Kansas Primary Election Results

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.

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.

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!

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.

The LJ World website is more up to date.

http://www2.ljworld.com/elections/2006/aug/01/

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.

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.

— the pythons

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!

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

At this point, it looks like 2 for science, 2 against, with the Cauble-Morris race still open (though currently favoring Cauble 53%-47% with about 2/3 of the precincts reporting). The other races are pretty much locked at this point, though there's still an outide chance of knocking off Willard.

This all relies on the reported numbers being accurate, of course.

http://www2.ljworld.com/elections/2006/aug/01/

The Wichita Eagle seems to be the fastest to update, from the AP feed.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2006/by_state/KS_Page_0801.html?SITE=KSWIEELN&SECTION=POLITICS

State Board of Education - District 5 - GOP Primary
411 of 609 Precincts Reporting - 67.49%
Name Party Votes Pct
Cauble, Sally GOP 8,627 53.98
Morris, Connie (i) GOP 7,355 46.02

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.

— Michael Hopkins

Cauble's lead extended by another .5% with 71.1% reporting. I'm calling the others - Willard is out of reach now.

That District 3 vote really hurts. If MacDonald - Oliphant hadn't split the vote, Bacon would have been taken out.

Cauble holding steady at 53+% with over 75% reporting. Waugh wins (100% reporting). Bacon looks to win with only 2 precincts left to report and a plurality lead of 49%-40%-10% (rounding errors) - split vote could have caused a loss here, but at that close, it is more likely that the results would still end up in favor of Bacon (if only one ran, there'd likely be fewer total votes).

Update: last two precincts reported - Bacon wins at plurality percentages above.

Connie Morris would have to win over 63% of the remaining votes to beat Cauble.

Hi guys. I can assure you that Kansas Citizens for Science will be sticking around, but we will also take a bit of a break.

It appears that the pro-science folks will regain the majority from tonight's elections, but there are very good Democrats running against the conservatives who won, so the general election could strengthen the pro-science majority.

This is good for science education in Kansas.

Well, the ljworld link above has these results for the Bacon race:

300 out of 300 (100%) precincts reporting statewide

* John W. Bacon (R) 10148 votes
* Harry E. McDonald (R) 8269 votes
* David A Oliphant (R) 2146 votes

The total votes for pro-science candidates was less than 300 more than the votes Bacon got. It is quite likely that Oliphant got 300 votes that would not have have voted for anyone else (church members, co-workers, friends, family) or would have voted for Bacon over McDonald.

update: connie morris would have to win 68% of the remaining 19% of the vote to beat her opponent.

The reaaly really good news is that in one of the reddest of red states, in four of the most conservative districts in that red state, in the GOP primaries where the more liberal voters aren't even involved, creationists still failed to hold half the seats in play.

To paraphrase Ol' Blue Eyes, if you can't make it there, you can't make it anywhere.

Connie Morris would now have to win 72% of the remaining 14%...

...I think we're done here.

Board of Ed (District 1) 190 out of 190 (100%) precincts reporting statewide * Jesse L. Hall (D) 4260 votes * Janet Waugh (D) 7147 votes

Board of Ed (District 3) 300 out of 300 (100%) precincts reporting statewide * John W. Bacon (R) 10148 votes * Harry E. McDonald (R) 8269 votes * David A Oliphant (R) 2146 votes

Board of Ed (District 5) 460 out of 609 (75.5%) precincts reporting statewide * Tim Cruz (R) 0 votes * Sally Cauble (R) 9589 votes * Connie Morris (R) 8279 votes

Board of Ed (District 7) 401 out of 463 (86.6%) precincts reporting statewide * M.T. Ligget (R) 1721 votes * Donna Viola (R) 6980 votes * Ken R. Willard (R) 10133 votes

Board of Ed (District 9) 389 out of 428 (90.9%) precincts reporting statewide * Brad Patzer (R) 8870 votes * Jana Shaver (R) 12182 votes

Given the election results in Dover, and now this, the message is, even in red states, vote for creationism oh I'm sorry Teach the Controversy (Teach the Controversy--motto: We are NOT Intelligent Design) and you'll be thrown out of office.

Good accurate summary, Nick.

Okay, 90% of districts have reported. If the remaining 10% voted 85% for Connie Morris, she's going to win this thing ;-)

Congrats to Jack Krebs and everyone in Kansas who has worked so hard for the last two years! Even the Discovery Institute-funded commercials (funded on their "research budget", I imagine) weren't enough to save the ID/creationist science standards.

It will be veeery interesting to see what follows from this.

Looks like that nutjob Morris is going down.

Thank goodness

A good result. Well done to Jack and all involved with the Kansas Citizens for Science.

It would be interesting to see if the recent Discovery Institute Creationist Crusade trip through Kansas in support of the incumbant 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.

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

Congratulations to Jack and company for delivering the Discovery Institute's latest smoking crater.

Latest calc: Connie Morris needs to win 92% of the remaining votes to win.

Not to be a party-pooper or anything, but if they're using Diebold "black box" voting machines in Kansas, watch out!

Congratulations KCFS and Jack Krebs! Also RSR http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/
and Thoughts From Kansas
http://jgrr.blogspot.com/

Latest totals:
558 out of 609 (91.6%) precincts reporting statewide

* Tim Cruz (R) 0 votes
* Sally Cauble (R) 12043 votes
* Connie Morris (R) 10241 votes

LJWorld says those numbers are from 93.4% of precincts. If so, and making the simplifying assumption that the remaining precincts are of average population, every single vote in the remaining 6.6% would leave Morris 200 votes short.

''You can put this one in the refrigerator. The door's closed, the light's out, the eggs are cooling, the butter's getting hard and the Jell-O is jiggling.''

Not to be a party-pooper or anything, but if they're using Diebold "black box" voting machines in Kansas, watch out!

— Richiyaado

We've talked before about how journalists were getting wise to the Discovery Institute, and not falling so much into 'he said/she said' journalism. Read tonight's MSNBC story about these Kansas elections and you'll see a pretty informed tone about the 'controversy'.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14137751/

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.

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.