This is a thing for me: I’m one of those who says, “Watch the primary candidates. Pay attention, and make a decision based on who resonates with what I want. Do this without tearing apart the other primary candidates (in my party.)” Without tearing apart candidates who could end up winning the primary, because face it: in my state, and even here on Scottie’s Playtime, most people are not as liberal as I am. So, in the primary, I vote for who I want. In the general, so far, it’s always gonna be a Dem, and Dems have a hard enough time running against always well-funded Republicans, and who, in my state, are also the majority, passing laws to make it more difficult to elect anyone who isn’t a rightwingnutjob Republican. This is the thing I dislike about some “media” who count themselves as liberal: they make a choice based on a single issue (and, frankly, the gender of the candidates often figures in, like it or not; many like a “bro”) then proceed to eviscerate the primary oppo. This suppresses the actual vote because people take the message that everyone’s basically the same, so no point voting in the primary, or at all.
Here in Kansas, we’ve got an experienced woman running for Governor. She’s been in the legislature for a while, knows who she’d be working with, and is familiar with government law and procedure. So far, there really isn’t anything to undercut her, from what I know. She’s not as liberal as I am, but is left-moderate enough to allow me to communicate with her what I believe she should do in her work, and to actually consider it on some level. Then, we’ve got a young man running. Nothing wrong with him that I can see, either, except he’s not got as much experience in state governance. This will put him at a disadvantage working with our legislature, which might/maybe/could turn less red but likely will remain Republican majority. I haven’t decided who I prefer as yet. I know of her, not so much yet of him. I like what they each say, as far as we know from this report.
So, she did point out that he has accepted donations from CoreCivic and from their lawyers. He’s also said more than once that he will continue to oppose CoreCivic moving back into KS and opening an I.C.E. detention center. Personally, I believe a person can take some campaign contributions without becoming the donators’s best friend in government. It happens more frequently than people realize. In this system we have with no public campaign finance, the campaigns need money, and will have to take legal donations. Brava/o to anyone who truly has never done that; I know it can be done, but it’s a special district who will get out and support their candidate, with the price of running a campaign these days.
So I am not holding campaign contributions against anyone as yet. Actions speak louder than words. So far, there is nothing in either candidate’s actions that make me distrust either one. I also am not unhappy with the way this forum went as far as we know; where while the candidates pointed out differences between them, there was not out-&-out “crushing” or “destroying” or “ripping” of each other. Here’s (below) a news story about KS’s Dem. Gubernatorial campaign. What I’m most disappointed about is the number of lines given to reviewing the campaign contributions, rather than each of their answers to the other questions listed in the story below. There could have been plenty of space for that if they’d merely reported the campaign contribution issue along with the rest, rather than dwelling on it. But, even the KS Reflector is not a friend of Democrats; it’s the same sort of coverage we always get though better than known mainstream.
In the midst of the coarse political rhetoric that seems worse every passing year (and does not originate with actual Democrats!), I hope we can remember: in the primary, choose the one most close to your perfection, which means supporting them: discussing things in their favor, giving positive reasons for your support, and not eviscerating the other candidates. This works in all U.S. primary elections everywhere.After that, support the one who wins. Otherwise, we get a fkin’ Republican.
SHAWNEE — Kansas Sen. Cindy Holscher positioned herself at a Sunday night Democratic forum as the anti-establishment candidate for governor with a history of winning in legislative districts formerly held by Republicans.
Her top opponent in seeking the party’s nomination, Kansas Sen. Ethan Corson, argued he is the only one who could win in the November general election.
The candidates staked out nearly identical policy positions during the 50-minute forum at the Aztec Shawnee Theater. The questions were submitted in advance by Kansas Young Democrats.
Both support raising the state’s minimum wage, making it easier to vote, and access to reproductive health care.
And they both identified the Republican supermajorities in the state House and Senate as their real opponent.
Holscher, from Overland Park, said Republicans were unable to lower property taxes during this year’s legislative session, despite their ability to pass anything they want.
“So they keep going back to the culture war issues,” she said. “And this past session, instead of solving actual issues of affordability and putting more money in your pockets, what did we get? We got this bathroom bill. We got two Charlie Kirk bills. None of those are going to put money in your pockets.”
Corson, from Fairway, touted his endorsements from Gov. Laura Kelly, former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes.
“Leading candidates in the Republican Party want to take Kansas backwards on reproductive freedom, public education and so many other issues,” Corson said. “We cannot let that happen. That is why this campaign has earned the support of trusted leaders who understand both the stakes and what it takes to win a statewide election in Kansas.”
Holscher’s response: “I’m running on my record, not the coattails of the establishment.”
About 150 people showed up to hear the two Johnson County Democrats make their case for the August primary vote. A dozen or more people wore bright blue Holscher T-shirts, and at least a couple donned black Corson T-Shirts. An engaged crowd, and available alcohol, ensured a spirited reaction to comments.
They applauded Corson when he said the city of Leavenworth was wrong to approve a conditional use permit for CoreCivic to reopen its private prison as an immigration detention center.
“I believe that private prisons have no place in our carceral system,” Corson said. “I will never support a private prison being built in Kansas. I will never support an ICE detention facility being built in Kansas.”
But the loudest applause came when Holscher attacked Corson for having taken the maximum campaign donation from CoreCivic during his 2024 Senate campaign, and $5,000 from the law firm representing CoreCivic for his gubernatorial campaign.
“You can’t say you’re against private prisons or ICE detention facilities when your campaigns and personal life are intertwined with that very business,” Holscher said. “I have consistently stood with the community opposing ICE overreach. I have never taken CoreCivic money and never will.”
A spokesman for Holscher later clarified that Corson received donations of $4,000 from Anna Kimbrell on Nov. 19, 2025, and $1,000 from Ed Wilson on Oct. 27, 2025. The two are partners for Kansas City, Missouri, law firm Husch Blackwell, which represented CoreCivic in the company’s lawsuit against Leavenworth.
The start of the forum was delayed 45 minutes because the two candidates discovered the party had given them different sets of rules. Party chair Jeanna Repass declined to say what the discrepancy was, but she insisted it was “minor.”
Before the candidates took the stage amid the rumble of storms outside, there was a moment of silence for the attempted violence Saturday night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
“Just remember,” Repass said, “we don’t solve our differences with violence. We do it by voting.”
Questions touched on affordability, water crisis, young voters and Medicaid expansion.
Corson said the state should invest in building 100,000 houses per year, including 5,000 in rural areas, and work to make higher education accessible to any young person who wants it.
“I’m going to be in my mid-40s, and my wife and I, every single month, are still paying our student loans,” Corson said. “So I understand what it means for higher education to be unaffordable, to feel inaccessible, and to feel like it’s crowding out all these other things that you want to do in your life, whether it’s buying your first home, starting a family.”
Holscher said she wants to hold landlords accountable for high rent and to put a cap on fees. She warned about the threat that water-thirsty data centers pose to farmers. And she pointed out that, as a member of the House in 2017, she helped pass a Medicaid expansion bill — although it was vetoed by then-Gov. Sam Brownback. She also said she worked with the bipartisan caucus that eventually overturned the Brownback tax experiment.
It was her birthday, and her supporters served cake in the lobby.
“If you want someone fighting for the people, you want someone building a broad coalition of nurses, of teachers, people in your neighborhood, farmers, veterans, union members — that’s who I have on my side, not the establishment,” Holscher said.
