Kansas Primary Election Results

| 63 Comments

The results of the primary in Kansas election are beginning to come in. The unofficial results are being posted every 10 minutes here on the website of the Kansas Secretary of State.

63 Comments

Can someone list the Board of Ed people who suck? I know I could track them down myself, but it would take me 20 minutes. I only remember that Connie Morris sucks, off the top of my head, and I’m sure some of our Kansans know by rote.

Nevermind, I found it easily:

In District 1, incumbent Janet Waugh, a supporter of evolution education, is facing a primary challenge from Jesse Hall, who, the Lawrence Journal World (July 6, 2006) reports, supports the present science standards [which undermine evolution]. In District 3, incumbent John Bacon, a member of the antievolution majority, is facing a primary challenge from Harry McDonald and David Oliphant; the winner will face Don Weiss in the general election. In District 5, incumbent Connie Morris, a member of the antievolution majority, is facing a primary challenge from Sally Cauble; the winner will face Tim Cruz. In District 7, incumbent Ken Willard, a member of the antievolution majority, is facing a primary challenge from Donna Viola and M. T. Liggett; the winner will face Jack Wempe. In District 9, Iris Van Meter, a member of the antievolution majority, is not running for re-election, but her son-in-law Brad Patzer hopes to replace her. He will face Jana Shaver in the primary, and the winner will face Kent Runyan in the general election. Except for Hall and Patzer, all of the hopefuls have expressed opposition to the state science standards as adopted, many in their responses to a questionnaire from the Kansas Alliance for Education.

From sciam.

So that’s Connie Morris, Ken Willard, Brad Patzer, Jesse Hall, and John Bacon, who suck.

The fact that the DI is denying that it was electioneering in Kansas probably means that the media thought it was…

Based on early returns…it looks like it will be close.

Steve wrote: “I only remember that Connie Morris sucks, off the top of my head…”

Steve! Please!

Well so far, Willard and Morris are losing. But, there is no point getting to wrapped in it yet with only 20% of the vote counted

Hey, DI, if all you’re doing is defending your science standards (and not electioneering for the school board that made them official), then you can defend them just as well to the new school board, can’t you?

well?

if they’re so absolutely RIGHT, then you shouldn’t have any problem at all, right?

Steve! Please!

Sorry, I wasn’t intending any double entendres.

willard and patzer are getting their asses kicked. even if the other anti-science people win, that’s a 6-4 pro-science majority on the board.

Morris is a nutcase.

We really want Bacon to lose. He’s sort of the “glue guy.” And, from what I’ve read, his challenger, McDonald, has his priorities straight.

can we not post the “well, it looks like X is [winning|losing]” stuff? last thing any of us want is a Dewey Beats Truman permanently on our record here, m’kay?

(specifically within seconds of “Williard is getting his ass kicked”, I saw williard ahead by a tough to make up *500* votes.)

Willard, sorry. (My middle is William so the ‘i’ sticks to my fingers.)

I don’t mind posting x is beating y comments. that sec of state website is struggling.

and in x is beating y news, only 2 of 5 races are currently being led by a pro-science candidate.

The Waugh and Coble races just got exciting.

Well, as of 11 Easternb, it’s now 3 of 5 pro-science candidates winning (although one by a very narrow margin), and one of the others (the one with Morris) too close to call.

I’m surprised by how heterogeneous these districts must be. I’ll see

80 of 300 districts reporting candidate a: 47% of vote candidate b: 53% of vote

and 30 mins later

110 of 300 districts reporting candidate a: 53% of vote candidate b: 47% of vote

Woohoo! According to the LJ World, it’s now 4 to 1 (with Willard the only pro-ID winner), and Morris looks like she’s going down!

I have the good guys +2 net. If it holds, it’s enough.

At this moment, pro-science is up in 3 of 5, if I’ve got the names straight. That could change, though. My understanding is we need to win 3 of these race to get a clear majority, right (maintain our incumbent and add two)?

Actually, it’s not as clear cut as that, is it? How do the opposition parties stand?:

D1 - no opposition party? D3 - Don Weiss D5 - Tim Cruz D7 - Jack Wempe D9 - Kent Runyan

Although it sounds like the opposition parties might be pro-science as well, so a 3 seat victory may well give us the majority.

I only feel safe calling the Patzer/Shaver race. with 250 of 428 precincts reporting, and him down 20%, he’d have to get about 75% of the remaining votes to win. Pro-science candidate Shaver will probably take that one.

Allen - Bacon is anti-science and winning by a sizeable portion at 83% reporting, so that’s two.

Roughly half the precincts have reported, and here’s the standings:

*D-Jesse L. Hall 1537 45 % D-Janet Waugh 1877 55 % ———-

*R-John W. Bacon 8660 51 % R-Harry E. McDonald III 6736 39 % R-David A Oliphant 1722 10 % ———-

R-Sally Cauble 5738 54 % *R-Connie Morris 4994 47 % ———-

R-M.T. Liggett 812 8 % R-Donna Viola 4390 42 % *R-Ken R. Willard 5226 50 % ———-

*R-Brad Patzer 5723 41 % R-Jana Shaver 8412 60 %

(* denotes candidate who sucks)

With 1 evo and 4 CRetards up for re-election, and 3 evos ahead, it’s +2 for us. Shaver looks in and Waugh’s lead looks safe. Cauble is pulling ahead of Morris; the latter is the monster raving loony candidate of the election, and I don’t mean that in a good way. If Cauble pulls it off, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth in Seattle, and in whatever seminary Bill D. is now teaching.

I feel like a monty python sketch

“and as for the vote in Luton…well, I’m not going to tell you.”

its annoying that the 2 we’re currently “losing” are two that have 3 candidates instead of two, making a first glance without adding the numbers seem like the opposition vote split giving the incumbent the victory.

but in both cases, adding the two together still doesn’t beat the incumbents numbers.

the pythons Wrote:

Palin: And this one is from Harpenden Southeast. A very interesting constituency this: in addition to the official Silly candidate there is an unofficial Very Silly candidate, in the slab of concrete, and he could well split the silly vote here at Harpenden Southeast.

Jones: Mrs Elsie Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Cleese: Silly

Jones: 26,317 (applause). Jeanette Walker…

Cleese: Sensible Jones: 26,318…

Cleese: Very close!

Jones: Malcolm Peter Brian Telescope Adrian Blackpool Rock Stoatgobbler John Raw Vegetable Brrroooo Norman Michael (rings bell) (blows whistle) Edward (sounds car horn) (does train impersonation) (sounds buzzer) Thomas Moo… (sings) “We’ll keep a welcome in the…” (fires gun) William (makes silly noise) “Raindrops keep falling on my” (weird noise) “Don’t sleep in the subway” (cuckoo cuckoo) Naaoooo… Smith.

Cleese: Very Silly

Jones: …two.

Cleese: Well there you have it, a Sensible gain at Harpenden with the Silly vote being split.

I may be wrong, and I certainly don’t want to sound too optimistic, but please remember this is only a primary. Any seat taken away from the fundamentalist Republicans now is a certain win for science in November. Any seat retained by an anti-science candidate now will likely be challenged by a Democrat in November. I understand it’s a hard task in a red state, but even so, it is still possible these seats may change at the general election, especially for candidates who are barely mustering a majority of primary Republican voters (and with the congressional elections trending the way they are, I should add).

So far it is looking good for science. Hopefully the trends will continue and pro-science people will win a majority.

I think it might be worth noting that even if science is has a certain majority when the new board is formed, that is still important to fight against any remaining pro-creationism candidates come November. The more creationists that go down, the harder it will be for them to win back the majority in a future election and to cause science trouble.

No matter what happens tonight, it ain’t over. Our side can’t forget that because the anti-science forces certainly will not.

Creationists Willard and Bacon are almost certain to win, pro-science Waugh and Shaver are certain to win, and the last one is too close to be sure

Precincts Reporting: 343 of 609

CANDIDATE VOTES % R-Sally Cauble 6563 53 % R-Connie Morris 5787 47 %

but probably a win for Cauble. I know a certain professor of a two-bit bible college who isn’t going to be very happy…

Morris is catching up - only 600 behind now with a lot still to count. Too close to call.

Whoops - the lead just doubled with 66% reporting. Looking a little healthier now!

Not that in the MSNBC link by Steve S there is a place to vote over whether you think that the “alternatives to evolution” should be listed in textbooks. Make sure your voice is heard! At the moment, not listing the alternatives is winning 55 to 29%.

It would be interesting to see if the recent Discovery Institute Creationist Crusade trip through Kansas in support of the incumbent creationists had any effect. Is it possible to identify the districts/precincts that the Creationist Crusade rolled into, and see what the vote was there.

After they spent roughly $10K-$20K on advertising these events, they had say average of 25 people per event. KCFS had events, no advertising budget, and had somewhat comparable attendance, but few at the very last event. There is interest, just not in spending time on the details. Every one’s mind is already made up if they are interested at all, in my opinion.

At $100 per person attending an event, that is very expensive advertising. Though neither KCFS nor ID Network would advertise to influence an election, I am just comparing this to the cost of a vote in political campaigns. That generally has increased from $25 to $100 for media campaign influence on elections.

So my analysis is that the ID Network “issue” campaign had virtually no effect on the election whatsoever, as relative to its cost, nor relative to the margins we saw in elections.

It would be interesting to see if the recent Discovery Institute Creationist Crusade trip through Kansas in support of the incumbent creationists had any effect. Is it possible to identify the districts/precincts that the Creationist Crusade rolled into, and see what the vote was there.

http://www.kssos.org/ent/kssos_ent.html

Using the Kansas county-by-county map, it is possible to determine vote totals across District 5.

Calvert appeared in Seward, Finney, and Ellis counties; Cauble won all three.

Cauble actually won more votes than any other victorious candidate in a contested BOE election.

Whatever impact DI had, it was not enough.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on August 1, 2006 8:04 PM.

Science Blogging Conference was the previous entry in this blog.

Is ID DOA? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter