Dem Primary Winner in South Carolina

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

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%)

[hi_im_god]

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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.

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?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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.