KS-Sen: Taylor drops out

[Holmes]

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?

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[Miles]

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

If I did the dates right,it was 1936-1940:

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.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

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

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who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person’s name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds."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.

[SteveRogers]

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

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.

 

[Brittain33]

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?

[JohnCA246]

Sorry for posting this in two threads.

From Orman's website

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

[Brittain33]

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.

[The Other Castro]

Sorry for posting this in two threads.

From Orman's website

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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?

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.

[JohnCA246]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[The Other Castro]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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)

[Lief 🗽]

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

[Bacon King]

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

[Niemeyerite]

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

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.

[Maxwell]

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.

[Keystone Phil]

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.

[Flake]

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

[Nichlemn]

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).

[Bacon King]

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

[The Other Castro]

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).

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

[IceSpear]

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).

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.

[eric82oslo]

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).

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.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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).

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?