Talk Elections

There is an official letter (http://t.co/o5QEpToQ28) stating this.

I just saw that on John Celock's Twitter account, with a letter signed by Taylor.

Wow !
Could it be a hoax ? Some prankster ?

Now the bigger question is who is the one that will post Ron Paul "it's happening" on this thread?

Holy ish, didn't think this was actually gonna happen. Move this to at least a Toss-Up, Tilt R.

Roberts still wins, IMO.

Call me crazy, but I think Orman takes it.

You're not crazy at all.

This is fantastic news.

I don't think that's crazy; this race is definitely competitive enough now that Orman could win.

It think more Pat Roberts people are going to defect to Orman since he's not a Democrat.

We'll see about that, but without Taylor in the race, I suspect most of his supporters will move into Orman's camp, so Orman at least has that potential benefit.

Let this move from R+9 (538) to D+9 now. :P

Edit: I meant I+9 of course. :P

The I/D tickets are gonna sweep Kansas and Alaska now. ;) At least Kansas. Alaska is more of a toss up in both categories I guess.

But if Orman were to win, who will he side with ?
There is no guarantee it will be the Democrats.
Here is an excerpt from a recent article in the Washington Post :

... he won't reveal who he would caucus with -- other than to say he'd likely side with the majority party.

If the majority were to come down to him? He's leaving his options open.

"If I get elected, there's a reasonable chance neither party has a majority in the U.S. Senate," he said. "And if that's the case, what I would do is sit down with both parties and have a real frank discussion about the agenda they want to follow."

Here is link to full article : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/08/29/the-kansas-senate-race-presents-democrats-with-an-opening-and-an-awkward-dilemma/

He would basically be Angus King I guess?

I mean, I still think Roberts is decently likely to pull it out, if only because, especially compared to Angus King, Orman sounds like he has no substance. At least Angus King had real positions on some issues.

Isn't Orman to the left of Taylor anyway, politically?

It seems that the deadline date set by the Kansas Secretary of State’s Office for withdrawal, was today by 5 pm local time.
Taylor was reached by phone in his car, and told a local reporter that he turned in the papers to withdraw at 4:15 p.m.

According to that ideology chart we saw posted recently, he is way, way, way to Taylor's left. :P
Don't know how much truth there was to that though? According to it, Taylor was basically just as conservative as Roberts, which doesn't seem believable to me at all.

I actually think Orman may win.

I just read Orman's platform. http://www.ormanforsenate.com/issues
He's basically a moderate hero. "I OWN 2 GUNS BUT I SUPPORT BACKGROUND CHECK"

Orman doesn't really seem to have any ideology other than being a moderate.

What a close call!

Politico has an article (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/democrat-withdrawal-threat-pat-roberts-110574.html) relating to Taylor dropping out of the Kansas Senate race.

This could end up being one of the most interesting races for the Senate.
Especially if his decision to go one way or the other, makes the final count to either a 50-50 Senate or a 51-49 Senate.

Spectacular news!

Washington Post writes: "Orman, who used to be a Democrat and a Republican, has been viewed as a more viable opponent against Sen. Pat Roberts (R), who polls show is vulnerable. Orman has raised a lot more money than Taylor."

This is important for two reasons:

1) It shows that Orman isn't exactly a partisan Democrat as he's aligned himself with both parties in the past
2) He has raised a lot more money than Taylor (despite Taylor leading him in early polls)

Both these points seem to underline that he will be a stronger than usual candidate.

Tossout according to Nate Silver,who calls it "VERY tricky" to predict.

I wonder if Bob Dole would endorse Greg Orman?

Oh ... I just read some additional info on his departure, found Kansas First News website. It states :

"This decision comes after it was announced Wednesday morning (today) that Independent U.S. Senate candidate Greg Orman had been endorsed by a group of former moderate Republicans in the Kansas Legislature who are unhappy with incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Pat Roberts conservative leanings."

I'm trying to understand if this means that he will more than likely side with the Republicans if he wins. Boy-o-boy .... what will happen ?
(I do believe that Orman has a good chance of taking this seat.)

I don't see why he would. Pat Roberts is very much in the Bob Dole mold - conservative, and very dull. If it were against Moran, I could see it happening.

Not to sure about the "dull" comparison, but Bob Dole as a "conservative," I think not.
Dole was always well known to be a moderate.

So a bunch of Dems flow to Orman and a bunch flee if he's really running as a centrist/won't say who he'll caucus with.

You sir are quite mistaken. Bob Dole was elected as a conservative, but his temperament was that of a moderate.

I guess Davis and Orthman will endorse each other?

Wow, I can't believe it. Here we have an unexpected interesting election. It's certainly a Toss-up race (who would've guessed a month ago?!).

Let's have Travis Childers dropping out now and supporting a some dude moderate hero, please!

(I'm saying this just in case I have some clairvoyant powers, as I posted this yesterday:

)

It seems that the "worst summer ever" is producing more bipartisanship and cooperation across the aisle than we've seen for years, if not decades. :)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/29/summer-2014-was-the-worst-ever.html

He's not saying who he'll caucus with but I have a feeling an unspoken agreement to caucus with the Dems was part of the deal to get Taylor to leave the race. From what I've gathered about Orman's platform and views, he probably wouldn't feel very at home in a caucus with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee anyway.

Sorry mister ... but it is you who are in error.

Did he have conservative ideals ... yes. But did he also have liberal and moderate views ... very much so (Hmmmm ... maybe that makes him a moderate). Did he run his presidential race as a conservative in the primaries .... well of course. But did he go back to the "center" during the general election ... no brainer.

Even Wikipedia's own page on Bob Dole says that during his most recognizable years in politics, his tenure in the Senate, he was known as a moderate :

Dole had a moderate voting record and was widely considered to be one of the few Kansas Republicans who could bridge the gap between the moderate and conservative wings of the Kansas Republican Party. As a Congressman in the early '60s, Dole supported the major civil rights bills, which appealed to moderates. When Johnson proposed the Great Society in 1964–65, Dole voted against some War on Poverty measures like public-housing subsidies and Medicare, thus appealing to conservatives. Dole's first speech in the Senate in 1969 was a plea for federal aid for the handicapped. Later, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Dole joined liberal Senator George McGovern to lower eligibility requirements for federal food stamps, a liberal goal that was supported by Kansas farmers.

Dole's hawkishness on the Vietnam War and on crime issues kept him in good standing with the right wing. When they heard Nixon might make Dole chairman of the Republican National Committee, half the Republican Senators protested, especially moderates who feared Dole would direct party assets to conservatives. They were wrong, as Dole in fact offered something to all Republican factions.

And if you go to the Wikipedia page titled "Factions in the Republican Party (United States)" you will find Bob Dole's name referenced in/under the "Moderate" section on this Wiki page (amazing). I don't see him listed anywhere else on this page (no other faction). Here is the Wiki quote in the Moderate section :

The Republican Majority for Choice is a PAC of and for pro-choice Republicans, and is often allied with the moderate branch of the party. Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader and 1996 Presidential nominee Bob Dole has supported the "Main Street" Republicans.

Jacking a couple paragraphs from Wikipedia doesn't prove your argument.

With this development, I am shifting the race into the toss-up column.

Go Orman!

Yet you have Kansas as Safe R, despite Brownback not leading in a single non-YouGov poll since April (or since January if you exclude Rassy as well)

Maybe or maybe not .... but it's a hell of a lot more information than the-other-guy has provided, when all he has done is just state that Dole was a conservative (No other evidence or proof). Now I'm sure you will agree with that.
;-)

During Bob Dole's time he was a certifiable conservative. He scored an 87 from the American Conservative Union in his last year (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-56869939.html) (I can bold too). That's in the middle... of Republicans. Thus, conservative. Sure, Bob Dole made deals with Democrats, that doesn't make him a moderate like you suggest. I mean, Utah Senator Bob Bennett worked with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden on a healthcare bill, do you not think he's a conservative?

I don't normally permit myself to change safe ratings (I launched my ratings in January, back before anyone was even thinking about Brownback being in danger), though if that race still looks the way it does now a month from now, I will make an exception.

This (and the AK Gov race, which is also getting a substantial downgrade) are special cases because they changed from republican vs. democrat to republican vs. independent, so have essentially become different races, so that is why, in this case, I have made an exception to my rule against changing Safe Ratings (which I have so that 'Safe' doesn't seem like another way of saying 'Strong Lean') .

Nate has released his first comments on the upgraded race.

"But Orman had raised more money than Taylor — about $625,000 in individual contributions to Taylor’s $120,000 as of July 13 — and probably had more momentum, having recently received endorsements from a bipartisan group of legislators."

Now that's a bit of a money gap. More than five times as much in fact.

He also writes that Orman in the past has donated money to Al Franken, Scott Brown and Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-senate-race-in-kansas-just-got-crazy/

"In this case, however, we have only one poll of the Orman-Roberts matchup (and it was from the polling firm PPP, which has a series of methodological problems and which surveyed the matchup when it was still just a hypothetical possibility). So the model comes out somewhere between the survey and the fundamentals rating. It projects a narrow 2-point victory for Roberts, and gives him a 56 percent chance of winning against 44 percent for Orman.

For all intents and purposes, that makes the race a tossup. But it’s also a totally wild guess. The model is designed to recognize that the outcome is extraordinarily uncertain when the polls and the fundamentals diverge so much. So the margin of error on the forecast is enormous — the 90 percent confidence interval on the forecast runs from a 20-point Orman win to a 23-point victory for Roberts."

I haven't been following this race at all. How in God's name is this happening in Kansas? I'm still amazed that Brownback is in trouble, none the less that this race is in such weird shape :P.

I think the Tea Party just went so overboard in Kansas that people finally took notice.

Once in a great while, that happens.

I think the main thing is that neither Roberts nor Brownback are high-quality candidates in their own right, and with acceptable alternatives, like Orman and Davis, that kind of shortcoming can still adversely impact candidates even in a state like Kansas.

Excuse me while I change my Senate prediction...

LOL. Just because you can "also bold" the word "Conservative" in the organization name "American Conservative Union" doesn't emphasize that Bob Dole was conservative.

Here is an example, following your (strange) logic :
Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, has an American Conservative Union score of 28%.
(So since I highlighted the word "Conservative," in the organization that scored her ... well, that must mean she is Conservative. "I can bold too.")


I don't necessarily follow or agree with anything this Wacky Tea-Party-Leaning organization does (the American Conservative Union), but having said that :
If you say that Bob Dole was rated "in the middle," ... well maybe that would signal that he was more of a "centrist" (moderate) during those past political years. (Hmmm ... sounds logical.)
If you notice they rated Sen Ted Cruz with 100% ... the best score in their view ! Whatever.
But one thing I am positive about is that Sen Ted Cruz is 100% psychotic, and so this organization must fall into that same category of 100% dog feces.


That's not the only thing I "suggested" in the information I provided. But on that note, moderates do have a higher tendency to "make deals" or "work" with a counter-part (co-writer) in the other party, to get things done.
Conservatives and especially Super-conservatives (like Mr Weirdo, Sen Ted Cruz) usually don't want anything to do with compromise. Can you imagine our nation with 55 senators rated as 100% Conservative, who don't budge .... this nation would have zero legislation.

Wiki says he is a moderate. That is strong evidence, as thousands and thousands of normal folk, scholars and political analysts (world wide) give information and input into such a widely recognized and accepted database website (especially on a high profile subject).
Also, I'm sure if you Google Bob Dole with the word moderate or centrist, and compare it to a search using Bob Dole and conservative, you would see a pretty sizable difference with information favoring Dole as a moderate.

I'll trust American Conservative Union more than your looking up in wiki buddy. American Conservative Union actually, oh I don't know, actually tracks votes.

Oh and with my bolding? I was making fun of you. Good to know you're too thick to get it.

According to The Green Papers, now that Taylor's out, there still are other candidates in this race besides Orman and Roberts; (http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G14/KS) 3 to be exact including the Libertarian candidate. Milton Wolf lost to Roberts partially because of that vote split between the anti-Roberts people, so I would really hope Batson (L) and the others do the right thing as well and drop out. It would not only help the Dems in the long run for majority purposes, but take out one of the most partisan gridlocked Senators and end the near century GOP trend on this one specific Senate seat.

There might be a large number of drop-offs now among Taylor supporters/Democrats, but even though this is Kansas, it might actually help him in the long run if he agrees to caucus with the Democrats. If you take the last PPP and SurveyUSA polls and add the Taylor + Orman vote, Roberts loses by double digits, so a lot is at stake at who they vote for now.

The people of Kansas (rather than the legislature) have voted for a non-Republican for Senator in 3 years: 1912, 1930, and 1932. It would be amazing if after 82 years, 2014 joins the list.

Well congratulations ... you probably fall into that same small group of people (12% of wacky tea-baggers) who also believe in the American Conservative Union.
And I'm sure less than 0.1% of a World-wide internet user audience, would agree with you that the A.C.U. has more "trust" than Wiki.


LOL. Your point (or lack there-of) was mute, because you didn't even have the smarts to emphasize/bold the word "conservative" in a more meaningful manner. And the bold feature on this website is provided as a tool, for everyone to use ... not as a potted plant for you to stare at.

So he's basically a pinko commie by Kansas standards...

Well strange things can happen. Though not 82 years, I was amazed that Obama took Indiana in 2008. I just couldn't believe this would happen. I thought "well Obama may get close, but McCain will take it with a small margin." Well I, and many others, were wrong. (Obama narrowly carried Indiana, which marked the first time a Democratic presidential nominee won Indiana since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.)

Flee to where?

Phil acts like Kansas Democrats have never been forced to vote for a centrist before...

Yeah, I mean don't they usually have to end up voting for full-on right-wingers?

Hopefully Weiland in South Dakota follows suit and drops out leaving Pressler to battle Rounds.

That was my thought at first, but I'm not sure it's the same. In Alaska (where I'm still convinced the Republican is likelier to go down than Kansas) and Kansas, the indy was way ahead of the Dem in polling and fairing much better against the incumbent in a 2-way matchup. I'm not sure that's the same in SD, especially with Weiland gradually improving and Rounds gradually declining yet Pressler staying separate. It might be better if Pressler dropped out, though it'd still be likely R.

This all may be a bit premature.  According to The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/216603-legal-questions-complicate-democrats-exit-from-kansas-senate), it's not clear that Taylor can just withdraw his name from the ballot without a particular legally acceptable reason or that the Democrats don't have to nominate someone in his place.  So it's possible Taylor's name will be on the ballot or Democrats will have to name someone else.  The Kansas Secretary of State is looking into it.

Some other big news. Sam Wang, the same guy who predicted every Senate race in 2012 including North Dakota and Montana, gives Orman an 85% probability of beating Roberts with much higher chances at a Democratic majority. (http://election.princeton.edu/)

Assuming he does win as PPP indicates and he does caucus with Dems which his views and his anti-extremism indicates, the GOP would need 7 seats to flip the Senate. With Michigan out of grasp, that's very unlikely.

I love how Roberts is responding to this - he's just flat-out going with the old "Orman's an Obama liberal!!!" to try and save his seat. Roberts could really be done for! The Tea Party hates him over the residency issue, and statewide, most moderate Kansans hate him. It's just a matter of getting enough name ID for Orman to rally enough anti-Roberts voters to vote for him and win.

That's not going to happen.  According to the South Dakota Secretary of State's calendar (https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2014-election-calendar.aspx), the last day for a candidate to withdraw his name from the ballot was August 5.  Absentees will start to go out in two weeks and may already have been printed.

Vice-versa is more likely.

Re: Kansas, evveryone knows Brownback and Roberts will be easily re-elected.. DUH!! ::)

I+1

2014 is the right climate in KS to get rid of Roberts.

So they will stay home and help for sure the GOP rather than voting for Orman and accepting the possibility that he'll join a GOP majority.

Right.

Plenty of (actual) right-wing Democrats will vote for Roberts.

Just like Sarkozy did.

Wow! Did not expect this. With Taylor out of the race, that leaves us with the second race without any democrat (after Alabama) and Orman is a serious candidate. Will have to see a poll before we make any assumptions, anything can happen now.

Ok, I actually meant to write a bunch of Orman backers will flee. I obviously didn't mean that Dems would vote for a conservative Republican over a centrist. Everyone can calm down now. ::)

Yeah, Orman may look in good shape now; but how will he manage when a hundred superPACS head into Kansas calling him a tool of the Reid-Obama agenda?

Although national Republicans must be furious at Roberts for diverting resources from their potential pickups.  He'll probably be pushed out next cycle, if he survives this round.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/216603-legal-questions-complicate-democrats-exit-from-kansas-senate

McCaskill encouraged Taylor to drop out. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/03/democratic-nominee-chad-taylor-drops-out-of-kansas-senate-race/)

It would be great to see another independent candidate elected.  Republicans and Democrats need to be put on notice.  Hell, I may even donate to Orman now.

If his name remains on the ballot because of the election law §§§, it would certainly lower the chances of Orman defeating Roberts.

Roberts' campaign manager says Roberts' "home" is in Virginia. (http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article1183838.html)

Sabato moves this to Lean R (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images/090414SENchanges.png)

Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call moves KS-Sen to from Republican Favored all the way to Tossup/Tilt Republican and declares that Pat Roberts is the most vulnerable Republican senator up for reelection this year. (http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/pat-roberts-is-the-most-vulnerable-republican-senator-in-the-country/?dcz=)

National Republicans are taking control (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2014/09/04/gop_takes_over_roberts_senate_campaign.html#.VAi2KC9Ynis.twitter) of Roberts' campaign.

Kobach has ruled Taylor stays on the ballot. Hasen examines the legalities here. (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=64981)

Damn it.

Wow.

It would be hilarious if Kansas elected it's most liberal Senator since the Depression all because he didn't have that big bad "Dem" next to his name.

Lawsuits and appeals will likely follow.

What else did you expect from Kobach?  Also what Badger said.

Oh no! The Dems new favorite last hope just flew out the window. But don't worry: HILLARY WILL STILL WIN THE STATE BY 12 IN 2016!!!!!

Wow. That's pathetic. This is why more states should handle the position of Secretary of State like Maine and New Hampshire, where it's elected by the legislature and isn't part of the partisan fray. A rabid partisan with likely motives for higher office really shouldn't be making this sort of decision.

Wow. This might be the only case in U.S. history of a candidate fighting a court battle to keep their name off of the November ballot.

Are you all right Phil? You seem a bit tense these last days.

The Democrat's name being on the ballot won't affect anything. He'll win maybe 2-3%. Voters aren't complete idiots and at the very least are aware which candidates are actually running for election. Anyone who votes for Taylor in November is either 1) so out of the loop that they wouldn't know they were supposed to vote for Orman anyway or 2) so blindly partisan that they wouldn't have voted for an independent anyway.

Taylor had gotten an OK from the SOS office before he turned his letter in.
This is why you should never have a Republican Secretary of State.

Kansas doesn't seem like the kind of state that has a sizable contingent of "reflexively Democratic" voters. They tend to have a fairly high level of voter participation, which likely means they're relatively informed voters relative to the country as a whole.

If Texas Democrats nominated a dead man, he'd predictably lose but he'd still win the Rio Grande Valley in a landslide. If Alabama Democrats did the same, the voters in the Black Belt would pick the corpse over the Republican. Kansas doesn't really have any Democratic voters like that.

You think being merely appointed by rabid partisans with motives for higher office makes for better officeholders? Our SoS is appointed by the governor and it's currently the wife of a two-bit conservative talk radio host.

That doesn't sound good either. The SoS of New Hampshire is a 65-year old who has been serving since 1976 and was even reelected by the most rabidly Tea Party legislature of 2011-2012. It's more of an administrative position here, which is what it should be.

Or sometimes the dead man wins statewide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri,_2000

Well, it was made clear who the replacement would be. Voters knew they were technically voting for Carnahan's Wife and not the late Carnahan himself, so it wasn't exactly 'voting for a dead man'.

In any case, Taylor will be challenging the decision: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article1504835.html

I'd ask how you're feeling but you keep on chugging with your usual troll ways so all is normal on that front.

Kris Kobach spits in the face of democracy once again. Nothing to see here, move on.

Kobach's move will amount to nothing. The fact that it will be challenged in court just increases the likelihood that Taylor's share of the vote approaches zero. Roberts is toast.

But even if Taylor manages to get his vote share down to say, 5-6% or so, that's votes that Orman can't get. Roberts can breathe a little easier with Taylor's name on the ballot than he can without it being there.

If Taylor's name stays on the ballot, it will capture some votes. But I don't think it will be 5-6%.
My guess is approx half of that (2-3%).

I'm looking forward to seeing the very first poll with just Orman and Roberts.

If the judge lets Taylor off the ballot but requires Democrats to replace him, could they "nominate" Orman?  Or would that be counter-productive?

Could they "nominate" Milton Wolf to draw votes away from Brownback?

They should nominate a Democrat named Pat Roberts.

WaPo on Orman's campaign. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/orman-emerges-as-x-factor-in-kansas-senate-race/2014/09/04/660669c0-3445-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html)

Major parties tend to get votes even if the real election is between the other party and an independent.

In the 2006 Connecticut election, Lieberman got 49.71% as an Independent, Ned Lamont got 39.73% as the Democratic party's nominee and the Republican got 9.62%.

In Colorado's last gubernatorial election, the Democrat got 51%, and former Republican congressman Tom Tancredo got 36.43% as the Constitution Party's candidate. The Republican candidate, a businessman who paid a five figure fine for campaign finance violations and was accused of lying about working for the CIA, still got 11%.

Those situations are a bit different in that the irrelevant candidate remained in the race. It's a bit different with the Democrat telling people to support someone else, but 7% support wouldn't surprise me.

PPP surveyed 903 likely voters from August 14th to 17th. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.3%.
80% of interviews for the poll were conducted over the phone with 20% interviewed over the internet to reach respondents who don’t have landline telephones.

Q11.  If the candidates for Senate this fall were just
Republican Pat Roberts and independent Greg
Orman, who would you vote for?

Pat Roberts..................................................... 33%
Greg Orman.................................................... 43%
Not sure ............................................ ............ 24%

Again, most of that 2-3% would have never voted for Orman in the first place. This is not a big loss at all.

Dan Maes got 11% in 2010. Granted, he didn't drop out, but nobody took him seriously either. Dede Scozzafava got 6% after dropping out and endorsing the Democrat.

Scozzafava dropped out 48 hours before the polls closed. Give me a break.

Is there anything known about Scott Barnhart (I) and Randall Batson (L)?

Exactly. There was also a good reason for people to vote for her as a protest vote (moderate republicans against the tea party).

Here's a Question & Answer voter guide (http://cjonline.com/news/elections-2014/vg/randall-batson) the Topeka Capital-Journal carried out with Batson. It seems to be a useful resource for familiarizing oneself with him as a candidate. Batson appears to be a textbook libertarian, in that he supports very limited government and limited involvement with foreign policy matters. His libertarian ideology definitely shows up in his views on same-sex marriage:


He voices opposition to military involvement in the Middle East while calling ISIS a "big issue", and he supports pulling all of our nation's troops out of Japan and views war in the Korea as imminent. Based on what I see, I expect that Batson should at least manage to garner the typical level of support that Libertarians earn in Kansas.

As for Barnhart, he was a candidate for the Kansas legislature (http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/34759/scott-barnhart#.VAlBi9PjkhM) registered with the Democratic party, and after further examination (http://ballotpedia.org/Scott_Barnhart) of his past as a Democrat, I must say I'm surprised that he is in this race.

Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI) won despite a vote for her just meaning you'd get another two elections.

truly brilliant idea

Wow! Barnhart seems to chance his luck on every legislative level.

Unfortunately, he might pull away some crucial Democratic votes destined for Orman. :-\

Barnhart does seem more like one of those perennial candidates who fails to find electoral success.

I agree. However, Orman could miss being elected by those 1.5% Barnhart will have received.

I think blaming the Kansas SoS here is wrong. If the KS election law explicitely says that you can only step down as candidate by notifying the SoS that you are unable to serve if elected, then Krobach is only acting according to the law. It's his job.

You should rather expect the Taylor campaign to be smart enough to know the election law and they should have put the "unable to serve" thing into his letter.

Tender, don't try to reason with them.

Except the letter Taylor wrote was written with the assistance of the Secretary of State's office, implying the Secretary of State knowingly deceived the Taylor campaign.

This, and also just try to imagine how Kobach would be acting if the situation was reversed and it was to benefit Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/kansas-senate-race_n_5771286.html?1409919194&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
Interesting...

Well, that post certainly disproves allegation of tenseness. ::)

Seriously Phil, be safe. Most of your recent posts conjure the image of flecks of spittle as you speak, a rapid eye twitch, and a throbbing forehead vein forcasting an aneurysm.

Don't try to reason with them Phil, guys.

Interesting if true. In this case, the Taylor campaign would have a good chance of legal victory.

Hopefully it is resolved (Taylor's name taken off) before any ballots are printed.

Its much more likely that they consulted some mid-level bureaucrat in the office who got it wrong. I very much doubt the secretary himself was involved in the decision in any way.

Well, in that case the Taylor campaign should just send a 2nd letter to Kobach's desk with the "unable to serve after elected" thing in it and Kobach needs to accept (unless he's willing to be OK with his incompetent staff that doesn't know the election law of the state).

A good point indeed.
Just because it was not the SOS himself, any "mid-level bureaucrat" is an employee and a direct agent of the State, and thus their advice (and seal-of-approval) that "the letter was sufficient to remove Taylor from the ballot," could be enough to at least challenge the SOS ruling.

But also, courts and judges do not like plaintiffs (Taylor) who's defense is ignorance of the law.
Taylor and his people should have known the exact procedures and wording required for the withdrawal letter.

It wasn't just some mid-level bureaucrat, it was the assistant secretary of state himself, Brad Bryant.

It's the old good cop, bad cop routine.

Wow. I would think the courts will definitely at least hear the plea.
But it must happen very soon ... time is running out !
Does anyone know if an official complaint/petition has been issued to a court of law yet ?

Meet Pat Roberts' new campaign manager. (http://virginiavirtucon.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/what-happened-to-joe-may-two-words-corry-bliss/)

No, they really don't. And calling out px, a well established troll, isn't proof of tenseness.

Honestly, your "poke the bear" response to me is just as bad as his. You did it in two posts in a row and you frequently do it, too. Please don't feel the need to respond to each of my posts with your not-so-subtly hostile commentary. Your complaint is that my posts are tense...and then you go on in unnecessary, exaggerated detail about how I'm acting like a person that is literally asylum-bound. I'm kindly asking that you tone it down.

Keystone,
Not only was Landslide's "analysis" correct on his initial call on you, but Badger was also right-on-the-money, to isolate your second comment and find it equally as "strange." And now myself, as a third independent individual, I need to admit that ALL your responses (starting from the very first), do seem to indicate something like "tense," "irritated" or "angry-at-the-world."

And I am not picking on you. I don't think I have had conversation (directly) with you on any topic in the past. Seriously, you need to chill.
Take a big breathe, and read your responses. They get worse and worse, and more "tense" as you continue. My suggestion is just let it go.

My post had nothing to do with either of them and px started the troll routine with the sarcastic, "Are you ok?" question. And those two aren't two "independent" sources to judge my character.

My response here was a joke "Hillary will win by 12 in 2016!" comment that many people (px and Badger included) make on a variety of topics, jabbing the opposition. There was literally nothing in that post that was "angry at the world." My subsequent responses were to Badger, who compared me to an actually insane person. I'd advise you to re-read that and ask yourself who is out of line. 

Right. I know it is easier to rag on someone and claim to be an "independent" judge of the situation while ignoring other points.

I simply and kindly asked that Badger scale back his comments about me acting like an unstable, physical menace and we can move on.

You made two silly attempted bullying posts; I made two responses. Issue? ???

I hadn't considered the prospect of you going to the asylum....until now. :o

Please Phil, it's just a midterm Senate race in a state over 1500 miles away. Please don't do anything .......hasty.

Haha wow. You took my posts as "bullying" (only one of which was even remotely personal and still nothing like your very personal attacks thus far) and I'm the one taking things too serious here? Ok, my friend!

Quit arguing, no one cares whose feelings were hurt. Let's continue our discussion on how badly Roberts will be demolished.

@Badger: While Phil's posting style is often too intense for my taste, I think he has a point here (assuming he didn't misinterpret your post).  Maybe you weren't implying he 's mentally ill (I certainly didn't read your post that way), but if that's the case then you should clarify for him since he seems to have taken it that way.

There was a debate today...

Coming from someone who thinks Davis won the Gubernatorial debate, I think Roberts won this one. He sounded in control and was incredibly successful in tying Obama to Orman. Lost count of the number of times Orman said "I agree with the Senator."

Democrats will start losing enthusiasm for Orman and Republicans will get more enthusiastic for Roberts as the election draws nearer.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article1716795.html

Is there a link to the debate.

http://www.wibwnewsnow.com/roberts-orman-face-senatorial-debate-voteks/

Orman's chances of actually winning are hard to say, but the real value here is that the GOP is now having to spend resources in what should have been an ultra-safe Senate seat in Kansas.  For vulnerable Democratic incumbents in other states, every little bit helps in such close races.

I think Davis will win and KS-Senate will be close, but I am starting to think Roberts pulls it out after all :(  Maybe/hopefully Kobach will also lose.

From what I understand, the Taylor-camp now has ca. 4-5 weeks until ballots are printed and sent to polling stations and absentee voters.

How likely is it that a court rules before the ballot deadline and will there be appeals ?

Apparently, it all has to be figured out by September 18. That was a date mentioned by the Secretary of State's office, so take it with a massive helping of salt.

I think an independent senator from Kansas would be pretty interesting. I mean, not that Orman's personality or hypothetical voting habits would be interesting, just the fact that an independent senator from Kansas would be.

When was the last time the Senate had three indies simultaneously?

Survey USA / KSN-TV
Data collected : Sept 4-7
Released : Sept 8
555 Likely voters
Margin of error is +/- 4.2%

Greg Orman (I): 37%
Pat Roberts (R): 36%
Chad Taylor (D): 10%
Randall Batson (Lib): 6%
Undecided: 11%


Also interesting is that in this same poll, individuals were asked:
Are you aware that Chad Taylor, who is the Democrat running for the United States Senate, has asked to have his name taken off the ballot?

71% said Yes
26% said No
3% Unsure

This probably explains most of the 10% that still say they will vote for Taylor (uncertainty & confusion). I'm sure most of these "Taylor" votes, will eventually go to Orman, as the election is still 2 months away.

Conclusion = Trouble for Roberts and Republicans in Kansas.

If I did the dates right,it was 1936-1940:  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_officeholders_in_the_United_States)

Bob LaFollette, Jr. (WI-Progressive)
George W. Norris (NE-Independent)
Ernest Lundeen (MN-Farmer-Labor)

There was a brief time in late 2002 where Jim Jeffords, Dean Barkley and Bob Smith were serving together, but Smith had changed back to the GOP.

The law is pretty clear: "Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds."

If he didn't declare that he was incapable of fulfilling the duties of the office, he can't withdraw.  Blame the legislature for crafting the law, not the person enforcing it.

Even if the SOS's office helped Taylor craft the letter, is there any evidence that Bryant was aware of the provision?  If he wasn't, then that's arguably grounds he should be fired for doing a poor job, but it's ultimately Taylor's responsibility to ensure that his campaign follows the law.

Hmmm... but is it totally clear that the written request must itself contain the requisite declaration that one is incapable? I think it's reasonable to read that statute as simply requiring that the "written request" contain precisely what it sounds like, a request to be removed from the ballot that need not state any of the reasons motivating the request. The declaration and the written request are two distinct requirements that need not be combined into one action.

 

Inks, in this case "Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected" plays the same role as "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State" in the second amendment. What's your take on that clause?

Sorry for posting this in two threads.

From Orman's website


So this math confuses me. Correct me if I am wrong. If Orman wins, Republicans would need to win 7 seats for him to commit GOP? 6 would then be a tie, and goes into wheel and deal territory, and 5 Dems would be in control, so he commits to Democrats? Or does "clearly in the majority" mean he will only commit if his decision has no effect and one party leads the Senate by more than 2?

Gee, so if King and Sanders want to continue caucusing with the Dems, Orman will just have to go along with that, it sounds like.

Assuming he wins, he'll go with the Republicans if they have 51 without him, but will most likely go with the democrats if its 49 (dems)-50 (reps) thus making it a dem majority with the biden tie vote.

That makes sense, so then if Roberts loses, GOP needs to pick up 7 seats. If they do so, he caucuses with them, and the GOP has a 52-48 edge.

Yep, which is why the GOP is slightly more likely to gain 52 or 50 seats than 51 seats (weird)

Senator Pat Roberts has a cool new ad (??) on his Youtube channel. It's very bizarre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7B7NHRTcM&feature=youtube_gdata

Senator Roberts: Watch him read to a gay marine. Now he's being friendly with short ladies. He sure is a talented doctor. Check out the occasionally black veterans! He's such a skilled aeronautical engineer. Watch him decide not to read a book twice, then call tech support. He sure is a good hand-shaker. He claps with Sam Brownback's hands in-between his own. More handshaking then WOW A Fistbump! He closes with a smile that he is unable to prevent from turning into a grimace because he's dying on the inside, thinking please don't fire me Kansas when have I ever done you wrong

That ad is just awful. Watching some images of an oldman shaking hands with people you don't know and listening to a horrible soud track at the same time... annoying.

What is with old Republican Senators and thinking that removing the content from the ad and just having the images makes them better? He's doing the McConnell thing.

...it's publically posted so Super PACs can use the content without officially working with the campaign.

I never knew that :P

Any thoughts on the fact in the event of a tied Senate, Orman would have to be known as the guy who (by appearances) single-handedly throws the Senate to the Democrats if he caucuses with them? That would presumably make for an effective attack ad come the 2020 election and might dissuade him now. Then again, it's tempered by the fact it's six years later (meaning voters might care less and also Orman might willingly make that sacrifice in exchange for supporting the party he presumably wants to).

Even if he supports the Democrats now he might switch caucuses at any point before 2020

If he was the deciding vote for Democrats, he might follow through on his pledge to not vote for Reid (and maybe get King to join him). He'd probably make up for giving Dems the Senate by also being known as the guy that ousted Reid for someone like McCaskill or Heitkamp

I wonder if McCaskill or Heitkamp would even want the job. It would certainly make their re elections more difficult.

You're right. Kirsten Gillibrand would be the perfect choice. There's not even a 0.01% possibility that she wouldn't get reelected, even if she were majority leader, and I think she's pretty centrist/moderate.

Gillibrand is among the most liberal in the democratic caucus...

Some safe senators near the middle of the caucus include Leahy, Feinstein, Carper, and Tom Udall.

Doesn't Schumer want the job?

The KS Supreme Court will hear the Taylor-case today, just 1 day ahead of the ballot-printing deadline:


http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article2116230.html

Hopefully he can get his name removed from the ballot.

I've been thinking that Orman's got to have calculated that he's likely to be a one term senator no matter what he chooses. If he caucuses with the Dems, he gets attacked by the Republicans come re-election time in 2020 and probably loses. If he caucuses with the Republicans, he gets attacked as not even a RINO and gets ousted by a real Republican in 2020. If it comes down to 49D-50R and he's got to make a decision, I feel like it's got to be based on whatever he actually believes, since he's not likely to stay for more than one term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb0wR1qCwyo

Great ad by Roberts campaign.

Orman seemed truly nervous during the debate...

Don't know if it was great exactly, but at least it was funny, with Roberts screaming the hell out his lungs like the devil at Orman. :P At least Orman had the decency to look away and not just stand there and take his sh**t. :D

The second half of the ad is good. The first half is a pretty boiler plate Republican negative ad, just as likely to reinforce Orman's bipartisan/independent message as anything else. I'm also not so sure attacking Orman for being a liberal Obamabot and then attacking him for agreeing too much with the state's conservative Republican senator makes much sense at all.

Election Law Blog says that based on oral arguments it's likely that Taylor's name will be taken off the ballot: http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65498

Wonderful news!

wow Orman is twitchy as all hell in that ad

Inks, you put up a good fight for Kobach here, but his lawyer had to admit today to the court that the SOS approved withdrawal from the ballot in the past for several candidates who did the same thing Taylor did. Kobach decided to change the standard of compliance when the removal had the potential to affect his party in a detrimental way.

Suck it, Kobach:

Kansas judges question why Democrat kept on ballot

So a majority has been appointed by Sebelius?
Good news!

Splendid news! :D

Wow.
If this is true, this is huge. I very much doubt the KS Supreme Court will allow this kind of double-standard and prejudicial decision making by the SOS's Office to stand.

It looks like Taylor's name will be off the ballot.

And on a different note .... has anyone noticed the new poll that was released in Kansas.
As I expected, Orman was going to increase his lead in the polls, as more and more people in that State became informed that Taylor had withdrawn.

Orman now leads with a spread of 7 percentage points :

Conducted by PPP. Poll date of Sept 14th. 1328 likely voters. MOE +/- 2.7 %.

Orman (Ind) .....  41%
Roberts (Rep) ..  34%
Taylor (Dem) ...  6%
Undecided .......  19%

PPP holds the exact same 10 point advantage for Orman as the last one. I think this changes to Toss-up Tilt I, but this race is fast moving, so I expect this to tighten in the next couple of weeks. If it doesn't, I'd say Orman is favored, as we've had ten point races that we are calling Likely or even Safe holds.

Republican losing a senate race in Kansas vs. an incumbent recovering from numbers like this with Taylor's support waiting in the wings for Orman.

Which is harder to believe?

I think this is a pretty odd and damn near unprecedented thing to happen, so I think the obvious thing to do is to wait and see.

If I cared about either one of these people, I would start getting pretty pessimistic for Pat Roberts.

What about the news that Kobach may insist Democrats appoint a replacement?


Also, interestingly, Lt Gov Mead Treadwell allowed the Walker/Mallot switch in Alaska without a fuss.

Orman's reaction after Roberts confronted him was about as "slimy politician" as one can appear. Just run that ad nauseam. The guy's ratings will tumble soon enough.

Colombia will win the World Cup.

What was your prediction? In fact, what's your prediction for this race? I notice a lot of cowards like to bring up wrong predictions but usually don't go out on a limb themselves.

Phil, the problem is that Orman will caucuse with the majority party. That will be difficult to sell that for the reps as "WE MUST VOTE FOR ROBERTS IN ORDER TO GAIN THE SENATE", don't you think???


I believe Orman will lose though.

That's exactly what this race will come down to: this guy possibly determining who controls the Senate. And everyone is going to know that Orman won't commit to either side yet so, yes, plenty of Republicans that don't care for Roberts will hold their nose and vote for him, not wanting to take a risk. It's a rather easy sell.

Just like Brownback will regain the lead and win. Ok, we're still waiting on that. Could be a while...

Less than two months isn't that long of a wait.

He's going to win those undecideds by more than 3-1. He better get a move on!

Does anyone know when we will hear the final Kansas Supreme Court ruling on Taylor on/off the ballot ??

If you do hear the ruling from the court, please post in this thread ASAP.
Thanks.

Its sounds more likely than not that Taylor's name gets dropped. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/kansas-senate-supreme-court-hearing?utm_content=buffera6f12&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Either Tomorrow or Thursday. Apparently, if the court rules in favor of DavisTaylor, Kobach is going to try to force the courts to force the democratic party to name a replacement. Just more proof that Kobach is doing everything with Robert's best interests in mind. If the democrats name Orman as their replacement, they'd make him a weaker candidate in the process, and if they name some random unknown democrat he'd probably reach double digits even if he went around telling people not to vote for him because he hasn't technically 'dropped out', taking votes away from Orman.


Hopefully Kobach will find himself defeated in November.

Edited due to wrong candidate name. I suppose this is what I get for typing this at 11:38 at night.

How exactly could Kobach "force" Democrats to select a replacement? If they decide not to, there's nothing he can do about it. Or perhaps the Democrats could select Kobach, Roberts, Brownback, or Yoder?

Could they choose someone who legally changes their name to "Dont Vote For Me"? LOL.

Very interesting article. The justices demanded answers to very good questions. Seems they really did beat-up on the attorney backing the SOS.
I agree that more than likely, Taylor's name will be removed.

LOL, yeah, exactly. If the partisan hack Kobach wants to play games with the law, Democrats can play that game as well.

That would be funny. Now the question would be who would be willing to do that - change your name from now until November to 'Don't Vote For Me".

Basically, his plan is to sue the democratic party and hope the courts rule the right way....

I was thinking the exact same thing ....
The Democrats can just stall and not submit a name in enough time before the ballots are printed (I think the deadline for printing of ballots is this Saturday Sept 20).
If the High Court says that Taylor's name is off, then it must come off ... period. And if the Democrats don't submit a name, then the ballots must be printed without a Democrat.

And what can the SOS/Elections office do if a substitute name is not given ... if the Dem's just refuse to give a name .... what are they going to do ?? Throw someone is jail ??
I don't think they can force this. Especially because there is "insufficient time" for the Dem party to do this. Maybe if the Kansas SOS office didn't "play games" from the beginning, then maybe a Democratic substitute would have been made .... but now, the Republicans lose twice as bad : (1) No Taylor name, and (2) no replacement name on the ballot.

Didn't we agree the best solution was to nominate a random democrat who was named "Pat Roberts"?

Legally, I don't believe there is a way to force a replacement, since it's always up to the party whether or not they want to field a replacement (that is if the law allows for one).

I seriously, seriously doubt a "random unknown democrat" would pull double digits.
Almost impossible.

But if a replacement name (somehow) is forced on the ballot, the Dem's could just find someone in Kansas with a last name of .... ummmm .... Bin Laden, maybe.
And then after any forced replacement name, the new Dem candidate can subsequently and quickly just submit a "proper" letter of resignation for his candidacy, thus making sure that everyone knows this candidate is not serious, and thus can be mostly ignored on the ballot.

I don't think he could. Even if the law mandates that Democrats must select a replacement, the law doesn't give the SOS any recourse if the KS Democratic Party refuses to do so, and there's almost certainly no penalty under the law for refusing to do so. It sounds like he's talking about trying to go back to court and get a judge to order the party to select a replacement, but the SOS doesn't have standing to bring that suit. Maybe he could find a member of the state Democratic party that would have standing to bring a suit, but it doesn't seem that there's enough time left for such antics.

I think they should just nominate Milton Wolf and peel even more votes away from Roberts.

I'd say be careful what you wish for with that strategy.

A Roberts-Wolf-Orman race would be an easy victory for Orman.

So, are the Supreme Court dudes going to rule on this today ?

Otherwise, the ballots will start to be printed with his name on them ...

So? ???

Yes the ruling is going to have to come today. It seemed that there was some sympathy for Taylor's position amongst the Justices.

Will there also be a view on whether Kobach can force the Democrats to nominate another candidate? The state party has said even if they were ordered to do so, there just isn't time.

No ruling just yet....




That wasn't argued over at all on Tuesday, so the court probably won't issue anything on it, but don't rule it out.

Also, does anyone know if Kobach could declare an 'emergency delay' on the printing deadline in order to allow time to attempt to get a second court ruling demanding the democrats to choose a replacement?

What the heck are these useless sloths in robes doing?

2-day coffee break ?

;)

I can't wash away the suspicion that they're doing it on purpose, because they know Taylor is in the right and don't want to set a bad precedent, but they are also GOP hacks who want Roberts to win. Going "sorry dude, you were totally right but it's too late!" might be their best strategy.

Nope:

This is what the judges in Kansas are doing right now - probably best not to disturb them, might make them angry enough to rule in Kobach's favor...

()

The Democrats would be wise to nominate Milton Wolf. After all, they nominated a crazy white nationalist for Senate in Tennessee back in 2012. Of course, this isn't a primary so they can't pin it on the voters, but it would be great none the less :P.

They should nominate a some dude named Pat Roberts.

hearing word that the decision should be released within the next 45 minutes

The results should be released here first:
http://www.kscourts.org/Chad_Taylor_v_Kris_Kobach/default.asp

Opinion's out, Taylor's request granted. Don't have time to read the legalese.
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140918/112431.pdf (http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140918/112431.pdf)

Glorious news!

Kobach's plot to subvert the will of the good people of Kansas has been foiled.

Orman would just be another vote for Harry Reid's liberal Senate majority. Republicans and Independents will eventually wake up and see what is at stake here. Pat Roberts will return to the Senate next January.

But if Republicans win 6 seats then he'll be another vote for McConnell's fascist Senate majority.

And if Republicans win 5 seats, he'll be another vote Angus King's train wreck moderate hero circus.

Pat Roberts is a failure as a senator.

It looks like a final decision has been made.

The official opinion (ruling) of the High Court says, and I quote :

"Taylor's petition for writ of mandamus is granted, and Kobach is ordered to comply with his clearly defined duty imposed by K.S.A. 26-306b(b). He shall not include Taylor's name on any ballots for the office of United States Senate for the general election on November 4, 2014."

In regards to the Democratic Party, being required to place a replacement on the ballot, the High Court says :

"With this determination, we need not consider the parties' numerous other arguments. Nor do we need to act on Kobach's allegation that a ruling for Taylor would require the Kansas Democratic Party State Committee to name his replacement nominee per K.S.A. 25-3905. The Kansas Democratic Party is not a party to this original action, and this court does not issue advisory opinions. Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. at 1119."

All great news in other words. :D Mark this day down your calendar, as it might be the day that decided the outcome of the 2015 Senate majority. ;)

"In response to the ruling, Kobach said a separate statute protects the “rights of Kansas Democrats” to have a replacement candidate. He said he would move the mailing date for absentee ballots to Sept. 27 and that the chair of the Democratic Party has been informed she has eight days to select a replacement candidate."

Loser. :P

I think we're seeing what would occur if Chris McDaniel held a SoS position.

"Today, the Kansas Supreme Court deliberately, and for political purposes, disenfranchised over 65,000 voters."-Roberts campaign

I wonder how they would be reacting if Orman had requested to be taken off the ballot instead...

Not really. If Roberts is reelected because a few people of Kansas voted for Taylor, than the blame is to placed among the people. People get the government they deserve, etc.

Sure, but lots of voters just don't care about stuff like that. And like I've said before, it doesn't really matter who controls the Senate unless one side has 60, the House and the presidency. Very little is going to be accomplished in the next 2 years.

LOL. So now Kobach cares about, and is looking after "the rights of Kansas Democrats" ??
LMAO. Funny stuff.
He just doesn't know when to quit ..... he is making himself look more and more foolish.

If I was the chair of the Dem Party, I would just do nothing about a replacement.
I don't think they can legally force the issue (at least in time before ballots are printed).

Well, time to find someone non-republican named Pat Roberts.

Lol. Or what? Does Kansas law allow the Secretary of State to impose any kind of sanction on the Democratic Party for failing to do so? Because even if the courts were inclined to order the state Democratic Committee to select a replacement, it is highly unlikely that Kobach would have standing to bring any kind of action against the Democrats in court. It's over.

The Pat Roberts campaign goes completely into lala land.


Yes, Senators from Nevada and Missouri ensured that the Kansas State Supreme Court was packed with liberal activist judges.

This is why I still have Orman winning. Corry Bliss is a sh*t campaign manager.

And the Democratic Party waived that right. Hopefully the voters take note, and throw out Kobach along with Roberts and Brownback.

The fact that he uses the term "Democrat primary" just makes him sound petty and unintelligent. (Which may be what he was going for.)

It is over. Kobach is just a moron.

Yeah, Democrats should just ignore Kobach.

So aside from not being able to follow the law, the totally serious suggestion (that will likely be followed) is for the KS Democratic Party to just ignore the office that runs elections.

Can't say I'm surprised and I can't say that they've "stooped" this low; this is simply par for the course.

Px: Stop whining, Phil

Good. We're all satisfied here.

But now, seriously... stop whining, Phil.

Haha, could you imagine the head explosion if a state Republican Party pulled this stunt?

"LAWLESS RETHUGS! KOCH BROS!!!"

Not that any of this will matter. Just going to make the Kansas Dems look even more pathetic when Roberts wins.

In the case you missed it, it's Kobach who's violating the law, not the Democrats.

Can't wait until your smugness gets washed off your face when Roberts get trounced by double digits.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court allowed Taylor to withdraw without following the exact letter of the law. That doesn't mean Kobach violated the law, my friend.


Please. Tell me more about smugness. I figured you'd give a good lesson. :)

Kobach illegally extended the deadline for the printing of ballots to pursue is partisan crusade.

Phil, please reread the thread. Kobach's office ok'd several previous primary winners to withdraw from the ballot using the same procedure Taylor followed. The letter of the law is broad enough that what he did was legal then, and set a binding precedent. Especially, you know, after his office told Taylor this would be sufficient to have him withdraw.

I don't understand what principle you"re defending here. There must be ways to cheer for your team without going all AggregateDemand about it.

Ah, the doctrine of promissory estoppel. :)

You just have this irresistible impulse to engage in personal attacks, and really can't control yourself can you?  Sad.

The Supreme Court, the one that actually heard the case, UNANIMOUSLY disagrees with your assertion. Kobach has allowed other candidates to withdraw with the same procedures Taylor used, confirming he is nothing more than a partisan hack trying to push an agenda rather than fairly and consistently apply the law.

This all comes down to who Kansas voters hate more: the Democrats or just politicians in general. If the former, they can swing back to Roberts to ensure the jackass's party don't keep the senate; if the latter, they'll chose the moderate hero indie.

I think that Never should re-name this thread as "KS-Sen: Official Discussion Thread". :)

McCain and Dole will campaign for Roberts next week.

http://robertsforsenate.com/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5a9715d4-210e-4833-ae51-c60080ca803e

Noticed Phil never responded after this.
He probably went back and looked at the details, and figured out how much of a scum-bag Kobach really was regarding the denial of Taylor's withdrawal. An individual in Kobach's position should protect the fairness and integrity of the voting process in his state. His past arbitrary decisions to allow some to withdraw from an election and not others, even though they also did not follow the exact procedures, has made him look like a (partisan) fool.

If he cannot follow the laws within his own State, then he has no right to hold office in Kansas.

lol, Kobach continues to be an incompetent law-breaker:


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/kobach-move-act-waiver-kansas-senate-race

LOL.
Kobach just doesn't know when to throw in the towel.

His actions are verging on impeachable offenses now. Of course impeachment would require that the Kansas legislature weren't dominated by hacks like Kobach.

https://twitter.com/dhellingkc/status/513007038201208832

I'd argue he's already crossed that line, tbh.

Soon-to-be-ex-SOS and serial lawbreaker Kobach has thrown in the towel! Looks like Republicans won't be able to trample over the rights of our brave men and women overseas after all!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kansas-senate-race-ballots

This is verging on electoral fraud now...

It certainly is.

I guess they'll try to portray Orman as a rubber-stamp for President Woodrow Wilson.

Now, now, the only time that Kansas didn't vote Republican for Senate during either of their lifetimes was President FDR, which Orman must be a rubber stamp for.

That's true; I didn't respond since that was posted. In fact, I didn't post at all since this morning since I was at work.

I was not aware that Kobach allowed other candidates to withdraw under the same procedure.

How much more bullsh**t can this guy throw at this election?

Kobach said he was extending the deadline for sending overseas military ballots to 27th Sept, by seeking a waiver of the MOVE act, but he apparently did not seek (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/kobach-move-act-waiver-kansas-senate-race?utm_content=bufferb61f5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer) such a waiver.

Now he is saying he will send out those ballots on time without any Democrat listed, but include a warning to voters that their ballot may not be counted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/19/kansas-elections-officials-to-send-out-ballots-without-democratic-senate-nominee/).

Plus there are reports that 67 ballots have already been sent out (https://twitter.com/dhellingkc/status/513007038201208832) with Chad Taylor's name on them, the same day the Court clearly ordered him not to do that.

This is a massive abuse of power. Kansas voters should dump this guy in November.

Dr. Milton Wolf (the guy who ran against and almost defeated Pat Roberts in the primary) SLAMS the Kansas GOP's embarrassing and pathetic campaign of non-stop negativity: https://twitter.com/miltonwolfmd

lol, is that a wink and a nudge to his supporters to support Orman?

Let's hope so. An Orman-Taylor-Wolf election eve unity rally would be fantastic!

Kansas Supreme Court Sends Orel Lawsuit to District Court

The twists and turns in the Kansas Senate race would make a great political thriller book or movie. Very briefly, when the Democratic nominee withdrew, the Kansas secretary of state, Kris Kobach (R) refused to take his name off the ballot, but the Kansas Supreme Court ordered him to do so. Then David Orel, the father of an aide to Gov. Sam Brownback (R-KS), filed a suit to force the Democratic Party to name a replacement. The idea here is having any Democrat on the ballot, no matter how obscure, would siphon off votes from independent Greg Orman, who might actually beat Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS).

Now the Kansas Supreme Court has ordered the case to be first heard in the Shawnee County District Court. That could take weeks. Only then would it come back to the state Supreme Court, by which time the ballots would already have been printed and the case would be moot. In effect, the court's ruling is a win for the Democrats and a setback for the Republicans.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2014/Senate/Maps/Sep24.html#item-1

:)

I'd love to watch that movie

Oy...

http://cjonline.com/news/2014-09-24/roberts-asserts-va-home-principal-residence-documents (http://cjonline.com/news/2014-09-24/roberts-asserts-va-home-principal-residence-documents)

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts put a signature to documents associated with the mortgage on a Virginia residence that identify the Fairfax County home as “principal residence” of the three-term incumbent Republican.

The re-election campaign of the Kansan has been awash in controversy about whether his ownership of a duplex in Dodge City, which is rented out, and his payment of about $300 a month for a room in a Dodge City supporter's home satisfied legal requirements for public office.

On Wednesday, records surfaced that Roberts signed a Deed of Trust in 1997 and 2003 for property owned in Alexandria, Va., with his wife, Franki, that contained text about a principal residence.

The two men tried to appear chummy: Dole calls Roberts “my go-to guy,” while Roberts calls Dole “a mentor of mine, a friend of mine, a brother of mine.”

But theirs is hardly a brotherly relationship. In late 2012, Dole personally urged Roberts to support a U.N. treaty banning discrimination against people with disabilities, and came onto the Senate floor in his wheelchair to plea for passage. Roberts, siding with tea-party-backed senators, voted it down.

“People thought, ‘Gosh, why couldn’t he have done that for Bob?’ ” said former GOP senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker, whose seat Roberts now holds. Among some prominent Republicans in Kansas, she said, “that just triggered an emotional disappointment with Pat. I think that carried on and has not been changed.”

“He’s basically furniture in the Senate, and the people in Kansas know that,” said national GOP strategist John Weaver, a former McCain adviser. “You could give the average Kansan 24 hours to come up with something Pat Roberts has done in the Senate, and after 24 hours, even the crickets would be standing there befuddled.”

On the stump, Roberts exhibits “this grumpy-old-man persona,” said Burdett Loomis, a professor of political science at the University of Kansas. “This is a classic guy who, at age 78, is running for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate and does not have any great rationale.”

As Roberts campaigned with Dole at a shopping mall in Dodge City this week, a man in the back of the crowd asked, “Can you tell us why Virginia would get three senators and Kansas only one?”

Roberts stayed silent and let Dole answer by noting that each state has two senators.


A great article today in Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-kansas-longtime-gop-sen-pat-roberts-faces-doubts-as-he-scrambles-to-hold-seat/2014/09/24/4d288dbe-4329-11e4-b47c-f5889e061e5f_story.html

Not good for Roberts as this has been an attack against him both his primary challenger and Orman's campaign.


http://cjonline.com/news/2014-09-24/roberts-asserts-va-home-principal-residence-documents (http://cjonline.com/news/2014-09-24/roberts-asserts-va-home-principal-residence-documents)

Wolf might endorse Orman but only if Orman publicly commits to caucusing with the GOP. Orman seems skittish on both the commitment and meeting. (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/milton-wolf-greg-orman-111342.html)

If this happens, it would be a welcome suprise, especially since Orman potentially caucusing with Republicans would take Kansas off the map. Still, it does seem unlikely that we'll see any of this come to fruition.

Hmmm, I guess Wolf just isn't a true believer like Chris McDaniel.

Kobach now badly wants to speed up the lawsuit process:

Kobach intervenes in Kansas Senate election dispute


http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/election/article2240672.html

Let's assume the replacement-lawsuit reaches the KS Supreme Court again in early October and the court then rules that the KS Dem. Party needs to pick a replacement candidate.

Does the KS election law say that the KS Dem. Party can pick any random person as their candidate ?

Or does this person have to be a registered Democrat ?

The best solution would be appointing a hardcore dying Democrat willing to be nominated. Death is an accepted withdrawal reason.

I feel like this has potential to backfire, since this seems very petulant of Wolf to do this.

Not only that but if I was Orman I'd want Wolf to stay as away as possible from me. He is a creep and an idiot.

I also don't think it would help with moderate Republicans.
 
And this:

I find this very strange a tea partier would endorse a centrist, clearly a personal blood feud thing

Wolf won't meet with Orman; most likely no endorsement from him. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/09/26/no-consideration-of-an-orman-endorsement-by-wolf/)

Well what I was actually referring to was the "string attached" that Orman would have to caucus with the GOP. If he were a true believer like Chris McDaniel, he would want the Republican nominee to lose and want the Republicans not to control the senate, as a way of sticking it to the Establishment.

Ball profiles Orman.  (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/09/the-mystery-candidate-shaking-up-kansas-politics/380856/?single_page=true)

Assuming the KS Supreme Court requires the KS Dem. Party to choose a replacement candidate before the election, with the KS Democrats refusing to choose one and with the election being held between Orman and Roberts, does the KS law allow to challenge the general election after it is held, invalidate it and set a new election ?

Washington Post: Greg Orman, a political enigma, faces growing scrutiny in Kansas Senate race (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/greg-orman-a-political-enigma-faces-growing-scrutiny-in-kansas-senate-race/2014/09/28/401d5c5c-4587-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html)


Later in the article, an interesting comment from a Kansas resident:

Yeah, I agree with her. Orman is a nice guy, but he hasn't make much of his political positions clear.

I'd still vote for him over Roberts - he know how he stands.

Could the KS Dems just put Orman on their line?

That's the thing they absolutely shouldn't do.

Guys,
The Supreme Court is under democratic control.

No need to bother!

Greg Orman, the independent U.S. Senate candidate in Kansas, told The [Kansas City] Star’s Editorial Board Monday that he could not name a Supreme Court justice that he would have opposed had he been in office. (http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article2304173.html)

Sounds like a perfect answer to me.

Way to go. :) If only more politicians were thinking like Orman, US politics might not be the single most hated thing in the world, inside as well as outside of the US.

Well, hopefully he'd be a vote for ending judicial filibusters then.

Kobach about to lose again:


http://cjonline.com/news/2014-09-29/no-ruling-bid-make-dems-fill-us-senate-candidate-vacancy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/30/a-34-year-incumbent-just-attacked-someone-who-has-never-held-office-as-a-politician/

Roberts' ads are getting more ridiculous and over the top as he becomes more and more desperate to turn things around. His newest attacks? Orman and Obama's names both start with "O"!!! Also AMNESTY! And Orman is apparently a politician, unlike Senator Roberts.

The old DC fossil has no idea how to even run a campaign. This is your brain on safe states. :P

What do you expect when your campaign is run by the visionary team of political veterans (http://thebullelephant.com/will-corry-bliss-once-again-help-republicans-to-snatch-defeat-from-the-jaws-of-victory/) responsible for such campaigns as Linda McMahon 2012, Karen Handel 2014, Ken Cuccinelli 2013, and Brian Dubie 2010?

To be fair, Brian Dubie actually didn't do too bad, considering he only lost by 1.8% in an ultra-liberal state. Also, Cuccinelli and McMahon lost because they're bad candidates, not because they had bad campaign managers.

At the same time, Brian Dubie is part of the old guard of Republicans in Vermont (and Jim Douglas's right-hand man), and Phil Scott is still well-liked there even now. He probably would have won had he not gone completely negative.

Brian Dubie was leading by 20 points in the summer and was very popular retiring Republican governor Jim Douglas' lieutenant governor. He should have won.

Brian Dubie was also very conservative and that didn't quite become an issue until he ran for governor.

This. Rove-esque politics do not work in Vermont.

Greg Orman criticizes both Republicans and Democrats in a new ad named "Half Right." (http://Greg Orman criticizes both Republicans and Democrats in a new ad named "Half Right.") Interestingly, a Democratic firm produced the ad...

Orman continues to use Roberts' attack ads to bolster his own nonpartisan/independent message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2GqyWbmQr-A

Good ad.

Democrats don't need put a replacement candidate on the ballot.  (https://twitter.com/WaPoSean/status/517382168663064576)

He bobbles his head a little too much, but that is a very good ad, and probably defuses Roberts ads now. Not that that will stop him from continuing the self-destruct strategy though.

Haha, Kobach got humiliated again.

I just love the Kansas Judicial System :)

That's actually a really great ad. Very sympathetic. :)

The only thing I don't like about Orman is his voice, which kinda gets on my nerves sometimes. :P And maybe his head-shaking, which is getting a bit old. If you didn't know better, one might mistake him for having Parkinson's disease or something. :P

Now Orman just needs to put out any actual beliefs, and he may pull this out. Roberts still has one move - to paint Orman as an indecisive fool who touts his independence to cover up a lack of substance.

Orman has substance - it's just that alot of his policies are more liberal than the Democrat who was in the race.

This is of course Kansas, too. So fleshing out any of his policies would surely be a disaster.

Did you see the debate? He spent most of the time agreeing with Pat Roberts.

The debate is what keeps me hopeful that Roberts can pull this off. People like their original perception of Orman - a centrist independent who is fed up of what is going on in D.C., but that isn't really what he is. Roberts needs to keep hammering him - define him. A lot of people still don't know who Orman is.

I still think Roberts is in a better position than Brownback, despite what polls say.

Good to see Kobach sucking the hairy balls of justice and choking on them.

Who are you to say who he really is?

Washington Post's Aaron Blake: Pat Roberts is in big trouble, but he’s not a goner yet.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/01/pat-roberts-is-in-big-trouble-but-hes-not-a-goner-yet/)

The article notes that while Roberts' favorability rating is quite low and he isn't even capturing the full support of his own party, what he does have going for him is that he conceivably has room to improve with Republican voters, his opponent Orman is not yet defined as a candidate, opening the possibility of negatively defining Orman in coming weeks, and polls are indicating that people care about which party controls the Senate, which could work in Roberts' favor in a fundamentally Republican state like Kansas.

Roberts' ads continue to be caricatures of themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlLw5-obItE

The scary music and dramatic filters are completely unnecessary and just make the whole thing look like a joke.

...

If nothing else, the 2014 elections are probably the most sexualized that elections have ever been on Atlas Forum.

Well in fairness, this is Tender.

AFL-CIO getting involved for Orman. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/afl-cio-to-back-greg-orman-in-kansas-senate-race-20141015)

AFL-CIO endorses Democrat. Developing story...

(Watching the debate) Pat Roberts comes off as a huge asshole.

Good to see the fossil being taken to the woodshed.

No surprises there. Did he try to make Orman look like a communist?

Pat Roberts (R-DC/Ukraine) (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/gop-senator-campaigns-sunflower-fields-are-in-ukraine?utm_term=1akf4m2#3m5wbx9)

Gregory the Gallant will soon send the DC fossil to Chernobyl!

Hopefully the radiation neutralizes him soon.

Milton Wolf, who garnered 41% of the vote in the GOP primary, endorsed Pat Roberts today. He had remained quiet for the past few months.

https://www.facebook.com/MiltonForKansas?fref=photo


He also officially endorsed Brownback, something he also had been wavering on.

I knew of many Wolf supporters who had planned on abstaining from voting in the Senate race - this will certainly help Roberts with the conservative wing of the party. In a race as close as this one, this may be enough to pull Roberts across the finish line. Not sure if it'll help Brownback much, but definitely a helpful boost, regardless of what outsiders think of Wolf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDdJwIjTzwY&feature=youtu.be

A PAC has created a Frank Underwood-inspired ad attacking Greg Orman. Kinda clever...haven't heard it on the radio yet.

LOL

Clearly one side is getting desperate ::)

Anti-abortion voters could save Roberts:  (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/222457-can-anti-abortion-voters-lift-roberts-to-victory-in-kansas)

Well, they voted for Sebelius twice despite her being pro-choice.

Typical right-wing spin from the Hill.

()

Disgusting new attacks from an increasingly desperate old man.

^^^That's one ugly baby.

That doesn't look very much like a fetus to me.

Just about every big name Republican has toured the state in the past few weeks. Millions have been poured into this race, with Kansans getting a glimpse of what some states have to deal with every two years.

If Pat Roberts loses tomorrow it is because of his own doing. He has served in the Senate for 18 years and was unable to build a consistent narrative on why he deserves another 6 years. Despite that, I will be amazed if he actually loses. Greg Orman got off to a hot start after building up his name recognition by airing countless ads touting his candidacy back in the summer. All in all, I think he is a very poor fit for Kansas - his entire campaign is basically a bunch of advertisements. He has made few planned stops, instead randomly stopping in various Kansas cities. His message is that he'll be an independent voice in the Senate, yet voters are still unclear on how he stands on many critical issues facing our state and country. He has only opted to give a handful of interviews, and seems to cower away any time someone tries to challenge him. I think it shows you just how bad the environment is for Republicans in this state when you look at the fact he might still pull out a victory tomorrow.

My gut says lean Roberts - I think he'll be saved by the nationalization of this race and the desire most have to give Republicans a Senate majority. I hope this is his last term, though - we need a fresh face representing Kansas in the Senate. Greg Orman's just not that face.

Yeah Roberts will probably win narrowly. I just have a hard time believing the undecideds won't break in his favor.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some "decided" Orman voters make a last-minute switch tomorrow tbh. Voting "Independent" always seems sorta sketchy in US politics, and with Roberts, voters at least know what they're getting. I think there's more ambiguity with Orman. I wonder if his sorta vague pledge to caucus with the majority hurt him at all among voters.