Swing State Project

« Murtha's Band of Brothers Falls In | Main | Weekly Open Thread: What Races Are You Interested In? »

Sunday, January 22, 2006

MO-Sen: McCaskill Leads Talent

Posted by DavidNYC

A new poll from Research 2000 (likely voters, no trendlines):

McCaskill: 47
Talent: 44
Undecided: 9
(MoE: ±3.5%)

The partisan split is just about equal (around 80% of Republicans and Democrats support their party's candidate). The real issue is that independents favor McCaskill by a considerable margin, 50-41. Given McCaskill's consistently strong poll showings, Talent is probably right at the top of the second tier of vulnerable GOP incumbents. The 4Q fundraising numbers will be of especial interest in this race.

Research 2000 also tested MO-Gov, and showed Democratic AG Jay Nixon leading Republican incumbent Matt Blunt, 51-43. Unfortunately, Blunt is not up for re-election until 2008, so any poll here is just way too early. But Blunt, like his father (possibly Majority Leader Roy Blunt), is tainted by corruption and may face a desultory several years as governor (much like Ernie Fletcher in neighboring Kentucky).

(Thanks to hilltopper.)

Posted at 10:01 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Missouri | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2103

Comments

I am not from Missouri and have no hands on feel of what the political climate like is there so if anyone needs to correct me, feel free to do so, but it seems the me the way to win Missouri is to hit the St. Louis suburbs and the towns like Spingield, Independence, and Columbia hard. I never understand why Democrats don't do more campaigning in small towns. Places like Branson and St. Joseph may not have a lot of citizens but a Republican who meets the democratic candidate is twice as likley to vote for the Democrat than an Independent who just sees the Democrat on TV.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at January 22, 2006 10:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yeah, It's unfortunate that my Governor is going to be Matt Blunt until 2009.

I don't know enough about Jay Nixon's statewide skills to be comfortable with him yet. His only comparable statewide races are the 1988 and 1998 Senate races. I don't know a lot of details on the 1988 race (which he lost 68-32 to Danforth). But his 1998 race was apparently marked by various bloopers and by St. Louis Democrats voting for Kit Bond out of animosity towards Nixon.

But from what I hear, Nixon doesn't have unresolved feuds with the Clays anymore.

When it comes down to it, I hope Jay Nixon can be the first good Governor since Mel Carnahan. (Sorry Roger Wilson fans, He did serve around 2 months and all, but I'm overlooking him).

And in 2008, I hope that Jay Nixon can send Matt Blunt back to Springfield (which is the place he lives, instead of Jefferson City)

As for the Senate Race: Talent's donation messege is "Claire is supported by Kerry, Schumer, and George Soros" (I ended up on his mailing list somehow, because I signed up for RNC e-mails as comic relief)

Talent is sorta running as an imcumbent, but you could never guess it if you heard his "I'm going to work to change Washington" line.

Yes, Jim Talent, the guy who served in the House for 8 years and has been in the Senate since November 2002, is walking about how he is working to change Washington right now.

Jim Talent isn't totally formidible yet (but tougher than in 2000 where he lost to Bob Holden and 2002 where he defeated Jean Carnahan).. but you all know why he's running as an "Incumbent for Change"

And this is a real line from Jim Talent's e-mail of December 30th, 2005: "During my time in the Senate, I have helped bring change to Washington"

All I gotta say when it comes to Jim Talent talking reform is "SHOW ME!"

Posted by: RBH at January 22, 2006 10:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"the way to win Missouri is to hit the St. Louis suburbs"

That is being done, St. Louis is moving in our direction and it's sorta making up for the losses with rural voters.

"and the towns like Spingield, Independence, and Columbia hard."

Springfield is the epicenter of the Missouri Republican Party. So that's a pretty ambitious idea.

Springfield is bluer than Joplin though.

Independence is bluer than the other parts of Eastern Jackson County.

Columbia is pretty blue too (University of Missouri)

2/3rds of people in Missouri live in 15 counties, the other 1/3rd live in the other 100 counties.

"I never understand why Democrats don't do more campaigning in small towns"

I'm sure it still happens here. It's not like the entire plan is "go from KC to STL to KC"

"Places like Branson and St. Joseph may not have a lot of citizens"

St. Joseph is pretty big by Missouri standards. I'm pretty sure it's on the top 10 when it comes to cities by population.

Branson only has 6K people, and would be a lower priority than a place like Joplin/Carthage. Although Branson is in a place that has voted for Republicans for around 100 years straight.

"but a Republican who meets the democratic candidate is twice as likley to vote for the Democrat than an Independent who just sees the Democrat on TV."

Yeah, letting people meet you is a good idea, especially when it comes to dispelling some of the stigmas against the current Missouri Democratic Party.

Posted by: RBH at January 22, 2006 10:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think the embryonic stem cell issue will help us with independent suburbanites that lean for the fiscally conservative and are very socially progressive or at the very least tolerant. I grew up in rural democratic missouri. As democrats moved more toward all encompassing social issues and tried to push good, social, urban neighbor policy on rural folks that want help when they need help not force your greenpeace, gay stuff down their throat, they fled in mass and it is very hard for a progressive, which are mostly dems, to get any traction rurally. I hope Dems here locally and nationally show the class warfare being pushed by the republicans, we are always being accused of going after the rich to pay for stuff, why not show how they are protecting the rich from the same taxes we pay, or crafting legislation to exempt their rich guy but do nothing to help or exempt the little guy.

Posted by: Kyle SF at January 22, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

"Rural Democratic Missouri" could mean anywhere between KC and St. Louis (other than Southwest Missouri)

The fall in percentages for Democrats in places like "Little Dixie" (Northeast Missouri) is pretty bad.

Right now, the split in the state House is around 98/65, and it's 23/11 in the Senate. What really decimated the Missouri Democratic party in the State legislature was Term Limits.

Nationally, there's been a pretty visable move of rural votes to the GOP, and that is in higher numbers than the suburban move to the Democrats in St. Louis.

Statewide, there's still a pretty reliable base. Mark Powell was a treasurer candidate who didn't have any money to really spend, and he only lost 51-46 to Sarah Steelman. Bekki Cook came extremely close to beating Peter Kinder too.

We can only hope that the Roger Wilson-led Missouri Democratic Party is getting stronger, so they can keep moving forward after Blunt has been booted.

Posted by: RBH at January 23, 2006 12:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

the key to this race is ca1lway, cole, cooper, boone, howard, audrain, randolph, jefferson, monitaue, and the boot hill this is where the race is going to be decide. because of talent taking votes away in the st louis area but this will be offset by McCaskill gain in the kanse city area.

Posted by: boblobster at January 23, 2006 01:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Actually, Talent narrowly lost St. Louis County in 2000 and 2002. But he's definately in a position to do better in the County than anybody else. (In 2000, out of all Republicans running statewide, he had the second highest percentage with 48% [behind Blunt who got 49% over Gaw] and in 2002, Talent got 47.5%)

Although Claire got 51% in the non-KC part of Jackson County (for some reason, Missouri's SOS site has separate results for Kansas City and Jackson county), and Claire's showing beat Kerry's non-KC JaCo showing by 5.7 percentage points. It shouldn't surprise you to know that Claire won Kansas City by a 76/23 margin in 2004.

The differences between McCaskill/Blunt and McCaskill/Talent will include:

#1 - Southwest Missouri will still go to Talent, but not by the huge margins which they went to Blunt.

#2 - Talent will top Blunt's 44% in St. Louis County.

As for counties to target, here's a few which were close in the McCaskill/Blunt race which are reasonably large: Clay (52/47 McCaskill), Jefferson (Claire won by 18 votes), Boone (51/47 McCaskill), Cass (54/45 Blunt), and Buchanan (50/48 Blunt). As for the smaller counties, it'll be important to improve on the margins there. Remember that 15/100 thing I mentioned with the counties? McCaskill did pretty well in the top 15 (then again, every Democrat does), and she only got 38% in the bottom 100. Although, other counties that will be important for a close race include places like Ray and Saline counties.

Actually, I think that Missouri state law requires at least one very close election every few years. In 2000, it was Holden/Talent (Holden by 21,445). In 2002, it was Carnahan/Talent (Talent by 21,254). And my bets are that the Senate race is closer than the State Auditor's race.

Posted by: RBH at January 23, 2006 08:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Really nice to see McCaskill leading Talent in a non-Rasmussen Poll. I was always a little leery about the consistent McCaskill leads in those Rasmussen polls. Their validation by Research 2000 is encouraging.

Bill Clinton twice won a number of dirt-poor counties in northern Missouri. It strikes me that the Democrats should focus more in that region. And Columbia and St. Joseph are both in swing counties that are trending Republican. The Dems need to stop this hemorrhage if they have a prayer of winning statewide. Most of Southern Missouri seems hopeless, particularly in Blunt country.

Posted by: Mark at January 23, 2006 08:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Bill Clinton did pick up a lot of rural counties. Although most of them were with less than a majority. And the rural percentages have went up for the GOP.

Southern Missouri isn't totally Blunt County. Southwest Missouri is Blunt county. Southeast Missouri includes the Boothill, which goes for statewide Democrats, and some other friendly areas.

Posted by: RBH at January 23, 2006 09:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment