Interesting election antics in Kansas

[BreezeWood]

Oh how about all 3 stay in the race and we have a run-off so that one will win with a majority?

Would THAT satisfy you?

.

its irrelevant who runs or how many, what should be required in ( all ) State's law is no official can be elected to office with less than 50% + 1.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

How can you place any blame on Roberts. He entered a race with 3 candidates and your typical Liberal Illogic makes it his fault that Taylor is trying to drop out.

How about Orman as the unaffiliated candidate drop out of the race? Let's suppose that that gave Taylor the advantage. Would you then still complain that Roberts is manipulative?

Of course you wouldn't get my analogy. NOTHING is ever your fault.

You get arrested, it's police harassment. You don't graduate High school, tests are biased. You have 5 kids by 5 different baby daddies and it's because Republicans won't give you free rubbers and abortions.

Christ!

I never said anything about it being Roberts fault that Taylor is dropping out. I'm saying it's manipulative of Roberts to depend on dividing the vote in order to win. Why can't a sitting incumbent win a simple majority of the vote? Why is Taylor dropping out of the race even an issue at all? Shouldn't Roberts have majority support regardless of who runs for election?

Well, yeah, that's the thing. I don't remember hearing of a Republican winning in Kansas with under 50% in any major election, excepting the 1992 GE. In the land of Oz, even a bad GOPer should be winning very easily. That tells us how much Kansans really, really don't want him anymore.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

EarthLink - Political News

Roberts calls independent challenger a liberal

.
that's it, the gloves are off.

.

 

[Shanty]

I was reading where the Democrats might be smart to find a Democrat to run with the name Pat Roberts, to ensure Orman wins.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I was reading where the Democrats might be smart to find a Democrat to run with the name Pat Roberts, to ensure Orman wins.

Wouldn't that be an absolute kick in the ass...

 

[Shanty]

I was reading where the Democrats might be smart to find a Democrat to run with the name Pat Roberts, to ensure Orman wins.

Wouldn't that be an absolute kick in the ass...

I've seen it happen, and nearly happen, in elections. The one that nearly happened was Democrat Jon Taylor was going to run against John Taylor, a longtime, moderate Philadelphia State Rep.

 

[Shanty]

SurveyUSA Blog Archive In Kansas Primary Wins for Gov Brownback and Senator Roberts Do Nothing to Pave Path for Re-Election 8216 SOS 8217 for Incumbent GOP SOS

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

According to the law the withdrawing candidate has to state that he is incapable of serving if elected. What makes him incapable? It would seem to me that the SOS made the right call under the law.

 

[Statistikhengst]

According to the law the withdrawing candidate has to state that he is incapable of serving if elected. What makes him incapable? It would seem to me that the SOS made the right call under the law.

You make a good point, but a candidate is not required to say WHY, all he is required to do is to state that it is so.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

According to the law the withdrawing candidate has to state that he is incapable of serving if elected. What makes him incapable? It would seem to me that the SOS made the right call under the law.

You make a good point, but a candidate is not required to say WHY, all he is required to do is to state that it is so.

I understand, but does he have to be able to prove it? If that is the requirement I would think he'd have to be able to demonstrate the claim.

 

[Samson]

Wow, another partisan thread about another Dem withdrawl and another conspiracy theory to support it.

I'm only astonished Statgesundheit hasn't Blamed Bush.

 

[Statistikhengst]

According to the law the withdrawing candidate has to state that he is incapable of serving if elected. What makes him incapable? It would seem to me that the SOS made the right call under the law.

You make a good point, but a candidate is not required to say WHY, all he is required to do is to state that it is so.

I understand, but does he have to be able to prove it? If that is the requirement I would think he'd have to be able to demonstrate the claim.

No, according to KS election law, a candidate is only required to say that he would be incapable of fullfilling the duties of the office he was running for.

 

[Shanty]

According to the law the withdrawing candidate has to state that he is incapable of serving if elected. What makes him incapable? It would seem to me that the SOS made the right call under the law.

You make a good point, but a candidate is not required to say WHY, all he is required to do is to state that it is so.

He could just claim that he won't accept having the Oath of Office for congress administered to him, if a reason is needed.

 

[Ernie S.]

According to the law the withdrawing candidate has to state that he is incapable of serving if elected. What makes him incapable? It would seem to me that the SOS made the right call under the law.

You make a good point, but a candidate is not required to say WHY, all he is required to do is to state that it is so.

I understand, but does he have to be able to prove it? If that is the requirement I would think he'd have to be able to demonstrate the claim.

Not if he's a Democrat. They don't claim honesty and family values.

 

[Ernie S.]

According to the law the withdrawing candidate has to state that he is incapable of serving if elected. What makes him incapable? It would seem to me that the SOS made the right call under the law.

You make a good point, but a candidate is not required to say WHY, all he is required to do is to state that it is so.

I understand, but does he have to be able to prove it? If that is the requirement I would think he'd have to be able to demonstrate the claim.

No, according to KS election law, a candidate is only required to say that he would be incapable of fullfilling the duties of the office he was running for.

Obviously, a couple weeks ago, he felt capable. The only thing that has changed is the fact that the Conservative candidate wins if he remains in the race.
If he's suddenly claiming to be incapable of serving if elected, he really needs to back that up.

 

[Statistikhengst]

According to the law the withdrawing candidate has to state that he is incapable of serving if elected. What makes him incapable? It would seem to me that the SOS made the right call under the law.

You make a good point, but a candidate is not required to say WHY, all he is required to do is to state that it is so.

I understand, but does he have to be able to prove it? If that is the requirement I would think he'd have to be able to demonstrate the claim.

Not if he's a Democrat. They don't claim honesty and family values.

These Republicans definitely do not:

Mark Sanford
David Vitter
Herman Cain
Chris Myers
Newt Gingrich
Philipp Hinkle
Christopher Lee
Mike Duval
John Ensign
Mark Foley*
Larry Craig**
Vito Fossella
Charles Boutin
Bob Allen
Don Sherwood
James E. West
Jack Ryan (think "7 of 9")
Steve LaTourette
Rudy Giuiliani
Henry Hyde
Helen Chenoweth-Hague
Bob Livingston
Bob Packwood
Ken Kalvert
Jon Lunseth
Buz Lukens
Dan Crane*
John Schmitz
John Hinson**
Robert Bauman*
Thomas B. Evans
Charlie Crist
Matt Wingard
Adam Kuhn (OH)
Ryan Loskarn
Mark Souder
Tom Ganley
Chip Pickering
Randall L. Tobias
Brian J. Doyle
Don Sherwood
Ed Schrock*
Henry Hyde
Bob Barr
Dan Burton
Nelson Rockefeller (died while fucking a 25 year old research assistant)

*fucking male pages or prostitutes
**giving blowjobs to men in bathrooms, apparently, a GOP specialty.


Those are elected or appointed GOP reps or their staff. Most of them are elected. This list only goes back to about 1970 and only deals with GOPers disgraced with sex scandals. The financial scandals list is much, much longer.

Family values, my ass.

 

[Shanty]

I don't really care if Republicans are banging women or men who aren't their spouses. But their hypocrisy about being for family values is what I take aim at.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't really care if Republicans are banging women or men who aren't their spouses. But their hypocrisy about being for family values is what I take aim at.

And that was point point of my long, long, long list.

 

[hadit]

Wow, another partisan thread about another Dem withdrawl and another conspiracy theory to support it.

I'm only astonished Statgesundheit hasn't Blamed Bush.

It's not over yet...

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Sen. Pat Roberts Tied With Independent Challenger In New Poll

The SurveyUSA poll, conducted for KSN News, gave Orman 37 percent of the vote to Roberts' 36 percent (a difference within the poll's margin of error). Democrat Chad Taylor, whose name will remain on the ballot pending a lawsuit, took 10 percent, with libertarian Randall Batson winning 6 percent and the remainder undecided.

Democrat Chad Taylor, whose name will remain on the ballot pending a lawsuit, took 10 percent,


with Taylor poling 10%, Orman still is ahead of Roberts by 1.

the r in Kansas is in trouble.

.