tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7158672864576052787.post1763027276302016266..comments2023-07-09T11:09:33.907-04:00Comments on Fun With Party I.D. : Why Sen. Pat Roberts Isn't Out Of This Yet - A Dive Into The New SurveyUSA Kansas Senate Crosstabsbrandonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16905828332573240843noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7158672864576052787.post-79219954774655858292014-09-09T13:58:39.251-04:002014-09-09T13:58:39.251-04:00That first section has been edited to make sense (...That first section has been edited to make sense (it did not previously, as I assume you were pointing out with 'huh??' Thanks for the catch.<br /><br />Regarding your second point - as I noted in my last hypothetical, I'm making lots of assumptions that are favorable to Greg Orman. But you raise a good point. In an effort to be overly favorable to Orman, lets give him ALL of the Taylor-supporting Republicans, and none to Roberts. Even after that, it's a 46-46% tie in the final scenario (46.0 Roberts, 45.7% Orman, to be exact). brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16905828332573240843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7158672864576052787.post-551455895608247242014-09-09T12:42:33.140-04:002014-09-09T12:42:33.140-04:00"consider the partisan make-up of the 10% of ..."consider the partisan make-up of the 10% of Kansas likely voters that say they will vote for Chad Taylor. 21% of them are Democrats. 12% are Independents, and 3% are Republicans."<br /><br />Huh??<br /><br />"In the meantime, reallocate two-thirds of the Taylor-supporting Republicans to the Roberts column, and leave the remaining third with Taylor."<br /><br />So, among Republicans who have already rejected the Republican in favor of a Democrat, none will end up with Orman?? Does't it make more sense to assign more of these voters to Orman than to Roberts? Or, at least to split them?<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com