Talk:2014 United States Senate election in Kansas

Vandalism against Greg Orman

I am noticing repeated vandalism on this page against independent candidate Greg Orman, and wanted to bring attention to it. Users continue to rewrite the page to imply he was the 2008 Democratic Senate candidate. However, in reality, he was not even on the primary ballot--he very briefly considered a run as a Democrat, but chose to withdraw from the race before even filing for the ballot. I have changed his description to clarify that he withdrew before even making the primary ballot. However, users keep changing it back. These changes raise some clear POV concerns. To me, it seems this is an attempt by Pat Roberts supporters to make their competition seem more liberal than he actually is. For what it's worth, I believe Orman also used to be a Republican, so make of that what you will. I therefore suggest that, if this vandalism continues, this page gets locked until the day of the election. Cat spasms (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of POV concerns, the statement "this is an attempt by Pat Roberts supporters", made in the absence of any proof, suggests a pretty strong POV. It is entirely possible that changes are being made by people who are ambivalent to Pat Roberts but who do not support Greg Orman. Or by people who don't give a damn about either one but who feel that the fact that he considered running as a Democrat is worth noting. But hey, what do I know, since I'm obviously a shill for Pat Roberts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.157.10 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Taylor 'withdrawal'

I'm not going to contest it on the page but it seems that until Chad Taylor is removed from the ballot he should be considered 'in the race'; contrary to this removal of him from the info box. Swliv (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. He has said he is no longer running and is not actively trying to be elected. With that being the case, the info box should be what it is. There are others on the race and on the ballot that should be there before someone that isn't seeking the office. Casprings (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

He ran to get on the ballot, he's failed to get off the ballot yet. If someone consults the article about the race and he's not there and then he's on the ballot, they've been misled. Until he's off the ballot I think his 'not running' status should be discussed in the body and even noted in the info box but he should not be removed from the box. 1-to-1, in the tally here. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think he should be listed as a candidate until (and if) he is removed from the ballot. He is still officially the candidate of one of the major parties; if he ends up remaining on the ballot but telling people not to vote for him, that's his choice, but he is still legally a candidate. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

He is still not seeking to become Senator. What has been done in the past?

Not only is he likely to be on the ballot, he was included in polling since his withdrawal. The pollsters told voters that he had withdrawn and he still got 10%. He's very much a candidate until a court overrules kobach . --JFH (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it's Taylor's choice if he tells people not to vote for him despite being on the ballot, but he is still legally the candidate of a major party, and is still notably registering in polling. IMO if he dropped to around 5% in polling removing him might be OK(or maybe even just below double digits). 331dot (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Polls with Taylor

On a similar note, the polling section has notes on whether or not the pollster informed the participants that Taylor dropped out. Is that even relevant? I see no purpose to noting that. It's not like poll workers will be allowed to tell people walking up to vote that he attempted to drop out of the race. In my opinion, those participants are getting the same options under the same circumstances that voters at the polling place will experience. Considering how uninformed the general voting population is I'm surprised his numbers aren't still in the double digits. Rxguy (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think now that Taylor is off the ballot, any polls with him in it could be considered "hypothetical" and separated out from polls with just the candidates left on it. Either that, or we could simply note in the poll table when Taylor was off the ballot (not when he first announced it and was declined by Kobach) instead of a footnote in each poll. I do think the information is relevant and should be conveyed somehow. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion template

The template above which says "This page was nominated for deletion on June 23 2011. The result of the discussion was delete" seems to be correct; in 2011 the 2014 election was deemed too far in the future and it and a raft of like 2014 pages were deleted. Obviously it is reinstated in good standing now. The deletion link above refers to "...Alabama,_2014"; that appears to be just a mass-production error. Swliv (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Who else should be listed?

Tim Huelskamp and Kris Kobach never declined to run. They simply didn't run, and they endorsed Roberts. Other people who endorsed Roberts are Brownback, Colyer, Dole, Estes, Jenkins, Pompeo, Schmidt, and Yoder. Should they also be listed as declining to run simply because they didn't run? Sources do not say those listed actually declined. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The question is did any reliable sources mention them as possible candidates or they otherwise indicated they were considering running. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no indications they considered running. A single pundit throwing out names of people he thinks could theoretically run is worthless speculation. If someone had an impact on the race or had a role in the pre-primary period, that should be mentioned with context, not simply listed as declining to run. No shit, Sherlock - of course they didn't run if they're not listed as running! If they actually considered it (with sources), that's great and say so, but if they simply said no (or nothing at all, as is the case here!), there's no relevance to the article. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Typically persons mentioned as possible candidates in at least two reliable sources (the stated criteria to be listed as a possible candidate for President in 2016) can be mentioned as a possible candidate, and then they are then listed as declined should they not actually run. That's what I see around Wikipedia, anyway. I don't know what the sources said in this case. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, although the minimum requirement of two sources is something that's solely required on the presidential election pages. Tiller54 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure; thanks for the clarification. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So one person can make some crap up suggesting someone could run, that person never does anything, and they're listed as declining forever? Makes perfect sense. He didn't decline, he did *nothing*. These sections really need to be reimagined, because it's obvious that anyone who didn't run didn't run! Reywas92^Talk 00:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What matters is what reliable sources are stating; it isn't a matter of "one person can make some crap up". Presumably these reliable sources aren't "making crap up" and have reasons for thinking what they state. 331dot (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Former Rep. Todd Tiahrt could make another run, after having lost the primary in 2010." That's it. No analysis, no sources he considered a run, purely making something up. Sure it's a reporter, but it's meaningless speculation, nothing necessitating inclusion here. (And again, he didn't "decline" to run, he ran for House reelection, just like everyone else). Presidentially, and some Senate cases, there is in-depth reporting on some people's moves worthy of note, but just because an article called "The 65 people who might run for president in 2016" is published doesn't mean we're obligated to repeat it. Reywas92^Talk 18:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well first you're incorrect, he didn't run for re-election because he gave up his seat in 2010 to run for the Senate. He ran in the primary against the man who replaced him in the House. So, he didn't primary Roberts, he primaried someone else instead. Furthermore there's not just that article saying that he might run (which, like 331dot says, is hardly "someone making crap up" as you characterised it), there's the polling that was conducted of a primary between him and Roberts. People reading this article might see that poll and, without the note that he ran for the House instead, wonder what happened. Including him under "Declined" obviously explains that. Tiller54 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake on his incumbency status, but he still had nothing to do with this race at all. While he may have had a history, it's still pure speculation, and I've seen much worse (listing 65 names for president is making stuff up). The poll is clearly in the hypothetical section, and he is clearly not listed as running; I give you a point here, but what about people who don't have an explanation elsewhere? If you want to explain what everyone did, why have you twice removed my note that Dennis Pyle at least formed an exploratory committee? Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That "65 people who might run for President" article isn't that bad really. It's just a compilation of people who've been speculated about elsewhere. They're not making stuff up, they're just repeating it. As for a solution, the best thing to do is combine lists with prose in articles like this where we can say things like "x, y and z were speculated to run; x and y declined to do so, z ran for his old seat in Congress". I've done what I can on articles like this and this. This is a long-term project of mine as well. But, it's time consuming and there's dozens of articles to do. I removed the note about the exploratory committee because it didn't seem to add anything - he thought about running but didn't. With an additional prose section, the detail could go there. Tiller54 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Kansas, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130918023940/http://robertsforsenate.com:80/home/2013/04/senator-bob-dole-endorses-pat-roberts-for-u-s-senate/ to http://robertsforsenate.com/home/2013/04/senator-bob-dole-endorses-pat-roberts-for-u-s-senate/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Chart

The graph has been created with all the surveys carried out for this election. 2019 Guatemalan (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)