And in North Carolina, some GOP hacker thought it would be a whole lot of fund to rig the e-voting outcome so that a virtual unknown, Alvin Greene, would become the Democratic nominee for Senate? Maybe? Probably?

What are the odds?

Ernest,

First, the race that you are taking about took place in South Carolina, not North Carolina.

Second, you failed to note the fact that this was a race between TWO virtual unknowns. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm, found that Rawl had just 4% positive name recognition.

"When we polled the South Carolina Senate race two weeks before the primary Rawl had only 4% favorable name recognition with Democrats in the state."

http://publicpolicypolli...06/greene-situation.html

Why are we to believe that the other UNKNOWN, i.e. Vic Rawl, should have won this race? Are we to believe that he was a shoe-in because he was the Democratic establishment candidate? Establishment candidates alway win?

On a positive note, I just read that Obama is refusing to extend Bush tax-cuts for the wealthy. That's a meaty bone to throw. Perhaps that alone can excite the liberal base enough to keep the Democratic majority, and we'll get a second-half of the presidency that isn't quite as fearful of GOP flamethrowing.

Mark da Shark said:

you failed to note the fact that this was a race between TWO virtual unknowns. Public Policy Polling, a Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm, found that Rawl had just 4% positive name recognition.

Well, sorta. That was among Dems only, and doesn't take into account his name recognition among those who had no particular opinion, positive or negative. Or the public poll that showed Rawl within 7 points of DeMint (who also had high negatives) in a head-to-head match-up. Or the fact that Rawl had hundreds of volunteers, hundreds of thousand of dollars and actually showed up to campaign at some 80 events across the state (unlike Greene who had no money, no volunteers, no campaign website, did no campaigning at all and had NO name recognition at all, unlike the four-term state legislator and former circuit court judge.)

But far more importantly...

Why are we to believe that the other UNKNOWN, i.e. Vic Rawl, should have won this race? Are we to believe that he was a shoe-in because he was the Democratic establishment candidate? Establishment candidates alway win?

No. You are not "to believe" anything in elections. You are to be shown. Unfortunately, while there was an 11% point disparity in favor of Rawl on the viewable paper-based absentee ballots over Greene, versus the 100% unverifiable electronic votes cast on Election Day, Rawl's camp was not allowed --- by the state's Republican election commission --- to examine even one such machine, anywhere in the state before any evidence of either malfeasance or malfunction was destroyed.

So while there is no known explanation for Greene's machine-reported, unverified "win", there is no evidence for either it, or Rawl's reported "loss".

That you don't seem to give a damn about that irrefutable fact is disturbing, but illustrative.

None the less, if Greene ends up being reported as the "winner" by SC's 100% faith-based e-voting machines against Republican Jim DeMint in November, and you'd like my help in challenging those unverifiable results (or any others), I'll be happy to help, and I'll accept your apology in advance. You're welcome.

Saturday, I read a tweet saying that the Democratic Party was suing the Houston"s county tax collector/voter registrar regarding throwing out votes over false addresses and refusals to put drivers license #'s on registration forms, tho the tax accessor found drivers license #s on the state tax information. The county's tax accessor is also the voter registration official.

So there may be some more caging going on in Texas.

Brad: "Well, sorta. That was among Dems only, and doesn't take into account his name recognition among those who had no particular opinion, positive or negative."

Of course Dems only, we are taking about a Democratic primary.

"Vic Rawl may on paper have clearly been the superior candidate but he wasn't known much beyond political insider circles. When we polled the South Carolina Senate race two weeks before the primary Rawl had only 4% favorable name recognition with Democrats in the state. We could make up just about any name and ask their favorability on a poll and get 4% so that more or less amounts to zero name recognition."

http://publicpolicypolli...06/greene-situation.html

According to PPP, I could have polled 4%, and no one in the state has ever heard of me.

Brad wrote: "Or the public poll that showed Rawl within 7 points of DeMint (who also had high negatives) in a head-to-head match-up."

Is this a public poll?

"According to him, the Rawl campaign had a poll conducted ten days before the primary looking ahead to the general election in November.

"It only had us trailing Jim DeMint 50-43," said Ludwig. He say the campaign sent out 220,000 robo-calls and another 300,000 emails about Rawl's campaign."

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

Brad: ".....unlike the four-term state legislator and former circuit court judge."

You are comparing old apples to old oranges. Rawl hasn't served as a State Representative for close to 30 YEARS.

South Carolina currently has 124 State Representatives. How many did they have in 1980? Rawl was one of a ONE HUNDRED and what? What percentage of voters from HIS DISRTICT are left from THIRTY YEARS AGO to cast a vote from him in 2010?

I would agree that Rawl may be known in his district, but there in nothing to support an argument that he should be well known statewide.

Brad: "Rawl's camp was not allowed --- by the state's Republican election commission --- to examine even one such machine, anywhere in the state before any evidence of either malfeasance or malfunction was destroyed."

And the Democratic Party denied him a new primary. I watched his protest on steaming video, he didn't even come close to making his case.

Brad: "So while there is no known explanation for Greene's machine-reported, unverified "win", there is no evidence for either it, or Rawl's reported "loss"."

Considering that you can't make the case that Rawl was a well known candidate in the race, we can make the same statement about Rawl. There is no reason to believe that Rawl should have won that race. It was a tossup between two unknowns.

Brad: "That you don't seem to give a damn about that irrefutable fact is disturbing, but illustrative."

First, what "irrefutable fact"?

Second, now you are trying to tell me tat my calls to my Represntatives to have these machines outlawed proves that I don't give a damn. Really?

Brad: "and you'd like my help in challenging those unverifiable results (or any others), I'll be happy to help, and I'll accept your apology in advance. You're welcome."

I listen to Coast to Coast AM at night --- I wake up a lot due to insomnia, and it's the program that comes in the clearest. You can always tell when the GOP decides it's time to ramp up the fear before elections: last night, it was an hour devoted to how Obama and the Dems are going to take away gun rights and repeal the Second Amendment. (This was based on some cockamamie torture of logic revolving around Chicago's gun laws. Y'know, Obama's from Chicago! Oops I mean Kenya...) This program appeals to the fringe right and they are experts at ginning up fear and outrage.

Jerome "Jerry" Corsi, the mastermind behind the "Vietnam Veterans for Truth" campaign that killed John Kerry's presidential run, is a frequent guest. Last week Jerry put on his economics expert hat (one I'm pretty sure is much too big for him), and spent an hour spinning on about how Obama and the Dems were going to steal everyone's money, their underwear, and their little dogs, too.

I hate it when political season rolls around. It gets awful boring when I have to turn these raving nutjobs off and listen to the BBC Overnight Service.

C2CAM is owned by Premier Radio Networks/Clear Channel Communications, who also own Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and an odd stellium of other programs including, surprisingly, Randi Rhodes. It's clear they're doing their best to hijack the airwaves and kick up the anxiety in their listeners. My question is why do the listeners think the Republicans can protect them? They've done a poor job of it so far, since there always seems to be more to be frightened by.

Too bad liberals are too damned moral and harder to herd than a pack o'cats --- we could be doing something like this, too, y'know. Our efforts, though, would be more toward reassurance, teamwork, and the promise of a bright new day. Too bad they're better at it than we are.

The dirty tricks have started already by the media reporting regularly that the polls are inaccurate. If the polls are inaccurate then there is nothing to compare the election results to. If no one has faith in the polls then the election fixers can create and results they want and no one would believe election integrity folks that there might be something wrong with flipped elections. If the polls are inaccurate what's to say the elections are inaccurate.