The Constitution Party of Idaho will hold its state convention this upcoming Saturday, August 3, at the Karlfeldt Center in Meridian, Idaho. Convention delegates will elect new party officers and select a presidential ticket to place on the ballot for this year.
According to information shared with Independent Political Report, convention doors will open at 8:00 AM MDT to allow for the credentialing of delegates. Business will start soon afterward and is expected to last until 5:00 PM that same afternoon. The party will also make presidential and vice-presidential nominations that afternoon, with voting expected to close around 1:00 PM. Three candidates are being considered based on letters of intent sent to the party’s Executive Committee, including Joel Skousen, Shiela “Samm” Tittle, and Dr. Daniel Cummings.
Earlier this year, the national Constitution Party nominated Randall Terry and Pastor Stephen E. Broden. However, it’s worth noting that not every state Constitution Party is backing the Terry campaign, and Nevada and Utah have since thrown their support behind another candidate.
In addition to selecting a presidential ticket, party business is also expected to include the endorsement of state candidates, the election of new state party officers for the 2024 – 2026 term, and the filling of committee seats as deemed necessary. Readers interested in learning more or attending the convention are invited to contact party chair Tony Ullrich.
And speaking of exposing your attempted data fraud, you are also severely over-counting Phillips 1996, Baldwin 2008 and Blankenship 2020; over-counting Good 2012 and Castle 2016; slightly over-counting Phillips 1992 and Peroutka 2004; slightly under-counting Phillips 2000; and of course, severely under-counting Terry 2024, which is still being tallied.
“Apparently Dave Leip’s site had an initial erroneous report, likely a transcription error, on total votes by Skousen which I then commented upon. Evidently, the initial data was wrong. My apologies.”
Yeah sure, blame Leip – whoever he is – when you get caught. If you are going to be try your hand at falsifying data and defraud, then you can’t afford to be such an incompetent liar. Your apologies, my ass.
“Votes have yet to be canvassed. (Current voter data is from Dave Leip).” Obviously the data is interim, a fact of which you have made much of…several times. And I fully expect some minor adjustments going into canvass.
“by selectively omitting data”…no selectivity is required. The data is what it is. Terry under-performed badly…the worst result in the history of the party. Deal with it.
“So begins the cleft data, the manipulation…and the excuses. […] anything to deflect from the basic truth.”
Indeed, you did attempt to massage and cherry pick the data, because you are so hilariously angry that Terry did well while Skousen was a predictable wash. It’s pathetic.
But as I said, two can play at that game. I then gave you a demonstration of how by selectively omitting data you can get whatever slope you want. And I explained how you are defrauding yourself by comparing apples to oranges and by trying to fit inappropriate models.
So now your are being a little piss baby, because apparently it wasn’t just your stupidity but you were deliberately lying and didn’t want it to be exposed. Anything to deflect from the basic truth that Terry did well while Skousen was a predictable wash.
“We witness […] the reality he desperately tries to hide. ”
What we witness is you desperately trying to hide how well Terry did by manipulating and misrepresenting incomplete data. But you got caught so now you are throwing a hissy-fit. U+1F60F
“BTW, the data source was mentioned; implied in other words. Dave Leip. But then, you’d have to read with comprehension instead of excuse making.”
Not with the data, where it should have been. And when it was previously mentioned Leip, the figures you gave (35,716) do not match those you gave later (40,361), so it is not strange to think that a different source might have been used.
But I guess reporting your sources with the data, is quite far beyond wannabe-bolshevist so illiterate that it dismisses everything it cannot comprehend as “wordsalad”. U+1F60F Pathetic.
Restating (August 1): “Terry should expect between 125,208 and 133,848 votes…If Terry does not hit this vote yield, it would throw serious shade on those in the national party who are promoting him.”
And this, even with an aggressive modification of the model to account for Skousen ballots (estimated at 16,254 to 17,235). (Skousen has, at this point, 10,429. So, he under-performed in his “regional block” of three western states.)
On the other hand, Terry under-performed even worse, with 40,748 ballots…the worst performance in the history of the national party. Whether national CP reckons with it this weekend in Raleigh or not, it still must be reckoned with at some point. Ah well, enjoy the hors d’oeuvres…and of course the word salads.
So begins the cleft data, the manipulation…and the excuses. “Try removing”…”normalizing to the number of potential votes”…”without regard to the amount of money that was spent”…anything to deflect from the basic truth.
We witness (as Junior, the Chef Garde Manger, concocts another word salad well beyond its expiry) the reality he desperately tries to hide. National CP is withered on the vine. But douse it with dressing and plate it up. Maybe nobody will notice.
BTW, the data source was mentioned; implied in other words. Dave Leip. But then, you’d have to read with comprehension instead of excuse making. And, well…
“Metric (lowest vote return in the history of the party):
Year National Votes
Y1992 43,400
Y1996 184,820
Y2000 98,027
Y2004 144,650
Y2008 199,880
Y2012 122,417
Y2016 203,107
Y2020 60,124
Y2024 40,361”
So you are considering 1) incomplete preliminary totals (without source btw), 2) which do not seem to include any write-in votes (i.e. more than a third of all states where votes for Terry are counted), 3) without normalizing to the number of potential votes each candidate had access too, 4) without regard to the amount of money that was spent on each campaign (i.e. your metric isn’t vote RETURN at all), and 5) without taking into account that Terry asked people to vote for Trump to keep Harris out of office, which alone (by even the most conservative estimate) would boost Terry’s vote totals by an order of magnitude.
“Note: former trend line (even after Blankenship’s fiasco) was at least positive, albeit nearly flat.
Note: plugging in Terry’s anemic 2024 vote return of 40K (even less than Blankenship’s) shifts the forecast to a negative slope.”
Two can play at that game. Try removing Phillips 1992, which as first CP election can be expected to be lower thereby guaranteeing, or Castle 2016, which was anomalous due to unusually high ballot access. Woops! Suddenly there is a negative slope regardless of Terry 2024.
“Note: a negative regression: y = -3305.3x + 138392
Note: a negative exponential: y = 126181e-0.039x”
Clearly neither linear regression not exponential decay fit your data – such as it is. So I’m not sure what you are trying to prove by forcing them anyway, but you forgot to report any kind of error bars, which would show just how terrible these fits are.
“Inescapable conclusion: the national party is senescent.”
Inescapable conclusion: you haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
Metric (lowest vote return in the history of the party):
Year National Votes
Y1992 43,400
Y1996 184,820
Y2000 98,027
Y2004 144,650
Y2008 199,880
Y2012 122,417
Y2016 203,107
Y2020 60,124
Y2024 40,361
Note: former trend line (even after Blankenship’s fiasco) was at least positive, albeit nearly flat.
Note: plugging in Terry’s anemic 2024 vote return of 40K (even less than Blankenship’s) shifts the forecast to a negative slope.
Note: a negative regression: y = -3305.3x + 138392
Note: a negative exponential: y = 126181e-0.039x
Inescapable conclusion: the national party is senescent.
“Meanwhile, the national CP just achieved its lowest vote return in history.”
LOL By what possible metric? You’re so angry that Terry did well while Skousen was a predictable wash, it’s hilarious.
“But I’m sure you’ve got a heaping word salad to sling by way of response.”
Since you clearly aren’t literate enough to read my response, much less understand it, why bother.
Re: A match made in heaven.
Meanwhile, the national CP just achieved its lowest vote return in history. Heavenly. But I’m sure you’ve got a heaping word salad to sling by way of response.
Oh and Liz Cheney, of course! Can’t forget Liz Cheney. She wanted a new party. And her chickenhawkery would fit in perfectly with that of Hoefling and Skousen.
“Terry’s 2024 return was the lowest national CP vote take on record…since its inception. Meanwhile, Joel Skousen took 109,341. Maybe CP-Idaho, Nevada and Utah were on to something. Skousen did about three times better that Terry.”
Wait, do you actually mean to imply that you really believe Terry-Broden did worse not only than Phillips-Knight and Blankenship-Mohr, but also than Skousen-Combs?! U+1F923 Even when normalized to the number of votes they had access too, that is a ludicrous suggestion.
“Bottom line, Terry blew as a candidate. Looking forward, absent a massive reorganization, the national Constitution Party is done for.”
He was fully compatible with the party’s platform – the exact opposite of Skousen, who tried to remove all mentions of God from it.
Terry was a great candidate for us, and our party was great for his campaign. A match made in heaven. Hopefully he will run again in 2028, but then without telling voters it’s OK to vote for the GOP candidate. Perhaps with Michael Heise as running-mate.
Terry clearly belongs in the Constitution Party, whereas you seem not to. Why don’t you go help Skousen ‘massively reorganize’ his cult of banderites and satanists into a new party? Invite Tom Hoefling and Don Grundmann to join too. May I suggest naming it the “Global Socialist Ukrophile Conmen’s Party” or the “Anti-Constitution Party of the Latter-Day World Police”, for the sake of truth in advertising? But anything really, just so long as it gets them out of our hair and to stop tarnishing our name.
Comments on the election forecast model: Votes have yet to be canvassed. (Current voter data is from Dave Leip). Disclaimer aside, the election forecast model formerly used to project national CP votes is utterly broken. Once upon a time, it worked quite well to predict national CP vote yields.
In the past two elections, though, the model failed–in 2020’s Blankenship fiasco (he only garnered 60,124 national votes whereas the vote yield was projected between 207,801 and 244,907), and now the 2024 Terry apocalypse (taking a mere 35,716 votes whereas the modified model forecast a return of between 125,208 to 133,848).
Terry’s 2024 return was the lowest national CP vote take on record…since its inception. Meanwhile, Joel Skousen took 109,341. Maybe CP-Idaho, Nevada and Utah were on to something. Skousen did about three times better that Terry. Bottom line, Terry blew as a candidate. Looking forward, absent a massive reorganization, the national Constitution Party is done for.
Again, the vote yield projection [bracketing trend lines] is somewhere around 142,443 and 150,102 votes nationally for Randall Terry as the Constitution Party candidate this trip, assuming all things are equal. They clearly aren’t. Utah and Nevada intend to print Skousen onto the statewide ballot. Idaho likely will as well.
Vote yield cost, should these three states print Skousen to the ballot, suggests between 16,254 and 17,235 votes. That means Terry should expect between 125,208 and 133,848 votes if the national vote yield reverts to trend following the Blankenship ordeal.
If Terry does not hit this vote yield, it would throw serious shade on those in the national party who are promoting him. And of course the reverse is also true. We shall see.
@Nuña; re: lack of manners
Whatever.
@Reality; re: how much did he actually raise
A valid point. Latest FEC, February to June 30 shows:
$182,187.79 raised
$162,840.94 spent
$19,346.85 cash on hand, Jun 30
In fairness, it should be pointed out that Skousen has not even filed with FEC. Supposedly, he has spent only $3,100. Although who’s to know?
Actually raising a lot of money would be much easier if he was on more state ballots. The relatively smaller ballot access costs at an early stage would translate into much larger funding later on. The process can’t be reversed. Are the June numbers out yet? If so, how much did he actually raise?
@George Houston
“Terry is compatible with Terry. He is apparently disinterested in anything else. Bottom line: he has a hairdoo…and that’s just about it.”
“CP-Idaho is not in the business of just handing out our nomination to any jack wagon coming down the pike.”
“I suppose it’d be okay if it weren’t for all the hypocrisy.”
Ah, and there we have the reason for all your bizarre mental gymnastics and lack of manners. You just happen to have something against Terry, for some reason that I don’t know nor care about.
“that may come as a shock to the national party…which seems to have a thing about anointing candidates.”
And you also seem to hold some personal grudge against the Constitution Party. The fact is that the national party does not go around anointing candidates and never has. We just don’t have such erroneous prejudice against the normal way for candidates to be nominated at conventions.
“Irrespective of ex post facto admonitions,¨
Which admonitions would those be? Nobody has made any yet.
“So what’s he do?…well in 2000 he trades out the wife of 19 years for a new 25 year old…and so it goes.”
I wouldn’t be so smug about your ability to quote the communist Washington Post in your bizarre personal vendetta against someone who has done much more for both the Constitution Party and for lives in the womb than you ever will, if I were you. You don’t know anything about how Cindy Dean and her church treated Terry and the children he was doing his best to raise in spite of her – and look how they turned out thanks to her. Nor do you know anything about his lovely wife Andrea, who actually tried to be a good mother. So don’t presume to speak ill of your betters based off of low-quality smear pieces.
Terry has a place in the Constitution Party. You make it sound like you do not. So why not join Skousen’s cult of banderites and satanists, if you love abortion and genocide that much?
@Jim
“Does Terry care about ballot access or winning votes? I thought all he cared about was getting a bare bones political apparatus behind him so that he could raise funds to run ant-abortion ads.”
Yes, that seems to be his campaign plan.
“Terry’s campaign seems designed to either end the Constitution Party as a national organization or subordinate it to the Republican party.”
No, quite the opposite. Terry is great for the Constitution Party and vice-versa.
While the GOP is purging itself of people who oppose infanticide – “worrying about a spot on the wall in the basement while there’s a leak in the roof”, Eric Trump called it – and sexual deviancy and degeneracy, Terry is exactly who the Constitution Party needs to bring them into the fold.
Even ignoring GOP refugees, with Terry as their presidential candidate, the part is going at least as strong as it was running Blankenship, Castle and Goode, and a significantly stronger than when it made the mistakes of nominating Baldwin and Peroutka.
@Floyd Whitley
“Mr. Terry has expressed no interest whatsoever in obtaining the state party’s nomination.”
Why would he? He already has ballot access in Idaho as an independent. Terry does not need the Constitution Party of Idaho, the Constitution Party of Idaho needs Terry – or someone who like him is fully compatible with their platform. And even more than that, the Idaho party needs to start taking itself seriously again and get back to its roots: independently co-nominating with the national party when that is appropriate – like now – and nominating differently when it is not – as the American Independent Party wisely did in 2008.
“So as for ‘Terry is fully compatible with the party platform,” you certainly overstate.’
If that is the misapprehension under which you are laboring, you should try reading the party’s platform sometime: https://idahocp.com/platform/
“in a nominative convention, candidates are customarily expected to at least express an intent to seek the nomination.”
Not at all. It is very normal for someone to throw in a nomination out of the blue, and if it gets a second, that person to be asked whether they accept being nominated. RFK’s nomination at the LNC was a nice example of that. That is in fact the normal way of doing nominations; not whatever hokey bureaucratic straight jacket of red tape the Idaho Constitution Party seems to have cooked up for themselves, according to you.
@Jim; re: all he cared about
“We have our ten states…our goal is not to get elected. Our goal is to place these ads, and raise enough money to do it.” So to answer your question, no. He met his first goal. His next goal is to raise money. Lots of it.
I suppose it’d be okay if it weren’t for all the hypocrisy. “Good for thee, but not for me.” Example? “Families are destroyed as a father vents his mid-life crisis by abandoning his wife for a ‘younger, prettier model.'”–Randall Terry, 1995; The Judgment of God.
So what’s he do?…well in 2000 he trades out the wife of 19 years for a new 25 year old…and so it goes.
Does Terry care about ballot access or winning votes? I thought all he cared about was getting a bare bones political apparatus behind him so that he could raise funds to run ant-abortion ads. Terry’s campaign seems designed to either end the Constitution Party as a national organization or subordinate it to the Republican party.
I should add that, in a nominative convention, candidates are customarily expected to at least express an intent to seek the nomination. Mr. Terry, for whatever reason(s), has not done so.
Irrespective of ex post facto admonitions, Mr. Terry cannot now overrule state convention procedures and simply be anointed, though that may come as a shock to the national party…which seems to have a thing about anointing candidates.
@Nuña; re: Idaho CP also co-nominated Don Blankenship
2020 was a primary under state sanction. 2024 is a nominative convention, in which Mr. Terry has expressed no interest whatsoever in obtaining the state party’s nomination.
CP-Idaho is not in the business of just handing out our nomination to any jack wagon coming down the pike. So as for “Terry is fully compatible with the party platform,” you certainly overstate. Terry is compatible with Terry. He is apparently disinterested in anything else. Bottom line: he has a hairdoo…and that’s just about it.
In what way did that ship sail years ago? The Idaho CP also co-nominated Don Blankenship in 2020, why can’t they do something similar now? Just because they sometimes agree on a presidential nomination, doesn’t mean they have to re-affiliate with the national party or anything like that.
As for the letter of intent, why is the party unwilling to consider anyone who has not filed such a letter? Why can’t delegates place any name in the ring, provided another delegate seconds it and that person accepts being nominated? Why is the letter of intent more important than the candidate being considered?
I’ve read the Idaho party’s program, and it is completely incompatible with Skousen on almost every single point. Meanwhile, Terry is fully compatible with the party platform. Yet they are willing to consider nominating Skousen but not Terry, all because of a letter of intent. It just makes no sense.
The Constitution Party of Idaho should cut through any red-tape it has wrapped itself up in, and do what is right by its platform and by its members. I don’t even care whether they end up nominating Terry, Cummings or Tittle, whoever receives the most votes from delegates. But the reasoning that precludes Terry from consideration while allowing Skousen to run, needs to be fixed.
@Nuña; re: show solidarity with the national party.
That ship sailed years ago. In any case, Terry did not send a letter of intent. He will not be (cannot be) considered.
I agree with your comments about Cummings.
Ideally, even though Terry already has ballot access as an independent in Idaho, they independently nominate him (and Broden) to show solidarity with the national party against Skousen’s Nevada and Utah cult. But Cummings seems like a fine nomination too. I still don’t know enough about Tittle, but she would certainly be better than Skousen.
And naturally all three (Terry, Cummings and Tittle, that is – not Skousen, obviously) would each be more libertarian than any of the tickets put forward by the various self-professed “Libertarian” Parties: Russell-Glabach, Kennedy-Shanahan and especially Oliver-ter Maat.
Thanks.