Subject: Explaining Alvin Greene
From: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:56:38 -0400

Explaining Alvin Greene

South Carolina Democratic Senate nominee Alvin Greene. AP Photo/Mary Ann
Chastain

The surprise -- and even that word understates it -- nomination of *Alvin
Greene*<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061002499.html?nav=hcmodule>
**, an unemployed man who lives with his parents, as the Democratic nominee
in the South Carolina Senate race has captivated the country.

How could a man who has acknowledged to never campaigning for the office
wind up beating a former four-term legislator -- *Vic Rawls* -- by 30,000
votes for the right to challenge conservative icon* Jim DeMint*(R) this
fall?

Theories abound. Here's a look at the most popular ones:

1. *Greene is a Republican plant*: South Carolina Rep. *Jim
Clyburn<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061004943.html?nav=hcmodule>
*(D) is leading the
charge<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061004943.html?nav=hcmodule>
on
this storyline -- insisting that Greene is part of a broader conspiracy
designed to wreak havoc in Democratic primaries including his own. By this
afternoon, there was evidence that the man who had challenged Clyburn in the
Democratic primary (and lost) had financial ties to a Republican consulting
firm<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061004943.html>
.

Clyburn has yet to provide any evidence that suggests the same thing was
going on in the Senate race but it's worth noting that planting candidates
for nefarious reasons is not a new practice in South Carolina. Clyburn has
cited the famous example of Republican consultant Rod Shealy recruiting an
unemployed black man to challenge Rep. *Arthur Ravenel *in the 1st district
race in an attempt to help drive white turnout statewide and, in so doing,
help win his sister the lieutenant governor's nomination. And, yes, that
really did happen.

Not only have Republicans -- both publicly and privately -- denied any
involvement, it also doesn't make much sense for them to engage in the sort
of dirty trick that is being alleged. DeMint, while he inspires considerable
disgust among many Democrats (and even a few Republicans) at the national
level, is quite popular in the Palmetto State. Whether it was *Alvin Greene
*or *Vic Rawl* running against him, DeMint is something close to a shoo-in
for re-election. Would Republicans really take that sort of risk in a race
where they would be, at best, a longshot under any circumstances?

It seems unlikely. That said, having spent the last few days sorting through
the nastiest political campaigns in South Carolina
history<http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/governors/the-five-nastiest-south-caroli.html>,
nothing would shock us.

2.*Ballot primacy*: Greene's name appeared first on the Democratic primary
ballot and, since it's a near-certainty that no one -- or certainly very few
people -- knew who either Greene or Rawl were, they simply voted for the
first name they saw.

With very few contested races -- Democratic candidates won their nominations
without challenge for Comptroller General, state Attorney General,
Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State -- and the Republican race for
governor drawing so much oxygen, there was almost no coverage of the Senate
race.

That dearth of information could well have contributed to simply picking the
first name on the ballot and moving on.

The counter argument -- made smartly by Tom Schaller over at
538.com<http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/> --
is that turnout in the Senate race seems oddly high for a race that drew
absolutely no attention. A total of 169,542 people voted in the Senate
contest while 188,576 -- roughly 19,000 more -- cast ballots in the far more
high-profile Democratic primary for governor.

3. *Race-motivated voting*: One longtime Democratic strategist who has
worked on and off in South Carolina for a career insisted that race is the
simplest -- and right -- explanation.

"Black voters knew the guy was black by looking at his name," the source
said of Greene. The source added that black voters who always comprise a
large chunk of the vote in a South Carolina Democratic primary made up an
even larger segment this time around due to the massive interest generated
by the Republican governor's race. (South Carolina has an open primary
system where individual voters can choose to vote in either the Democratic
or Republican primaries.)

Describing the potential thought process of some black voters in Tuesday's
primary, the source said:

"They go in there to vote and they see two names on the ballot. They've
never heard of either one, but they see 'Alvin Greene' first and 'Victor
Rawl' second. They vote for the *name *they feel most comfortable with."

State Sen. *Robert Ford*, an African American who lost his bid for the
Democratic gubernatorial nomination, seems to subscribe to this theory. "Vic
Rawl had money, but he didn't have enough," Ford told the Charleston Post
and Courier<http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/jun/10/strange-twist-in-senate-race/>.
"He wasn't able to identify himself with black voters. No white folks have
an 'e' on the end of Green."

That's not entirely true, however. Billionaire investor *Jeff Greene*, who
is running for the Democratic Senate nomination in Florida, is white.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 11, 2010; 5:28 PM ET
-- 
Eric D. Schwerin
Rosemont Seneca Partners
(202) 333-1880
[email-masked]