Posts
It is unsurprising that Nevada's largest & most organized third party, the Independent American Party, has had its fair share of critics and even enemies, especially those that throw around inaccurate, and even simpleton-minded condemnation of the IAP and its members.
With a political group as battle-hardened, and yet as modestly successful in state and local politics as the IAP is- people in both high and low places of society, as well as being of, or not of, our state government, are always seeking to throw any kind of monkey-wrench into the works.
Dullard Mush, a blog that a run by a Nevada blogger known as 'The Anon Guy', whom in addition, runs another blog that constantly features Pro-Barack Obama campaign emails is no exception in his constant criticism of the IAP over various petty matters, such as voter registration and the Party's name, campaigning, etc.
However such smear tactics haven't gone entirely unnoticed in their ad hominem inaccuracy and factual distortion, even if they do go unnoticed by the media and public attention, nevertheless.
Examples of Anon's attack pieces would include:
* A subliminal attack on the IAP's former congressional candidate, Russell Best, suggesting that he accidentally filed for US senate when in fact the Secretary of State's office had inaccuracy reported on their website that he was running for US Senate, when Tim Fasano was yet the official IAP Senate candidate that was supposed to be listed on that website instead.
Anon did not do a follow up on the matter, which isn't surprising.
* A petty and inaccurate article that bashed the IAP voter registration gains throughout the years. Anon didn't pay attention to the fact that while the IAP has been balloted qualified since 1992, its numbers didn't start to grow until after 2001, which is quite odd because- if Anon is right that the solid majority of Nevadans only register IAP simply for the name -then why didn't the IAP explode in voter registration numbers during the 90's? Why were there only 15,462 registered IAP'ers, in Nevada as of January of 2001, which made up barely 2% of the state's voter registration total then?
It is noted that when the IAP became more active in the political scene in Nevada around 2002 with increased efforts of activism and media coverage, the Party's numbers then began to skyrocket.
Anon also failed to note that in terms of the percentages in each county's voter registration totals, the IAP is larger in the rural and more conservative parts of the state, where the voters would be more the wiser to know just what political party they are registering to, and where not only would such voters be sympathetic to the IAP's message, but even vote for IAP candidates in high percentages, as well as electing a few to office too. Another thing, the majority of the Party's voters may lie in Clark County, which is likewise for all political parties in Nevada, but in Esmeralda County alone, while IAP may only have 47 registered voters there, Esmeralda has a total of 562 registered voters, according the June 2011 totals. So over 8% of the voting population in Esmeralda is IAP, which is very good for a third party!
With this one county being just one example out of many here, yet Esmeralda has also seen high vote percentages for IAP candidates and even saw the 2010 election of one into local office there.
Once more, Anon's arguments began to break down.
Anon also tried using even more petty comparisons in the same article when it came to IAP candidates and the numbers; trying to use a long-refuted argument of how the majority of IAP voters fail to come out to vote for the Party's candidates for major offices. Yet Anon takes on his true anti-third party mentality here when he forgets that it is a common habit of the typical American voter to be more likely to stick to the status-quo on voting for majority-party candidates for such high-profile races that voters would be the most passionate about; while on the other hand, when it comes to state office, and other elected offices that aren't as extensively covered by the media or conspicuous to the general public, then will the status-quo bend, or even get broken, and third party candidates will do much better in these races in comparison to the higher offices; this fact is true for all third parties, including the LP, the IAP, the Greens, etc.
And need I say, there's also the factor of just how hard, or how little, such third party candidates for major & minor offices campaign for votes; that is another thing to consider on the vote totals.
When Anon gets down to the congressional offices, he still continues the distortion, failing to note the IAP's spike in numbers that their candidates receive; pointing instead to how the LP candidates, or rival candidates of other third parties get better percentages when compared to the number of their party's registered voters in their district or area. However, the math he uses is quite interesting and even more over-exaggerated; for example, if 'Candidate A' is a member of a party that has a total of 200 registered voters in his District and he gets 400 votes in a race, then he has gotten 100% more votes then there are registered voters of his party in that District. Then there's 'Candidate B', who is a member of a party that has a total of 1000 registered voters in the same District, and in the same race, gets 1,500 votes, or 50% more then the number of registered voters in his party.
And according to Anon's logic; 'Candidate A' performed way better then 'Candidate B', because he got a better percentage of votes when compared to the number of registered voters of his party in his District.
-Such logic would make sense in a Leslie Nielsen movie.
Anon did his best to try making the Nevada LP look good in comparison to the IAP, yet he still fails when confronted with the facts, numbers, and logic; especially when several IAP candidates that ran for state offices in 2006, and in 2010, actually proved wrong his arguments about the percentage of IAP voters voting for, or not voting for, the IAP line; these examples are- Janine Hansen running for Secretary of State in 2006 and her brother Joel, who ran for State Attorney General in 2010; both won more votes then the number of IAP registered voters in Nevada at the time...
And if we stick to Anon's own logic, we are talking about only the Active Voters here.
Another argument that he makes, which also has been turned upside down, is the partially-accurate fact that IAP candidates do exceptionally well in races where they are running against a sole Republican, or Democratic candidate, because it is simply between two candidates only in that race. This argument may be true indeed, but he also forgets that while any kind of third party candidate can do well in two-way races, there are also several exceptions where IAP candidates have placed Second, or even won partisan office in races where the IAP candidate was up against more then one opponent. Such examples would be Jackie Berg's 2006 race for Eureka County Clerk, John Lampros's 2010 race for White Pine County Commission Board, Arthur Wehrmeister's 2010 race for Esmeralda County District Attorney, and Janine Hansen's 2010 race for State Assembly District 33, where she won Second place over her Democratic opponent.
Again, when confronted with such facts and results, Anon's arguments continue to fall flat and into the dark crevices when first seeing the real light of day.
* His attack on the IAP in this piece, which he defended Scott Ashjian, the "Tea Party of Nevada" candidate for US Senate last year. Yet Scott was exposed as a crooked businessman with serious legal and financial issues under his belt, as well as being a possible political operative that violated NRS.293.184 by lying on his candidate paperwork. Many of the Tea Party groups in Nevada also denounced Ashjian's candidacy, stating that he never was involved with them or even participated in their rallies, unlike the IAP, which has been working closely with the movement in Nevada since 2009. Ashjian basically ran as a candidate of a fake political party, whose leaders and officers were not only family and business associates of him, but included several outspoken Democrats, including Barry Levinson, who served as the Secretary for the TPN.
As Ashjian failed to garner enough votes to on election day to qualify his 'political party' for the Nevada ballot in 2012, he soon dropped out of the public eye and has been maintaining a low profile since, except for still fighting against a few legal charges that won't go away.
Yet Anon's silly calls of hypocracy on the IAP's joint-lawsuit with the Tea Party movement fall on deaf ears, as many third party activists in Nevada, including Debra Dedmon- a officer with the Clark County Libertarian Party and a online blogger who as goes by the name 'LibertarianGirl' -denounced Ashjian's candidacy as a fake third-party candidate.
Anon Guy's criticism fails, yet again.
* Anon claimed in another article that IAP'er Ike Yochum's 2010 candidacy in the State Senate, Washoe District 1 race would help out Ty Cobb in his battle against fellow Republican Ben Kieckhefer, when Ty Cobb went on to lose the GOP Primary against Kieckhefer. While this piece wasn't critical of anything Independent American, his stereotypical prediction of that race was as accurate as his facts are on the IAP itself.
As much as he has gone out of the way to bash the IAP and anything related to it, the main fact that very few Nevadans pay attention to a petty and spiteful anti-third party blogger such as him, and even those that do and also take the time to research his claims, like this writer has, rings true. Especially when taking notes of his friendly twitter correspondence with Nevada's Secretary of State, Ross Miller, whom has been hostile to political third parties in the state and even crafted legislation (A.B. 81 & A.B. 82), that would have greatly hurt Nevada third party candidates during the last session. And if not for the efforts of the citizen lobbyists of the IAP, the NVLP, and others, then such bills wouldn't have been watered down and stripped of the harmful language that was contained in them at the time.
As always, there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to the conga line of anti-Independent American bleaters and screechers that yet miss the mark. 'The Anon Guy' is no exception, and neither is his ignorant and simpleton prejudice.
15 comments:
One reason for the increase in voter registration is probably that the federal "motor-voter" law was passed in 1993, requiring the states to use postcard registration forms. When Nevada started using that form, it listed all the ballot-qualified parties on that form. I believe that before then, the voter registration form did not list all the ballot-qualified parties.
The American Independent Party of California registration took off after California started using postcard voter registration forms in 1976, forms which listed all the qualified parties. Before 1976 California registration forms did not list the qualified parties.
That's interesting, but I believe they started using such forms before 2000, and the IAP didn't start taking off in their growth spurt until 2002.
Quirk,
Whether on my site or here, you do yourself and party no favors.
Seriously, I retweet a SOS Tweet on redistricting and that becomes a "friendly Twitter correspondence with Nevada's Secretary of State Ross Miller."
Or my "subliminal attack" on whether Best or Fasano was the IAP candidate. If he actually read the post he would see I was pointing out the SOS mistake as I wrote it was "unlikely" Best would file for the wrong office.
And, in what truly seems an obsession, Quirk continues to harp on Esmeralda's registration numbers. Nobody denies the IAP has 8% of the voters. That's great. I just pointed out that amounts to 47 voters (yes, Nevada rural counties are exceptionally tiny in population).
As for Ashjian and his Tea Party, yeah it was a vanity project that managed to find a loophole in ballot access. But that is a good thing for third parties. I was hardly a supporter of his. I just found the outcry of other third parties hammering away at his ballot access hypocritical as, I would assume, many others on this blog would.
And so what if he was a crappy businessman and such. There are plenty of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and IAPers who would fall under that description. I was addressing ballot access, not TPN support.
As for numbers, let's take a look at the numbers Quirk.
We'll start with the 2010 US senate race. The IAP's Tim Fasano scored a whopping 3,175 total votes. Yet there were 62,704 registered IAP voters going in to the election. So, in other words, the powerhouse that is the IAP turned out only 5% of their supporters?! Heck a true Independent, Michael Haynes, outpolled you. And in Esmeralda County? You scored just 10 votes and were outpolled by "None of the Above".
Now let's look at 2010's CD-3 election. The IAP had 17,707 registered voters in that district, while the Libertarians had just 2,409. So one should expect roughly a 7-to-1 IAP advantage in vote totals. But that didn't happen. And it wasn't even close. In fact it was a blowout in the other direction.
Your candidate Scott David Narter only received 1,291 votes despite having almost 18K fervent IAP registered voters, yet the Libertarian Joseph R. Silvestri received 4,026. So the LP candidate outpolled his registration numbers by about two and managed to defeat the IAP by about a 3.5 to 1 ratio. How was that possible? Oh wait, there was a true Independent, Barry Michaels, in the race. He received more votes (6,473) than the IAP and LP combined.
And, again, nobody was arguing the IAP isn't the bigger and more active third party in Nevada. It's just you are not 65K+ strong.
Oh, and finally, since every other charge you have made has been to be faulty, I'll end with your sly "he also has a site with pro Barack Obama messages." I'm assuming he is referring to Campaign Emails. If he actually read it, or tried to be truthful, he would have noted that it is a site devoted to the campaign emails of all the 2008 presidential candidates. Yes all, Quirk, including your Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin (55 emails), Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney, John Cox and all the others big and small.
Oh yes Anon, I'm quite the rabid badger when it comes to blogging & debate
I've already explained in my article the IAP numbers & the number of people who voted IAP and a few of the factors that come into play, and yet you still can't get around my arguments.
However, since the CD-3 issue is brought up again, how about we also examine the voter totals for Joe Heck and Dina Titus in that same race? In that District alone, there were 177,963 registered Democrats and 151,486 registered Republicans at the October Close of Registration that year. Heck got about 128,916 votes and Titus got 127,168 votes in that same race. It was close indeed, but still both candidates got less votes then the number of registered voters in each of their party- though Titus did worse then Heck in her vote totals compared to the number of registered Democrats in that District at the time (Getting only 70+% of the Democrat vote).
And when we're talking about the US Senate race, we have Harry Reid getting 362,785 votes and Sharron Angle taking 321,361 votes in that race, and then we look at the statewide voter reg. totals at that time- there were 588,970 registered Democrats and 484,791 registered Republicans in Nevada at the October Close of Registration.
So both candidates earned barely over 2/3 of the votes of the total number of people registered to each of the major parties.
But if you want to go to extremes, then look at the number of votes Rory Reid got in his race for Governor- 298,171. That's barely over half the total number of all registered Nevada Democrats at the time!
Another big factor that also needs to be taken into consideration go by two words: VOTER TURNOUT...
The turnout for the 2010 race was indeed high in most Nevada counties, though Clark was somewhat in-between, with 63.48% of the registered voters there turning out to vote. If we examine the 2010 race in the CD-3 District, we'll find that, out of the 420,265 registered voters in that District (As of the October 2010 Close of Registration), a total of only 267,874 of those registered voters voted in the CD-3 race, or basically, close to 1/3 of the people who were registered to vote in that district didn't vote at all.
You can't look at these things in terms of black and white, Anon.
There's various factors to consider in the vote totals, especially the fact that Silvestri campaigned hard in that race and Narter barely did any campaigning at all.
Nevertheless, your obvious prejudice against the IAP won't go unanswered; I can keep going at this until you back off.
But you are right about one thing- we are not 65K+ strong; only 60K+ strong, for now; give it a while and we'll be over 65K.
If your argument is "Hey, the Dems and GOPers only got 50 to 70% of their registered voters" how does that fly when the IAP was getting only about 5% of their registered voters? It makes no sense, mathematically or by reason. And if you throw in the LP going at about 250% of their reg numbers in CD-3 your turnout is even sadder.
The thing of it is, you can't argue the numbers. You can argue the IAP is the best organized third party in Nevada; runs, by far, the most candidates; is stronger in the rurals; have actually won some smaller elections (where I am assuming there were partisan labels on the ballot); and has the better known (relatively speaking) third party candidates (the Hansens). I and the other commenters on my blog all agreed to that.
It's just the thought that those 60K+ registered IAPers are all fully informed, hard-core conservatives who know what your platform is (and agree with it) and not poor saps who want to register as "independent" but don't know that means they needed to check the "non-partisan" box is wrong.
Yes, the IAP does have more true believer reg numbers than the LP, Green, etc. Probably a lot more percentage-wise.
No, they don't have 60K.
That's just a simple fact virtually all election experts in Nevada share. It's not bagging on the IAP or showing some perceived third-party hatred (it was a story about third parties for criminy sakes).
Cripes I don't see you complaining about my two-part interview with Christopher Hansen when he ran for Governor in '06.
'If your argument is "Hey, the Dems and GOPers only got 50 to 70% of their registered voters" how does that fly when the IAP was getting only about 5% of their registered voters? It makes no sense, mathematically or by reason. And if you throw in the LP going at about 250% of their reg numbers in CD-3 your turnout is even sadder.'
You're still ignoring the arguments I made in my article, especially about voter behavior in high profile races.
Did Bob Barr even get 100% of the Libertarian vote compared to the other LP candidates running for the lesser known offices?
You keep beating a dead horse on this, which is sad indeed.
'The thing of it is, you can't argue the numbers.'
You can't even understand them to began with.
'You can argue the IAP is the best organized third party in Nevada; runs, by far, the most candidates; is stronger in the rurals; have actually won some smaller elections (where I am assuming there were partisan labels on the ballot);'
Yes, they were partisan. I believe the two races we won that weren't partisan was a School Board race in Elko in 2004, and the 1999 election of Chuck Horne as Mayor of Mesquite.
'...and has the better known (relatively speaking) third party candidates (the Hansens). I and I and the other commenters on my blog all agreed to that.'
'It's just the thought that those 60K+ registered IAPers are all fully informed, hard-core conservatives who know what your platform is (and agree with it) and not poor saps who want to register as "independent" but don't know that means they needed to check the "non-partisan" box is wrong.'
As a honest courtesy, I'll admit that not all IAP voters are informed about the Party and perhaps some did mean to check the 'non-partisan' box instead. Yet even such behavior is like that with all political parties- do Democrats and Republicans all fit the mold of their own party's platform or their candidates ideology even?
But such 'poor saps' are NOT a majority among the IAP voter base as you presume.
For one, the IAP didn't start growing until the middle of the last decade, when Chris Hansen & family started getting media attention
'No, they don't have 60K.'
'Active Voter'-wise, we have around 50,000+, but I prefer to count the Total Number of voters- I've gotten complaints from a few people that claimed they were incorrectly listed on the inactive voter base when they voted in the last election, so I don't trust the accuracy of the active & inactive lists and prefer to stick to the Total Number.
'Cripes I don't see you complaining about my two-part interview with Christopher Hansen when he ran for Governor in '06.'
That was 5 years ago, but doing a search of the Independent American Party name on your site and I see nothing but negative articles and smear work on the IAP name since the 2006 Election, and then you want to pick a fight by featuring me in another anti-IAP article?
Boyo, you already got one.
That's a good idea. Let's look at the 2008 presidential totals.
You're right, Bob Barr received 4,263 votes while the Libertarian Party in Nevada had 8,675 registered voters. So only 49% of Nevada's LP voted for their nominee. And it looks like McCain got about 80% and Obama 84%. So that is pretty bad for the LP I guess.
Well, wait a second, let's check your nominee Chuck Baldwin. At the time I think the IAP had about 59,640 registered voters. So to outdo the LP you must have gotten roughly 30,000 or so votes.
Oh, wait, that's odd. I see Baldwin received only 3,194 votes. Or just 5.3% of the IAP's conservative Constitution Party affiliated voters. Wow, that's just weird, isn't it Quirk. Even on your suggested example the IAP grossly underperforms its alleged base.
You imply that there is some kind of fight going on, but that would suggest furiously fighting facts with facts. But you have continuously come up empty and have resorted to false charges and some paranoid belief that I'm out to get you and your party.
Again, I like third parties. But I don't like candidates like you who can't even piece together a rational argument in a civil tone. You are why the general public tends to think third party people are delusional nutcases. And each and every post you continue to make just proves their case more. For the sake fo your beloved party, you need to give it a rest.
'Oh, wait, that's odd. I see Baldwin received only 3,194 votes. Or just 5.3% of the IAP's conservative Constitution Party affiliated voters. Wow, that's just weird, isn't it Quirk. Even on your suggested example the IAP grossly underperforms its alleged base.'
Again you're still ignoring the points I made in my article, its quite sad; you're sounding like nothing but a broken record here.
Baldwin didn't do any campaigning at all in Nevada, and neither did we campaign hard for him here either, so not that much of the Nevada public got to hear his message.
But Barr did campaign here, and with Root, a Nevadan, as his running mate, of course he was going to get a good amount of votes here and especially do better then Chuck did.
However lets fast-forward to 2010 and look at Janine Hansen's run for the State Assembly last year; at the October Close of Registration then, there were only 755 registered IAP'ers in the 33rd District. Yet Janine got 4,100 votes- that's over 5 times the number of IAP voters in that District alone! And this was also a 3-way race!
So again, not all IAP candidates do poorly on the vote totals, as you like to imply.
'You imply that there is some kind of fight going on, but that would suggest furiously fighting facts with facts. But you have continuously come up empty and have resorted to false charges and some paranoid belief that I'm out to get you and your party.'
You're the one that started this when making mountains out of molehills with what you perceived as the flaws of the IAP. So I'm giving you a taste of your own medicine.
'Again, I like third parties. But I don't like candidates like you who can't even piece together a rational argument in a civil tone.'
I'm not a candidate, and obviously you can't refute my own refutations of your attack pieces except to try to smear me and then when I get on your ass in return and chisel away both your current and previous arguments, you only jump up and down pouting that "I'm right you're wrong! I'm right you're wrong!"
But its funny that, when I did run last year for the State Senate, I didn't do any campaigning at all and yet on election night I still got 71% of the total number of registered Independent Americans in my District (as of the October Close of Registration), while Kevin Ranft- who campaigned hard and nasty against Settelmeyer -got just 68% of the total number of registered Democrats in the same District.
So I do have to pat myself on the shoulder for doing quite well for a third party candidate that didn't put much of a effort into getting his message out to the voters.
"You are why the general public tends to think third party people are delusional nutcases. And each and every post you continue to make just proves their case more. For the sake fo your beloved party, you need to give it a rest."
Funny that with us still electing people to offices- especially in 3-way races -the general public doesn't follow your delusional logic, Anon.
For the sake of your own, give it up and stop the laughable attempt of a hatchet job on the IAP and anything Independent American.
Remember Cody, all those 60K IAPers are known hardcore conservatives. You know, the type who would know Baldwin was their man. And it was your argument to look at that race.
Yes, Janine did quite well. She lost by a bunch but overperformed on reg numbers. And, if the Dem wasn't in the race, it could have gotten very interesting. But, as I have said many times before, Janine Hansen is rather well-known in the rurals, she knows her stuff (whether a person agrees with her conclusions or not) and she doesn't run paper campaigns. She hustles out there, something the vast majority (like yourself when you "ran" in 2010) of third party candidates don't do.
I can see this is going nowhere as even when I follow up on your false claims you just barrel blindly ahead with either new ones or the same since-disproven ones. And on my site you have resorted to childish name-calling with some of my commenters.
I suspect you are sort of like the closeted gay man who, in public, is vehemently anti-homosexual in order to compensate for his feelings of inadequacy.
I think deep down Cody, you know a whole bunch of those 65K IAP registered voters are people too dumb to understand "non-partisan." But admitting it publicly would mean admitting a belief system you have devoted your life to isn't as big or widespread as you want to think. It's tough, Cody, but step into the light and I think you'll find everything is okay. You'll still be the biggest third party in Nevada and can still lose 99% of your races.
'Remember Cody, all those 60K IAPers are known hardcore conservatives. You know, the type who would know Baldwin was their man. And it was your argument to look at that race.'
Nope, you obviously didn't read the article, even still.
Let me guess, there are really 623 registered voters in Esmeralda County?
'Yes, Janine did quite well. She lost by a bunch but overperformed on reg numbers. And, if the Dem wasn't in the race, it could have gotten very interesting...'
Very good point; Janine has been a political activist since she was a teenager and had many allies supporting her campaign and also donated money to it; though Ellison used more money and had the local business & political establishment backing him, which is why he won.
On my end however, I was unemployed at that time & my finances weren't great either; hell, many of our candidates are simple down-to-earth people that struggle to make ends meet, and some even live paycheck to paycheck; granted, such people might not currently have the chance to get elected, but they could govern better then the current & high class politicians in office here.
However, while he didn't spend a single penny in his campaign, he had the GOP backing and his Democratic opponent was unpopular in his County; and all those factors helped elect Falkon Finlinson to office. So you'll still get exceptions here.
'And on my site you have resorted to childish name-calling with some of my commenters.'
Hey, they're not being respectful to me either, so they've earned it.
(Part 2 continued)
'I suspect you are sort of like the closeted gay man who, in public, is vehemently anti-homosexual in order to compensate for his feelings...'
Not really, I don't have a problem with gay people living their lifestyle at all- whether its a sin or not. And I think the gay marriage matter should be left up to the states to decide upon, as the 10th Amendment should always be the deciding factor on it, and especially with the issue of drug laws & enforcement.
I do have a girlfriend and am comfortably hetro- sorry to bust your bubble.
'I think deep down Cody, you know a whole bunch of those 65K IAP registered voters are people too dumb to understand "non-partisan".'
Excuse me but we aren't up to 65K registered voters yet.
Man you still can't get your facts right!
But such a stereotype of the IAP's voters that you advocate is as laughable as the Jews controlling all the world's banks and plotting to take over the world itself with their riches, or even the other one about having your soul stolen if somebody takes a picture of you.
And even if you we're right in your stereotype, then Janine Hansen wouldn't have gotten such high votes in her race for SoS back in 2006, or Joel in his recent race for State Attorney General, or Janine running for State Assembly, etc.
Better yet, we wouldn't be consistently electing people to partisan office as we are now.
The IAP also didn't start growing in their big numbers until the last 9 years, even though we;ve been ballot-qualified since 1992, and the fact that the current growth spurt right when Chris Hansen and the others started to be featured in the news is.
That's no coincidence. And if you were right, then we wouldn't be as big as we are now.
Another thing; I've done a voter registration drives by myself many times around my local town at supermarkets and local festivals, and while we don't have screaming fans chasing after us to sign up, I can get 7 people re-registered IAP in less then 5 hours, and that includes all the IAP & IAP candidate literature that would be on the table for them to read and make that decision.
Its more then just the name that attracts people to us, that's what you don't get.
Its more then obvious you don't know jack sh*t about voting behavior here.
So what you really need to do is take a walk, or even go out and have a drink, and realize that your delusions of grandeur about the IAP really are, just delusions.
Keep digging that hole Cody.
Let's see, I was likening you the the denial some gay men have, not a gay man. Though your quick response of you not being gay and having a girlfriend might indicate some even deeper issues than just your denial in the political realm.
So I put 65K instead of 60K (which I did use earlier) for your voter totals. Gee, let me guess this is as grave a sin as one of my commenters GUESSING Esmeralda had 600+ voters. He too made the grievous error of overstating your voter registration (in his case, a whopping FOUR).
Yes, the Hansens have done well by third party standards. They still lose in landslides, but they beat the Libertarians and Greens. They also have run about a million times and actually do interviews and spring for some signage (something most third-party candidates curiously avoid).
So continue on in your fantasy world where anyone who points out the whole "independent" thing is someone out to get third parties. If that helps you sleep at night, more power to you. Of course, you are making the IAP look like paranoid and delusional idiots at the same time but, apparently, you don't care. Good luck with that.
'Keep digging that hole Cody.'
Yeah, there's nothing like excavating your ego.
'Let's see, I was likening you the the denial some gay men have, not a gay man. Though your quick response of you not being gay and having a girlfriend might indicate some even deeper issues than just your denial in the political realm.'
Actually I think you're the one who's sexually disturbed, since you brought it up and keep bringing it up; maybe you need to come out of the closet on whatever you're trying to blame others on. Maybe you'll feel a lot better being mentally comfortable with yourself for once.
'So I put 65K instead of 60K (which I did use earlier) for your voter totals. Gee, let me guess this is as grave a sin as one of my commenters GUESSING Esmeralda had 600+ voters. He too made the grievous error of overstating your voter registration (in his case, a whopping FOUR).'
You both still made the error on that, and especially on your presumptions about the IAP. And I am the kind of person that always points out when the king is naked.
'Yes, the Hansens have done well by third party standards. They still lose in landslides, but they beat the Libertarians and Greens. They also have run about a million times and actually do interviews and spring for some signage (something most third-party candidates curiously avoid).'
And its because of them that the Party is big and well organized. They themselves be contributed to our growth in the last 9 years. Our own State Chair is a example of that- if not for the Hansens, he would still be a Republican.
'So continue on in your fantasy world where anyone who points out the whole "independent" thing is someone out to get third parties. If that helps you sleep at night, more power to you. Of course, you are making the IAP look like paranoid and delusional idiots at the same time but, apparently, you don't care. Good luck with that.'
Actually you're only making yourself look that way, especially when you're desperate and petty enough to try to question my sexuality when there's nothing to question at all, lol
Keep it up, this is becoming amusing to me.
This is very instructional for anyone feeling out third parties in Nevada. Consider it "Political Quackery or, Fringe Candidates 101."
By observing your continued misunderstanding of basic comments and opinion, you are proof positive of a rabid, closed-minded individual with a martyr complex ("Eight percent is huge! An you are after us because of that!!").
Now you are stuck on some comment about denial. The closeted gay man analogy was one that just fit your political scenario, not a statement to your sexuality. But like every other comment others and myself have made, you misread and jump on. My gay friend would say that's "latent" behavior on your part, but I think it's probably just simple stupidity on your part.
You can't make even the simplest arguments, so why you continue to expose the IAP has grazing ground for misinformed zealots is beyond me. If, indeed, you believe the IAP is the greatest party in Nevada and is on the verge of breaking out and making a difference, than common sense says a person like you needs to fade way into the background. But we all know that won't happen.
Now I know why Leonard Foster ditched the IAP.
'This is very instructional for anyone feeling out third parties in Nevada. Consider it "Political Quackery or, Fringe Candidates 101."'
Yes, it instructs how to deal with anti-third party (including anti-IAP) squealers like you.
'By observing your continued misunderstanding of basic comments and opinion, you are proof positive of a rabid, closed-minded individual with a martyr complex ("Eight percent is huge! An you are after us because of that!!").'
Is there any other third party in the US that makes up 8% of a voting population in a county? And the constant downplaying of the IAP's successes is only making your bias more apparent in every comment.
BTW, is there 623 registered voters in Esmeralda County right now?
'Now you are stuck on some comment about denial. The closeted gay man analogy was one that just fit your political scenario, not a statement to your sexuality. But like every other comment others and myself have made, you misread and jump on. My gay friend would say that's "latent" behavior on your part, but I think it's probably just simple stupidity on your part.'
No its actually desperation on your part, buddy, since you still can't counter-refute the arguments made in this article. Maybe you just need to stop being so latent, perhaps?
'You can't make even the simplest arguments, so why you continue to expose the IAP has grazing ground for misinformed zealots is beyond me. If, indeed, you believe the IAP is the greatest party in Nevada and is on the verge of breaking out and making a difference, than common sense says a person like you needs to fade way into the background. But we all know that won't happen.'
You claim I can't make any good arguments, yet you haven't even refuted the ones in my article to began with- all you can do is keep pouting and comparing sexual insecurity to politics, which makes me wonder about your own sanity.
'Now I know why Leonard Foster ditched the IAP.'
Yeah, that letter from Joel that I posted in your blog certainly drove that point home.
Post a Comment