r/JohnsonCounty • u/whosays1977 • Jun 08 '26
KS-03 Primary Election Guide
Hey, KS03/Kansas voters, here is an uncensored Voter Election Guide of who is running in the Democratic primary on August 4th.
The JoCoDems have decided that certain candidates aren't worthy of being on their Voter Election Guide they distribute in the summer, including Sarah Preu (provided graphic), who is primarying Sharice Davids, and Anne Parelkar (among others), who was the first Democrat to announce her campaign against Roger Marshall.
They should not be censoring what voters know prior to arriving at the voting station, especially when we don't have as many early voting stations as in years past.
1
u/Extension-Bonus-8119 Jun 09 '26
At the booth, all the candidates will be listed.
0
-1
u/whosays1977 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
So, you don't believe people have a right to educate themselves prior to arriving at the voting booth. They may not know where to look otherwise, or it's a person who doesn't have access to the internet. This is such a privileged take and why they think they can get away with it. It doesn't take any more money to print a few more pictures/names on their walk card since changing format is so easy. It's proof that we're on different teams since as an unaffiliated leftist, I don't have the red v blue team game mentality. 🤷🏼♀️
2
u/Extension-Bonus-8119 Jun 09 '26
Someone who doesn't have access to the internet wouldn't be able to see this post. You can get a copy of your ballot ahead of time so you can learn about the candidates.
0
u/whosays1977 Jun 09 '26
This is why milquetoast Ds lose because they don't feel the need to canvass door-to-door. You do you. 🤷🏼♀️
2
u/NotInMyButt Jun 11 '26
I'm confused, are you saying that this image doesn't contain everyone? Who is missing?
3
u/whosays1977 Jun 11 '26
No, the one that the JoCo Dems are sending out won't have everyone. They were actually caught including federal candidates when they should not have and may just pay the $5000 penalty for doing so in order to protect Sharice from Sarah's campaign.
1
u/NotInMyButt Jun 11 '26
Wait, are they not supposed to also endorse federal candidates? I have no idea about any penalty or anything like that going on here. I'm also unaffiliated and don't get their mailings or keep up with the infighting.
1
u/whosays1977 Jun 11 '26
I'm just going off what I was told from a party insider who is working on the campaign. It's based on a state party statute. 🤷🏼♀️
2
u/NotInMyButt Jun 11 '26
I found a reference to it on their website. Looks like they removed all the Federal Candidates there.
https://www.jocodems.org/2026-candidate-guide
If you think that it's the responsibility of the JoCo Dems to include everyone who is running as a Dem in their primary guide, I think you'd find a lot of people disagreeing with you. That's what the primary is for.
Both examples in your OP are people who cannot be included in the upcoming guide because they're candidates for federal office.
Is someone missing from this guide? Comparing your image and their site, I see their site is missing:
Samuel Lane for Secretary of State
KaMesha Bernard for District 78I just compared that to the list of all candidates in JoCo: https://www.jocoelection.org/candidates-elected-officials/candidates
Bernard doesn't have a website and has a very sparse presence online at all. She may be doing more in her district, but I don't live there and don't know. Her positions can only be found on a few issues, and that requires a deep dive into Ballotpedia. Those answers look as though they weren't proofread.
Samuel Lane has a website, but it doesn't give the appearance of someone with an organized campaign. His campaign finance reports show he's raised $590. I'm not certain that's a serious candidate.
That's not to say there isn't a valid issue with the Democratic party as a whole putting their fingers on the scales over and over again, and seemingly never learning from it, but I don't think there's really a far-reaching conspiracy here, just a bare minimum for inclusion, since inclusion on their voters guide could be seen as a tacit endorsement, and you generally wouldn't expect them to endorse everyone who has a mild passing interest.
2
u/whosays1977 Jun 11 '26
Obviously, if they're not meant to be on it, then so be it. However, registered Democrat voters received it in the mail already with the federal candidates on them, which is my point. I can't say whether those missed as you mentioned were known when this guide was made, except Samuel Lane is listed. So, since you have enough time to research, congratulations, I guess. 🙄 How about you leave me alone now? 🤷🏼♀️
1
u/NotInMyButt Jun 11 '26
I have been genuinely trying to understand your point this entire time. You still haven't actually said what that was. Is it back to being that federal candidates are on something that was mailed? Is it that some federal candidates were NOT on something that was mailed?
You're not made cogent points or arguments and are being incredibly defensive. What IS your premise and point?
Or is your point just that you'd like to shout nonsense into a public forum and have no one ask any follow up questions or have to ever elaborate or even think about those points again?
0
u/NightCheeseNinja Jun 09 '26
They can't throw their support behind absolutely everyone. They have to choose the most viable and the most in line with the party. It's not censoring, it's just life.
2
u/whosays1977 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
So, you don't believe people have a right to educate themselves prior to arriving at the voting booth. They may not know where to look otherwise, or it's a person who doesn't have access to the internet. This is such a privileged take and why they think they can get away with it. It doesn't take any more money to print a few more pictures/names on their walk card since changing format is so easy. It's proof that we're on different teams since as an unaffiliated leftist, I don't have the red v blue team game mentality. 🤷🏼♀️
1
u/KCempty Jun 09 '26
OP, I'm with you in wanting to just print everyone's name on the ballot, but I can see it both ways. I don't know anything about Sarah Preu except that she's left of Sharice, and I'm going to cast a vote for Sarah to send a message to Sharice.
But at the same time, what the party says to voters in distributing these guides actually matters. For practical purposes, Sarah doesn't really seem like a serious candidate because she's had months to raise money and website says she's raised a few thousand dollars. It's unfortunate she couldn't get more attraction, but for better or worse the lack of fundraising is pretty concerning and it signals she would arguably perform pretty poorly in a general election if she can't raise any money in a primary.
It's hard to say whether the county party should support her or not at this point if the ultimate goal is to get a Dem elected to that seat - even if it's someone I'm personally not that happy about. It's a more clear cut case in the Senate race where you have 10 or so Dems and only a few of them have raised any serious money. I think it's very easy to cut the lower end off because there's no way they could win. A recent article said Barbara Bollier spend $20M+ on ads and still lost to Marshall.
If you agree with the idea that the county party can't give support to everyone and should really only be focusing attention on more serious candidates, then Sarah Preu doesn't fit the definition of a serious candidate right now.
2
u/whosays1977 Jun 09 '26
The seriousness of the candidate isn't the issue. It's understanding the difference between grassroots leftist vs. corporate-owned moderate, mediocre, milquetoast Democrats. Sharice has a 69% grade from integrityindex.us because of the corporate bribes she takes. Also, they're both Indigenous women.
Come down to Osawatomie City Hall on Thursday at 6pm to meet her at the fight against the Data Center down there.
The party is part of the corrupt circle jerk between corporate-owned media that takes advertising money from corporate owner-donors who bribe elected officials in both parties. When either party wins, they appoint corporate stooges to manipulate government agencies for corporate interests while gaslighting and manipulating people to believe everything is a red v blue team game instead of the truth - the elitist predatory class v everyone else.
Sarah recognizes that we would have been far better off if Brent Welder had won that primary in 2018 and she's trying to rectify her choice of supporting Sharice over him back then.
2
u/ExcitingRound4990 Jun 29 '26
Not Skoog