I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

The Kansas elections

According to news reports, the wins by pro-censorship candidates in the Kansas Board of Education primary elections yesterday will likely cause a shift from a 6-4 anti-censorship majority to a 6-4 pro-censorship majority after the general elections in November. News and comments about the election are here, here, and on Panda's Thumb and Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

I am wondering if the losing anti-censorship candidates can run as independents or write-in candidates in the general elections in November. If they do, they could win at least a plurality because the pro-censorship vote would be split between the other two candidates.

Other states should make their own independent decisions about the evolution controversy and not take a "monkey see, monkey do" attitude towards what Kansas does on the issue.

I am still wondering why we have not heard more from those who are most affected -- the public-school students themselves. If I were a public-school student, I would certainly want to learn the weaknesses as well as the strengths of Darwinism.

One of the above news articles reported, "Late-night comedians have been making cracks about Kansas, portraying it as backward and ignorant. Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show' broadcast a four-part series titled, 'Evolution Schmevolution.'" Maybe next they could tell some jokes about Judge Jones -- they could start with (1) his asinine remarks about the "true religion" of the founding fathers and (2) his intention to see the historically inaccurate and highly prejudicial movie "Inherit the Wind" to show him the "historical context" of the 1925 Scopes trial. A skit about his "true religion" remarks could go like this: Judge Jones, played by a comedian, could say that his "true religion" remarks were not meant to single out Christianity for disrespect and that he could have said the same things about, say, mosques and korans, and then he gets a pie in the face or something like that. LOL Pokes fun at Jones and jihadists at the same time. As JAD would say, I love it so.

That fatheaded blogger Ed Brayton, who routinely censors comments and commenters that disagree with him, said of the defeats of anti-censorship candidates in the Kansas elections, "The DI will put out a statement declaring it no big deal, even though they thought it was a big enough deal to pump an enormous amount of money into the campaign to put commercials on the air and take a dog and pony show in favor of the pro-ID standards and candidates all over the state." Campaigning does not necessarily mean that one cannot afford to lose. What a moron.

Also, there is this false notion that Kansas is a "clodhopper" state and so if anti-censorship candidates cannot win in Kansas, then they cannot win anywhere. The truth is that Kansas has a high proportion of highly educated, highly skilled workers. Wichita, the largest city in Kansas, is an important center of the aviation industry and has been nicknamed the "Air Capital" and "the Detroit of the general aviation industry." Meanwhile, California has lost most of its aerospace industry and the biggest businesses in the state are now agriculture, services, and tourism. From the 1930's through the 1950's, most of the world's airliners were produced in Southern California -- today, none are.

We anti-censorship people still have a lot going for us:

(1) The majority of the public believes that the weaknesses as well as the strengths of Darwinism should be taught in the public schools.

(2) There is a good chance that the Selman v. Cobb County decision which banned evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers will be reversed.

(3) The Ohio Board of Education is now considering a new recommended science standard calling for critical analysis of evolution.

(4) HR 2679, Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA), the House bill that would ban attorney fee awards to winning plaintiffs in establishment clause cases, has been gaining support and there is now a companion Senate bill, S 3696. I think that a cap on attorney fee awards in both establishment clause and free exercise clause cases is a much better idea and would be much more likely to pass.

Labels:

46 Comments:

Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>I am wondering if the losing anti-censorship candidates can run as independents or write-in candidates in the general elections in November. If they do, they could win at least a plurality because the pro-censorship vote would be split between the other two candidates.<<<

No, it's prohibited by statute. If you want in as a primary party candidate (ie, a candidate for a party not covered by section (b), usually R and D), you must win your primary. If you want in as an independent, you must not have run in a primary. It's highly doubtful your scheme would work, anyway. I've bolded the relevant passages.

Also, it should be noted that the deadline has passed for candidacy in a section (b) party.

>>>25-202
Chapter 25.--ELECTIONS
Article 2.--PRIMARY ELECTIONS

25-202. Methods of nomination of candidates; limitation on filing for office; exceptions to application of article. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b) all candidates for national, state, county and township offices shall be nominated by: (1) A primary election held in accordance with article 2 of chapter 25 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated and amendments thereto; or (2) independent nomination petitions signed and filed as provided by existing statutes.

(b) Candidates for any of such offices who are members of any political party whose candidate for governor did not poll at least 5% of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor in the preceding general election shall not be entitled to nomination by primary election but shall be nominated by a delegate or mass convention according to article 3 of chapter 25 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated and amendments thereto.

(c) No candidate for any national, state, county or township office shall file for office as a partisan candidate in a primary election and also file for office as an independent candidate for any national, state, county or township office in the general election immediately following.

(d) The provisions of article 2 of chapter 25 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated and amendments thereto shall not apply to the justices of the supreme court or to judges of the district court in judicial districts which have approved the proposition of nonpartisan selection of district court judges, as provided in K.S.A. 20-2901 and amendments thereto, nor to special elections to fill vacancies.

History: R.S. 1923, 25-202; L. 1953, ch. 195, § 1; L. 1955, ch. 203, § 1; L. 1968, ch. 406, § 66; L. 1974, ch. 137, § 17; L. 1984, ch. 137, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 106, § 2; July 1. <<<

Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"monkey see, monkey do"

Have you reconciled this phrase with the (alleged) non-relationship of monkeys to us?

Or, to put it another way, why would monkeys' behavior remind us of ourselves? Did the Designer get careless here? Was He "practicing" creation? Or was He perhaps being deceitful?

Wednesday, August 02, 2006 3:20:00 PM  
Blogger Chris Hyland said...

"If I were a public-school student, I would certainly want to learn the weaknesses as well as the strengths of Darwinism."

If I were a public school student, I would not want to be told a bunch of religiously motivated lies. If only we could find a happy middle ground.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006 5:08:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( August 02, 2006 2:10:14 PM ) ---

>>>>>>(c) No candidate for any national, state, county or township office shall file for office as a partisan candidate in a primary election and also file for office as an independent candidate for any national, state, county or township office in the general election immediately following.<<<<<<<

That's interesting. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said that he would run as an independent if he lost the primary. Apparently different states have different rules for getting on the ballot.

Also, it seemed strange that there were board of education primaries only for the parties of the incumbents -- see
http://www.kssos.org/ent/kssos_ent.html

Also, I presume that in some states, school or education board elections are non-partisan.

In addition to bona fide 3rd party presidential candidates , there have been a number of independent or essentially independent presidential candidates who have done fairly well -- John Anderson, Ross Perot (later ran as a Reform Party candidate), George Wallace (American Independent Party), and Theodore Roosevelt (Progressive "Bull Moose"). By "essentially independent," I mean that they helped found the 3rd parties that they represented. Roosevelt and Anderson entered the Republican primaries in the years in which they ran as independents or 3rd party candidates.

In the 1860 election, Lincoln did not appear on the ballot of 10 states, and the Democratic party split so that there were two Democratic candidates.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:48:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Chris Hyland said ( August 02, 2006 5:08:41 PM ) --

>>>>>If I were a public school student, I would not want to be told a bunch of religiously motivated lies.<<<<<<

If I were a student, I would want to decide for myself what is a religiously motivated lie and what is not.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006 8:55:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> If I were a student, I would want to decide for myself what is a religiously motivated lie and what is not. <

But then it would be possible to have still spent a lot of time in school and still be ignorant. You are a prime example.

How many religiously motivated lies do you want to cover? It would see that there would be no end to it.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:16:00 PM  
Blogger Chris Hyland said...

"If I were a student, I would want to decide for myself what is a religiously motivated lie and what is not."

How exactly would you do that if they were in the science standards?

Thursday, August 03, 2006 6:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Apparently different states have different rules for getting on the ballot. <

Duh!

> Also, I presume that in some states, school or education board elections are non-partisan. <

Duh!

The above two statements from that great legal mind Scary Larry(?)!

Thursday, August 03, 2006 7:10:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Chris Hyland said...

>>>>>>>"If I were a student, I would want to decide for myself what is a religiously motivated lie and what is not."

How exactly would you do that if they were in the science standards?<<<<<<

Students already have to make that decision in the case of Darwinism, which has become a religion.

Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:06:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said...

<<<<<<> Apparently different states have different rules for getting on the ballot. <

Duh!<<<<<<

I should have elaborated.

Ross Perot ran for the presidency as a complete independent (no party affiliation) in 1992 and got over 19 million votes, nearly half as many as each of the two major party candidates, Clinton and Bush. So I presume that in a lot of states, there are ways of getting on the ballot as an independent. How does one get on the ballot as an independent? By public petition? By paying a fee? And why should a loser in the primaries be barred from running as an independent? That sounds like a silly restriction.

Also, I am still wondering why there were Kansas BOE primaries only for the parties of the incumbents.

The California ballot is interesting -- there are lots of minor parties that get few votes -- e.g., Libertarian, American Independent, Peace & Freedom, etc..

<<<<<<> Also, I presume that in some states, school or education board elections are non-partisan.

Duh!<<<<<<<<<

I meant to express surprise that the Kansas BOE positions were partisan -- I just don't have any statistics on whether or not this is untypical.

With VIW, I have to be very careful how I word things.

Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:29:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>Also, I am still wondering why there were Kansas BOE primaries only for the parties of the incumbents.<<<

Purely coincidence. Only one Democrat got enough signatures to be placed on the ballot for districts 3, 5, 7, & 9 (one Dem each, that is). Probably because those districts are primarily Republican, and as such there just aren't enough Democrats for two candidates to each get enough signatures; alternatively, the Democratic turnout may have been so low previously that the candidate had to be selected under section (b). Note that there is no Republican challenger for District 1 general election at all - that seat is effectively guaranteed.

Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> So I presume that in a lot of states, there are ways of getting on the ballot as an independent. <

In all states of which I am aware, there are ways of getting on the state as an independent. Are there any exceptions?

> How does one get on the ballot as an independent? By public petition? <

Yes, generally.

> And why should a loser in the primaries be barred from running as an independent? <

They aren't if the primary is sufficiently early to allow them otherwise to run as an independant.

> With VIW, I have to be very careful how I word things. <

Well gibberish will appear to be gibberish if that is what you mean.

Thursday, August 03, 2006 7:52:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 8/03/2006 03:26:49 PM ) --
<<<<<<>>>Also, I am still wondering why there were Kansas BOE primaries only for the parties of the incumbents.<<<

Purely coincidence. Only one Democrat got enough signatures to be placed on the ballot for districts 3, 5, 7, & 9 (one Dem each, that is). Probably because those districts are primarily Republican, and as such there just aren't enough Democrats for two candidates to each get enough signatures; alternatively, the Democratic turnout may have been so low previously that the candidate had to be selected under section (b).<<<<<<<

I presume that subsection (b) does not apply to either Democrats or Republicans because subsection (b) is only for "members of any political party whose candidate for governor did not poll at least 5% of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor in the preceding general election." See first comment in this thread.

>>>>>>Note that there is no Republican challenger for District 1 general election at all - that seat is effectively guaranteed.<<<<<<<

How do you know that there is no Republican general-election challenger? Or that there is no 3rd party or independent general-election challenger? Though no District 1 general-election challenger is named in this article that names three general-election challengers of the incumbents in the other districts, that does not prove that there is no general-election challenger for District 1. BTW, the former president of the pro-censorship Kansas Citizens for Science lost in the primary -- one of the reasons was that the pro-censorship vote was split between two candidates (the anti-censorship candidate got 49% of the vote). Also, it annoys me that the newsmedia refers to the pro-censorship candidates as "moderates" -- there is nothing moderate about arbitrary censorship.

According to the first comment in this thread, the only alternative to selection by primary or by means of subsection (b) is "independent nomination petitions signed and filed as provided by existing statutes." So I presume that the general-election challengers of the incumbents were chosen by this method.

VIW said ( 8/03/2006 07:52:45 PM ) --
<<<<<<> How does one get on the ballot as an independent? By public petition? <

Yes, generally.<<<<<<<<

I wonder if it is possible to generalize. Maybe in a lot of states and local jurisdictions, you can get on the ballot just by paying a fee. How did Ross Perot get over 19 million votes running as an independent in the 1992 presidential election?

VIW said --
<<<<<<> And why should a loser in the primaries be barred from running as an independent? <

They aren't if the primary is sufficiently early to allow them otherwise to run as an independant. <<<<<<<<

Kansas law says that if you run in the primary then you cannot run in the general election as an independent. See first comment in this thread.

As I said, Conn. Senator Joseph Lieberman says that he will run as an independent if he loses the primary, and he has not yet even filed as an independent even though the primary is next Tuesday (though petitions are being circulated).

Friday, August 04, 2006 4:11:00 AM  
Blogger Chris Hyland said...

"Students already have to make that decision in the case of Darwinism, which has become a religion."

Not by any definition of religion I have every heard. Kind of like saying that 'not collecting comics' is a hobby.

Friday, August 04, 2006 4:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Maybe in a lot of states and local jurisdictions, you can get on the ballot just by paying a fee. <

Yes.

> How did Ross Perot get over 19 million votes running as an independent in the 1992 presidential election? <

He paid a large army of people to canvas for signatures for a petition.

> Kansas law says that if you run in the primary then you cannot run in the general election as an independent. <

Possibly in other states the primaries are too late to allow someone to get in as an independent after losing. There is a great deal of variation between states.

Friday, August 04, 2006 6:10:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW said --

<<<<<<<<> How did Ross Perot get over 19 million votes running as an independent in the 1992 presidential election? <

He paid a large army of people to canvas for signatures for a petition.<<<<<<<

Wallace got nearly 10 million votes and Anderson got over 5 million, and I presume that neither was rich.

<<<<<<> Kansas law says that if you run in the primary then you cannot run in the general election as an independent. <

Possibly in other states the primaries are too late to allow someone to get in as an independent after losing. There is a great deal of variation between states.<<<<<<<

Your statement does not explain or justify the Kansas law that says that you cannot run in the general election as an independent if you run in the primary.

The Connecticut primary is after the Kansas primary and yet Connecticut allows independents to file after the primary.

Also, some candidates might want to hedge their bets by both filing as independents and running in the primary.

Friday, August 04, 2006 6:39:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

First of all, I apologize for my sloppy mistake above (my alternative explanation is obviously incorrect - I got mixed up with the amount of signatures required to get on the ballot).

Why forbid losing primary candidates from running as independents? While the chance to rerun is beneficial to the individual politician, it tends to be harmful to the party as a whole, as it leads to split voting primarly within the original party. So in states where the party apparatus is particularly strong, I hypothesize you will tend to see this particular set of rules.

>>>Wallace got nearly 10 million votes and Anderson got over 5 million, and I presume that neither was rich.<<<

There's a difference between being rich and being able to raise enough money to canvass for enough signatures to get on the ballot. Wasn't part of Perot's platform the fact that he was using his own money and not drawing from public coffers like other candidates?

So let's check the history books and see if they had access to the necessary money:

Wallace needed a substantial war chest to sustain his campaign against Nixon. (After the debacle of the Democratic Convention, Hubert Humphrey was not considered a serious threat, and he and Wallace were appealing to opposite constituencies.) The Wallace campaign succeeded in raising nine million dollars, mostly from contributions of under fifty dollars, although Wallace also accepted large donations from people like Bunker Hunt, a wealthy Texas oilman, and John Wayne, who reportedly inscribed one of his checks to Wallace "Sock it to ‘em, George." Kickbacks from the awarding of Alabama state contracts also swelled campaign coffers. source

He stayed in the race because he would receive federal election subsidies only if he received 5% of the vote, and millions of unpaid debts had been accumulated. [Bisnow p 308] In the end he barely made the 5% and received 7% of the vote in the election, with a total of about 6 million votes.source

Friday, August 04, 2006 7:53:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Sorry, the final paragraph was from Wikipedia's entry on John Anderson.

Friday, August 04, 2006 7:55:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said --

>>>>>>Wallace got nearly 10 million votes and Anderson got over 5 million, and I presume that neither was rich.<

There's a difference between being rich and being able to raise enough money to canvass for enough signatures to get on the ballot. <<<<<<

I still think it is remarkable that Wallace and Anderson were able to get so much support in such a short time.

Saturday, August 05, 2006 3:00:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Wallace got nearly 10 million votes <

From the large anti-integration crowd that existed at the time.

> and Anderson got over 5 million, <

From the anti-war crowd.

> and I presume that neither was rich. <

Let's try again. The key fits the locker. I do not have to specifically tell you that it will not fit the front door.

> Your statement does not explain or justify the Kansas law that says that you cannot run in the general election as an independent if you run in the primary. <

Nor does yours. Nor do either say anything about the price of fish. What is your point?

Saturday, August 05, 2006 6:57:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>I still think it is remarkable that Wallace and Anderson were able to get so much support in such a short time.<<<

What constitutes a "short time" to you, Larry?

Saturday, August 05, 2006 7:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

ViW,

You can take your usual weekend break. I am back.

Thanks, Neil Armstrong for filling in for me. It looks like we all have the same opinions. Perhaps we are all Ed Brayton?

Saturday, August 05, 2006 9:14:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIW said --
<<<<<> Wallace got nearly 10 million votes <

From the large anti-integration crowd that existed at the time.<<<<<<

I think that is true. Wallace's support was heavily concentrated in the South, and under the winner-take-all electoral college system, he picked up electoral votes from a few Southern states. Ross Perot, despite getting nearly 20 million votes in 1992, picked up no electoral votes.

<<<<<<> and Anderson got over 5 million, <

From the anti-war crowd.<<<<<<<

There was no war at the time -- there was just the Iranian hostage crisis and I don't think that Carter got a lot of the blame for that. I think that people were very unhappy with Carter because of the hyperinflation at the time (I can remember banks paying 15% interest on ordinary bank accounts), and Anderson was able to argue that neither Carter nor Reagan offered a solution for economic problems.

<<<<<<> Your statement does not explain or justify the Kansas law that says that you cannot run in the general election as an independent if you run in the primary. <

Nor does yours.<<<<<<<<

So? I am still searching for an answer.

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 8/05/2006 07:59:34 AM ) --
>>>>>>>I still think it is remarkable that Wallace and Anderson were able to get so much support in such a short time.<<<

What constitutes a "short time" to you, Larry? <<<<<<

A few months. Wallace at least had been well known nationally for several years, but Anderson was almost unknown when he announced his independent candidacy a few months before the election.

W. Kevin Vicklund said ( 8/04/2006 07:53:10 PM ) --
>>>>>>Why forbid losing primary candidates from running as independents? While the chance to rerun is beneficial to the individual politician, it tends to be harmful to the party as a whole, as it leads to split voting primarly within the original party. So in states where the party apparatus is particularly strong, I hypothesize you will tend to see this particular set of rules.<<<<<<

There is a two-edged sword here -- a rerun can split an opposing party as well as one's own party. And there is nothing in general to prevent independent and 3rd party "spoilers" from drawing off votes from major-party candidates, e.g., Gore's defeat in 2000 is generally attributed to vote losses to Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

Saturday, August 05, 2006 12:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Gore's defeat in 2000 is generally attributed to vote losses to Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. <

The votes going to Nader may or may not have gone to Gore in Nader's absence. Those people may have voted for Bush or failed to vote at all. Also Nader's candidacy may have attracted more people to vote for Gore who may otherwise not have shown up at all.

Gore's defeat should be attributed to the most obvious cause. Too many people saw him as an empty suit.

He failed to win in his own state of Tennessee, a heavily Democratic state. He failed to win Tennessee because, among others, he failed to win his home district. These people knew him the best.

Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:17:00 PM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>I think that is true. Wallace's support was heavily concentrated in the South, and under the winner-take-all electoral college system, he picked up electoral votes from a few Southern states. Ross Perot, despite getting nearly 20 million votes in 1992, picked up no electoral votes.<<<

Exactly.

>>>There was no war at the time -- there was just the Iranian hostage crisis and I don't think that Carter got a lot of the blame for that. I think that people were very unhappy with Carter because of the hyperinflation at the time (I can remember banks paying 15% interest on ordinary bank accounts), and Anderson was able to argue that neither Carter nor Reagan offered a solution for economic problems.<<<

There was a war at the time - the Cold War. One thing Anderson opposed was the military programs. Of course, that also tied into economics.

>>>So? I am still searching for an answer.<<<

And I gave you one.

>>>A few months. Wallace at least had been well known nationally for several years, but Anderson was almost unknown when he announced his independent candidacy a few months before the election.<<<

Both were actively campaigning by early spring - about the time most campaigns kick into full gear. I guess 7-8 months could be considered "a few months" but it doesn't seem like all that short a time to me. That's about the same time I first became aware of the candidates in 2000 and 2004.

>>>>>>Why forbid losing primary candidates from running as independents? While the chance to rerun is beneficial to the individual politician, it tends to be harmful to the party as a whole, as it leads to split voting primarly within the original party. So in states where the party apparatus is particularly strong, I hypothesize you will tend to see this particular set of rules.<<<<<<

>>>There is a two-edged sword here -- a rerun can split an opposing party as well as one's own party.<<<

And how often does a rerun split the opposing party? 1%? Half a percent? The likelihood is low enough that the benefit for the party greatly outweighs the risk.

>>>And there is nothing in general to prevent independent and 3rd party "spoilers" from drawing off votes from major-party candidates, e.g., Gore's defeat in 2000 is generally attributed to vote losses to Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.<<<

Which is part of why the two big parties make it difficult for third parties and independents.

Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> Gore's defeat should be attributed to the most obvious cause. Too many people saw him as an empty suit. <

Again my counterpart makes an excellent point. More proof that great minds work in the same circles.

Much of Gore's support came from people who just hated Bush. It can be seen that those states which came out in the largest percentages for Gore were those where he was the least known. I am reminded of several years ago when Governor Moonbeam was able to win majorities in the primaries of a few New England states before people at last discovered what a fruitcake he is.

Gore's inability to tell the truth, even when it would have been in his best interest, certainly counted against him.

There was one group that found Gore's attractions irresistible; that was the woodpeckers.

Saturday, August 05, 2006 1:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Neil Armstrong said...

<<< Thanks, Neil Armstrong for filling in for me. >>>

You're welcome, ViU.

BTW, did you notice what's happened to Buzz's and my videos?

Yuck! :-(

Saturday, August 05, 2006 11:24:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

W. Kevin Vicklund said --
>>>>>And how often does a rerun split the opposing party? 1%? Half a percent?<<<<<

In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt got more votes than his party's candidate, William Howard Taft, and the split gave the presidency to the Democrats. So the split was not good for the
Republicans but was definitely good for the Democrats!

When independent presidential candidates are not initially well-known nationally and are not rich, e.g., John Anderson, it seems surprising that they can get several million votes after just a few months of campaigning, because there must be a lot of people out there who would like to run for the presidency as an independent.

Voice In The Urbanness said --
>>>>>>Much of Gore's support came from people who just hated Bush. It can be seen that those states which came out in the largest percentages for Gore were those where he was the least known.<<<<<<

What do you mean, "least known"? Gore, as V.P. and a major-party candidate for president, was nationally very well known! VIU, you just don't think straight.

Nader's effect on the 2000 election is discussed here.

Anyway, I think that it is too early for the Darwinists to celebrate about Kansas -- we need to wait until after the November general election to see what the new board is going to do.

Sunday, August 06, 2006 2:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Voice In The Urbanness said --
>>>>>>Much of Gore's support came from people who just hated Bush. It can be seen that those states which came out in the largest percentages for Gore were those where he was the least known.<<<<<<

> What do you mean, "least known"? Gore, as V.P. and a major-party candidate for president, was nationally very well known! <

Do you ever read posts before your feeble attempts to reply to them? Is it your claim that Gore was equally well known in every corner of the country? If not, your reply only shows the lack of comprehension that you have so clearly displayed in your other "interpretations".

Larry(?), you just don't think straight.

> Nader's effect on the 2000 election is discussed here. <

It was not necessary. The article gives nothing that disagrees with ViU's interpretation. In fact it seems to agree:

"Many analysts believed that a substantial number of Nader supporters would more likely have chosen Gore over Bush. If this is true, and enough of those supporters would have still shown up to the polls, and enough of those would have still have voted for President, and enough of those would have not voted for another Green Party or other third Party candidate, then Nader may have been a factor in the outcome of the election."

It seems that the Wikipedia article agrees with ViU while yours only seems to agree with those little voices in your head.

Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> What do you mean, "least known"? Gore, as V.P. and a major-party candidate for president, was nationally very well known! <

Larry(?), I will give you a little help here as you are clearly out of your depth. "Very well known" does not mean that someone is known equally well everywhere and public "knowledge" of people often applies only to name and face recognition.

Out of all of the people who would claim to have known Al Gore, or for that matter any candidate, perhaps their guess as to whether he had been a senator, representative, or even a state governor would not beat a random guess by a large margin.

As an example of "public knowledge", the O.J. Simpson trial was publicized from beginning to end and even if one attempted to avoid it, news coverage was so ubiquitous that one could hardly do so. Nearly every one seems to have strong feelings about the case yet, when questioned, I doubt if more than 5% could accurately describe a single piece of evidence in the case. When you add the intentional spin that is the case with political figures, true knowledge (with accuracy) is probably an even rarer commodity.

Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:34:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Urbanness 8/06/2006 07:34:16 AM
>>>>>>> What do you mean, "least known"? Gore, as V.P. and a major-party candidate for president, was nationally very well known! <

"Very well known" does not mean that someone is known equally well everywhere and public "knowledge" of people often applies only to name and face recognition.<<<<<<<

Saying that some people voted for Gore because they knew Bush Jr. well enough to hate him but knew little or nothing about Gore is one of the dumbest ideas I ever heard -- and I have heard a lot of dumb ideas from the trolls on this blog.

And this shit is coming from people who call me illogical and stupid.

Voice In The Wilderness said ( August 06, 2006 7:06:55 AM ) --
>>>>>>> Nader's effect on the 2000 election is discussed here. <

The article gives nothing that disagrees with ViU's interpretation. In fact it seems to agree:

"Many analysts believed that a substantial number of Nader supporters would more likely have chosen Gore over Bush . If this is true, and enough of those supporters would have still shown up to the polls, and enough of those would have still have voted for President, and enough of those would have not voted for another Green Party or other third Party candidate, then Nader may have been a factor in the outcome of the election."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You stupid moron, that was only one of the opinions given in the article. Another opinion said, "Most political analysts and experts believe that Nader's presence on the ballot in Florida in 2000 was one of factors that combined to give Bush the election." The election was finally decided by the vote in Florida. A combination of the article's statements "Nader's vote total in Florida was 97,488 where the final certified vote count had a margin of 537" and "Many analysts believed that a substantial number of Nader supporters would more likely have chosen Gore over Bush" shows that Nader's candidacy arguably cost Gore the election.

Sunday, August 06, 2006 11:47:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Saying that some people voted for Gore because they knew Bush Jr. well enough to hate him but knew little or nothing about Gore is one of the dumbest ideas I ever heard <

What is really dumb is your thinking that anyone said that. Read it again and if you still don’t understand it, ask someone for help. I don’t think that it would be possible to make it simple enough for someone with your lack of mentality to understand it.

Besides, I don’t think anyone hates Bush Jr. because they know him well. Most of those who do hate him do so because they have been told to hate him by the people who do their thinking for them.

> And this shit is coming from people who call me illogical and stupid. <

As you have just proven yourself to be.

>>>> The article gives nothing that disagrees with ViU's interpretation. In fact it seems to agree: <<<<

> You stupid moron, that was only one of the opinions given in the article. <

You pathetic lamebrain, it was exactly what you linked to and it agrees with ViU. The fact that others have different opinions has no effect on the validity of ViU’s logic, as agreed to in the article quoted just as your mindless babble has no effect on the validity of evolution.

As to what “most” believe, it was recently published by BBC that in a poll 53% of the population believe that the world is only about 6000 years old and you yourself once believed that man never landed on the moon. Perhaps you still don’t.

Is that clear?

Sunday, August 06, 2006 3:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> Saying that some people voted for Gore because they knew Bush Jr. well enough to hate him but knew little or nothing about Gore is one of the dumbest ideas I ever heard <

Yes it is. I don't know why you are saying it. Please look back at what I said and at least make some attempt to understand it. I know that is difficult for you.

What I clearly said was that the less people knew about Gore, the more likely they were to vote for him. This is borne out by the actual vote. He barely got any votes in his home town.

You also seem to claim that since he was the candidate of a major party, everyone knew everything that there was to know about him. This is not what a sane person would say.

Surely even you realize that your brain is slipping a few gears. I urge you to get professional help before it is too late.

> And this shit is coming from people who call me illogical and stupid. <

No. The shit is coming from you who are illogical and stupid.

Sunday, August 06, 2006 5:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry(?), Come out, come out.

Monday, August 07, 2006 4:43:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Urbanness said --

>>>>>>>What I clearly said was that the less people knew about Gore, the more likely they were to vote for him. This is borne out by the actual vote. He barely got any votes in his home town.<<<<<<<

That does not follow at all from your allegation that he barely got any votes in his hometown. No sane person would draw that conclusion. That is just what you want to believe.

>>>>>>You also seem to claim that since he was the candidate of a major party, everyone knew everything that there was to know about him. <<<<<<<

I never said that, you stupid fathead.

Anonymous said --

>>>>>Larry(?), Come out, come out.<<<<<<

Anonymous(?), go away, go away.

Anonymous, damn you, how many times do I have to explain that I am not obligated to participate in the discussions here. If you go to Panda's Thumb, for example, you can see threads that are hundreds of comments long with no comment from the blogger who posted the original article.

Monday, August 07, 2006 7:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> That does not follow at all from your allegation that he barely got any votes in his hometown.<

No. It is necessary to read more than one sentence to actually understand what I said.

Let’s go back to my original statement:

“It can be seen that those states which came out in the largest percentages for Gore were those where he was the least known.”

This is not an opinion. It is a fact. It can be seen from the vote. What is your “interpretation” of that fact.

>>>>>>You also seem to claim that since he was the candidate of a major party, everyone knew everything that there was to know about him. <<<<<<<

> I never said that, you stupid fathead. <

You pathetic dimwit, what you said was:

“What do you mean, "least known"? Gore, as V.P. and a major-party candidate for president, was nationally very well known! VIU, you just don't think straight.”

As can be seen, you just don’t think straight. You certainly imply that everyone knows an equal amount about him. Any other interpretation would have it making even less sense than it seems to in answer to my statement.

> Anonymous, damn you, how many times do I have to explain that I am not obligated to participate in the discussions here. <

I think what he is referring to is your hit and run cowardice. You accuse Ed of being a coward and yet you will make a comment and when you realize you have been treed, or are only making a fool of yourself, (a situation that occurs quite often) you change to another thread or subject. If you post something here, especially when it is quite illogical, as it often is, you should expect to be challenged. If you want to hide, do it at the beginning. Do not begin a discussion and then duck out when you are losing.

I would suggest that some of the local junior colleges may have classes in debate. Since you obviously do not have anything valuable to do with your time, you might look into this. It is clearly a weakness on your part.

Monday, August 07, 2006 7:53:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Urbanness said ( 8/07/2006 07:53:14 AM ) --
>>>>>Let’s go back to my original statement:

“It can be seen that those states which came out in the largest percentages for Gore were those where he was the least known.”

This is not an opinion. It is a fact. It can be seen from the vote. What is your “interpretation” of that fact.<<<<<<

The only pieces of evidence you have provided are: (1) he lost his home state of Tennessee and (2) your allegation that he barely got any votes in his hometown. And there is not even any evidence that he was better known in these places than in other places or most other places. In other words, you just jumped to the conclusion that you want to believe -- your tendency to do this is one reason why you are a fanatical Darwinist.

>>>>>>You also seem to claim that since he was the candidate of a major party, everyone knew everything that there was to know about him.

> I never said that, you stupid fathead. <

You pathetic dimwit, what you said was:

“What do you mean, "least known"? Gore, as V.P. and a major-party candidate for president, was nationally very well known! VIU, you just don't think straight.”

As can be seen, you just don’t think straight. You certainly imply that everyone knows an equal amount about him. <<<<<<

I just felt no need to elaborate. Because he presumably was well known across the country, being "least known" in some places was not significant.

>>>>>>I think what he is referring to is your hit and run cowardice. You accuse Ed of being a coward and yet you will make a comment and when you realize you have been treed, or are only making a fool of yourself, (a situation that occurs quite often) you change to another thread or subject. <<<<<<

I called Ed a coward for kicking me off his blog -- I never called him a coward for not responding to my comments.

As I said, many bloggers -- e.g., on Panda's Thumb -- participate little or none at all in the discussions on their blogs, even where the comments are very critical of the original articles.

Monday, August 07, 2006 1:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

> The only pieces of evidence you have provided are: (1) he lost his home state of Tennessee and (2) your allegation that he barely got any votes in his hometown. <

I did not provide those as evidence of the fact that he got the most votes in places that he was least known. These only showed the extreme point.

> And there is not even any evidence that he was better known in these places than in other places or most other places. <

What a great leap! I assumed that he was better known in his home town than in North Dakota. Get your head out of your ass.

> I just felt no need to elaborate. Because he presumably was well known across the country, being "least known" in some places was not significant. <

Being “least known” in some places is exactly the point.

> I called Ed a coward for kicking me off his blog -- I never called him a coward for not responding to my comments. <

Can’t you stop lying? Don’t you realize how ridiculous you are making yourself appear? Your posts calling him a coward for not debating you are still on this blog. You are obviously the coward by your own standards.

> As I said, many bloggers -- e.g., on Panda's Thumb -- participate little or none at all in the discussions on their blogs, even where the comments are very critical of the original articles. <

You could just have used a number for this mindless repetition. In fact most of your posts are repetitions so I would suggest that you use ViW’s numbering system to reduce typing effort.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006 7:19:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

VIU said --
>>>>>>>
> The only pieces of evidence you have provided are: (1) he lost his home state of Tennessee and (2) your allegation that he barely got any votes in his hometown. <

I did not provide those as evidence of the fact that he got the most votes in places that he was least known. These only showed the extreme point. <<<<<<

As I said, those are the only pieces of evidence that you provided. It is impossible to generalize from so little evidence.

<<<<<<<> And there is not even any evidence that he was better known in these places than in other places or most other places. <

What a great leap! I assumed that he was better known in his home town than in North Dakota. Get your head out of your ass.<<<<<<

Two presidents -- Nixon and Reagan -- were from California, but I can't say that I knew them any better than I knew out-of-state presidents and presidential candidates.

>>>>>Can’t you stop lying? Don’t you realize how ridiculous you are making yourself appear? Your posts calling him a coward for not debating you are still on this blog. <<<<<

I challenged Ed Brayton to debate me on this blog only after he directly attacked me and my ideas on his blog, where I am banned.

<<<<<<> As I said, many bloggers -- e.g., on Panda's Thumb -- participate little or none at all in the discussions on their blogs, even where the comments are very critical of the original articles. <

You could just have used a number for this mindless repetition. <<<<<<

It is too bad that I have to keep repeating this point because the trolls here are of course not getting the message.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:27:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

>>>>>>I did not provide those as evidence of the fact that he got the most votes in places that he was least known. These only showed the extreme point. <<<<<<

> As I said, those are the only pieces of evidence that you provided. <

Here we have proof positive that Larry(?) does understand, or does not read the posts to which he lamely attempts to respond.

> It is impossible to generalize from so little evidence. <

Who did?

> Two presidents -- Nixon and Reagan -- were from California, but I can't say that I knew them any better than I knew out-of-state presidents and presidential candidates. <

You are saying that you did not know Nixon any better than you knew Hubert Humphries? You did not know Reagan better than Walter Mondale? Both Nixon and Reagan served as Governor of California. Can you say as much about what Humphries and Mondale did before running for President? Of course both were senators, but for how long? What did they do before that? Someone from Minnesota would likely know more about either.

Of course, all three Democrats mentioned were once vice-president. The story goes about the old woman with two sons. One went to sea and the other was elected vice-president and neither were ever heard from again.

On the other hand, you seem to have so little accurate information about anything or anybody that your claim may be correct.

>>>>>Can’t you stop lying? Don’t you realize how ridiculous you are making yourself appear? Your posts calling him a coward for not debating you are still on this blog. <<<<<

> I challenged Ed Brayton to debate me on this blog only after he directly attacked me and my ideas on his blog, where I am banned. <

So now you admit that you called him a coward for not debating, as you yourself rarely do. Confession is good for the soul.

>>>>>> You could just have used a number for this mindless repetition. <<<<<<

> It is too bad that I have to keep repeating this point because the trolls here are of course not getting the message. <

No. You are the troll that still is not getting the message. Repeating nonsense does not increase its accuracy or make it any less ridiculous.

Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Urbanness said...

ViW,

Thank you for replying for me as I often do for you on weekends. I was beginning to wonder what happened to you.

I would like to point out that I would have noted that both Humphrey (you blew the spelling) and Mondale won their home state, unlike Gore. In Mondale's case he only won his own state and the far out District of Columbia.

It was also claimed that George Wallace's presence blew the election for Humphrey. This seems to hold even less water than the claim about Nader in Gore's loss.

Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In The Wilderness said --
>>>>> Both Nixon and Reagan served as Governor of California.<<<<<<

Nixon was never governor of California.

>>>>>>Of course, all three Democrats mentioned were once vice-president. <<<<<<

You mentioned only two Democrats -- Humphrey and Mondale.

>>>>> Of course both were senators, but for how long? What did they do before that? Someone from Minnesota would likely know more about either. <<<<<

When people become major-party presidential candidates, you learn about them in a hurry.

>>>>>So now you admit that you called him a coward for not debating, <<<<<<

No, you stupid fathead, I admitted nothing. I challenged him to a debate on this blog because he was taking cowardly potshots at me on his blog where I am banned. It takes a real low-life to do that sort of thing.

Thursday, August 10, 2006 9:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> Nixon was never governor of California. <

This is one of these rare times that you are right. Nixon ran for Governor of California and lost.

>>>>>Of course, all three Democrats mentioned were once vice-president. <<<<<<

> You mentioned only two Democrats -- Humphrey and Mondale. <

I thought that Al Gore was a Democrat. Please forgive me. Also please forgive the Democrats who ran him as their candidate for President.

>>>>> Of course both were senators, but for how long? What did they do before that? Someone from Minnesota would likely know more about either. <<<<<

> When people become major-party presidential candidates, you learn about them in a hurry. <

You didn't. And you are still trying to pretend that everyone knew them equally, their mothers, their neighbors, and a hermit in North Dakota.

> It takes a real low-life to do that sort of thing. <

I wouldn't call you a low-life. An idiot, perhaps, insane, definitely, but not a low-life.

Friday, August 11, 2006 1:38:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

<< "Very well known" does not mean that someone is known equally well everywhere and public "knowledge" of people often applies only to name and face recognition. >>

What is "well known" by most people about candidates is generally what the mass media want us to know. Getting beyond that requires a level of diligence that very few are willing to muster. And the number who are aware of that media "fog" are not a lot more.

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:55:00 AM  
Blogger Dave Fafarman said...

P.S. And, home state residents -- not to mention neighbors, relatives, etc. -- do have an edge. That should not be a surprise.

Friday, August 11, 2006 9:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

Real Dave said...

> And, home state residents -- not to mention neighbors, relatives, etc. -- do have an edge. That should not be a surprise. <

This is an amazing disconnect for Larry(?). He doesn't even seem to understand the basis of ViU's statement.

According to Larry(?), all people have equal knowledge of political figures. He seems to be completely devoid of logic and common sense. Has he always been this way?

Friday, August 11, 2006 7:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home