Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Looks like the SC Dem primary voters picked an out-of-work Air Force vet who spent no money over the establishment candidate. Whazzup?

Looks like DeMint can rest easy now.

Ivytalk wrote:Looks like the SC Dem primary voters picked an out-of-work Air Force vet who spent no money over the establishment candidate. Whazzup?

Looks like DeMint can rest easy now.

If there is one thing we can say about politics in South Carolina, is that wackiness knows no political boundaries




DeMint would have nothing to worry about no matter who the dems run. It would have been very interesting if Lindsey had been up for election this year. My guess is that he would have been defecating at least 10 times a day.

.....and the GOP damn near nominated an Indian American female for the governor (49% of the vote) with a runoff coming. What is SC politics coming to? She's not white, old, fat, or male.

ASUG8 wrote:.....and the GOP damn near nominated an Indian American female for the governor (49% of the vote) with a runoff coming. What is SC politics coming to? She's not white, old, fat, or male.

But rumor has it, she is easy

At least in Arizona, only the Republicans are crazy

Ivytalk wrote:Looks like the SC Dem primary voters picked an out-of-work Air Force vet who spent no money over the establishment candidate. Whazzup?

Looks like DeMint can rest easy now.

I thought DeMint wasn't going to run.

OL FU wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:.....and the GOP damn near nominated an Indian American female for the governor (49% of the vote) with a runoff coming. What is SC politics coming to? She's not white, old, fat, or male.

But rumor has it, she is easy

Rumor and documented photographs. I have a source....

dbackjon wrote:At least in Arizona, only the Republicans are crazy

One words disproves that...

Napolitano

dbackjon wrote:At least in Arizona, only the Republicans are crazy

Terry Goddard?

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:At least in Arizona, only the Republicans are crazy

Terry Goddard?

He may not be your cup of tea (in more ways than one), but he is not bat shit crazy (nor is Janet).

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:


Terry Goddard?

He may not be your cup of tea (in more ways than one), but he is not bat **** crazy (nor is Janet).

Just incompetent.

dbackjon wrote:At least in Arizona, only the Republicans are crazy

Janet Napolitano, et al, prove otherwise.

Oooops! I see you beat me to the punch, Colonel.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

He may not be your cup of tea (in more ways than one), but he is not bat **** crazy (nor is Janet).

Just incompetent.

Both were/are very good Attorney Generals.
J-Nap was the best Governor in the past 35 years

Hate to bring up a topic that's been dead for multiple days, but those of you who know me (only a few) know I'm a statistics geek so I follow things like this very closely.

Something is up in South Carolina. Seriously. This guy did no campaigning besides paying a $10,000+ check to register. That's it. No website, no signs, no television ads, no e-mails, no calls, no knocking on the doors, no nothing.

fivethiryeight.com analysis:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/ ... olina.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/ ... irder.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something's simply not right. The only argument I could make for Greene winning is one that is presented in the articles above. Rawl isn't well known in the state, and among those who know him, his favorable ratings are poor. So when it came to a race that most voters didn't know either candidate, they selected Greene because a) his name appeared higher in alphabetical order; b) they had heard of Rawl and didn't like him (small percentage of voters, mind you); and c) black voters recognized the surname "GreenE" (emphasis intended) as being that of a black person.

Keeping an eye on it just to see what happens in any potential legal grievances. You don't want fraud or illegal activity to allow someone to win a primary, but I'm also weary of throwing out results just because the person who was "supposed" to win didn't.

Aside from the statistical analysis... I want to know where he got the $10,000 to get his name on the ballot... cause im not buying that a unemployed guy would waste 10,000 in savings on a race he has no shot at winning. Someone gave him the money to run.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote: Just incompetent.

Both were/are very good Attorney Generals.
J-Nap was the best Governor in the past 35 years

So, being cream of the "crap" means something now?

And puh-LEASE....Rose Mofford and Bruce Babbitt were much better governors than Janet Napoireno ever was.

edit: I've spent more hours than I care to admit talking with/at Terry Goddard. I wouldn't trust him to get my drycleaning without fucking it up, let alone manage the affairs of an entire STATE.

In listening to accounts of this the thing I've heard that concerns me most is that he had to pay a $10,000 filing fee to be a candidate. I mean, how is it supposed to be a situation in which anybody who otherwise meets the requirements for an office to run for it can theoretically run for it if there is a requirement for a $10,000 filing fee? That automatically makes it difficult for somebody who doesn't have a lot of disposable money to run.

JohnStOnge wrote:In listening to accounts of this the thing I've heard that concerns me most is that he had to pay a $10,000 filing fee to be a candidate. I mean, how is it supposed to be a situation in which anybody who otherwise meets the requirements for an office to run for it can theoretically run for it if there is a requirement for a $10,000 filing fee? That automatically makes it difficult for somebody who doesn't have a lot of disposable money to run.

no kidding. The SC fee is ridiculous. Im sure other states are just as ridiculous. In NH it costs $1,000 to file for President, $100 for US Senator, $50 for US Representative, $100 for governor, $10 for State Senator and $2 for State Representative. The fee is waived if you have anywhere from 5 to 200 voter petitions depending on the office.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:Hate to bring up a topic that's been dead for multiple days, but those of you who know me (only a few) know I'm a statistics geek so I follow things like this very closely.

Something is up in South Carolina. Seriously. This guy did no campaigning besides paying a $10,000+ check to register. That's it. No website, no signs, no television ads, no e-mails, no calls, no knocking on the doors, no nothing.

fivethiryeight.com analysis:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/ ... olina.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/ ... irder.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something's simply not right. The only argument I could make for Greene winning is one that is presented in the articles above. Rawl isn't well known in the state, and among those who know him, his favorable ratings are poor. So when it came to a race that most voters didn't know either candidate, they selected Greene because a) his name appeared higher in alphabetical order; b) they had heard of Rawl and didn't like him (small percentage of voters, mind you); and c) black voters recognized the surname "GreenE" (emphasis intended) as being that of a black person.

Keeping an eye on it just to see what happens in any potential legal grievances. You don't want fraud or illegal activity to allow someone to win a primary, but I'm also weary of throwing out results just because the person who was "supposed" to win didn't.

Thanks for the excellent links to "fivethirtyeight." I'm a stats nut, too.

Does everyone realize that South Carolina is an "open primary" state? In other words, you can legally vote in whatever primary your wish, regardless of your party affiliation. This kind of takes the excitement out of the headline.

California voters just passed a ballot initiative to allow for open primaries. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the land of fruits, nuts, and Mexican socialists.

native wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:Hate to bring up a topic that's been dead for multiple days, but those of you who know me (only a few) know I'm a statistics geek so I follow things like this very closely.

Something is up in South Carolina. Seriously. This guy did no campaigning besides paying a $10,000+ check to register. That's it. No website, no signs, no television ads, no e-mails, no calls, no knocking on the doors, no nothing.

fivethiryeight.com analysis:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/ ... olina.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/ ... irder.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something's simply not right. The only argument I could make for Greene winning is one that is presented in the articles above. Rawl isn't well known in the state, and among those who know him, his favorable ratings are poor. So when it came to a race that most voters didn't know either candidate, they selected Greene because a) his name appeared higher in alphabetical order; b) they had heard of Rawl and didn't like him (small percentage of voters, mind you); and c) black voters recognized the surname "GreenE" (emphasis intended) as being that of a black person.

Keeping an eye on it just to see what happens in any potential legal grievances. You don't want fraud or illegal activity to allow someone to win a primary, but I'm also weary of throwing out results just because the person who was "supposed" to win didn't.

Thanks for the excellent links to "fivethirtyeight." I'm a stats nut, too.

Does everyone realize that South Carolina is an "open primary" state? In other words, you can legally vote in whatever primary your wish, regardless of your party affiliation. This kind of takes the excitement out of the headline.

California voters just passed a ballot initiative to allow for open primaries. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the land of fruits, nuts, and Mexican socialists.

Early on the thought was GOP voters switched over to screw the Dems. But with the hotly contested GOP Gubernatorial primary and the fact that the GOP Senator is a virtual shoe in regardless who the Dem nominee is its very unlikely GOP voters were significantly responsible.

UNHWildCats wrote:

native wrote:
Thanks for the excellent links to "fivethirtyeight." I'm a stats nut, too.

Does everyone realize that South Carolina is an "open primary" state? In other words, you can legally vote in whatever primary your wish, regardless of your party affiliation. This kind of takes the excitement out of the headline.

California voters just passed a ballot initiative to allow for open primaries. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the land of fruits, nuts, and Mexican socialists.

Early on the thought was GOP voters switched over to screw the Dems. But with the hotly contested GOP Gubernatorial primary and the fact that the GOP Senator is a virtual shoe in regardless who the Dem nominee is its very unlikely GOP voters were significantly responsible.

OK, you're right, 'cats. The GOP likely had nothing to do with it.

And it is exciting to me, after all, that the Dems fvcked themselves in South Carolina.

native wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: Early on the thought was GOP voters switched over to screw the Dems. But with the hotly contested GOP Gubernatorial primary and the fact that the GOP Senator is a virtual shoe in regardless who the Dem nominee is its very unlikely GOP voters were significantly responsible.

OK, you're right, 'cats. The GOP likely had nothing to do with it.

And it is exciting to me, after all, that the Dems fvcked themselves in South Carolina.

Im saying GOP voters didnt have anything to do with it. However I wont rule out the GOP providing the guy with the $ to get on the ballot and then for them screwinbg around with the voting machines.

UNHWildCats wrote:

native wrote:
OK, you're right, 'cats. The GOP likely had nothing to do with it.

And it is exciting to me, after all, that the Dems fvcked themselves in South Carolina.

Im saying GOP voters didnt have anything to do with it. However I wont rule out the GOP providing the guy with the $ to get on the ballot and then for them screwinbg around with the voting machines.

Hot damn! They must be reeeeeaaaaally good to be able to screw around with ONLY one candidate's votes.

native wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: Im saying GOP voters didnt have anything to do with it. However I wont rule out the GOP providing the guy with the $ to get on the ballot and then for them screwinbg around with the voting machines.

Hot damn! They must be reeeeeaaaaally good to be able to screw around with ONLY one candidate's votes.

[youtube][/youtube]

Classic stuff, per the usual, from Mr. Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-j ... na-primary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;