Brad, it looks like you have the state of South Carolina all locked up! Isn't 100% unverifiable E-voting wonderful?!?!?!

According to Public Policy Polling, a Democratic Party-affiliated polling group, Rawl had "only 4% favorable name recognition".

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

This appears to be a race between an unknown and an almost unknown. Why do people consider Rawl to be a "well known" candidate, and this was his race to lose?

I would vote for you!

Brad wrote: "I've officially changed my name to Brad Friedmane and am hereby announcing my candidacy for President of the United States in 2012."

Even though Al Greene (not to be confused with the singer) has worked in SC, I would suggest changing your name to Gene Kelly. That name seems to work better.

"Over the past two decades, Mr. Kelly, 81, a gadfly who barely campaigns, has won almost 9 million votes in 14 contests. His critics attribute his success to being sometimes mistaken for the movie star who died in 1996. And now, they fear he'll drag Mr. Noriega, the likely nominee, into a costly and distracting runoff."

"1990 primary: Gets 64 percent of the vote to defeat respected state appellate judge Fred Biery for Democratic nomination for Texas Supreme Court, Place 1."

"2000 primary: Gets 36 percent of the vote to finish first in five-person race for U.S. Senate."

"2000 runoff: Gets 58 percent of the vote to beat former state Rep. Charles Gandy of Austin."

http://www.dallasnews.co...te.Edition1.46364af.html

"Sadly, there are enough idiots voting in the Democratic primary who will then go into the booth and vote for him, we presume because they're either stupid or think it's funny, never mind the real-world political consequences. In 2006, enough people did so in the U.S. Senate race that it forced a serious candidate, Barbara Radnofsky, into a runoff, wasting precious time and campaign money she could have been using to focus on her challenge to Kay Bailey Hutchison. (Of course, one could make the argument that Radnofsky's campaign never had a chance against an incumbent with 60% approval ratings, but still …)"

http://www.austinchronic...gs/News?oid=oid%3A575068

I know a great VP candidate who would be honored to be your running mate.....Camusrebele

Could someone please refresh my memory on 2 points?

1) Was there or not several precincts(20-25 I believe was bandied about) with more votes tallied than actual voters registered. Last thing I remember this was being "debunked".

2) Wasn't there a poll that had Demint beating Rawl by only 7%, 50-43? That is like being behind for an incumbent so early in the process.

I know I could and should do the googling/research myself but w/so many well versed, engaged citizens milling about this place, maybe someone could help me out off the top of their head.

i'm too busy figuring out what hunting partner I'm going to get drunk with and shoot in the face.

that and trying to remember the words to John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band's, "On the Dark Side"

I don't get it about the 'e'.

Singer/Rev Al Green's name has no 'e'.

camusrebel asked, "1) Was there or not several precincts(20-25 I believe was bandied about) with more votes tallied than actual voters registered. Last thing I remember this was being "debunked"."

The Rawl Campaign made and withdrew this claim. I posted links in this discussion on this blog.

https://bradblog.com/?p=7902

camusrebel asked, "2) Wasn't there a poll that had Demint beating Rawl by only 7%, 50-43? That is like being behind for an incumbent so early in the process."

According to the Rawl Campaign, this was their own poll.

"Walter Ludwig, Rawl's campaign manager, questions the PPP's data, though. 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.wmbfnews.com/...bal/Story.asp?s=12637260

{Ed note: Comment deleted. Commercial spam.}

Actually, that was a public poll:

http://scindex.blogspot....poll-results-for-sc.html

Walter Ludwig replied, "Actually, that was a public poll:"

Who paid for the poll? As I read the article, it seems to me that it was Rawl Campaign. Is that right?

http://www.wmbfnews.com/...bal/Story.asp?s=12637260

Public poll, private poll, totem pole, all irrelevant. Facts is facts. Electronic voting machine malfeasance and/or error is the cause of Alvin "I hid in my dad's basement and all I got was this lousy Senate nomination" Greene's 'victory', and if you don't believe that, either you haven't been paying attention or are hopelessly ideologically compromised. "You" being the universal you.

Brad, you've got my VOTe.

Does this mean you won't be a Secret Agent anymore?

If I were a South Carolinian I would try to get all disgruntled Democrats to write-in Rawl. (I know I said this before but I'm giving it one more shot. Never mind if there aren't enough votes to elect him. A big show of hand-marked paper ballots (the only way a SC voter can write in a candidate, I believe) would be a wonderful thing in and of itself. Also it would be fun to see all the gyrations the AP would have to do to explain the results.

A bit of organiztion could go a long way.

Lora wrote, "A bit of organiztion could go a long way."

To expand on your point, in a different direction.

State Senator Paul Leventis (D-35) has gotten involved on this issue. He sent a letter to the State Election Commission requesting "...that all voting machines used during Tuesday’s statewide primaries be impounded by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and a full accounting of the vote totals be conducted...."

If this wasn't just a political stunt (sorry to be so cynical), and if I was South Carolinian, I would be pushing him to introduce a bill to outlaw these machines.

Sorry, that is State Senator Phil Leventis (D-35).

now its hitting the UK news, and guess what, its a total mystery and al greene is a latterday forrest gump.
surely that means the journo is going to hell?
http://www.guardian.co.u...ne-south-carolina-senate