Google Ads


Site Stats

MO-Sen: PPP Finds Paper-Thin Margins for McCaskill

by: Crisitunity

Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 2:43 PM EST


Public Policy Polling (PDF) (11/29-12/1, Missouri voters, no trendlines):

Claire McCaskill (D): 45
Sarah Steelman (R): 44
Undecided: 12

Claire McCaskill (D): 45
Jim Talent (R): 47
Undecided: 8

Claire McCaskill (D): 44
Peter Kinder (R): 46
Undecided: 10
(MoE: ±4.3%)

With Sarah Steelman's surprise announcement today already declaring her candidacy for the 2012 Senate race, PPP rushed out some numbers for the race (apparently cutting their sample a little short -- note that the sample period extends as far as today!). In a state that's polarized deeply between urban and rural voters and has become accustomed to extremely close races -- this was the narrowest Obama/McCain margin of any state, and Claire McCaskill's 2006 defeat of Jim Talent was by only 2% -- it looks like we're on track for yet another close one. McCaskill has a statistically insignificant lead over Steelman and a similar deficit against Talent (and also against Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, who is pretty well committed to the gubernatorial race at this point).

The innards show pretty much what you'd expect in this light-red and deeply-split state: McCaskill's popularity is pretty middling (43/44, with 77% of Dems approving and 77% of GOPers disapproving), though better than Barack Obama's (43/52). The main problem for the GOPers is that they aren't especially well-known and are basically functioning as Generic Rs (even ex-Sen. Talent, who may not have made much of an impression in his initial four years). Talent is at 36/32, while Steelman is 59% unknown at 22/19. McCaskill should feel lucky she's running in 2012, a presidential year when turnout by casual Dem voters is likely to be high, instead of having had to run in 2010.
Crisitunity :: MO-Sen: PPP Finds Paper-Thin Margins for McCaskill
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

MO-Sen: PPP Finds Paper-Thin Margins for McCaskill | 196 comments
These are not good numbers
McCaskill is stuck at around 45 against all comers.  We need a crazy tea fest in the primary.
They are far better than some were suggesting
Considering Robin Carnahan just got blown away. Tossup at worst even at what is probably the low point for the national party.
[ Parent ]
Right now
any polls are still a reflection of the 2010 elections and have no meaning at all. Besides, in general, polls 2 years before an election are, for the most part, a waste of time and money.
[ Parent ]
Those are pretty darn great numbers
I'd expect here to be down over 5% now.  The fact all the numbers are within the margin of error at the Dem turnout lowpoint means McCaskill should have a significant lead if turnout for a presidential year is anything close to a normal ballpark.

Unless the GOP craps all over themselves (always a good possibility) this will be a close race that will be decided by campaigns.  

[ Parent ]
Registered Voters
Not likely voters.
[ Parent ]
PPP uses a soft likely voter model
Not actually a true registered voter model (in that they ask whether participants have voted in one of the last three elections).

It's pretty far out though, and given that Obama's numbers really have nowhere to go but up in Missouri, I'm not worried about McCaskill yet (I just don't get the people who compare this to NH-Sen 2008, Shaheen always held a consistent lead of at least 5 points over Sununu, even early on, Talent's numbers are good for the Republicans but nothing spectacular either given the presidential numbers).

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
Re: "It's pretty far out though, and given that Obama's numbers really have nowhere to go but up in Missouri"
Why do you think so? He's still at 43% approval - that could go back up, but could also go further down, IMO. All depends on which way the economy develops - recovery, jobless recovery, middling stagnation, or double dip recession.

38, Male, SP, NL / LMP, HU
[ Parent ]
The caveat that if the economy continues to suck always applies
But the trend right now is that the economy is in recovery, and while things can always change if something major happens, it's quite a bit more likely than not that the economy will simply continue to improve and that Obama will be credited with that.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

[ Parent ]
And?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I agree

This is a good poll for McCaskill. She is living, and ready for the fight.

Bad news for the republicans what want to take the senate. Very bad.

[ Parent ]
Brown in MA
PPPolling hasn't released any numbers on the MO gubernatorial race (I think they didn't poll it), but they did just post numbers on Scott Brown.
All the people advocating going all in to save Claire and hope to try to carry the state for Obama, take a look at Scott Brown's numbers - this is what a candidate needs to survive in enemy territory.

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

[ Parent ]
You were extolling name recognition yesterday
Hypocrisy pure and simple.
[ Parent ]
Who said anything about Name ID in MA?
I'm looking at Brown's approval ratings, as PPPolling pointed out he's gotten MORE popular with Dems and stayed popular with Indys without pissing off his own party (though exactly how many self identified republicans are there in MA, like 12?).

As I said below I think Dems can and might beat Brown, but these are the kind of approval numbers someone like McCaskill needs to survive in what I see as enemy territory.

[ Parent ]
PPP did if you read the link

[ Parent ]
I did
read the link, but what I'm referring to is not the ballot tests, but Brown's approval numbers.
[ Parent ]
Right
So you are saying that in MO it is irrelevant that McCaskill has even approvals and that she is only tied in polls because her opposition has no name ID but in MA it is irrelevant that Brown's opponents have no name ID because he has such good approvals?
[ Parent ]
What I'm saying is that
McCaskill's numbers are weak and she's in hostile territory for re-election. Brown's numbers are stong, but he's is very bad territory for re-election.

I'm not saying it's one or the other, but if you were making financial decisions for the NRSC which would you prioritize, MO or MA?

My point is that IF I was making the calls (and I'm not - I'm sure you're happy about that), I would keep my powder dry in MO (both for POTUS & Sen) and put my resourses toward better terrain (VA, MI, OH, NV & FL, plus ME & MA for Sen only)

[ Parent ]
woops
mean DSCC, if I was at the NRSC I think I'd be looking at NE, FL, MO, MT, VA. I can't believe the GOP really sees ND as a pickup unless it's an open seat. Ditto WI which I've heard buzz about - unless Kohl retires it's safe - no matter what they say about Feingold's defeat.
[ Parent ]
Depends on how you define weak
Also, it was you who brought up name recognition yesterday. Now you ignore it. Seems like classic spin to me. And if I was making the calls I wouldn't be making any funding decisions for another 15 months at least.  
[ Parent ]
Assett allocation
begins almost immediately, I'm not just talking about IEs - there are key staff to hire out, fundraising lists to be shared, grassroots favors to be called in. This is the real nitty-gritty campaign/organization building that can't be accomplished by parachuting in money or people 2-3 months before election day - and it's also THEY most important thing the national committees do (especially in congressional races where there are never enough professinal campaign staffers to go around).
[ Parent ]
He's not
in a bad position at all, but Massachusetts is far more Democratic than Missouri is Republican in nature. He's much more likely to be swamped by a strong performance at the top of the ticket than McCaskill is.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Tons of variables
and a huge difference between the states respecitve leanings, but I think my point is still valid, putting asside the ballot tests in both races McCaskill has weak numbers AND a weak electoral history. Brown is much stronger (and YES is in far less favorable territory than what Claire will face), but I firmly believe that unless the republicans nominate palin for president Obama will lose MO again, and by a solid margin, further, unless Talent-Steelman actually happens (and I don't think it will) then Steelman will come in very strong - as I said before she's awkward, but she's no Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle, both on the crazy scale or the "Who am I and why am I here" scale.
[ Parent ]
She needs to start defining Talent and Steelman
Both of those two must have weaknesses - well Talent McCaskill probably already knows all about, but what of Steelman, what are her flaws? Sounds like she needs to go the route of Reid and define the crap out of these two as early as possible. How are her fundraising numbers?
Way too soon
Harry Reid started attacking Angle post-primary.

McCaskill doesn't need to do anything until at least the start of calendar year 2012, and probably much later than that.  Indeed, anything sooner than that might backfire; voters want to be left alone in off-years.

Working the media against Steelman and Talent and any others is a different story, but even there it's best to let the DNC, DSCC, and state party do the dirty work.  That's what they're there for.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't
now be the time to nudge her image up by a few points, especially in the areas where she might be a harder sell? She has the time to visit every single county in the state, perhaps even a few times, kind of like John Edwards did in his first run in 1998, or maybe go further than she did in 2006, if she didn't do just that back then.

She can continue to do the same as the election gets closer, but she won't be challenged in a primary and has the luxury of trying to appeal to someone outside the Republican base. Maybe the Republican will have the same advantage, but it's not clear Steelman will have the field to herself.  

If something like health care is going to be her biggest problem, perhaps she can focus exclusively on that.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Sure, she should be working her state hard right away. But regarding health care...
...one thing McCaskill said that made me crestfallen at the time but I now see was correct is that HCR wouldn't be popular in 2010 or even 2012, but rather would be popular in 10 years.  This was not to criticize it, but to simply explain what she viewed as the political reality of it.  People would distrust it until it played out and they came to realize it was helping them without hurting them.  But the nature of the law, both by design and under the reality of the health care system, is that its effects won't be felt and evaluations won't be fairly made until the years go by and we see what's actually happening.

So Claire is going to plan for 2012 with an eye toward people calming down about HCR but not embracing it.  She's not expecting it to be popular until her 2018 reelection campaign!

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
However
she wants to approach her difficulties, fine. She knows her state and her coalition a lot better than I do. I just meant--and I am sure you would agree with this--that she's got a lot of time before the Republican nominee is even picked. She can and she should be working her tail off from now until election day. She doesn't have to be in campaign mode for a long time, but in senatorial mode, which is basically the same thing, except without the attacks on someone else. Have her visit the extremely small areas of the state that nobody ever goes to. Have her spend time connecting with the younger voters who will be in the state at the time of the election so that they feel motivated to support her in a few years. Essentially, do what wouldn't necessarily be worth it because of time constraints and potential limitations on overall votes gained now, so that when the election comes, she can focus on the bigger areas.

Time is on her side. I hope she realizes this.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
It's a big reason I admire Claire
McCaskill pisses me off from time to time because she is fairly conservative. But she was a very loyal soldier during the health care debate (despite some waffling post-Scott Brown), and she defended the health care bills very cogently and very effectively, even acknowledging, as you point out, that it would probably not be popular right away but that it was the right thing to do and people would eventually see the benefits.  
[ Parent ]
What? Crazy
Why? Who's paying attention now? It'd be a complete waste of money and she can let Steelman and Talent battle it out and hurt each other's ratings.

Wait 18 months before you do ANYTHING.

[ Parent ]
Obama won't help Clair Much
Remember that Obama lost Missouri in '08 (albeit by virtually nothing), but will have a very tough time doing better in '12. His numbers in STL city & county & KC will hold, but he'll get killed in the rest of the state (including Columbia where the kids won't come out like they did in '08), so Claire will have to seriously out perform Obama in the hinterlands and ex-uburbs to have a chance. She has taken some stances to do this (like voting with Coburn on a Earmark ban), but unless Talent-Steelman turns into a bloodbath her task is almost impossible.
He'll help in those cities
but Jay Nixon (also running) can help much more everywhere.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Are ties between McCaskill and Nixon
friendly?  If so, then he will likely help her out.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Nixon?
What are his approval numbers? I haven't seen much, but I doubt he's got the mojo to help anyone besides himself - and even that is questionable - consider how much good Beebe did for Lincoln in Arkansas for instance...
[ Parent ]
His approval is above 50%
Also, Lincoln had bad numbers in a bad year.  McCaskill has ok numbers in what is probably a better year.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Not my point
I'm not trying to compare Lincoln to McCaskill, as bad of shape as Claire is in she's pure gold compared to Blanche - my point was that there is little evidence that gubernatorial candidates can help troubled senate candidates or vice versa - both race are way to high visablity for either one to have coattails. I think all three (Obama, Nixon & McCaskill) will do well in KC & STL City & County, but Obama will get killed everywhere else and although Claire has positioned herself to do better than Obama in the hinterlands it's an almost impossible climb to get to 50%+1 against a strong Republican - no matter what Nixon does.
[ Parent ]
How does Nixon do
in suburbs and rural areas?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Nixon won
58% of the vote in 2008. He even won significant parts of Ike Skelton's district.
[ Parent ]
Once again,
why will his numbers be so much worse in the parts of the state you are talking about in 2012 compared to 2008? If he's only able to do marginally better than Kerry in some of these counties in what is supposed to be a good year for Democrats, why would he do that much worse than Kerry, who competed in a fairly bad year for Democrats?

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Lots of people are doing that
And it is getting really annoying.
[ Parent ]
It's fine
to describe various scenarios, both good and bad, and what they might entail, but it's a little ridiculous to throw in the towel two years in advance, before there's been any campaigning, any advertising, any voter registration or mobilization, or before the Republicans even have definite candidates.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't worry about
posters with a username of an R icon (leeatwater) -- who throw in the towel for Ds.
[ Parent ]
I've often
wondered if there's some sort bizarre mind fuck type strategy that the Republicans are trying to use against Democrats by infesting their boards with absurd comments that could drive down enthusiasm and this turnout. I still think it's a bridge too far, even for them, but I'm more convinced than I was yesterday.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
After what happened on the November 30 digest
with talking about Rick Perry, I'm inclined to agree.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
I try to follow
a lot of news about the media industry, particular newspapers and online news sites. The ongoing issues at The New York Times, especially as its war with The Wall Street Journal, make it a frequent topic of discussion. It's a rare occasion when some conservative doesn't toss around some insulting comment about "THE NEW YORK SLIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!" You have to wonder why, if they hate it so much and it's become so irrelevant, they feel the need to comment so frequently.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Maybe they are just bored
and get a kick out of offending other people. I don't see any other reason why they'd waste their time on such sites, especially if so much of their time is spent working unlike "unemployed lazy guvmint-teat-sucking bums".

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Are you serious?
That conspiracy theory made my day. Thanks.

The real answer is a lot simpler. Most conservative websites have horridly designed comment sections.

There are, of course, smart liberals like Nate Silver who don't let their personal biases crowd their judgment. They are interesting reads.

[ Parent ]
No, I'm kidding, mostly.
I honestly doubt there's some sort of organized strategy going on to mess with the minds of Democrats on their sites.

But I do wonder why, on entainment and news sites, there's always some seemingly crotchety old conservative willing to bash organizations like The New York Times.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
probably because of their columns
Herbert, Maureen Dowd, and company really aren't worth it even for a laugh anymore.

The crowd there is unique in that they simply don't live in the real world at all for the most part. Columnists for other papers tend to be more, well, real.

[ Parent ]
and by "real" you mean Republican...
thanks for your opinion, but not interested.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
I don't think you fully understand
what I am saying.

I'm talking about some fairly minor blog post on The Huffington Post or some media-related site which contains the sort of content that you have to actively seek out. A post might mention a circulation decline or a reporter leaving or joining or a particular article, and far more often than not, you have someone talking about what a great day it'll be when the NEW YORK SLIMES GOES OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!!!! and its left-wing agenda that is meant to destroy America, or something similar. There's no intelligent thought or legitimate critique behind their comments, but that doesn't stop them from appearing, over and over and over again. It's like they actively seek out an opportunity to post something senseless and tiresome, if only because they have nothing better to do.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
my name
is about the fact that Rs play smart while Ds play dumb, Missouri is a perfect case - McCaskill is probably toast, her #s are weak and the state is moving toward the GOP, yet Ds will keep going back to the well because of the urban AA population in STL & KC. That is time and money that is much better utilized in MI & OH that have similair issues, but still have winnable margins for Ds.

So hell yea, let's blow a ton of dough trying to save McCaskill and have Obama try to carry MO, even after losing the state in '08 in about the best enviornment for a Dem POTUS candidate since '64.

[ Parent ]
Imagine the reaction to a user "jamescarville"
on a R leaning site

- if he tried that explanation, w/r/t Sen races like NV, CO, and DE.

Now I am only more convinced that McCaskill, barring some gaffes, will be fine in '12.  

[ Parent ]
Does anyone remember Carville
as a political consultant and not a talking head/commentator on cable news?  

I'm honestly surprised at how few people remember who Lee Atwater was or what he did to Dukakis in '88.

[ Parent ]
Standard advice given to wingnuts
who post on left leaning sites -- when they're caught --

is to change the subject, ideally by twisting something in the opponent's message into a tangent.

[ Parent ]
Wait
I"m a right wing nut because I think Dems should focus on winnable states like MI & OH that might be drifting back toward the Dems instead of continuing to throw good time and money into a state that is a lost cause?
[ Parent ]
You've provided no hard evidence
just generalities...

As such, your last statement would be credible if we were talking about Alabama. But Missouri?

Present your data, user leeatwater, author of the Wille Horton crap, spreader of flag burning rumors about Kitty Dukakis.

[ Parent ]
I Did!
Dem bastions in MO (KC & STL City) are losing population fast, voting habits in areas like Jefferson County & St. Charles County are shifting noticibly to the GOP (and gaining population faster than any other counties). Obama didn't win in '08 despite spending an exorbinant amount of time in the state and I think any rational Dem would realize that outperforming '08's results in '12 is nearly impossible.

Thus I say Dems not do what the GOP has done in '00 & '04 and spend valuable resources on lost causes (in their case MI & PA) and instead focus on rust belt states Obama did carry that might slip away if Dems aren't smart (OH & MI, plus FL). I don't think Obama can recreate his victories in IN and it will be very tough to win again in NC & VA so the margin of error is very VERY small and wasting cash and time in Missouri makes no sense to me, especially if the goal is to save McCaskill who will sink or swim regardless of Obama's performance in MO and probably isn't worth saving anyway.

Better?

[ Parent ]
You presented no numbers
just assertions.

and now you're going further, to repeat similar things about different states.

Earlier you stated here http://swingstateproject.com/s... that your assertions applied only to MO.

Now you're saying something different, user leeatwater, author of the Willie Horton crap, spreader of traitorous lies about Kitty Dukakis.

[ Parent ]
No, you
are advocating a moronic strategy that does very little to help us while doing a helluva lot to help the Republicans. You may or may not be a right-wing nut, but you are certainly being senseless for suggesting what you have talked about repeatedly.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
We won't be
able to have a good idea of how she might do in the state for at least another year, if not longer. Yet, this guy is telling us to give up now, before the Republicans have even settled on a candidate. It'd be amazing and laughable if it weren't so pathetic.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
It's funny
that you'd talk about the Democrats playing dumb and then advocate a strategy that is beyond moronic. I'm sorry to sound jerky if I do, but that's the only way to describe what you are talking about.

So we are supposed to simply abandon McCaskill, a sitting senator, and not even contest the state even though it's usually close and we came even closer than we normally do last time? Not only does that simply hand the Republicans the seat, it allows them to focus their resources on Montana and Virginia, among other seats. You are narrowing the playing field for us, giving them an advantage, while throwing away the advantages of incumbency and very possible outcomes like small ticket splitting that could push us over the edge.

I'm curious, did you advocate the Republicans not trying to take Specter's seat? After all, Pennsylvania is a center-left state where Santorum, the last incumbent Republican, went down in a humiliating 18-point defeat. Obama won the state, where he was supposed to have lots of trouble, by slightly more than 10 points, a larger margin than Reagan won it by in either 1980 or even 1984. I'm sure you told them to give up, right....right?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
OK Sorry
You guys are right, let's blow the whole kitty to save McCaskill (who I still view as a half step above Blance Lincoln), and have Obama spend tons of cash and time in the state again in hopes of what, keeping the GOP on defense? I don't think it's moronic to realize when to stop sending good money after bad in a state NOT in our winning coalition and instead focus on winnable states that are in danger of actualy leaving the winning side.
[ Parent ]
Nobody is arguing
that Obama should spent an outrageous sum of money on winning Missouri. What we are saying, or at least what I am saying, is that he shouldn't simply give up on the state. He didn't win it last time, but he only lost it by .13 to .14 percent. That's not even one half of one percent. That sort of loss can be attributed to a lot of things, and it doesn't indicate that it's out of reach, especially now, two years before the election.

But aside from whether he wins the state, it could go an incredible amount of damage to McCaskill. Without putting any effort into turning out the vote, the Republicans will have the playing field to themselves, and they will turn out their votes that will naturally be higher in a presidential year. You are asking Democrats to simply give up on the seat because now, two years before the election, you think it's not winnable--because it's supposedly simply impossible for McCaskill to separate herself from Obama's fortunes in the state.

I like how you simply refused to talk about Pennsylvania, by the way. That example alone proves what you are saying is senseless.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I don't know PA like I know MO
Would I suggest backing Toomey back in '09? Maybe, Spector is such a unique case I don't think the analogy works.  
[ Parent ]
Few things are that similar,
so you can't expect the comparison to be exact. But your general point is that Missouri is becoming increasingly unfriendly to Democrats. That may or may not be true, but whatever the case, it doesn't look nearly as unfriendly to Democrats as Pennsylvania does to Republicans, based on recent results. Yet, the Republicans put a lot of effort into the state, and they ended up winning the Senate seat. The Democrats may not have have any luck in Missouri in 2012, but we don't know that now, so they shouldn't give up.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Here is what I mean
Since you guys are desperate for details, here are the states Obama won & Bush carried once (Nevada New Mexico Iowa New Hampshire) they total 21 EV (after projected reapportionment) giving Obama 263 total (I give him all the states he carried and Bush didn't carry in '00 or '04), just 7 short of victory. Then the list of states Obama carried and Bush carried twice (Indiana North Carolina Virginia Florida Ohio Colorado) totalling 95 EVs.

So why in the hell should we waste energy on Missouri then any or all of the second set and maybe some of the first are in danger of flipping, not to mention Michigan where the Detroit population is dropping frighteningly fast).

Playing smart defense rather than wasing money and energy on pie-in-the-sky projections that Obama can carry more states in '12 despite a cloudy (at best!) economic outlook.

Gore almost beat Bush in '00 thanks in VERY large part on the GOP's foolish decision to continue pooring tiem and resources in to PA & MI that probably would have avoided a recount in spent in FL. Just hope we don't end up with a similair situtation in Ohio in '12.

[ Parent ]
Because to simply
abandon the state from the outset probably sinks McCaskill. There's really no downside to him being there, even if he ends up losing, but if he's not there, she won't benefit nearly as much from turnout.

Plus, he could win the state. You might not think it's likely, but unless he's going to see his support drop by at least 100,000 votes from last time, it wouldn't take that many more votes to push him over the finish line.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I disagree
There is no more valuable asset in a presidential campaign than the candidates time. If Obama manages to win Missouri in '12 then he'll win by such a huge margin that in hardly matters.

As for Claire I don't think she's worth saving, and in truth her only real chance is that Steelman is Angle or what's her crazy ass from Deleware - which she most certainly is NOT.

[ Parent ]
Yeah
I'm so glad the GOP didn't just compete for Obama's seat because he won IL by 25 points...
[ Parent ]
Apples to Oranges
1. IL-Sen seat was open
2. It wasn't a Presidential Year

I'm not saying we shouldn't contest Senate seats in GOP-ish territory (I'm FOR fully supporting Webbin VA, Berkeley in NV and even Conrad in ND if he runs - and I certaily wouldn't give up on Brown's seat in MA just because his numbers are very strong. But McCaskill is NOT Scott Brown.

I think those that are calling for us going whole hog in MO to support McCaskill might regret such advice if Stabenow or Brown (OH) or Nelson (FL) or Webb lose.

[ Parent ]
Bull
You seem to have some kind of belief that Dems should contest MO at the expense of most other seats. Nonsense.  
[ Parent ]
The analogy fails
MO has a D incumbent -- and D voting will be enhanced in a Presidential year.
[ Parent ]
You still have not provided numbers to back up your assertions on MO
So it appears that you're trying to change the subject again.

Since you bring up OH and the '00 election, Gore did not contest that state, and still came within 2.5%.

[ Parent ]
Gore didn't contest Ohio in '00?
That's not what I remember.
[ Parent ]
Then you have a poor memory

[ Parent ]
If you say so
Calling me a right wing nut is bad enough, but senile? That's just mean...
[ Parent ]
Another standard tactic
Taking relatively benign comments and turning them into personal insults.

It's another way wingnuts change the subject, in an attempt to portray liberals (who are by instinct, perhaps a bit too touchy-feely) as insensitive.

It is a more difficult tactic to defend against -- as defence of the original benign comment --alone-- plays into the tactic of changing the subject.

[ Parent ]
Wow
I was kidding about the senile comment. I do believe Gore's campaign stayed in Ohio until pretty close to the end, maybe before Bush finally gave up on PA & MI though (I am getting old)
[ Parent ]
I don't recall Bush ever giving up on PA and MI
Gore certainly put all his eggs in the FL basket and wrote off OH very early.

"But in Ohio, the Gore campaign pulled out far too early and denied itself the potential opportunity to win the state's 21 electoral votes. While Gore's campaign had expected a large Republican victory in Ohio, it turned out that Bush won by only 3.5 percentage points. With more attention, the statewide result might very well have been different, and a victory would have more than ensured the presidency for Gore."

http://www.america.gov/st/usg-...

[ Parent ]
I'll take your word for it

[ Parent ]
More important than that, tietack, "leeatwater" has not provided...
...a simple statement declaring that he is a Democrat or votes for Democrats.

If someone called me out explicitly as a Republican or right-wing troll or whatnot, as has now been done to "leeatwater," my first reaction would be to state clearly I'm a Democrat and I vote for Democrats.

I find it revealing "leeatwater" has posted countless comments in this diary without saying any such thing.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
point well taken
If I remember right, I have not explicitly called out user leeatwater as a troll or R. I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, I do see that others have called out user leeatwater as you suggest.

[ Parent ]
Actually I don't particular care how leeatwater votes
The analysis is shocking.
[ Parent ]
Shocking because you disagree
I worked campaigns in Missouri for the better part of 20 years, I am a Dem and vote for Dems (though you don't care). To finish this up, I don't think McCaskill can or should win, I don't think Obama will win in MO and to have him spend time in the state is a waste. The state has moved away from Dems and those resources should be spent in winnable states and winnable races, not sent into the Missouri sinkhole, but although I think this is what SHOULD happen, I'm sure the Obama re-elect and the DSCC will continue to throw good money after bad thinking that the urban centers in KC & STL can carry the state, but that's just not going to happen.
[ Parent ]
Repeating yourself does not help your argument
And yes, I call it shocking analysis to put a fork in an incumbent with even approvals in an even state almost two years before an election.
[ Parent ]
Thank You
By the way, I haven't had anyone to argue Missouri Politics with since I moved to Virginia in '09.
[ Parent ]
I just hate it when people give up
McCaskill could well lose in the end but I cannot abide not even trying.
[ Parent ]
She WILL try
I think she's toast, but she will raise some dough and the DSCC will put on a show, as will the Obama re-elect, but my advise would be when it gets to crunch time as she (and Obama) are trailing by 10 they make the smart choice and spend that time and money in OH, MI VA & FL where the Presidential Election and Senate Majority will be decided. In fact those same DSCC dollars will be far better spent in NV, ME & MA than in MO. Patty Murray needs to be looking hard at how to keep 50-51 seats and (again just my opinion) not waste valuable assets in NE, MO & MT (assuming Rehberg runs vs Tester)if those incumbents are trailing. Keeping MI, OH, VA & picking up even 1 of MA, ME or NV keeps control...
[ Parent ]
Obviously
I'm not arguing about what will happen but with what you are suggesting should happen. I remain of the opinion that it is beyond ridiculous to write anybody off at this stage.
[ Parent ]
Your logic would have left the democrats in the minority
in the senate in the 110th congress

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
False

[ Parent ]
By that I mean
How so? I would have cut bait on Lincoln and not wasted money in LA or NC, but I think Coons could have beated Castle so I would have given him the resourses to fight it out regardless of O'Donnell's primary victory. I might have pulled the plug on NH & KY too (the DSCC DID pull the plug in MO in '10 as well as OH & IN, not that that matters) and would have spent more money to secure WA.  
[ Parent ]
The DSCC didn't spend on LA or NC either

[ Parent ]
I said the 110th congress.
The one that split 51-49 for the democrats. Your logic would have given up on Webb and possibly McCaskill and Tester.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
At this stage that cycle
And well into 2005, the only Republican seats that were being seriously talked about as possible flips were PA and RI. Because Kerry had just won them.
[ Parent ]
Missouri looks the same now as 10 years ago......
I remember when the hard-right Ashcroft crushed Alan Wheat 60-36 in 1994, and that was an open seat.

And did you know we went 26 years without a living Democrat winning a Missouri U.S. Senate election before McCaskill beat Talent?  Mel Carnahan actually was down in the polls to Ashcroft all cycle in 2000 before dying in the plane crash, and Ashcroft lost only because of the sympathy vote after Carnahan died.  The sympathy didn't last, Mel's widow Jean was appointed to the seat and promptly got beat by Talent in the '02 special.  Meanwhile, before McCaskill in '06, the last living Democrat to win was Eagleton in his '80 reelection.

Missouri has always been a moderately conservative state, and therefore tough for modern Democrats.  Its political orientation hasn't moved at all in my adult life, contrary to leeatwater's argument. In most Presidential elections in my adult life, the Democrat has done slightly worse in Missouri than nationally.

So of course McCaskill won't have an easy ride, but she didn't have an easy ride ever before.  In 2002 running for Gov she only barely lost in a bad year for Democrats, and she beat an incumbent Republican in 2006 to prove she knows how to win.

All this doesn't even consider that Obama's job approval easily could recover simply with the economy, and the GOP easily could nominate an unelectable Presidential nominee; both factors that matter downballot.

If leeatwater really is an experienced Democratic campaign hand as he claims to be, it's surprising he's learned so little from his experiences.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Roller Coaster
That what I would describe the last 10 year in MO as, Carnahan's death & Ashcrofts loss to him- just weird stuff. The key is that what was keeping MO competitive for so long was the urban vote which is declining fast and the re-orientation of the blue collar areas like south STL county & Jefferson county - Jackson county in KC is somewhat simiilair, but it's a much more mixed bag than STL. Point is if the Dems were going to break the stranglehold at the presidential level '08 was the year and Obama STILL came up short, the blue areas are getting smaller and the vast red sea between them is growing redder and redder (regardless of the '10 results which just exacerbated what was already happening).

Now Carnahan is likely to be redistricted with Todd Akin and the entire Dem DODEL will be AA. For Dems to win again in MO they need to find a way to appeal to the vast areas of the great unwashed - if a Dem can win for national office in St. Charles county maybe I'll move back, but I think what was a slightly right-center state is moving firmly to the southern model of rural and suburban whites firmly in the GOP fold and the only viable Dems are VRA district AA reps.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I didn't pay close attention to WHO called him out, which is why...
...I phrased it in the passive voice.  But I recall other commenters have done so.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Actually Bush won Nevada twice (eom)


21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
How do the R's play smart?
They blew Delaware, Colorado and Nevada last year. The 2 previous cycles they didn't make a single gain in the senate and only 5 in the house.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Define Smart?
The NRSC tried to kill O'Donnell and Buck, there were no strong candidates in Nevada (Reid scared away the only solid challenger, NV-3 rep Heller). Once Castle lost the primary the NRSC doubled down in PA (before anyone else saw the race closing). Meanwhile the DSCC was spending millions in Arkansas that might have saved PA.
[ Parent ]
The DSCC didn't spend anything in AR

[ Parent ]
No?
Look that up for me, I seem to recall them having tons of money in for Blanche
[ Parent ]
They backed off in Colorado and Deleware due to pressure
from the tea party which they recklessly have allowed to dominate their party. They failed to recruit anyone to run against Reid even though he had approvals worse then McCaskills who you claim is DOA. Also As I said previously they failed to target any democratic senators effectively in 06/08 while democrats defeated 6 incumbents in 06 and won 9 seats in 2008. The Republicans only won 6 senate seats 3 of which were given to them on a platter. The only close races they won were Pennslyvania, Wisconsin and Illinois and they just got lucky in Illinois that Alexi-Obama were such good friends. They also were lucky in running the clock out in Pennslyvania/having Corbett at the top of the ticket.

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
And they tried and failed to recruit
Tommy Thompson in WI. They underperformed in statewide races.
[ Parent ]
"Always fighting the last war"
That's a common cliche about war strategy, and I've read and heard it paraphrased to apply to campaigns.

And yeah, we're seeing that nonsense now, when anyone on a site like this one should know better.

The 2012 election will be shaped by whatever happens the next 2 years, not by anything that happened the last 2 years.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Truth

[ Parent ]
We'll find out this week
PPP always releases their numbers over the course of a week, and I'm sure they polled the governor's race as well. Hopefully they included Nixon-Talent numbers in addition to Nixon-Kinder, because I think Talent may run for governor instead (he was the GOP nominee in 2000, losing by less than one percent.)

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
[ Parent ]
Talent for Gov?
No way, he's either in for his old job or (more likely IMO) staying out of politics, if he can't even clear the primary will he give us his cushy gig with the Heritage Foundation (or lucrative rainmaker job with Fleishman)?
[ Parent ]
He could run for governor but I doubt it.
I think Steelman would be easier to beat in a primary then Kinder but who knows this far out.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
I have to tell you,
it's kind of amazing that you can see that far into the future.

In Boone County, which is where Colombia is, Obama only received about 10,000 more votes than Kerry. That's a lot, but not so much that it can't be made up for in other parts of the state. I know I mention this idea lot, but there are still about 100,000 unregistered black voters in the state. They already turnout, as a group, at higher rates than whites, but again, unless he's losing even worse than he did last time in the rest of the non-urban parts of the state. And really, why would he do that much worse now than he did in 2008 in those parts of the state? Are there lots of people who didn't like him who also weren't motivated enough to vote for McCain but will be motivated enough to vote for whatever nominees the Republicans have? Are there large numbers of people who will simply turn against the Democrats?

In Jackson County, in 2006, McCaskill received 139,677 votes, while Talent received 78,119, but in 2008, Obama received 210,824 votes while McCain received 124,687 votes. That's a difference of 71,147 for the Democrats but only 46,568.

The same sort of thing can be seen in St. Louis County, where McCaskill recived 226,563 votes in 2006 compared to Talent's 177,234, while in 2008, Obama received 333,123 votes to McCain's 221,705. That's a 106,650 difference for the Democrats, versus a 44,471 difference for the Republicans.

There will be some ticket splitters, but really, who is voting for Obama and not for McCaskill? So no, the numbers won't align perfectly, and 2006 and 2008 were probably better years for the Democrats than 2012 will be, but McCaskill will probably receive a lot of help from Obama simply by him turning out the vote in St. Louis and Kansas City.



"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Obama does help
Obama can increase AA voting in St. Louis compared to years he's not running. And in this state that might be enough.

Nixon is friendly with her and both need each other's campaigns.

[ Parent ]
Not bad numbers, given the climate.
I was half expecting her to be down by a statistically significant figure.
If they knew her challengers she would be
Look at home many people who don't have an opinion on here challengers say they will vote for her...if Steelman had Claire's name ID he'd be down 10 pts.
[ Parent ]
Grrrr
Look at HOW many....

Stupid fingers...

[ Parent ]
Harry Reid was trailing people
With similar name recognition. She has decent favorables considering.
[ Parent ]
There is no way to prove that at all.
So why bother saying that before her name ID increases? For all we know if Steelman had the ID she could be even further down as she has failed in previous campaigns. Wait for the election to develop at least a little bit before declaring the doom or victory of a candidate.

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Frankly
I'm amazed people are making such wild predictions across the board this last month. Almost like people learned nothing from 2004 onwards.
[ Parent ]
Thank you!


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
That doesn't follow logically at all
As Sharon Angle got better known it sure didn't help her favorables.
[ Parent ]
Generic R vs individual candidates
You're assuming that the challengers, once they're better known, will outpoll Generic R, which is what we're looking at now, basically. What makes you think so? IIRC, 2010 saw a number of races where the actual R candidate turned out to do worse than Generic R had done in polling before the primaries.

38, Male, SP, NL / LMP, HU
[ Parent ]
In Presidential '12 polling generic R is outpolling named candidates, even when...
...some of those named candidates have previously run for President or Vice-President.

So becoming known doesn't necessarily help, and certainly can hurt.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
At this point, all the Republicans are generic
These numbers aren't too bad when you consider that. McCaskill has enough time to focus on soft support and the Republicans will have to battle it out in a primary before they can focus directly on the general.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
McCaskill can win this, but she'll probably need a nasty GOP primary
Should Talent opt against running and Cornyn manage to clear the field for Steelman, I think McCaskill will face a fairly uphill climb. I suspect Obama probably wins about 46% in Missouri, and, though he'll help her w/ GOTV in St. Louis and Jackson, he might hurt her in the rural areas where she needs 40%+ and he only garnered 30-35% in '08.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
I suspect the unexpected
I'm predicting nothing until at least March 2012.
[ Parent ]
the only thing that might kickstart matters...
Is that the campaigns for Prez Primaries on the Republican side will be in full bloom in less than 1 year.  Now a lot of states have their Prez Primary not lined up with the "other" Primary, but I think I saw somewhere that Seante/House/Gov candidates declare sooner in Presidential years because there's a lot of opportunity to be seen with candidates, rallies, events, etc...I have to see if i can find that source.
[ Parent ]
March is a good time, b/c we'll know who might be the GOP Prez nominee and...
...that will make a big difference downballot.

If it's Palin or Gingrich, the GOP is facing a strong anti-Republican wave all the way down the ballot.  Every GOP nominee will be caught between a rock and a hardplace, angering the base by distancing from the top, and losing everyone else by failing to distance.

The same could happen with Huckabee or Barbour, but less quickly and less severely than with Palin or Gingrich.

After that, it really depends on the quality of the GOP nominee's campaign and Obama's own job approvals.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
I hope you are right.
Republican pollster Glen Bolger said that it's almost guaranteed that Republicans hold the House even if there's an Obama comeback, because presidential reelections don't usual bring coattails and because of how badly redistricting will hurt Democrats.

http://pos.org/2010/12/gop-wil...

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Polarization may make a difference
In the elections cited in linked POS study, the losing Presidential candidate was not polarizing.

The question w/r/t a Palin or Gingrich is whether as the R Presidential candidate, would they be as polarizing as say Barry Goldwater in '64, where Rs lost 20% of their seats.

[ Parent ]
Others know
this stuff better than I do, but you hear that the Republicans will use their redistricting power to screw the Democrats out of a few seats in this state and the Democrats will do the same in another state, and I wonder if it evens out in the end. Right now, we need, what, 25 to 30 seats to win back the House, albeit by a small margin? That doesn't seem that hard. The seats in Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, in whatever form they take, will be competitive, but why not try to knock off a few incumbents in states where Obama is likely to do very, very well, even if it loses, like California? Lundren and Bono Mack are two easy targets, but the Democrats came very, very close to taking out McClintock in 2008. If his district doesn't make it absurdly difficult, why not give it a shot? Maybe, just maybe, Obama isn't maxed out in the non-urban areas of the state.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Cali is not Dem controlled
It is now a commission, no idea what will come out of that goat rope. Ditto for Florida pending litigation which I bet will overturn the referendum and give full control to the republicans (Why no calls of outrage from FL dems on this I have no idea).

They key to how redistricting goes will be if republicans are smart enought to temper their ambition in places like Ohio, PA & MI to protect their new incumbents rather than target current Dem districts. If the GOP overreaches there could be a big lashback similair to what happened in PA after the last gerrymander.

Since we are talking Missouri I'm curious to see how hard Nixon will fight to protect MO-3, I'm sure the GOP will want to cut up the district, putting STL city in MO-1 and the splitting up south St. Louis County, Jefferson County & St. Genievieve between the 3 neighboring districts.

I'm sure state Dems would like to see Nixon force Carnahan & Akin into one STL County district (I'd give the edge to Akin, but only very very slightly - depends on how much of St. Charles County come with him and how much goes to what is now MO-9)

[ Parent ]
I bet will overturn....
based on what evidence?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Evidence? None
But the courts have been very amenable to defending the VRA, they might throw about a particularly agregrious example of gerrymandering from time to time, but they have stood behind the legislatures (or other courts) right to draw districts to defend minority representation.
[ Parent ]
Wait wait
Some people said that FL's Prop 19 upholds VRA.  Therefore, the only Dem plaintiff, Corrinne Brown, has no reason to worry.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Do tell!
That is not what I've heard, but to be honest I hadn't paid that much attention beyond news online (FL politics only slightly less depressing to follow that Missouri).
[ Parent ]
Given CA's lean
Once the commission throws out the bipartisan incumbent protection map and redraws everything on a more fair basis, that would allow Dems to pick up 1-2 more seats than we currently have.  CA-44, Bono-Mack's district, and Lungren's district will no longer be gerrymandered to lock them in place.  Neither will the Dems districts be gerrymandered into place, but as I said, given CA's strong lean, it won't be hard for them to lose unless they get killed by some scandal.  Remember, Dems won control of every statewide office for the first time since 1861 (2003 doesn't count because the recall election cut that short), held every congressional seat and even picked up a seat in the State Assembly.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
The history of political party strength in CA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

Quite amazing that in the early 20th century, it was so heavily Republican.

But yep, so long as there are no recalls, this will be the first full 2-year cycle that we have had control over all statewide offices since 1861.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!

[ Parent ]
Yeah.
In the early 20th century, the Republican Party was actually sane. I likely would have been a Republican then. Now, fully one-fifth of California voters hate Republicans with a passion, even worse than San Francisco liberals.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I probably would be too
In the days when the Dem party was defined by people like Ben Tillman ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... ), I would be a Republican given their views on progressive reforms and ending the Gilded Age.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
San
Francisco was heavily Republican until the 60s. My AP US History teacher was alive to remember that. In fact liberal Berkeley had a Republican mayor in the 60's who joined forces with Berkeley's liberal city council to convince people in Berkeley to tax themselves in order to bury BART (our local rail system) underground in the city.

A Republican mayor advocating for a tax increase to help his city....now you don't see that anymore.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
CA was considered a Republican stronghold as late as the early '90s
Despite several close calls, Dems had failed to carry CA at any point in the last 50 years except 1964, and they consistently lost major statewide races.

Funny then, that two years later Dems would win the state comfortably and never look back.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think it matters
What Nixon wants.

The Missouri GOP has 106 house seats. Just find 4 Democrats, give them what they want, and override any veto.

[ Parent ]
Is it really that bad now?
I stopped counting after the last go around. State Dems were pretty PO'd at getting screwed so bad 10 years ago so I'm glad I won't be there to hear the whining this time.  
[ Parent ]
well
Yeah, it is.

The other option for the GOP is to simply shatter Emanuel Cleaver's 5th district and disperse his voters through 4 or 5 other districts.

Russ Carnahan is still not sitting in great territory even if you do that.

[ Parent ]
Shatter MO-5
Can you cut up MO-5 w/o violating VRA, the details are fuzzy to me since MO-5 isn't a minority majority district, but even if you could I don't see any neighboring republicans wanting KC/w. Jackson county. As much as they might hate Cleaver, Carnahan is a easier target, especially if they think (as I do) that Jefferson County is moving away from its traditional blue collar/union roots to a low income evangelical christian base with an added dose of high income (and traditionally conservative) voters moving in from St. Louis county.  Carnahan's south county base is disappearing and once the St. Louis city precincts move into MO-1 (and they must) he is a man without a district, his only change IMO is if Nixon pushes to have STL county put into 1 district w/ just enough of St. Charles county left out to give him the edge in a presidential year. I'd still have to take Akin over Carnahan is any district I can envision, plus Nixon probably like keeping Akin in the House (he'll be the chairman of the seapower subcommittee where he can protect Boeing, plus it keeps him from maybe running for governor - though if he'd be seen as a stronger contender than Kinder I have no idea).
[ Parent ]
If MO loses one seat
yes there will be 2 Dem seats after redistricting.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
I think its likely to stand.
Even if it doesn't the republicans aren't going to able to build a delegation beyond the outrageous 19-6 they have now. Either way we'll go up the question is by how much.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
I never said
California's redistricting process was controlled by Democrats. What I suggested was that we might have a shot at some of the congressional seats there unless the districts change in some way where areas of strength for Obama are out. In CA-04, the Democratic candidate came within just a few thousand votes, and while Obama actually lost the district by about ten points, it looks like it's becoming steadily more Democratic as time goes on. The same could be said for a few more districts in the state.

I doubt I am the first person to think this, but it seems like a good way to grab at least a handful of seats is to run up the totals in California and then see whom we can knock off.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Maybe
But I also feel that ticket-splitting is a whole lot less common these days when it was before. Even in 1996, Clinton didn't have huge coattails, but House Dems did manage to win the overall House popular vote AND picked up 22 seats, which on its own would've been enough to flip the House. The problem is they also lost another 13 seats of their own, mostly in the South and mostly due to retirements. We have a lot fewer potential GOP pickups now, so IF Obama can win a comfortable reelection (a big IF but certainly possible, despite the current CW), I could see it happening.

For example, if Obama can win the popular vote by 6 points or so, congressional Dems would probably win the overall House vote by 3-5 points, which would probably be enough for them to take control.  

[ Parent ]
The redistricting meme is crap, Dana Houle tweeted smartly on this topic earlier today......
Houle laid out in summary fashion that there are only a few states where the GOP can actually gain anything substantial over the current lines, and those are offset by states where Dems can gain over the current lines.

The first problem the GOP has is that they already gerrymandered a bunch of states to death in 2001.  Remember that 1994 got a lot of GOP Governors elected who served 2 terms that included the 2001 redistricting, and the GOP held the trifecta in a bunch of these same states in 2001--including purple states MI, OH, and PA among others.  In spite of this, a bunch of GOP-held seats after 2001 and now after 2010 remain purple and vulnerable, and it's tough to draw the lines much more favorably.

The 2nd problem is that the biggest population changes in many states are driven by nonwhite population growth, which helps Dems any way you slice it.  That plus VRA makes it tougher to dilute Democratic strength in redistricting.  It's a well-worn discussion here that Texas with 4 new seats will be lucky to produce a 2-2 split among them, since the population growth comes from nonwhites, and largely Hispanics.

We're going to make modest gains in 2012, enough to get back into the 200s.  Whether we do any better than that depends on the economy, any unforeseen major news events that voters care about, the choice of the GOP Presidential nominee, and how Obama and Senate Dems and the House GOP play their political cards over the next couple years.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
A lot depends on whether Talent runs or not.
He has more name ID but Steelman has more room to rise (or crash).  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
I don't know.
That could be true, so let's see how it might play out. I'm going to take Adair through Clinton Counties and give McCaskill Obama's percentages from 2008, if they are lower. If they are the same or higher, as they are in Adair county, I'll simply assume that McCaskill will get the same amount that she did in 2006. If it's lower, I will say how many votes this makes her lose. Some figures are rounded, and I don't think the third party candidates throw the numbers off that much, so if I somehow used them incorrectly, the results shouldn't be drastically different.

County: 2006 McCaskill-possible 2008 McCaskill = votes lost
Adair: same.
Andrew: 2,539-2914 = 375
Atchinson: 969-856 = 113
Audrain: 3,695-3,424 = 271
Barry: 3,903-3,519 = 384
Barton: same
Bates: 3,326-2,744 = 582
Benton: 3457-2,881 = 576
Bollinger: 1,718-1,413 = 305
Boone: same
Buchanan: 15,733-14,404 = 1,329
Butler: 4,516-3,914 = 602
Caldwell: 1,740-1,501 = 239
Callaway: 6,081-5,642 = 439
Camden: 6,448-5,697 = 751
Cape Girardeau: same
Carroll: 1,469-1,222 = 247
Carter: 935-770 = 165
Cass: 16,251-14,242 = 2,009
Cedar: 1,972-1,654 = 318
Chariton: 1,646-1,534 = 112
Christian: 9,405-8,529 = 876
Clark: 1,326-1292 = 34
Clay: 39,593-36,734 = 2,859
Clinton: 4,084-3,409 = 675

If my math is correct, that would 13,261 votes lost. That's a lot. I'm not going to do the totals for all other counties, but I assume the results would show something similar throughout the entire state, erasing all of her lead and then some.

But...let's say she did better than she did last time in St. Louis County. Instead of getting 55 percent of the vote, which gave her 226,563 votes, she would get 57 percent, meaning she'd get 234,193 votes. That's 7,630 more. If she got 60 percent of that vote, she'd 246,519 votes, or 19,956 more.

If she does substantially worse than last time in all of the counties than she did last time, she simply has to do do slightly better or match his totals in the biggest areas, and she erase a lot of her deficit. Not all of it, but a big chunk of it.

Now, let's say she loses half of her margin in some of these places from 2006. Let's take Cass and Clay Counties. If she goes from 46 percent to 43 in Cass county, instead of losing 2,009 votes, she'd have lost 941 votes instead of losing 2,009 votes. If she went from 44 to 42 percent, she'd have lost 1,502 votes instead of losing 2,859 votes. That's a substantial difference.

So, generally speaking, she just has to avoid losing all of her margin of support from the non-urban counties, and basically match Obama in the urban counties, and she should do fine.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Freshman rankings
Interesting thought that just popped into my head regarding this. We have seen PPP poll VA, MT and now MO all of which represent freshman Senators running for re-election (or at least we hope/think so). Of these 6 who are the most vulnerable?

I'll go with:

1. MO - This poll while not great definitely shows a tight race. Given that Obama didn't win it in 2008 this will be a tightly contested race in 2012. Toss up.

2. MT - I rate this as lower than MO as Tester seems to have a likeable personality with his farming background and his persona fits in well with state voters. Now how they judge his voting record and who his opponent is will be interesting factors. State will likely go Republican so he is going to need cross over voters. Bauchus hasn't had that problem so voters are not opposed to splitting their tickets. Toss up.

3. VA - If Webb runs for re-election he is going to be aided by Obama a lot. If Kaine steps in if Webb retires he is going to be aided by Obama a lot. Demographics of this state and the potential for a damaged opponent in George Allen/far right insurgent challenger (run Corey/Cooch/Bob Marshall/my dream in Dick Black run!) should help team blue. Leans Democrat for now based on the decent PPP numbers a few weeks ago. Feel free to call me out for bias here.

4. OH - Brown had a very nice margin in 2006 but just ask Ted Strickland how times can change. Surely will be a battleground state and a lot will depend upon his opponent. Brown seems likeable and I am just waiting for the advertisements of him being the most liberal Senator. Leans Democrat for now.

5. PA - Casey is a household name in the state and I hope the GOP goes hard after him thinking that they can beat him as its fools gold. Likely Democrat for now.

6. RI - unless some major scandal pops up get used to the name Senator Whitehouse. Solid Democrat.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  

Pretty much agree
Tester's good approvals were particularly encouraging in the PPP poll. They certainly have a shot at holding all six.
[ Parent ]
I feel good about VA if Allen is the candidate.
Not a lock but were probably favored. Important to remember in Ohio that Strickland orginally was running against Ken Blackwell who was regarded as an ass by a large majority of the Ohio electorate while Brown was running against DeWine who wasn't universally hated. Brown will still have a fight on his hands though.

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Strickland barely losing in the end
Makes me feel better about Brown.
[ Parent ]
yeah good point.
Also depends on the candidate I have no idea who they would put up honestly. The list is fairly large so it could anything from a strong candidate to a Ken Blackwell candidate heh.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Amazing Trifecta
Brown is also a pure populist which sells better to rural Republicans. But he won't do as well in SE Ohio without Strickland running. That pair was amazing in '06. Brown brought out labor, poor Republicans, Strickland brought out SE Ohio Dems and Evangelical Dems and Obama raised AA turnout. That was lucky.
[ Parent ]
Re: "Brown seems likeable"
You guys know better how to look this up than I do, but IIRC Sherrod Brown actually has middling favorability/approval ratings - worse than Strickland's. Am I wrong?

Assuming #5 and 6 are safe, it's Tester in MT I'm pulling for most intensely ... he's the kind of candidate in the kind of state that the Dems really need to keep and cherish.

The same, I suppose, would go for Webb, but he's just been a bit too much of an ass to my liking. Tester seems to have better walked the line between keeping his independent and local-guy / rural-cred bona fides on the one hand, while remaining a fairly strong Democratic voice who doesn't feel he needs to go on hissy fits against Obama and Pelosi to prove his indy cred on the other hand.

Just my impression, anyway. Of course I really hope Brown pulls through as well, my impression is that he's been a strong progressive with more of a working class-focused perspective than, say, the CA liberals. It's just that Ohio has been hurting in the crisis so disproportionally, and it doesn't seem first in line to benefit from a budding economic recovery either, so I don't know how tough a slog the state will be for Dems.

38, Male, SP, NL / LMP, HU

[ Parent ]
Brown is great on every issue but cap and trade/energy reform.
But that's Ohio. Regardless, none of the Senators up in 2012 seem to be too far right in their state except the one and only Joe LIeberman.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
The last poll
31-40 negative for Brown.
[ Parent ]
Was that PPP? If so, I disregard it......
I've said ad nauseum here that I don't buy PPP's consistently horrific favorables and job approvals for almost everyone they poll.  Their horse race numbers are pretty good, but they always have everyone more disliked than everyone else says.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Re: disregard
Disregard PPP's favourable numbers altogether, or just take its tendency toward lower-than-average numbers into account? Cause even if you add, say, five points to those 31-40 numbers, they're still middling to weak.

38, Male, SP, NL / LMP, HU
[ Parent ]
Here's what I would like to know:
is there a senator in the country besides Brown, Snowe, Tester, and maybe Klobuchar that is over 50 percent? It seems like everyone, in either party, is stuck around 45 percent, and those who have lower also have lower unfavorables, so that they are at something like 32/30 with the rest being undecided. If that's the case, all of the breathless panic that so-and-so is screwed is a little much, if only because everyone is in the same boat and no one party is unaffected.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Bingaman is prob.. over 50
Maybe Manchin. Probably Schumer. Certainly Inouye. Maybe Cardin? Cochran? Probably Crapo and Risch and Enzi, less like Barasso, he shouldn't be well-known enough for that yet. Johanns? Sanders? Pryor... no, probably not anymore. Certainly Thune.

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)
[ Parent ]
Those sound
like good guesses. I should have asked what incumbents that are in remotely contestable races are polling over 50 percent, or similarly, what incumbents are far worse off than any other incumbent. Nobody seems to be doing particularly well, but then, nobody seems to be doing that badly, either. Having 44 percent approval or something similar isn't great, but as long as the deficit isn't too huge, if it even exits at all, it seems like some good news could easily swing things back in the right direction. It's important to think about things like this when we hear of how awful all Democrats are doing, because it doesn't look like many Republicans are doing that much better.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
It will be close no matter what
What Claire has going for her:
* INDEPENDENTS: She has a centrist brand and narrowly wins their approval in PPP's poll 43/40.
* EARMARKS: Her crusade against them may endear her to fiscally conservative independents.
* OBAMA: He will help drive up urban turnout while she can focus on the rural areas of the state, where she did fairly well in 2006.
* GOV. NIXON: Nixon won in 2008 with 58% and also is up for reelection in 2012.
* STEELMAN: The most likely nominee today and probably the weakest. Recent loser--just lost the GOP Gov primary in 2008 after running a very negative campaign. May be too extreme for independents, especially with Claire's moderate profile.
* CAMPAIGN: Runs a fairly solid campaign, winning all of her races from State Rep, County Prosecutor, State Auditor to U.S. Senator, with the only exception--although a pretty big one--being the Governor's race in 2004, a fairly strong Republican year in MO (that same year, she became the only person to defeat a sitting MO governor in a primary). Very effective and heralded user of Twitter.

What she has going against her:
* OBAMA: One of Obama's earliest and most visible supporters, and he's fairly unpopular in MO, which he will lose by a wider margin in 2012. She has been a solid vote for his agenda.
* HEALTHCARE REFORM: She voted for HCR, and shortly thereafter Missourians overwhelming voted to reject it (by something like 75-25).
* THE BASE: She, like Obama, is a mild disappointment to the base. Enthusiasm for either of them may not be there.
* MO DEM PARTY: Some have suggested there's a rift between her and the state party over the 2004 Governor's race, which she lost after taking out the sitting Dem governor who was going to lose anyway.

If 2012 is like 2010, she loses handily, for her healthcare vote alone. If 2012 is more like 2008, she would outperform Obama and win handily. Since it's most likely to be a cross between the two, the race will probably be within 2-3%, like most statewide races are in MO. Unless Obama magically finds a way to defend his own agenda during his reelection, Claire is probably going to end up with the 49% instead of the 51%.

There is nothing magic about job creation

[ Parent ]
HCR
They "rejected" it via the primary vote that was overwhelmingly dominated by conservatives since they had actual choices to make. Blunt was about a lock but they still had other Congressional races (such as Ike's seat) and were just generally more motivated to get out and vote than Democrats were. I wouldn't doubt that HCR is a negative in MO but 75% of a negative or even close to whatever that stupid ballot imitative was I don't think so.  

28, Male, Democrat VA-08  
[ Parent ]
individual mandate
The vote in MO was only on the individual mandate, which is very unpopular. Of course, the individual mandate is necessary if you want the ban on rejecting people for preexisting conditions, which is very popular.

41, Ind, CA-05
[ Parent ]
"heardled user of twitter"
ugh I really hope an election doesn't come down to that. If anything I hope twitter is a negative as it's a brain drain on the population.  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Mmm
Just ran into Jim Talent at Lambert. Nice friendly conversation. Asked him if it was gonna be a rematch. He said he "was working through it"

http://twitter.com/clairecmc/s...

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
If health care
is going to be the biggest issue, isn't her solution to work on changing the minds of some of the voters between now and then? I wonder how many voters in Missouri are unaware of what the bill contains or confused about it in some way.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Ugh!
Health Care as an issue has already passed. No way will 2012 reflect 2010 issues. Just look at the difference between 00 & 02 (terrorism 9/11), 02 & 04 (patriotism and security), 04 & 06 (Iraq) 06 & 08 (new/ not Bush or Republican) and 08 & 10 (Health Care and jobs). No issue ever repeats!

Sorry this is just a pet peeve of mind.

The best thing McCaskill can do is push her pro-farming pro-average midwest family credentials.

And I strongly suport Talent as Republican Senate candidate. Dude has no personality and lost already. Steelman is up and coming and not the ultimate insider.

[ Parent ]
It's Missouri
the polls are going to be neck-and-neck until October of next year.
probably
november of next year.  i hear one election stayed neck and neck up until February AFTER the election.  political scientists still haven't figured out how that happened.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
That reminds me
of the line I heard from a commentator during the 2004 Democratic caucuses in Iowa: "Dick Gephardt's been polling at 20-25 percent in Iowa since 1988."

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Brown in MA
PPPolling hasn't released any numbers on the MO gubernatorial race (I think they didn't poll it), but they did just post numbers on Scott Brown.

All the people advocating going all in to save Claire and hope to try to carry the state for Obama, take a look at Scott Brown's numbers - this is what a candidate needs to survive in enemy territory.

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

You are terrible at trying to hide your affiliation

[ Parent ]
Whatever
For what it's worth I think Dems can beat Brown in MA, but it will be very tough - despite the state's strong blue hue he has amazing numbers, as PPP points out he's somehow managed to stay popular with Indy's AND get more popular with Dems without alienating his own party. If McCaskill had #s like this I'd be singing a different tune, but in the end she is too weak and Missouri is moving away from us. Maybe there is a Dem who can still win statewide in Missouri, but if there is I don't know there name.
[ Parent ]
Whatever
I don't believe you. It is absolute nonsense to write off an incumbent with even approvals and tied in polling in any state.
[ Parent ]
I disagree
I know Missouri well (and now live in Northern Virginia for good reason), McCaskill's weak, she won by virtually nothing in an amazing year, IMO even in '08 she would have lost - as did Obama in case we forgot.

Missouri is a sinkhole for Dem time and money, we'll keep going back to the well thinking the urban vote in STL & KC can carry the state - but it won't. Unless the GOP primary is a bloodbath (which I don't think it will be - I doubt Talent will run w/ Steele in) or Steelman turns out to be Angle/Miller/Buck/O'Donnell which I don't think she is - I've seen her talk and she awkward, and maybe a little weird, but she doesn't come across as an amateur or crazy.

[ Parent ]
She beat an incumbent
Those are rarely blowouts. And local knowledge does not mean you are right.
[ Parent ]
Republicans couldn't beat "Michael who???" Bennet at all in an "amazing year" for their party in 2010......
And not only couldn't they beat Harry Reid, they couldn't even keep him from breaking 50% when he had a horrific 40% job approval and was their top target.

And a nobody won 60-36 in the NH Senate race in a state where the previous several federal elections went straight Democratic.

And McCaskill herself lost only 51-49 in the 2002 Gov race in what was a terrible election for Democrats.  If Missouri is such a tough state, she should've lost by more.

This hyperfocus on victory margins is foolish nonsense, much like comparing scores in sports.  I'd be rich if I had a penny for every time someone said something like "UNI beat Iowa by a point, and we beat Iowa by 20, so we should beat UNI handily," and then we lose to UNI by 10.

Looking at past election results in individual races is the same thing.  It doesn't tell you much, you have to look at the totality of a state's voting behavior and the totality of a given candidate's electoral history.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
Agreed

[ Parent ]
Three
points is nothing?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
This will change when the dems run ads about all of Browns
opposition to popular democratic proposals and teaming up with McConnell to be a pointless roadblock. Specially if he joins the lunacy of delaying START because Wall Street and Co didn't get there precious tax cuts. I think the Dems are favored here but its to early and they can always find a way to screw it up (see Martha Coakley).  

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
PPP also has Obama matchups in MO
He's down to Romney 47-41 and down to Huckabee 49-42. He's behind Gingrich 45-44, and ahead of Palin 46-43.

Not great, but not terrible. If his numbers pick up nationally, it suggests MO should be winnable.

http://publicpolicypolling.blo...

Not to beat a dead horse
But the national picture would have to improve a shitload for Obama to make up that kind of margin, his approval ratiings are like 43% and his ballot tests are in the low/mid 40s even against the clown car of GOP potentials tested? These are very bad numbers and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change the mediocre national political/economic outlook and the demographics on the ground are going from bad to worse.

Let's just hope the numbers in OH, MI, PA, FL aren't in the same ballpark.

[ Parent ]
He is tied in NC and winning VA
Even those mean nothing really at this stage.
[ Parent ]
Obama's not winning MO, but this does prove McCaskill out-performs him a good bit
Even if he fails to break 47% here, he'll help McCaskill big time in St. Louis and Jackson. She just needs to hold-down her GOP opponent's margins in the rural areas.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
This is getting tiresome
The presidential election is in two years not tomorrow. If it was tomorrow would Obama win Missouri? Hell no! Does it mean he can't win Missouri in two years time? I say hell no to that too.
[ Parent ]
Heh everyone is a broken record on this.
But its best to be the unsure record rather then the certain beyond events record.

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
Well it is the certainty that bugs me

[ Parent ]
Wow
So here we go from bad to worse, I have it on VERY good authority (friend & neighbor who works for Heritage) says Talent is NOT running for Senate (wants to be SecDef in some future GOP administration), clearing the way for Steelman to challenge McCaskill.
Republicans who are respectful
are welcome here.

With your username, I believe that you are a Republican. If you open up and admit it, I believe you can make a positive contribution to this board. (But as I am not a moderator, that is not my call, just a personal observation.)

[ Parent ]
MO-Sen: PPP Finds Paper-Thin Margins for McCaskill | 196 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

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

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox