing the topic. Formal reminders issued by PM (aka cards) to everyone involved. Not useful, not permitted.

/mod

Amerika

The Democratic State Committee voted overwhelmingly to turn down Rawl’s appeal challenging the results of the primary election.

The democrats should now just let it play out and use it as a learning experience.

Instead they will probably bribe Greene with a job to drop out of the race (Democrats have been known to do that sort of thing ). Greene will probably hold out until an offer is made that he feels compensates him adequately in order to drop (he may not be as ignorant as the Left makes him out to be). Personally, I’d think the democrats shouldn’t even bother given that the race already appears lost regardless of who they run. But watch, they probably still will attempt the bribe, hoping to save face and not have this guy run. And Greene will let the agreement slip out somehow, causing more illegal election shenanigans to control the media and waste our time.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38704.html