Good, Concise Assessment Of Greg Orman (i-ks, Sen)

[Statistikhengst]

(The dude at electoralvote.com is worth his weight in gold - the guy is brilliant and concise)

Electoral-vote.com


quoted in it's entirety due to brevity:

Vox has a story on Kansas Senate candidate Greg Orman and what he might do if he wins. The article says he is cynical because he says he might caucus with either party but his platform fits much better with the Democrats. He is pro choice, wants some minor gun control, thinks the Citizens United decision has to be reversed, and supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Depending on whether he is the deciding vote or not, his situation is radically different. If the Republicans have 51 seats without him and he joins the Republican caucus, majority leader Mitch McConnell will give him a choice. You can be a loyal Republican and vote as I tell you to vote, in which case you will get good committee assignments and we will take your bills and amendments seriously. Or you can vote as you wish, but then you get nothing. However, if Orman is the deciding vote for control of the Senate, then the shoe is on the other foot. Orman can dictate terms to McConnell (or Harry Reid), basically saying: "To get me to join your caucus, you must do X, Y, and Z." If the Democrats manage to eke out victories in Iowa and Colorado, then there is a good chance Orman will be the deciding vote.

An insiders poll published by the National Journal shows that 75% of Democrats think an Orman win would be at least somewhat surprising. Among Republicans, 82% would be surprised. So the insiders think Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) is going to pull it off in the end, despite several polls now showing Orman with substantial leads.

Pretty good analysis. I would not put too much credence in the last sentence. It looks very much like the GOP is going to lose a Senate seat, the Governor's mansion and the KS Dept. of State.

 

[shart_attack]

Why does a citizen of frick'n Germany even care, hmmf?