Questions about South Carolina?

Comments

5 responses to “Questions about South Carolina?”

1. 

   JMPrince

   June 14, 2010

   Not to put a fine point on it, but we’re talking Median Household Net Worth here. And even for higher income African Americans? Mostly under $20K, everywhere. Here’s the Brandeis study on it:

   http://iasp.brandeis.edu/pdfs/Racial-Wealth-Gap-Brief.pdf

   Lots of easy nifty graphs there too!

   “For example, middle-income white households had greater gains in financial assets than high-income African Americans; by 2007, they had accumulated $74,000, whereas the average high-income African American family owned only $18,000. At least 25% of all African American families had no assets to turn to in times of economic hardship”.

   So that was my first clue here. Something very strange is going on here. JMP

2. 

   JMPrince

   June 14, 2010

   I did not hear anyone discussing these developments either: Via fivethirtyeight.com:

   6.11.2010
   “SC Democratic Primary Getting Weirder By The Hour
   by Tom Schaller @ 8:59 PM”

   http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/06/sc-democratic-primary-getting-weirder.html

   Again, as they see it the numbers don’t add up. In more ways than one. And the clear & dramatic discrepancy between the absentee ballots (which went easily & overwhelmingly to Rawl) is one of the basic places to start. I’ll quote them at length here, as it’s critical to the debate:

   ” 4. Revenge of Benford’s Law. As regular 538 readers know, our otherwise soft-spoken leader Nate Silver carries a big statistical stick and used it earlier this year to cudgel Strategic Vision polling firm by showing that their results had unusual digit patterns which strongly suggest the results were simply made up. Similarly, the Rawl campaign has now issued a press release reporting the findings of separate inquiries performed by two respected electoral forensics experts, Dr. Walter Mebane of the UMichigan and Dr. Michael Miller of Cornell, neither of whom is affiliated with the campaign. Here are the key graphs of that press release:

   Dr. Mebane performed second-digit Benford’s law tests on the precinct returns from the Senate race. The test compares the second digit of actual precinct vote totals to a known numeric distribution of data that results from election returns collected under normal conditions. If votes are added or subtracted from a candidate’s total, possibly due to error or fraud, Mebane’s test will detect a deviation from this distribution.

   Results from Mebane’s test showed that Rawl’s Election Day vote totals depart from the expected distribution at 90% confidence. In other words, the observed vote pattern for Rawl could be expected to occur only about 10% of the time by chance. “The results may reflect corrupted vote counts, but they may also reflect the way turnout in the election covaried with the geographic distribution of the candidates’ support,” Mebane said.

   Dr. Miller performed additional tests to determine whether there was a significant difference in the percentage of absentee and Election Day votes that each candidate received. The result in the Senate election is highly statistically significant: Rawl performs 11 percentage points better among absentee voters than he does among Election Day voters. “This difference is a clear contrast to the other races. Statistically speaking, the only other Democratic candidate who performed differently among the two voter groups was Robert Ford, who did better on Election Day than among absentees in the gubernatorial primary,” Miller said.

   These findings concern the campaign, and should concern all of South Carolina”. [End Quote].

   Again not definitive, and at .10 statistical confidence? Just broadly & deeply suspicious, and not the smoking gun many would ask for. But still plenty to chew on. And BTW? It’s just not true that DeMint was just cruising to reelection with no worries: [Via FDL, but please cut & paste here ]:

   news.firedoglake.com/2010/06/12/sc-sen-voter-irregularities-probed/

   ” Actually, Vic Rawl was polling at least within striking distance of DeMint previously, whereas Greene has pretty much no chance. And maybe a candidate as embarrassing as Greene (that pornography charge was discovered very quickly after the election, you know) would set Democrats back throughout the ticket.” [End Quote].

   So I appreciated the discussion last night and Jen’s take on the situation. But much like FL 2000? It’ll really take some serious statistical tests & some higher math to ‘prove out’ the various theories here. I’ll note in passing that more than $10K qualifying fee that Mr. Greene seemingly so cavalierly put in for the qualifying fee? Represents far in excess of the average net-worth of most black middle class families. Anywhere, let alone in SC & for anyone unemployed too. Especially with no visible or viable campaign apparatus, and no reported ‘contributors’ so far. [This news item Via an earlier report on same by CBS’s MoneyWatch]:

   moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/wealth-gap-between-black-and-white-families-more-than-quadruples/587/

   And Mr. Greene’s repeated sort of non denial denials about how he came into such cash or even why he wanted to qualify? Are where my suspicions start. Very strange out from the gate. Sorry for the length here.

   JMP

3. 

   JMPrince

   June 13, 2010

   Could not get in for a question for Jen, even if I thought I had called before she got off. But obviously, we’re not alone in suspecting the results. Axelrod also is deeply suspicious too:

   “Axelrod: Election of ‘mysterious’ SC candidate ‘doesn’t appear’ legitimate
   By David Sunday Jun 13, 2010 11:00am”

   http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/37719

   JMP

4. 

   JMPrince

   June 13, 2010

   More data points:

   http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/12/875375/-Democratic-Struggle-in-South-Carolina

   But we just don’t know…It looks mighty suspicious though. JMP

5. 

   JMP

   June 12, 2010

   Thanks Catherine, I’ll see if I can listen in. She’s got an interesting take on the races, but it still does not clarify much about the numbers, etc. JMP