Dem Primary Winner in South Carolina
 

An excellent candiate has won the Democratic primary in South Carolina for the US Senate. The big positive about this guy is that he is political outsider. He spent virtually no money on his campaign. He's just a regualr guy. It's great that the bright Democrats of South Carolina had the good sense to nominate a regular guy. This guy doesn't seem to have any negative qualities.

I guess I could come up with a few negative things about this candidate if I was going to nit-pick. He is unemployed and he lives with his parents. In addition, "a criminal complaint was sworn out against him last year for allegedly showing obscene photos to a South Carolina college student and suggesting they go to her dorm room."

Aside from that, he looks like a great candidate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl2500

that's awesome.

dem's getting owned in the south is no headline but it's still hilarious the voter's in this primary sleepwalked a repulican prank into their nominee.

credit where it's due. well done.

What was the vote count? 7-4?

Because South Carolina is dominated by Republicans, you see.

Here was the vote count:

Alvin Greene: 99,970 (58%)

Vic Rawl: 69.572 (41%)

and 340,000 for jim demint.

face it. outside of being black, alvin greene would beat vic rawl again if he had an (r) after his name on the ballot in s carolina.

that takes nothing away from the hilarity of what they managed to pull off here but it's not like there was any chance demint was losing regardless of the nominee.

30% of SC is black

just sayin...

Why did Democrats vote for Alvin Green over Vic Rawl? I don't get it. I'm sure you are right that neither one of them will beat DeMint in November. But regardless, why would Democrats vote for an unemployed guy that lives at home that has felony charges pending against him?

because they're stupid? they didn't pay attention and voted anyway?

don't expect me to defend this.

I think we have some of the same thing going on here in California. Some of the people that get elected, especially to city council seats, are terrible. The voters will often times vote for a totally unqualified person.

nah. we're waaaaaay smarter here in california.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Rocco_(politician)

that said, i was pleased to see fiorina get the nod here for senate. she's no alvin greene but campbell would have been a far tougher opponent for boxer.

good job on whitman though. i was rooting for poizner.

Why would you want a life-long politician like Boxer over a succesful business-woman like Fiorina? I don't get it.

When this country was orginally founded, serving in office was something that a person would do to give back to society. It made sense the way things were done back then. They would take the wisest and most succesful people and elect them to office. If they were going to elect a mayor, they would try to get the wisest and most respected man in the town to be the mayor. I think that is much better than what they often times do nowadays. Nowadays they often times elect a career politician that never accomplished anything in the real world.

because like the majority of californians, i'm pro-choice and fiorina isn't.

and because fiorina doesn't believe people on the "no fly" list should be restricted from buying guns.

those are 2 actual difference's that would keep me from voting from her.

not that i'm in love with boxer.

but i might have been tempted by a pro-choice, "i can't believe what i'm hearing" (during the debate when fiorina wouldn't oppose gun right's for people on the "no fly" list) tom campbell.

her story includes being fired by hewlett packard. and shipping jobs to china beforehand. there are plenty of campaign issues.

this is more political handicapping than endorsing the incumbent. i think the republican party in california is more aligned with public opinion in s. carolina than it is with public opinion in california. hell, i think the palin endorsement of fiorina helps boxer more than fiorina in this state.

i could be wrong. but i'd lay odds the national republican party puts no significant money in this race.

Why would you care who is pro-choice? It's a non-issue for a Senator. If we were talking about Fiorina vs Boxer for the US Spureme Court, then it would obviously be a real issue.

because she gets to vote on supreme court nominee's in the senate.

and federal legislation designed to narrow or undercut roe v. wade.

Fair enough.

Alvin is a space-filler or something. It will be interesting to see what the heck falls out of there.

Edit: this Mr. Green thing is getting very interesting (go watch any of the TV interviews with this poor man and his lawyer). The guy is unemployed, but submitted a $10,400 filing fee? There are also two other races in SC where "Dems" with no money, no experience, no apparent campaigning won. Have the famous GOP burglars turned into funding fake candidates into races, to try and ensure the GOP candidate wins?


The real fun over the next 4 months will be Sharron Angle. Let that whacko loose!

Sad, birther Orly didn't do better. That would have made for an awesome election runup :D

One big reason this country is screwed up is because people vote for or against people based on abortion when it is about the millionth biggest issue that we face.

These aren't CEO-type jobs. Those are usually dictatorship situations. These are jobs where one needs to gather a consensus, negotiate, and give n' take. Honestly, I don't think these are jobs that fit these people's skill set. I don't think it fits Doctors either. Perfectionism is useful in medicine, but useless in politics. That's why you see that Senator from Oklahoma making an ass out of himself.

That is a good point. Just because a person was a successful CEO, it doesn't mean they will make a good Senator. But by the same token, who else do we vote for? I would have to choose a successful person and hope they could make the transition rather than picking a person that has never succeeded at anything.

I actually don't know what can be expected. Pretty much you've got a 50/50 split in many states (especially on fiscal issues.) This is a Democracy that doesn't involve a main tribe. It's not like we have real similiar blood, and we want to spend money for the good of that blood. So, if you don't like the Gov't here, then you're likely to hate the Gov't more than if you were at least part of a common tribe that money was being spent on. So, in a 2 party Democracy that is often 50/50, this Democracy is in no way winner take all. The side in the minority has a big say. So, please tell me how a successful business person fits in. They aren't used to having to deal with having almost 50% of everyone being against a project they want to do. You better really like the issues, because you're gunna be fighting over them a lot. Most of the time, business people are real interested in making money, and not paying much tax on that money. Do they really care that much about all the issues they're gunna have to deal with?...... No.... Who does? Political junkies do. Do I really think these 2 business women in California care about Politics that much? I'm almost certain Meg Whitman doesn't. Fiorino might, but she's not nearly as smart. Maybe "combined" these 2 could do one of these jobs well. These jobs really need people who love politics. Not just people who don't want to pay taxes. There are many more problems that they will need to work on. Notice I didn't say solve. If they don't really love Politics, then it won't take long to see that.