Skip to comments.Ron Estes is running against Ron Estes
Posted on 06/01/2018 3:29:45 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
U.S. Rep. Ron Estes has a Republican primary opponent.
His name is Ron Estes.
Ron Estes not the congressman, the other one said Thursday he plans to run against the better-known Estes. The nonelected Estes, who filed as Ron M. Estes, lives in Wichita and is a first-time candidate. He said in a statement he is running because our status quo elected leaders refuse to represent the congressional district by avoiding town halls and constituents.
His campaign website calls him The Real Ron Estes.
(Excerpt) Read more at amp.kansas.com ...
This could become SNL confusing.
Funded by Rat Party Headquarters? The Rats in Massachusetts did this very same thing years ago when one of theirs was threatened by a Republican candidate.Worked like a charm.
So should no one else throw their hat into the the Republican primary then Ron Estes should be the Republican candidate. 8>)
I’m voting for Estes!
Heck yeah. Go with the winner!
Don't know what for. Hell with turn Methodist before the Kansas 4th elects a Democrat.
Won’t it say “(Incumbent)” on the ballot though? He’s not going to be fooling anyone.
Whose yard signs do you steal?
On the general election ballot I assume it would, but for the primary? I don't know; I don't live in Kansas.
A former co-worker had the name Richard Nixon & was persuaded to run for election because of it, pre-Watergate. He did not win.
It says “(Incumbent)” in my state both during primaries and the general election.
It sent Dan Glickman from 1977-1995. He wasn’t a Republican.
“Im voting for Estes!
Heck yeah. Go with the winner!”
I disagree. It’s time for a change. I’m voting for Estes!
You are aware that was 23 years ago? And that Glickman, running as an 9 term incumbent, was defeated by a Republican? And the seat has remained solidly Republican ever since? Did you know all that?
Yes. You’re also aware that Estes won the special election by just 6% ? Even Republican districts can elect Democrats, especially with weak GOP nominees. Glickman won his first race against incumbent Garner Shriver in ‘76 with less than 2%. He racked up massive reelect numbers, even getting over 74% as Reagan won in a landslide in 1984. Glickman was in danger after redistricting in 1992 when he got only just over 51%, so it wasn’t a huge surprise when he lost in 1994 (he lost 53-47%) to Todd Tiahrt.
The Dems almost got the seat back in 1996 when Tiahrt just barely got a smidge over 50%. He didn’t get over 60% until after 2002 redistricting.
In any event, I wouldn’t be making comments like yours, especially when the seat was held for a good stretch by the Democrats in the recent era, and the Republican candidates for Congress (like Estes and even Tiahrt) have badly underperformed.
Then why the irrelevancy?
Youre also aware that Estes won the special election by just 6% ?
So MSNBC loves to crow about and wave as evidence of their blue wave. I'm mildly surprised you sign on to it. Look, it was a special election without an incumbent. There were 122,000 total votes cast for all three candidates; Pompeo won his last re-election with 167,000 votes alone. It is indicative of nothing. Estes, either one, will win by double digits in the fall.
In any event, I wouldnt be making comments like yours, especially when the seat was held for a good stretch by the Democrats in the recent era, and the Republican candidates for Congress (like Estes and even Tiahrt) have badly underperformed.
Well I'm not you.
I don’t know why you’re acting so hostile and defensive. I merely pointed out your comment was ill-advised and gave you specific stats and figures to underline why. I analyze races all over the country, both present and historic. KS-4, on paper, SHOULD be solid for a Republican nominee, but it’s not impossible for a Democrat, as they have been known to overperform in the district.
As for MSNBC, I couldn’t give a damn. I don’t watch mindless brain rot fake news. I analyze real facts and figures. As for their suggestion of a “Blue” (sic) wave (note I don’t play those Orwellian newspeak colors game. Red is the color of the far-left party, thank you), anyone can make a claim that the midterms for the party in the White House can go against them. Whether it does depends on the political climate. Since the 1970s, Carter’s ‘78 midterms barely registered a blip, Reagan’s ‘82 midterms was an utter fiasco for the GOP (both based on the fact that the economic upturn wasn’t reported (however conveniently) until AFTER the elections and the Dems controlled redistricting in virtually every state), Bush’s ‘90 midterms was status quo, Bubba’s in ‘94 was the first Dem Congressional loss in 42 years, Dubya’s in ‘02 managed to reclaim the Senate thanks to the Funerally for Wellstone, Zero’s in ‘10 lost the House.
Personally, I expect there will be Senate gains and perhaps some mild House losses. That might change and the latter remains a status quo with considerable Senate gains (perhaps 6 seats or more).
I don't know why you feel obliged to tell me what to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.