Premium Sponsor


Featured Sponsor


Our Sponsors


Ad Networks

Advertise Liberally

Buy an ad on all of the top liberal blogs with just one click.

Site Stats

MO-Sen: Statewide Recruitment Thread

by: James L.

Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 10:00 AM EST


The seat of GOP Sen. Kit Bond is up in 2010, and all eyes in Missouri are waiting for Bond, who will turn 71 that year, to signal his re-election plans. Missouri SoS Robin Carnahan seems to be topping a lot of short lists of potential candidates to take on Bond, but if not her, then who should run? And if Bond retires, who do you see stepping up for Team Red?
James L. :: MO-Sen: Statewide Recruitment Thread
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
MO-Sen: Statewide Recruitment Thread | 35 comments
I see Sam Graves
Matt blunt, Sarah Steelman, even Hulshof. Jo ann Emerson might also run, Jim Talent would certainly probably go for it, and Todd Akin might try.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
for Dems though it should be
Robin Carnahan. That's about all we have.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Judy Baker
She came very close in a very conservative district. She could probably win state wide.
On their side
Hopefully Hulshof.  Because his campaign for Governor was wildly successful.
What are you basing this assertion on?

[ Parent ]
Oh wait, you're being sarcastic. Never Mind

[ Parent ]
on their side, how is former gov blunt holding up?
if he fixes his image by 2012, i could see him going after mcCaskill, and her losing. it would be close, but considering the state went for mccain, i think it's slowly moving away from us.

being normal is for the mediocre.
McCaskill has tied herself to Obama in a big way
McCaskill, probably more than any other Senator in the country, has tied herself to Obama.  Therefore I'd say her fate is largely tied to his.
[ Parent ]
A little more so
They get to share a ballot in 2012.

If Obama is clocking 48% or more in MO in 2012, McCaskil should be ok, close, but ok (see Bill Nelson, Florida, 2000, local dem outperforms national dem by abut 2%)

[ Parent ]
If Obama wins re-election, he will have won MO.
9 times out of 10, incumbent Presidents improve on their electoral college margins if they get a second term.

Funny thing is, with the polarization of the country, I think 2008 Obama states + Missouri + Arizona is his high water mark. I don't see him winning anything else. He might cut the margins in places like WV and AR as those people will have a chance to get 'comfortable' with him like they're comfortable with the black waitress at the local diner.

[ Parent ]
well,
Obama could also win states that he came close to winning as well as missouri and arizona - look at Montana and Georgia
[ Parent ]
And the Dakotas
South Carolina, Texas and Mississippi probably a step too far but maybe if its an obscene landslide over Palin. Alaska could be interesting without her on the ticket.
[ Parent ]
I think Montana was a one shot deal for Obama.
In fact, he'll probably lose the state more the second time around while expanding his nationwide margin. Obama's unique appeal in the libertarian states like Montana (and Alaska before Palin was chosen) was that he was fresh and new. Four years from now, he'll been seen as the establishment.

As for Georgia? Maybe.

[ Parent ]
nah, Obama won't come close to winning Georgia
Republicans will make sure of that. If Obama is popular in 2012 and has kept his promises, he'll win Montana and hte Dakota's, they're still open to Democrats and Montana has been trending our way slowly but surely, especially the younger generation. Missouri, definitely, as with Arizona. He should win West Virginia if he can prove himself to them and not alienate the coal industry. But like I said he's got to try to win these states.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
Probably the case with GA
Clinton did a good deal worse in GA in 1996 than he did in 1992.  I have a feeling the south in general is the one region Obama will do worse in 2012 than he did in 2008 (exception might be FL and VA).  
[ Parent ]
I think Republicans are going to go with a couple of
southerners in 2008.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
I agree
I personally think it's Going to be Huckabee or Mark Sanford.
[ Parent ]
nah, Perdue and Jindall
or Crist and Jindall. Sanford and Jindall. I don't know how Sanford suddenly became so popular. His ratings were dismal for the first for years as governor of a heavily Republican state, and he was rated one of the five worst governors in the country in a study by TIME magazine.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
eh i just can't believe that Republicans
Would nominate a non-white candidate, it would turn off so much of their base. Jindel is going to piss off all those racist Appalachia voters who didn't want to vote for Obama. If they nominate Jindal, I would bet for a strong third party challenge from the right. Which would be great for us.

Sanford is loved by the club for growth crazies that's why he is in the conversation.

Overall I am actually quite a believer in Huckabee's viability as a Republican candidate. I also think that this Republican Primary is going to be the bloodiest ever. With Palin Romney and Jindal beating the crap out of eachother. Huckabee has the demeanor and style to parry attacks on him and the ability to be seen as a viable alternative by all these people's supporters.

I think that during an economic recession he is their best shot.

He is the most populist of all the republicans on economics, and fits with the christian conservatives on social issues.

He nominates Sanford as vp to shut up the free traders/deficit hawks and to get corporate backing for fundraising. (I'm assuming Palin and Romney both implode)

I think he's the only republican who won't get utterly destroyed by Obama.

I'm personally hoping for Palin to be their candidate, and having her nominate Romney as her Vp.

That would give Walter Mondale a run for his money in level of epic fail.

[ Parent ]
I don't think racism was the issue
their so much as Obama's "exoticness" if he had an applachian background, (their nextdoor neighbor), they would have voted for him. Its just his name and his background threw so many off, as did social issues. Frankly, racism has proved no issue for Jindall here, partly because while conservative white Republicans have no problems calling Obama a N****** they like Jindall because he's conservative, and everywhere Jindall goes he seems to woo Republicans. So what about Applachia. They are insignificant even in the Republican priamry. He plays the most important demographic, upper class southern suburbia and even rural voters to a degree.

But Huckabee is a nutcase. I'm sorry but you're wrong on him. He makes to many gaffes and is not a very good politician. He is also a little to populist for many business conservatives and he leaves behind a rather mediocre record as Governor of Arkansas, which Beebe is still trying to fix.

But like I said I really don't buy into the whole racist applachian voter crap. I think it was just a cop out to having to run a hard campaign their where he, not chain mails and Republican mailers, would have to define who he was as a person and make himself seem accesible. Its the same reason they voted for Clinton but not Gore or Kerry. goer and Kerry weren't black, shure Obama lost a little more ground, but that's because though he's more personable, his background is so much more exotic. Those areas and those people vote for the guy they feel most comfortable with, and if racism was a factor in many places it was a subconcious factor. Environmental issues have driven these coal voters off as well, as have social issues, (West Virginia is the most pro-life state in the country, followed by Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Utah).

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
May as well
Most of the remnants of their party are in the deep south, which along with a few small midwest states guarantees them around 150 EV's.  Anything beyond that is a stretch.
[ Parent ]
Interesting comment...
But how many Republicans are going to opt for public financing against Obama in 2012?  Part of why Obama really gave it to McCain was because he had so much more money.  
[ Parent ]
This isn't the 60s anymore.
You can't just buy yourself the Presidency. Fortunately for us however, Obama could outraise God.
[ Parent ]
but could he outraise chuck norris?
n/t

being normal is for the mediocre.
[ Parent ]
You can't.
But John McCain would have competed in more states for a longer period of time if he had more money (which he would have.  His fundraising was shooting up after Palin was announced as the VP.)  It would have made a difference electorally.  Part of the GOP comeback plan and finding their electoral votes will be by not being wildly outfunded.  
[ Parent ]
Palin
she could probably keep parity with Obama's fundraising.  Obviously, Obama is widely more popular and would ANNHILATE her in an election, just KILL her.  

But, when it comes to people who donate, Palin will revitalize the base much like Obama has revitalize ours.  But, Obama attracts a much larger base that will be of smaller donations.  However, Palin will revitalize her base and significantly more of them will max out.

But, maybe the thought of Palin winning would make more people donate to Obama and keep him above her.

But Palin, I believe she will know her shit in 2012 and be infinitely better Presidential candidate than a Vice-Presidential candidate. It takes quite a bit of time to train for it, to learn your stuff, she'll know it. she'll be a lot smarter.  This time, she just simply got plucked out randomly and as a governor of the state of Alaska, zero training and knowledge in many many many areas.  However, we all know Sarah Palin and have an opinion Sarah Palin.  The fact that she has such a prominent accent probably has now doomed her, as even if she is spouting intelligent things, America will think, omg it is that dumby Palin again with her silly accent.

(sorry off-topic!)

The entire country shifted from R+2.4 to D+6.8, a swing of 9.2%.  However, Missouri swung 7%, which is pretty close.  But I mean, the bellwether state, it didn't even vote blue for Obama while everyone else did, when we got North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana.  Those are like I think our biggest trophy's.  Especially Indiana.  Obama worked HARD for that state.

But I mean, not even Missouri?  Way longer voting history of voting Democrat.  Was it because it is still a former slave state with racial animosities and then MO simply doesn't have enough AA vote to counter that?

But, I spose after looking at the numbers, 2012 could finish the job if Obama improves on his popular vote, which he probably would.  Same current map in 2012, maybe not Indiana depending on candidate (Romney or Pawlenty could probably win), but add in MO and AZ.  We'll win everything again but with bigger margins.  And maybe TX will look competitive so that Obama can lay the groundwork for when the state is ready to turn in 2016.

[ Parent ]
its because
Obama didn't win over the rural areas enough, and because of Palin, and because McCain had like twenty rallies their the last two weeks and made a rare hard push to hold it, harder than the push Obama made to win it.

I think Palin would get annihilated, but fortunately I also think that she'll have busy primary, with bobby jindall, mike huckabee, Sonny Perdue, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Charlie Crist all looking at a Presidential Run.  

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus

[ Parent ]
First impressions are everything
Obama at the 2004 DNC versus the Palin 2008 VP rollout? Need I say more?
[ Parent ]
Actually I will
Conservatives were jazzed for Goldwater in 1964 - everyone else voted for LBJ.
[ Parent ]
The media in the state
also hammered on ad nauseum Obama's "relationships" with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, and a disproportionate number of voters there believed Wright and Ayers would have positions in the Obama administration. Interestingly, if Obama had chosen Hillary for his cabinet before the election, he might have tipped the state to him.

Check out the 2010 California races (http://2010californiaracetracker.wetpaint.com) and help us take back Red California! (http://www.takebackredcalifornia.org)
[ Parent ]
Winning re-election
Actually, the only Presidents to be re-elected and lose ground in the electoral college were FDR in his third and fourth terms (not germane) and Wilson.  Wilson of course ran against two Republican Presidents in 1912 (Taft and Theodore Roosevelt) and only one Republican in 1916.  His electoral vote went down from 435 to 277 but his popular vote percentage went up from 41.84% to 49.23%.

The trick is getting re-elected.  

[ Parent ]
He's very unpopular
I doubt he'd run.

Also Obama most likely would have won Missouri without Nader on the ballot. He made huge gains compared to our last two performances there, I don't see how it's trending away from us, if anything with a pickup of a Senate seat, the governors seat and nearly the presidential race I'd say it's moving towards us.

[ Parent ]
the state is very tough
and very conservative. Republicans usually have a locked in 45% of the vote in close elections, (Hulshof proved he could underperform that). There's a huge conservative, "devoutly Religious" segment of the population and Democrats struggle everywhere outside of the St. Louis area and Kansas City, with the exception of St. Joseph in northwestern missouri, and boone county in north eastern missouri.

Call no man happy until he is dead-Aeschylus
[ Parent ]
The field on both sides, and a prediction.
If Bond runs again, the race strongly leans his way. He is powerful, influential, and fairly popular among both conservatives and moderates, and even some Democrats. If he retires, it's a true toss-up and will comes down to the strength of each party's candidates. There is a small rift in the Missouri Republican Party, with Sam Graves basically in conflict with everyone else, including Kit Bond. So if Bond retires and Graves runs, the GOP primary is all but guaranteed to be divisive.

The Democrats have a fairly small bench at the moment but there is potential for a strong bench in the future, after the state office holders do their time.

Robin Carnahan is by far the top choice; everyone else is second-tier. She just won re-election as Secretary of State with more votes than anyone in Missouri history. If she runs, the race probably leans Democratic regardless of who the Republicans put up.

Judy Baker probably has a decent shot if she follows McCaskill's playbook.

Chris Koster surely will run for higher office soon, but I don't think he will in 2010. He will likely have problems in the Democratic primary, since he just switched from a Republican to run for Attorney General in a wave election on Jay Nixon's coattails. I almost voted for the Republican over this sycophant.

Susan Montee would probably be seen as too similar to McCaskill, being another female State Auditor, but that may not be a factor.

Clint Zweifel is probably unlikely to run. He was just elected State Treasurer this year, and by only 3%.

Jay Nixon is also very unlikely. He was AG for 16 years before running for a higher office, passing up several opportunities along the way. And he was just elected Governor this year.

Russ Carnahan, although a Carnahan, may seem too liberal for the state, since he actually has a current voting record to exploit.

Lacy Clay and Emanual Cleaver (my Congressman in Kansas City) are pretty liberal, in accordance with their districts, and would have a very tough time statewide.

Ike Skelton is 77 and very powerful in the House, as chair of Armed Services. He's staying put.

Contrary to appearances, the Republicans don't have an outstanding bench either. They hold only one state office, although they control both houses of the state legislature.

Peter Kinder was easily intimidated out of the open Governor's race.

Kenny Hulshof just lost the Governor's race by 19%.

Jim Talent didn't even complete a full term before losing re-election and never was very popular. Plus, lobbying is a lot more lucrative and a better fit for his priorities.

Matt Blunt is the Missouri version of George W. Bush. He has no chance statewide for many years, but he's also very young.

Other recent losers who may run again are former Treasurer Sarah Steelman, who lost the GOP primary for Governor, and her would-be replacement Brad Lager, the odious ultra-conservative State Senator who lost by 3%. Both are possibilities, but I think Lager is the more likely of the two.

You have to go to the Congressional delegation to find top-tier candidates. All but one are under 60 years old.

Roy Blunt recently gave up his position as the #2 Republican in the House after two demoralizing elections. This leaves him more free to campaign for Senate if he choses, but he's still a Blunt.

Blaine Luetkemeyer just won his seat in Congress, so it's probably too early for him. Ironically, Judy Baker--the Democrat he barely defeated--probably stands a better chance statewide.

Todd Akin is a total wildcard to me, as is Jo Ann Emerson. Both represent strongly Republican districts, although Emerson appears to be more moderate than her counterparts. Either could be possibilities.

Sam Graves is a very likely candidate, but he would have a tough road through the primary. He is not well liked by many in the Missouri Republican Party, including Kit Bond, and the establishment would probably line up behind whoever Bond supports. Graves ran a 2004 campaign in 2008, but still won by a comfortable margin in this conservative district against a big city liberal and her San Francisco values. It's unlikely that nonsense will work statewide.

If I had to make a prediction now, this is what it would be:

1. Bond retires.
2. Robin Carnahan runs and clears the Democratic field.
3. Sam Graves and one or two other GOP House members endure a bitter primary fight. Graves loses.
4. Carnahan wins with at least 55%.

From your lips
to God's ears.
[ Parent ]
MO-Sen: Statewide Recruitment Thread | 35 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

Talk to your supporters, not tech support. Campaign Engine is the powerful, affordable Progressive Campaign Software.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Contributing Editor: Crisitunity

SSP's Twitter Feed

SSP on Facebook

SSP's Frappr Map

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

Subscribe to SSP's RSS feed: Subscribe via FeedBurner

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

Partisan Voting Index

House Open Seat Watch

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

2010 Political Calendar

SSP Race Ratings

Senate Race Ratings

Gubernatorial Race Ratings

House Vulnerability Index

Blogroll

Daily Kos
DemConWatch
DLCC Blog
Five Thirty Eight
From The Roots (DSCC)
Hotline On Call
Kicking Ass (DNC)
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Project 2010 (DGA)
The Next Hurrah
Senate Guru
The Stakeholder (DCCC)
The Thicket (NCSL)
Powered by: SoapBlox