Who'll win in Kansas?

[SteveRogers]

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?

So how serious do we think Orman is about not voting for either Reid or McConnell for Majority leader? If one party or the other wins a majority without him, that's an easy promise to keep since his protest vote for Heitkamp/ Murkowski (lol) wouldn't effect the outcome. But if it's D-49, R-50, Orman-1? Conventional wisdom says he probably caucuses with democrats in that scenario, and Biden's tie-breaker gives Dems control of the Senate. But that doesn't work if Orman votes for Heitkamp or some other Democrat besides Reid. Then it's McConnel- 50, Reid-49, Heitkamp- 1, and no one has a majority for majority leader, and Biden no longer gets to cast a tie-breaking vote because there's not a tie either.

It's a rather silly thing to say in the same breath as acknowledging that you might be the tie-breaking vote.

[SteveRogers]

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?

So how serious do we think Orman is about not voting for either Reid or McConnell for Majority leader? If one party or the other wins a majority without him, that's an easy promise to keep since his protest vote for Heitkamp/ Murkowski (lol) wouldn't effect the outcome. But if it's D-49, R-50, Orman-1? Conventional wisdom says he probably caucuses with democrats in that scenario, and Biden's tie-breaker gives Dems control of the Senate. But that doesn't work if Orman votes for Heitkamp or some other Democrat besides Reid. Then it's McConnel- 50, Reid-49, Heitkamp- 1, and no one has a majority for majority leader, and Biden no longer gets to cast a tie-breaking vote because there's not a tie either.

It's a rather silly thing to say in the same breath as acknowledging that you might be the tie-breaking vote.

I have to say, it would be pretty amazing to watch a some dude from Kansas nobody cared about a month ago depose both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell and install Heidi Heitkamp or Lisa Murkowski as majority leader.

Probably he'd just cast his protest vote for Heitkamp on the first ballot, and then Democrats would be like, "No, but seriously, if you wan't to caucus with us you have to vote for our guy." And then he'd vote for Reid on the second ballot.

[SteveRogers]

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?

So how serious do we think Orman is about not voting for either Reid or McConnell for Majority leader? If one party or the other wins a majority without him, that's an easy promise to keep since his protest vote for Heitkamp/ Murkowski (lol) wouldn't effect the outcome. But if it's D-49, R-50, Orman-1? Conventional wisdom says he probably caucuses with democrats in that scenario, and Biden's tie-breaker gives Dems control of the Senate. But that doesn't work if Orman votes for Heitkamp or some other Democrat besides Reid. Then it's McConnel- 50, Reid-49, Heitkamp- 1, and no one has a majority for majority leader, and Biden no longer gets to cast a tie-breaking vote because there's not a tie either.

It's a rather silly thing to say in the same breath as acknowledging that you might be the tie-breaking vote.

I have to say, it would be pretty amazing to watch a some dude from Kansas nobody cared about a month ago depose both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell and install Heidi Heitkamp or Lisa Murkowski as majority leader.

Probably he'd just cast his protest vote for Heitkamp on the first ballot, and then Democrats would be like, "No, but seriously, if you wan't to caucus with us you have to vote for our guy." And then he'd vote for Reid on the second ballot.

Wouldn't that make the first ballot 50-49-1 in favor of McConnell?

Which is not a majority.