In 2006 Alan Schlesinger was the GOP nominee for Senate from Connecticut. While called on to withdraw, he stayed in the race without the backing of his party (aside from the nominatyion.) He recieved 9.6% Remember though, he was actually activley campaigning. Taylor, would not be actively campaigning.
The better comparison would be N CD 23 in 2006. Dede Scozzafava dropped out just days before the election (campaigning all the way into November) and she received 5.7%.
Both of these candidates were still on the ballot and were campaigning for about 2 months more than Chad Taylor. It will be widley known that Taylor terminated his campaign. Roberts has been trying to relay that to Kansas. That means that most of the electorate will be aware that Orman is the only Candidate campaigning against Roberts. Orman still remains the ant-Roberts vote. I am still leaving my numbers as is till we get more data. This scenario actually comes closer to matching the temporary model I threw together last night than the scenario of no Taylor at all would.
This is all assuming there is no legal challenge. The most likely legal challenge to succeed would be from another DEM seeking to be on the ballot. He could say the S.O.S. is disenfranchising state Democrats by not allowing them to have a candidate on the ballot. This wouldn't be any better of a situation for Orman than he would have with a "ghost" Chad Taylor. Taylor could also say that his inability to serve was implied in his termination request. This COULD stand up in court if he were to come up with a good reason to give the S.O.S. and the court. He could say: "I don't believe I would be able to fulfill my duties as Senator and would be better of staying in my current occupation back home in Kansas." While this would kill his future political career (if he wants any), it might stand up with the current make-up of the KS Supreme Court.