KS-Sen: Taylor drops out

[ProudModerate2]

Wow !
Could it be a hoax ? Some prankster ?

[ProudModerate2]

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/

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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.)

[ProudModerate2]

I wonder if Bob Dole would endorse Greg Orman?

I don't see why he would. Pat Roberts is very much in the Bob Dole mold - conservative, and very dull.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

I wonder if Bob Dole would endorse Greg Orman?

I don't see why he would. Pat Roberts is very much in the Bob Dole mold - conservative, and very dull.

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.

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

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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

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.
;-)

[ProudModerate2]

During Bob Dole's time he was a certifiable conservative. He scored an 87 from the American Conservative Union in his last year (I can bold too).

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.")

That's in the middle... of Republicans. Thus, conservative.

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.

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?

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

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.

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

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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 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.)

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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%

[ProudModerate2]

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.

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.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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.

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.

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"

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

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 ?

[ProudModerate2]

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!!!!!

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

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

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.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

... My suggestion is just let it go.

[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.

[ProudModerate2]

... (Kobach's) 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.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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%

[ProudModerate2]

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.

[ProudModerate2]

Its sounds more likely than not that Taylor's name gets dropped.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

How exactly could Kobach "force" Democrats to select a replacement? If they decide not to, there's nothing he can do about it.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

.... 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.

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.

[ProudModerate2]

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."