Democrats Cheer Kansas Ruling
The chances of Greg Orman defeating Senator Pat Roberts in Kansas just got a whole lot better. A lawsuit which tried to force the Kansas Democratic Party to field a candidate in the race just essentially got laughed out of court, which means there will be no Democrat on the ballot at all. Roberts will be on the ballot as the incumbent Republican, Orman will appear as an Independent, and there will also be a third candidate, Libertarian Randall Batson. But no Democrat will appear.
Democrats are actually cheering this outcome, because it increases the chances that a non-Republican will win the seat, ousting a senator whom few expected would even be vulnerable in 2014. This makes the path for Republicans gaining control of the Senate a little harder, which is why Democrats are happy with the court ruling. However, this joy can only be seen as a mark of how desperate Democrats currently are, in the battle for control of the Senate.
Orman's chances for victory look pretty good, at least for now. He is polling five points ahead of Roberts, but the Republicans have launched a major damage control effort to try to save Roberts's seat. Party bigwigs are flocking to the state to support Roberts, and money is pouring in as well. How this affects the polling remains to be seen, but we should know within a few weeks whether it has done Roberts any good or not.
Orman is running on what might be called the "opportunist" ticket, since he has stated that he'll caucus with whichever party is in the majority, but remains mum on what he'll do if his vote becomes the determining one to decide party control of the chamber. If the election leaves the Senate with 50 Republicans and 49 Democrats (or, more accurately, 47 plus the two other Independents who caucus with them) and Orman wins Kansas, then there will be a rather unseemly bidding war waged between Republicans and Democrats, as they fall over each other to offer Roberts plum committee assignments and guaranteed votes on items on his personal agenda. The chances of this outcome are anyone's guess, at this point.
It is tempting to imagine that this could be the start of some new trend of Independents winning Senate seats and causing a sort of quasi-parliamentary balance of power, where the two major parties have to outbid each other for the support of a growing number of Independents. This probably won't happen, for a number of reasons.
The first is that it is hard to campaign statewide without a party apparatus behind you. Roberts is able to call on the Republican Party for help, and everyone from Bob Dole to Sarah Palin has responded. Orman doesn't have this going for him. In fact, if Democrats even tried to offer public support for Orman, it would probably not help him much and might even backfire. Roberts has become a creature of Washington (he doesn't even own a house in Kansas any more), making the race one of "insider versus outsider." Orman is also running a "youth versus old age" campaign, which plays into his status as fresh new outsider running to shake up Washington. Roberts barely won a primary challenge from a Tea Partier, and the race was so hard-fought that the Tea Party organizations in the state are not exactly rushing to throw their support behind Roberts right now. All of this -- plus the Democratic candidate bowing out of the race to give Orman a chance -- adds up to a very unique situation that likely won't be repeated in any other state in future races.
Even if Roberts wins, if he doesn't turn out to be the deciding vote then the parties will be much less generous in offering him goodies to gain his vote in their caucus. There's no guarantee that any Independent candidate in any future race will become the balance-of-power vote either, so while Roberts may indeed wind up getting wooed by both parties, the situation likely won't repeat itself for anyone else.
So even if Roberts does become the third non-partisan senator, his win likely won't mean a wave of viable Independent candidates will appear in 2016 or beyond. Each of the three Independents has their own rather unique set of circumstances which probably don't apply in other states. Bernie Sanders is to the left of the Democratic Party, which plays well in Vermont -- but there are few other states where someone like him could win. Angus King of Maine had already served as an Independent governor, so the state's voters knew and loved him already -- but there aren't a whole lot of Independents with that kind of statewide track record to run on. There are always self-financed billionaire candidates, but they rarely win more than a protest vote in Senate elections, unless they run as either Republicans or Democrats.
Greg Orman is not guaranteed to win in November -- the massive effort to save Roberts may bear fruit for the Republicans (especially if he can woo the Tea Partiers back). If Orman does win, he may not become the deciding vote for partisan control of the chamber. Even if he does and even if Harry Reid convinces him to caucus with the Democrats, as an Independent he likely won't be a consistent Democratic vote on important issues (Orman is truly independent, as he has supported both Democratic and Republican candidates in past years). Orman may even play both sides against each other for every important vote (which he could easily get away with if he is the swing vote to pass crucial bills).
That's a lot of "ifs" for Democrats. An Orman victory may well wind up deciding if Harry Reid keeps control of the Senate, but even if that comes to pass it may only mean Reid gets to keep his gavel -- it likely won't mean Reid can reliably drum up a majority vote on every issue. To end on a pun, it's a mighty thin reed for Democrats (and Reid) to cling to.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
However, this joy can only be seen as a mark of how desperate Democrats currently are, in the battle for control of the Senate.
yea, if a Republican had been bribed to drop out of the race to pave the way for a psuedo Independent, Democrats would be screaming to the high heavens...
The chances of this outcome are anyone's guess, at this point.
Really?? Since Democrats cleared the way for Orman, it's obvious which way he is going to swing...
Roberts has become a creature of Washington (he doesn't even own a house in Kansas any more), making the race one of "insider versus outsider."
[[cough]] Landrieu [cough] [[cough]]
Iddn't it funny how principles and integrity go out the window when control of the Senate is at stake..
Once again.. NO difference between Democrats and Republicans...
None whatsoever...
As of today, with a little over a month to go, Republicans have a 78% chance of taking the Senate....
Michale
"the Tea Party organizations in the state are not exactly rushing to throw their support behind Roberts right now"
The baggers are taking hostages.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/219400-tea-party-revolt-puts-kansas-at-risk
I really hope we learned our lesson from trying to implement a radical, conservative utopia in Kansas.
When even the New Republic is called Kansas a "conservative hell" you know things are bad.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119574/sam-brownbacks-conservative-utopia-kansas-has-become-hell
-David
Crap, "calling".
I really hope we learned our lesson from trying to implement a radical, conservative utopia in Kansas.
Yea?? Democrats didn't learn from the lessons of a radical liberal utopia in Detroit..
Funny how ya'all wish to forget that, eh? :D
Michale
We could always talk about how Texas is doing, eh? :D
Naw, that doesn't fit the narrative ya'all want... :D
Michale
http://washingtonexaminer.com/it-looks-like-a-gop-wave-the-question-is-how-far-it-goes/article/2554246
Get ready for the wave, Weigantians.. Make sure you have a good grip on yer flotation devices...
It's gonna be a wild ride... :D
Michale
CW- paragraphs 5 and 6 are especially good. Congress could really use a large block of genuine independents, but plutocracy will triumph, at least in the short term. As Lily Tomlin put it, "Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse."
Hay TS...
Every mainstream poll is in alignment...
The Post
The New York Times
FiveThirtyEight
Charlie Cook
Stuart Rothenberg
Larry Sabato
The GOP is going to take the Senate. The only question is how much of the Senate they are going to take..
How do your own models stack up??
Michale
As Lily Tomlin put it, "Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse."
My fear as well, Stig.
Not sure what will finally tip the scales but if I had to guess I'd probably guess another major economic meltdown.
-David
Not sure what will finally tip the scales but if I had to guess I'd probably guess another major economic meltdown.
Ya'alls biggest fear is that, under a GOP Congress, the economy recovers and we're back to the prosperity we had during the Clinton years when there was also a GOP Congress.. :D
Michale
M -9
Four polls that give quantitative outcome odds (both overall and state by state) have definitely shifted in favor of the Republicans.
WAPO 77%, NYT 62%, 538 58%, HUFFPO 54%
The range of differences among the above is greater than it's been in a while, mainly because WAPO has gone back to outlier status calling the Republicans 4 to 1 favorites. NYT and 538 are closer to rating it 3 to 2 Republican, HUFFPO closer to even. This all looks a lot like the July situation.
My humble rank ordered model agrees well with all the above. That is, if I put their odds into my quick and dirty model, I get an overall prediction that is very close to theirs, without any monte carlo simulation.
Cook, Rothberg and Sabato are basically poll trackers. Their savvy guys, but frankly dinosaurs when it comes to methodology. Their overall conclusions are largely intuitive, and they can't really explain how they do it.
Bottom line, I personally rate the upcoming senate outcome as advantage Red, 3:2. I consider that a fairly close race, but that's subjective.
Ya'alls biggest fear is that, under a GOP Congress, the economy recovers
Fear?
It'd be great.
My criteria for it being great however would be that it revives the middle class and actually trickles down. Not that we see a new Wall Street run.
The real question is, if it didn't happen, as it didn't happen under Bush II and after the Clinton "reforms," would anyone in power admit it?
Or would the just continue to support handouts to the rich for the political kickbacks?
-David
p.s. The economic chart of the week, perhaps the year, is this chart from Pavlina Tcherneva at Bard's College. It shows who benefits most from "growth" in recent years.
http://front.dadaviz.com/media/viz_images/distribution-of-average-income-growth-during-expan-1411633032.76-2745898.png
Well, we'll know in about a month.. :D
Michale
m-13
Let's hope so. I could see courts getting involved. Messy messy. Then there is the problem of who drifts to which caucus.
I wouldn't place a money bet on either party holding control. Too close, no hedge. Why bother?
akadjian-10
Things have been trending economically worse for a generation now. Closer to two. The US economy is a money pump pushing wealth up the class structure. Our social system is an oligarchy. The best predictor of your lot life is who your parents are and how big their bank balance is. College was a leveler in my day, now its more like social screen due to the high debt load it puts on the less advantaged seeking to move up. Upward mobility is still possible based on merit, but much less likely.
We don't see it because its too big and we're too close to it.
I'll vote this year, but its out of habit and minor local issues. I'm in a gerrymandered district, no senate race.
As I tell my son, nieces and nephews, sorry, we screwed you. Pay attention, stay out of debt, marry well, invest carefully, adopt a healthy life style. They pretend to listen, they're advantaged, nice, smart and oh so at risk.
We don't see it because its too big and we're too close to it.
Yep. Our country looks nothing like it did even 20 years ago. We're so caught up in day-to-day survival though that it's often difficult to see.
Tried to post this earlier but it went off into the ether. Lemme try again.
It's quite possibly the economic chart of the year from Paulina Tcherneva at Bard College.
http://dadaviz.com/i/1070
It shows who's benefiting every time we have economic growth spurts.
They pretend to listen, they're advantaged, nice, smart and oh so at risk.
Perhaps at some point they will remember and/or revive democracy. The Millennial generation seems to get many things that older generations struggle with.
Maybe because they're seeing the effects of laissez-faire capitalism so strongly. They're playing on a monopoly board that has already been divvied up.
-David
We don't have our priorities straight. Germany just eliminated tuition while we've saddled our kids with $1.2 trillion in debt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/03/and-just-like-that-obamas-policies-are-on-the-ballot-comment-is-campaign-ad-fodder/
BONE HEAD :D
Michale
aka
Britain is loading ed-debt on their kids. One of the reasons for Scottish Independence polling as well as it did.
I like that graph too. I came of age right about when the wheels started to fall off. It's been quite a ride.
Shiite. Yeah, I just talked to a Brit over at dKos who said they were running the same game on Britain as they're doing in Kansas (and other states here and in our Fed govt).
Tax breaks for wealthy.
Everyone else picks up the cost in ways that aren't immediately obvious. Property tax increases, fees and fines, sales tax increases, payroll tax increases, tuition increases, school increases, etc, etc.
I just received 4 fundraiser requests from my sister who has 1 son in junior high, 1 daughter in elementary school. The kids have to run fundraisers to pay for school and they also charge parents separate charges for items ranging from sports uniforms to band equipment.
All to pay for some tax cuts to some @ssholes who are shipping jobs overseas.
-David
M - update on 9
I collated and ran the Nov 5 538 numbers through my monte carlo model and get numbers bounding Nate's call (40.6% Dem control) pretty closely, with the best fit at a very strong national variance component.
However, the partitioning of variance doesn't have affect things much one way or another in this data set. I'm seeing this repeatedly, partitioning doesn't move the meter much. So, my quick and dirty model is going call things pretty well this election cycle. Plus, it only takes a minute so set up, and most sites with odds do that for you anyway.
That said, watching monte carlo outputs gives a real perception for how slight the 3:2 blue advantage seems.