Google Ads


Site Stats

MO-Sen: Still a Very Tight Race for Claire McCaskill (D)

by: DavidNYC

Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 2:44 PM EST


Public Policy Polling (PDF) (3/3-6, Missouri voters, Dec. 2010 in parens):

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45 (45)
Sarah Steelman (R): 42 (44)
Undecided: 14 (12)

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45
Todd Akin (R): 44
Undecided: 11

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 46
Ed Martin (R): 40
Undecided: 14

Claire McCaskill (D-inc): 45
Ann Wagner (R): 36
Undecided: 19
(MoE: ±4%)

Tom Jensen takes the words right out of my mouth:

Less noteworthy than the difference between McCaskill's single point lead against Akin and her nine point advantage against Wagner is that McCaskill's support shows no variation from 45-46% across the four match ups. The Republicans get varying levels of support pretty much directly in line with their name recognition: 44% know Akin, 44% know Steelman, 34% know Martin, and only 26% know Wagner. The GOP field is largely anonymous at this point.

McCaskill's leads, even as small as they are, shouldn't be particularly reassuring for her. There are at least twice as many undecided Republicans as Democrats in each match up, suggesting that once the GOP candidates become better known they will probably catch up to her pretty quickly.

One thing to note, though, is that the gathering field for the GOP represents something of a B-team, especially with Akin unlikely to get in. And while the group as a whole, as Tom notes, is mostly unknown, they all have negative favorables among those who do know them, except for Steelman, who doesn't fare much better with a flat even 22-22. I think a Steelman-Martin primary could be extremely toxic, and something McCaskill has to be rooting for.

If there's a silver lining here, it's that PPP has a 38D, 37R, 25I sample. That's a lot less Dem than the 40D-34R that the 2008 exit polls had it as, but a little better than the than the 39R-37D 2006 exit polls.
DavidNYC :: MO-Sen: Still a Very Tight Race for Claire McCaskill (D)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

MO-Sen: Still a Very Tight Race for Claire McCaskill (D) | 50 comments
Independents
are an annoying bunch. What has she done to piss them off?

She's going to secure her base fairly easily, I think, and perhaps will even outperform Obama by more than two points amongst Democrats. I'm not sure why, short of some serious gaffes, she'd go any lower than him amongst Independents. Perhaps she could even outperform him amongst them. Of course, if he wins them, I have to think she does, too, even if she doesn't do a lot better.

Whatever the case, seeing numbers like this make McCaskill's moves to look like a moderate on spending look all the more obvious. If she can roughly break even with them, the Obama turnout machine will probably pull her the line. But if she can win then even by a 51 to 49 margin, she's all but assured to get a second term. She's getting about a third of them now against every opponent PPP mentioned, and as long as she gets about 40 percent of the ones that are undecided in these examples, I think she will be okay.

One thing I am not seeing mentioned very much is the presence of third-party candidates. In both 2006 and 2010, Missouri had both a Libertarian Party and a Constitution Party candidate on the ballot. In both years, these guys pulled a fairly significant percentage of the vote. Can they help her at all in 2012?  

"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?

Thank You
No matter what, thank you just for the first sentence: Independents are an annoying bunch.

Count me among the people who doesn't hold a very high opinion of independents.

[ Parent ]
She decided to be a Democrat
and vote for things.  
[ Parent ]
Heh.
The thing is, as annoying as Independents are and as much as they can move against our candidates, they can move back and be annoying to the other side. It's kind of like the contrast between a set of gerrymandered House districts and a set that is fairly designed. With the latter, since we aren't naturally screwed, we have (more of) a chance of winning.

Anyway, I think she's doing all of the right things, at least politically: she's appearing open to cuts, but she's standing up for universally popular programs, like Social Security, in an absolutist way. From a policy standpoint, it can be maddening, but again, we are talking about the politics. When she needs to air aids, she can easily get away with saying she's working to cut federal spending. She can highlight her bipartisan work on the Cap Act with Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, for instance, which should be a nice contrast to her opponent, who will probably scream about the need to never, ever work with Democrats in order to stop them.

Simply put, her numbers may be kind of bad now, but they can go up. If she's able to see slow and steady increases with Independents, she will almost certainly win.

Notice, by the way, how she's not really running against Obama and the Democratic party, but running on herself. She seems to be trying to convey the idea that she can do what voters want and what she thinks is right. By doing this, she can both secure the same voters that Obama will be getting but then have a good shot of getting more.  

"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 ]
Look at the December poll
She was in positive territory with indies then. And we are talking about a sample of just 153 people anyway. Crosstabs are often unreliable and do swing wildly back and forth from poll to poll.
[ Parent ]
Wait
She can highlight her bipartisan work on the Cap Act with Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, for instance, which should be a nice contrast to her opponent, who will probably scream about the need to never, ever work with Democrats in order to stop them.

you mean, this stuff works? Shhh, don't tell DailyKos.  

[ Parent ]
No on the third parties
If you remember, somebody leaked Carnahan talking to some donors about how she would pull out a win because of the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates on the ballot.

That did not happen. Most people note that Republicans surged last cycle, but so did third party candidates on a national scale (particularly Independents). But nobody jumps to my mind as ready with a decent campaign organization to really cause a problem for whoever the Republican is.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04

[ Parent ]
Doesn't mean the possiblitly
doesn't exist. Nothing was going to save Carnahan last year. A Libertarian and/or Constitution candidate could save Senator McCaskill even if they siphon off just 1-2%.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Exactly.


"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 ]
GOP has to be happy
McCaskill has on 36% approvalwith Independents and almost no crossover appeal.

I can't see Akin running, but Steelman or Wagner will make this extremely competitive, Marting? Maybe not.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

They are fickle and can come back.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Most candidates
don't have a lot of crossover appeal unless one party dominates the state, like in Nebraska, or unless one party and Independents make up about 40 percent each, like in Massachusetts. In most states where the D/R/I breakdown is about a third for each, each candidate seems to get about five to ten percent of the other party's vote, unless it's a blowout. Her lack of crossover appeal, therefore, is hardly anything to worry about.

Her numbers with Independents, on the other hand, could easily be something to worry about. But like the numbers show, she's getting about a third of them against each candidate. There is, in other words, a huge chunk that hasn't made up its mind. McCaskill is probably looking at similar polling, which is why she is making overtures to appeal to those outside her base.  

"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 ]
Bill Nelson would disagree
Her lack of appeal among GOPer wouldn't be a problem if she was getting Independents, a 36% approval doesn't bode well for her ability to pull a large enough number of non-Dems to win.

Not that it's impossible (I'll leave the Missouri Doooooooom to others), but she has her work cut out for her and can't just hope on a bitter GOP primary or Obama punching up turnout in STL & KC if she wants to win.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
But that's just it:
she has to improve amongst Independents, not Republicans. Her crossover appeal doesn't need to be something that excites Republicans and pisses off Democrats. In fact, I think crossover appeal, as I indicated above, is a bad phrase to use. "Appeal to Independents" or "appeal to those outside the base" is probably better.

Now, while her ratings amongst Independents isn't great, she's got room to grow. This doesn't mean she will, but she can do it if she wants to. Like I said above, she realizes that she needs to improve her, so her recent moves make a lot of sense.  

"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 ]
Fine. Let them get complacent.
They did it here 2 years ago when they thought Harry Reid was "dead meat" and anyone they ran could beat him. Remember how that went?

I'm really starting to wonder if McCaskill's reelection campaign next year will play out in a somewhat similar fashion to Reid's last year. Claire McCaskill has a reputation for being a strong campaigner, and she has been known to win some rural areas. IMHO the GOPers are being stupid if they think this poll proves they have MO-Sen in the bag.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
Happy does not equal "In the Bag"
This poll is probably exactly what they were hoping for at this point in the race. McCaskill's 36-51 disaproval with independents is about the best realistic result MO GOPers could imagine.

McCaskill certaily can get them back, and that's probably the primary focus of her next two years in the Senate and on the campaign trail, but I'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the Missouri GOP who'd look at McCaskill's numbers and not smile.

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke

[ Parent ]
Despite being behind with Independents
in approval, she still leads all of her opponents. Her leads are small, but they exist. And she has to improve very slightly to go over the minimum she needs in order to meet her goal with Independents. If she goes above that minimum just a little, she will win.

She's definitely vulnerable, but I don't see why the Republicans would becoming too happy about such results.  

"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 ]
Democratic incumbent under 50%
has to be a sign of worry.  I will not debate as to what the party ID mix will in 2012.  I can't really say yet what  it will be?  Can anyone say for sure?

 I might add in 2004 the exits were 36R-35D-28I for MO.  2004 & 2010 had great voter blends for the GOP while 2006/2008 had favorable blends for the democrats.

I might add, however, that as far as this senate race is concerned the killer number for McCaskill is the indie vote.  She trails Steelman & Akin among indies.  Plus nearly one third of the indies express no preference.  Missouri tends to be closely matched between the two parties but the candidate who wins the independent vote usually has the edge.  

The 50% rule is a fiction and irrelevant, just ask...
...a whole bunch of incumbents who won last year.

This far out a lot of voters are simply undecided or very soft in their support of a candidate.

I'm not concerned with this poll at all right now, and in fact I feel pretty good about McCaskill's chances.  Steelman and Wagner are fairly weak challengers, and McCaskill's in much stronger shape than quite a few Senators who still made it first across the finish line last year.

Obama will target Mizzou hard next year, so that will help Claire.

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

[ Parent ]
Agreed
The weakness of the challengers is what makes me think things will be okay. This poll doesn't take into account how easy it will be to do some negative campaigning against any of these opponents, and how a lot of that will drive down their poll numbers  
[ Parent ]
The other thing that matters even more is the improving economy and...
...other macropolitical factors that change voter mood en masse.

I'm clinging to that incredible news from last week as the best economic news in years.  Not just unemployment dropping below 9% for the first time in 3 years, and not even just the job growth numbers, but also the weekly initial jobless claims drop to a record-low level...and that number of 366K is down into serious job growth territory.

I realize people are scared of oil prices right now and whatnot, but I'm confident that crap is fleeting.  The Middle Eastern popular uprisings will all resolve themselves some way or another before Republicans caucus in Iowa.

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

[ Parent ]
Economy
Yeah, this is one of thos races where I'd be pretty confident that if the recovery picks up steam enough to allow Obama to win then McCaskill should be fine.
[ Parent ]
As far as the last line is concerned
With a reforming RNC and an invigorated Crossroads/GPS, I don't see any way that Republicans will not target Missouri either. So I don't think we will see which states the presidential candidates target as making that much of a difference.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04
[ Parent ]
Republicans have nothing to match Obama's organization......
Obama's campaign is the gold standard.

Your side decayed badly after 2004.

And some 527 group is not going to be able to compete with Obama in fundraising or field.

That Mizzou will be targeted by both sides is always true, always has been, so that's not news.  The point is that Democrats will have an organizational advantage over Republicans in all battleground states.

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

[ Parent ]
Right...
And any Republican organization that exists will motivate voters who already come out each election.

Obama's organization will engage less frequent voters, providing a much greater return on investment.

[ Parent ]
It's also a matter
of what counties are being targeted. This is a simplified example, but there's a big difference between a one percent increase in votes in a county where 10,000 people vote and one where 100,000 people vote. There are almost certainly more potential voters in the Democratic strongholds, so meeting it not easily surpassing totals from non-urban counties isn't as hard as it seems. And if the Democrats are holding their own in the rural counties, it seems like it's impossible for Republicans to catch 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 ]
I wouldn't Go That Far
This isn't as true as it is in Europe, but the presence of local officials whether legislators or county clerks, or sheriffs plays a huge role in down-ballot organization. And in the south and Midwest they were exterminated last year. Not beaten, exterminated, far worse than anything that happened in the national house races., There is zero Democratic presence on the ground in large parts of Missouri now.

Obama is not going to fix it. Undoubtedly he will overall have a better organization, but the organization is limited by Obama's limited appeal. He will be an asset in St. Louis and Kansas City, but there are large parts of the state where the presence of Obama campaign workers and volunteers will hurt Democrats far more than it helps. Obama's money and organization are an asset. Obama's appeal, demographically, is a liability where a lot of races are going to be fought.

What the Democrats need is to rebuild state parties, and Obama has showed little interest in that. The Obama machine is about Obama, and no one else, and I would not expect that to change next year if it hasn't yet.

26 Right-leaning, Euro-Conservative, Anti-Tea Party Independent

[ Parent ]
A few things:
1. In the large parts of Missouri, and in others states, where there's little to no Democratic presence, how much was there before this past election? If there wasn't much to begin with, having little to nothing left might not be a hindrance. Besides, what will McCaskill do?

By the way, which counties are you specifically talking about?

2. His appeal might be limited in such areas, but it's important to consider the size of such areas and how relatively well he needs to do. Some of these counties in Missouri are so damn small that they have less than 10,000 voters. In fact, the majority of them don't seem to have more than 25,000 people voting in each election. There's a limit to how many more votes the Republicans can get from such counties and/or how many the Democrats can lose. There's also a natural base in each county, even if it's very tiny.

3. I'm not sure what leads you to believe that the presence of a campaign will hurt more than it helps. How many people will seriously be motivated to vote against Obama because they are approached by his staff or see his campaign in some other way? Aren't the people that are consumed by such dislike already pumped up to vote against him? When you say this, I am curious whether you are speaking from the point of research or the point of experience.

I go back and forth with this notion, but it doesn't seem so outrageous for the campaign to take a laser like focus to the very small counties to find every last vote. It won't be that many, and the Republicans will surely do the same, but if they are finding one extra vote in the smaller counties for every five or six extra votes in the bigger counties, it places a limit on how much damage the Republicans can do. It might seem like a waste to troll for an extra 50 to 100 votes in each of these small counties, but any Obama voter is almost certainly going to vote for McCaskill. They will have the money to do so, so why the hell not?

4. As far as state party building, I've heard some people say this, but I've also heard the opposite. I'm not sure what leads you to think he's done nothing to help with this, but that could easily be an issue of my own lack of knowledge.

Besides, even if it is true, what's to prevent them from investing money to rebuild the party in the places they were exterminated? Even if the campaign is a little bit cultish, it's not run by dumb people. They know that  the Democrats in control of congress is key to getting anything done.  

"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 ]
Benjamin your comments there are hyperbolic and absurd......
Missouri has plenty of strong state and local Democratic infrastructure for organizing, as do all the Midwestern states.  One bad election didn't change that, and no, nothing close to "extermination" happened.  The Midwest wasn't, and isn't, the Deep South.

Dems have a lot of incumbents on the ballot next year locally, and at the top there are a popular incumbent Democratic Governor and an incumbent Democratic Senator both working in tandem with the President.

And the last couple Presidential cycles have proven that a strong and well-run top-down operation run directly by the Presidential campaign overwhelms all else.  Bush '04 and Obama '08 both proved that point.

There is going to be a stronger Democratic machine in Missouri than a Republican machine.

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

[ Parent ]
Partial agreement
Yes, Obama has one hell of a campaign operation. Nobody is going to dispute that, and I think the numbers showing his stronger performance in states he contested would give that a bit of credibility.

That being said, the McCain campaign was overwhelmed on a number of fronts, in both finances and volunteers. So I think the combination of groups like FreedomWorks with strong volunteers, Crossroads/GPS with massive financing and the traditional party apparatus means that the organization will be stronger than 2008, when McCain still managed to carry the state.

That doesn't mean Obama could not win the state- only that it would be because of some change in environment or some shift in his positions (like his embrace of the center since the SotU). Similarily, McCaskill won't be particularly helped because of the campaign operation to the extent she would have been in 2008.

19, Male, libertarian Republican, TX-14 and MN-04

[ Parent ]
FreedomWorks and Crossroads GPS
To what extent can FreedomWorks and Crossroads GPS do ground game activities? Crossroads seems to do mostly radio ads, and while FreedomWorks supposedly tries to do mobilization stuff, it's not clear what it can do with specific campaigns, if it can do anything at all. I mean, at what point does what they do constitute collusion between an outside group and a campaign? If these groups do mostly ads, their effectiveness and reach will be limited. Ad spending is important, but it's hardly everything. I doubt there's anything that can substitute for a campaign making its own decisions.

It's also important to consider that the Obama campaign and Democrats in general will have just as many outside groups supporting its efforts.  

"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 ]
50% rule is overrated
It is most certainly a sign of weakness, but not a death sentence either. MmCaskill has to broaden her appeal beyong Dems and there doesn't seem to be much firtile group with GOPers so expect her to be Mrs. Independent the next two years as she reaches out to unaffiliated voters (who are NOT moderates BTW).

"Earnestness is stupidity sent to college"
P. J. O'Rourke
[ Parent ]
I don't quote the 50% rule as a sign that
McCaskill is doomed. Any incumbent under 50% is done--No thats not my point.  Is she in trouble or in a competitive race-goes without saying.  That's my point.  Any incumbent like Casey, or Beshear or Tester or whoever whose polling shows them under 50% to re-elect cannot take their race for granted.  Yup even Kohl, at 49-43, is not totally secure.  

20 months or so before an election, however, if Claire M. was over 50% against her all of her foes then that might be a signal that she had clear sailing.  

I can't recall how the top of my head all the recent polls but I believe Webb (not running) , Nelson & Nelson, Menendez, Casey, Brown, Stabenow, Kohl, McCaskill and Tester are among the ones I have seen where incumbents were polling under 50%.  I am saying they will lose but  they will likely  be in competitive races.  

[ Parent ]
How low can she go?
What's the absolute lowest that she can go with Independents? I would think it's around 45 percent.

To elaborate a little with what I described above, let's use the D/R/I breakdown that PPP has, which is 38/37/25. If she gets 95 percent of Democrats, eight percent of Republicans, and 45 percent of Independents, she'd get 50.31 percent in a two-man race.

But again, there will be third-party candidates. It's hard to say exactly how they will factor in, of course. Supposedly, these guys don't really pull many votes from the major party candidates, but surely they pull some. Can the political science students here tell me anything about how this works in Missouri, if they know?  

"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 ]
there's also the split govt risk
as jensen noted in their VA poll, some indies might just want to keep Obama, but give the republicans both chambers of congress.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
I have a feeling 2012 Pres will be like 2010 NY-GOV
The GOP will nominate someone who excites the base, but utterly bombs with indies/moderates, but the with a centrist leading the ticket for the dems, no one will be pushing a narrative that encourages party line voting and the GOP will do well in the House and Senate races, despite losing in a 1964 style landslide.

28, Unenrolled, MA-08
[ Parent ]
I disagree.
I think it's important to consider each set of races differently. Right now, the Democrats control most of the senate seats that could be competitive. If Obama's leading the top of the ticket and does well, it's likely they all win. If he wins in a 1964-style landslide, they probably do as well. But still, the numbers probably don't go up, unless we catch a few breaks in states like North Dakota and Nebraska, or see incumbents fall in states like Maine and Indiana, or see some real luck in a state like Texas or Tennessee. Perhaps it's a combination of those things. It's certainly possible for us to go up slightly, even if we lose both Nebraska and North Dakota, but huge gains are probably out of the question just based on what seats are up. In the House, it's possible that the Republicans could still end up in control despite a huge win by Obama, especially if we are screwed everywhere in redistricting. But if they do, it could easily be very, very close. I find it hard to believe that in a 1964-style landslide, he won't be able to pull one or two Democrats over the hump in key states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.  

"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 ]
Well then they deserve endless gridlock
I really hate people who split their ticket and then complain about gridlock...I mean what did they think was going to happen?

[ Parent ]
McCaskill's my favorite senator, so it pains me that I'm not feeling great about this
The GOP field here is actually rather mediocre, but, besides the gubernatorial race, Missouri doesn't strike me as prime Dem territory for 2012. I think Obama will probably lose here by high single-digits (to a competent candidate, that is), while McCaskill outperforms him about about 3-5%. 45% just isn't a hot approval for an incumbent Democrat in a pink state, and the crosstabs are atrocious. She's already shored-up Democrats and the Independents who approve of her. To win, she'll need some Indies who disapprove of her, and, unfortunately, Indies who are in a vote-splitting mood have Jay Nixon to go for.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
Crosstabs are not atrocious
They are a problem but indies are notoriously fickle. Notice McCaskill had net positive approval with unaffiliated voters in the December poll and was ahead against Steelman and tied with Talent with indies.
[ Parent ]
She's in a good position
She's remained the same, while her most potential opponent has dropped a couple of points. 45% is her base number, which is 4-6% off what she would need to win (49% can be a winning number).

The over 50% rule is a bit overstated when it comes to these things, even candidates in bluer states sometimes hover below 50% and still can pull out a victory. A plurality lead still counts for something.

Now, as for crossovers, these are the factors. The campaigns hasn't started, McCaskill can make up ground then. Second, it depends on if the GOP nominee is the type who can get crossover votes. If Obama has another strong showing, then McCaskill will obviously outperform that. It's hard to see anyone voting for Obama and not McCaskill, so the Republican nominee certainly can't count on votes like that.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.

Honestly, I thought McCaskill...
Would have worse numbers. This is a pleasant surprise for me. If she's already around 45%, she only needs another 5% to guarantee victory.

And if MO GOPers nominate a crazy teabagger for MO-Sen, then there's no way in hell any Obama voters will be crossing over and splitting tickets for that.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
McCaskill will outperform Obama
In all likelihood she will need support from people voting Republican for president to win.
[ Parent ]
It's Missouri
it'll be tied from now until October of next year.
Probably
Though we all thought that last cycle too.
[ Parent ]
Last cycle is a completely
different beast from this cycle.

19, Self Appointed Chair of the SSP Gay Caucus (I claimed it first :p), male, Dem, IN-09 (College IN-09) (Raised IL-03, IL-09)
[ Parent ]
Last cycle was a midterm...
And not just any midterm, but a midterm with a very hostile national climate.

Next year will likely be different just because next year is a Presidential year. Add to that Obama's improving reelection numbers and the improving economy, and at the very least Missouri should be super close for President. That alone will help McCaskill.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE progressives in Nevada!
24, gay male, Democrat, NV-03 (or 04?)

[ Parent ]
I agree.
I'd imagine most of the ticket splitters will come from the rural counties. Meanwhile, a huge number of Obama/McCaskill voters will be in the urban counties.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think that their totals will be closer than I previously imagined. As much as keeping the margins down in the rural counties is important, it's just as important, if not more so, to rack up totals in the urban counties.

Consider the following. In 2008, in Jackson County, Obama received 210,824 votes, or 62.14 percent of the vote. Had he received just one percent more, he would have received 214,213, a difference of 3,389. In St. Louis County, he received 333,123 votes, or 59.50 percent. With one percent more, he would have received 338,711, a difference of 5,577. Those 8,966 votes would have turned a loss of .13 percent into a victory by .74 (Obama at 49.66 and McCain at 48.92 percent). That's hardly huge, but it's a victory.

Basically, if they can get up to 65 percent in both Jackson and St. Louis County, I think both should win.


"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 ]
Good news for McCaskill
No way to spin it, the Republicans are not popular, and any primary will just lead to whoever runs having worse favorables.

It's Missouri so it will always be essentially a tossup, but a competitive primary between not-liked candidates is pretty bad news for Republicans.  

I agree with the others who have said
that these numbers actually don't look bad at all for her.  This one is probably going to stay really close right up through next November, but I'm pretty confident she can pull it out.  Senator McCaskill is a tough, seasoned campaigner who gave as good as she got in a pretty brutal race against Jim Talent, didn't really got too blown out in the rural areas, and got the base out in KC and STL.
MO-Sen: Still a Very Tight Race for Claire McCaskill (D) | 50 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:

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