by Chris Haire
That's what did it.
That's how Alvin Greene beat out Vic Rawl.
Judging by a recent Politico post, it was either the handiwork of those green, mischievous beasties or a vast conspiracy.
According to the Politico:
“The election day ballots all favor Mr. Greene. We don’t know what it means,”[Rawl campaign manager Walter] Ludwig said in an interview. “We did significantly better on absentees than Election Day, which is according to the mathematicians, quite significant. The other reason is, it didn’t happen in any other races on the ballot.”
In Lancaster County, Rawl won absentee ballots over Greene by a staggering 84 percent to 16 percent margin; but Greene easily led among Election Day voters by 17 percentage points.
The Politico also notes:
Greene also racked up a 75 percent or greater margin in one-seventh of all precincts statewide, a mark that Ludwig notes is even difficult for an incumbent to reach.
“This may add up to nothing. This all could be a clerical error. We don’t know, but [we] thought it was worth looking into,” said Ludwig, who added that the experts doing the unpaid research asked that their names not be revealed until they disclose their conclusions.
Hold on second. Something doesn't seem right to me here. It's almost like there's a double-standard.
Let me see if I got this right: Greene racks up 75 percent of votes in one-seventh of all precincts and Ludwig says that this is impossible for even an incumbent.
But when Rawl — who isn't an incumbent, just a guy who the party wanted to win — racks up 84 percent of all absentee ballot votes, well, that's means that everything was working out the way it supposed to.
Even more confusing is this bit from Politico:
In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count.
Ooh. Maybe something was going on after all.
Fortunately, I like to eat crow.
Then again, it's not dinner time just yet.