Premium Sponsor

Featured Sponsor

Our Sponsors

Ad Networks

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

Site Stats

MO-Sen: Carnahan Leads Blunt By 1

by: Crisitunity

Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 1:05 PM EST

PPP (pdf) (11/13-15, registered voters, 1/10-11 in parentheses):

Robin Carnahan (D): 43 (45)
Roy Blunt (R): 42 (44)
Undecided: 15 (9)
Robin Carnahan (D): 42
Chuck Purgason (R): 35
Undecided: 23
(MoE: ±3.6%)
Roy Blunt (R): 53
Chuck Purgason (R): 16
Undecided: 31
(MoE: ±5.5%)

In a sign of how consistently this race has polled, Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has the same one-point lead over Republican Rep. Roy Blunt today that she did in January, according to PPP. Almost everyone else who has polled the race finds a similar narrow lead for Carnahan or a tie. Carnahan is the only figure polled with positive favorables at 40/36 -- not Blunt, at 30/38, not Chuck Purgason at 7/14, and not Barack Obama, at 43/52. Given Obama's negative in Missouri, it's impressive that Carnahan is doing as well as she is, but that's got to be a combination of her respected family name and Blunt's unlikeability.

The most interesting change to this story is the addition of state Sen. Chuck Purgason, who's flying the anti-establishment flag for the hard right. PPP had leaked that Purgason was polling in the "double digits" against the insidery Blunt, setting off all sorts of breathless speculation -- however, while 16% does certainly qualify as double digits, that really doesn't put him close to Blunt (although, given the current depths of feeling for many right-wingers, his numbers seem likely to go up as he gets better known). Sarah Steelman, who already has a statewide profile and who'd been anticipating a run earlier in the year, may now be kicking herself for not staying in the race. (She landed some good anti-establishment blows on Blunt, calling him a "white guy in a suit," but then dropped out prior to the summer's teabagger ascendancy.)

RaceTracker Wiki: MO-Sen

Crisitunity :: MO-Sen: Carnahan Leads Blunt By 1

Tags: MO-Sen, Polls, PPP, Robin Carnahan, Roy Blunt, Chuck Purgason, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

MO-Sen: Carnahan Leads Blunt By 1 | 23 comments

I would guess Obama is actually

More popular than that. PPP has him lower across the board in individual states for some reason. Having said that Blunt's disapproval seems reasonable and means he will probably lose unless the national environment gets worse.

by: conspiracy @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:15:11 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I think it's worth noting...

They talk about favorability ratings for the senate candidates, then talk about job approval for Obama. While they are usually fairly close, I think commontrend is that job approval ratings are usually 3-8 points spread lower than favorables.

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:12:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It is

But they consistently had his job approval in both NJ and VA much worse than the exit polls.

by: conspiracy @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:29:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Roy Blunt

is a pretty awful candidate, but in a state that swings Republican and in a climate that will likely swing Republican, he may not have to be.

by: gopherprof @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:25:53 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Just remember 2002 was a republican leaning year

and Talent was polling 5% ahead of Carnahan. The final margin was..
50% Talent
49% Carnahan
I'm guessing in 2010 the results will be around
52% Carnahan
45% Blunt

by: jmartin4s @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:45:54 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Same here

My thinking is this race Dems are liekly to pickup regardless of the environment in Nov 2010. My trip to southern Missiouri a couple months ago talking to locals only increases my belief that this one is Carnahan's to lose. Blunt's name is very unpopular right now in MO.

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 14:36:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

^Agreed

The race is still a year out, but I concur that a good bet for a winning percentage for Carnahan is 51-52%. The race could easily flip by election day though, so lots of hard work lies ahead for Missouri Democrats to bring this campaign across the finish line in first place.

by: wtndem @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 17:23:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Close statewide races

seem to be the rule rather than the exception in Missouri. Especially for federal office.

by: andgarden @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:50:17 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Probably for open seats

But Kit Bond, despite being very low profile had a firm grip on that Senate seat for a long time. I believe his only marginally close race was against now Governor Nixon several elections ago.

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 14:38:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Actually,

While Bond has won everytime, his best showing was 2004 when he received 56% of the vote.

by: publius2481 @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 14:42:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I thought he won in 1992

by a landslide over Geri Rothman-Serot. Was that close?

by: DTOzone @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 14:51:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I looked it up

He beat Rothman-Serot by a 52-45 margin. His winning margins were 5.6, 5.2, 7, 8.9 and 13.2. Very consistent - 5 elections all within a range of 5 and 13 points. Ironically that 8.9% win was against now Govenror Nixon in 1998.

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:00:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I posted a giant analysis on here and on ShowMeProgress

Republicans still don't like their politicians very much. And the "message test" on Blunt is more like a test for Robin. 65% say Roy's part of the problem in DC, and that's a winning message.

"Republican leader Roy Blunt" might be just as lethal as invoking GWB and Matt Blunt. The people who drove the country into a blizzard want to take the wheel again.

by: RBH @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 16:22:41 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

They could have run anyone else

even some state legislator, and had a better shot of retaining this. Blunt has to deal with negative fallout from his role in congressional leadership AND negative fallout from his son's disastrous tenure as governor. They really picked about the worst candidate they could. Well, besides Ashcroft, maybe.

by: skaje @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 17:20:44 PM CST

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

No Ashcroft is a better candidate

than Blunt. Blunt is about as popular as George W Bush or Dick Cheney.

I put both Missouri and Ohio as Lean Democratic because I think Blunt and Portman are just too easy for the Dems to completely rip up.

by: JSmith @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 17:25:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Blunt is as popular as John McCain

Blunt has base problems. His favorable/unfavorable rating in the Springfield/SW MO area code is 38/38.

by: RBH @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 17:27:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yep

I was in Springfield a few months ago for a family reunion. Everyone I talked to, even conservatives, think Blunt is a douchebag and have a good opinion of the entire Carnahan family.

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 19:40:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Ashcroft is better than Blunt

for one thing, Ashcroft has distance from the last 4 years, is only tied in to problems in the DOJ from 2001-2005, and won several elections easily before losing to one of Missouri's most popular governors ever.

by: RBH @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 17:26:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Hard to believe

But Ashcroft was by far the better Attorney General under Bush. That's just how bad Alberto "I don't recall jackshit" Gonzalez was at the job.

by: ChadInFL @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 19:36:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Ascroft was a pretty competent AG

as much as I hate to admit it. There were a few Bush appointees who were really good at their jobs; Powell, Gates, Dana Perino. I have a little crush on Dana Perino...one of these people who was so good at her job it ticked me off.

by: DTOzone @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 22:01:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

If by competent you mean

covering up the breasts of Lady Justice to "protect children", I guess so.

by: JSmith @ Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 23:28:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.