Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

MO: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 12/15)


Rasmussen
12/15/09; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Missouri

2010 Senate
46% Carnahan, 44% Blunt (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Roy Blunt (R): 50 / 43
Robin Carnahan (D): 51 / 43

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 47 / 53 (chart)
Gov. Nixon: 63 / 33 (chart)

 

Comments
Mark in LA:

Missouri is a traditional bell-weather.
From my perspective, this will be the most interesting race in 2010. If Carnahan can pull this one off, my guess is that nationwide, Democratic losses will be on the low end.
If Blount wins, Democratic losses could range from minor to major. The margin of victory would say a lot.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

These numbers aren't bad considering this is Missouri and this is a Rasmussen poll. I think Carnahan will win unless conservadems screw up the health care bill. I predict that if Lieberman, Nelson and other conservadems don't come together soon with the rest of the Democrats it will be obvious they are being paid off by the GOP.

____________________

Stillow:

It is a bell weather, but the Carnahan family is a dynasty in MO. Its like being a Kennedy in MA. If Carnahan only wins by 2 then Dem losses will be huge...and if Blunt somehow pulls off the upset, well, we might see Carville on TV again with a paper sack on his head.

Knocking off a Carnahan in MO, that would be a huge upset.

____________________

Stillow:

Farleftandproud

Uhhh, you hav eit backward. Conservadems may very well save some of your candidates in 2010. Its a liberal left wing fringe myth that the 94 GOP wave was caused by failure to pass HCR.....you guys got your butt kicked in 94 because you TRIED passing an unpopular bill....It wasn't failure in 93 that lead tol the GOP wave in 94, it was your near success that scared the country to death, just like whats going on now where every poll shows us people do not want the left wing kool aid.

____________________

Mark in LA:

"if Carnahan only wins by 2 then Dem losses will be huge."
Are you willing to stake your credibility on this Stillow? If so, please define "huge" in terms of how many House and Senate seats you are predicting we will lose, assuming Carnahan wins by 2.
I generally try to avoid very specific predictions unless I am pretty confident. And when I am pretty confident, my predictions have come out pretty good.
But if I were to confidently make specific predictions that were continuously wrong, that wouldn't speak well to my credibility - now would it?
Since you Stillow - are willing to go on record, please elaborate further and we'll come back to your predictions next November.

____________________

platanoman:

"It is a bell weather, but the Carnahan family is a dynasty in MO. Its like being a Kennedy in MA. If Carnahan only wins by 2 then Dem losses will be huge"

Spoken like a true hack. I guess Blunt being a GOP leader and his son, Matt being governor of the state is chop liver.

____________________

Xenobion:

I pretend to know about MO politics... but I really don't...

____________________

Stillow:

Mark in LA:

Ya'll called me crazy too when I predicted Christie to win by 4.....I'm already on record o nthis site. In 2010 I see the GOP picking up a "minimum" of 25 House seats and 6 Senate seats....I think its probably for the GOP tp pick up 40 House seats and 8 senate seats.

Put me on any record you wish.

____________________

Stillow:

X - take out the MO in yourstatement and I think your on track........ :)

____________________

Xenobion:

Considering I was mocking you I could do that Stillow! Your wish is my command! :)

____________________

platanoman:

8 senate seats? As of December 10, Cook Report have 10 tossups in the Senate - 6 Dems and 4 Republicans. I think Dems can win in MO and OH. So where is the 8 seat pick up?

____________________

platanoman:

Mark in LA, he also predicted a Doug Hoffman win. He was very confidant of that.

____________________

Bigmike:

I know just a little about MO politics having lived there for about 30 years. I moved away, just across the border, for a job about 15 years ago and have not followed MO politics too closely in that time. In my younger days I was something of a political activist in MO. In the Democratic party, believe it or not. Supporting my local blue dogs.

It was for many years, and maybe still is, a bellweather because the mix of urban vs rural, percent of minorities, median income, etc were all about the same as the national average.

In general, you have the more liberal KC and StL areas and the more conservative rest of the state. But the KC liberal faction and the StL liberal faction are often at odds. Same with the conservatives. Poorer evangelicals in the south and somewhat wealthier farmers in the north. My old home district was a rural area but had, and still has, a blue dog Dem congressman. I know many conservative Republicans who vote for him every two years because he serves the district well and has never had any negative press for things like character issues.

The Carnahans are a mini dynasty. Not on the same level as the Kennedys. It would not be a huge upset for Robin Carnahan to get beat. But it won't be easy to do. Family connections equals campaign cash.

____________________

Stillow:

X - I know....your a good democrat though cus at least you have a sense of humor.

platanoman

MO is the only state I see as flipping blue maybe. I thin kthe GOP hold OH, FL and NH.

I see the GOP picking up:

NV, ND, AR, PA, DE, CT, CO, IL

I think if the anti Dem trend continues and grows as I think it will IMO, the GOp also have real shots at CA, WA, and OR.

All my opinion on what I see. I was around and voted in 94 and I see very very similar trends.

____________________

Stillow:

I also think Rudy is playing a little cat and mouse and he will run for the Senate....if he does put NY is the very likely GOP pickup column.

____________________

Xenobion:

Rudy might be the security advisor/consultant for Rio Olympics, I'm curious what he'll do as well.

CA, WA, and OR are WAYYYYYY longshots for GOP. Cantwell and Murry are overwhelmingly popular in WA. Cantwell the weaker of the 2 has no competition. Wyden and Merkley for OR are hard too especially since Merkley unseated a republican that was very popular and was Obama's token bipart republican. Fienstien and Boxer continue to poll well in CA despite all the problems there.

I suspect Dem wins in DE, MO, CO (hard fought), IL, OH (if Bunner wins primary), NH effectively having the Dems lose 1 or 2 seats in the Senate. Very conservative loss for the Dems overall. Reid will probably be out, Dodd too but that will be seen as a big victory for Republicans...

____________________

Stillow:

Well we have a whole year to bicker about it and pick apart polling on all these races.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Getting back to Stillow's questions, he is correct about the conservadems saving the Dems, only if we can come together to sign a healthcare bill. If the conservadems screw it up for the Dems, the turnout among progressives would be terrible in 2010, making it a good Republican year. I do have to say that Clinton was more liberal by the standards of 1993 and 94 than Obama is today. Clinton had no republicans advising him in his administration and he had a few catastrophe's like Waco, Ruby Ridge that were clearly angering many Americans who fear government control. Clinton also passed an assault weapons ban which I don't anticipate banning it. The issues for the Dems this time around that are problematic is the civil infighting within the party; the lefties and the conservadems can't find common ground on anything, and the other factor will be whether or not the job picture improves.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I wanted to ad that the health care polls on health care are not very accurate. Most Americans want health care reform and keeping the system as it is not an option. Many conservatives could regret fighting this reform now when they may have a healthcare crisis and fall upon hard times and not be able to pay for their care. Falling on hard times can make the most stubborn of us change our minds. The left has added to these opposed to the watered down version of health care reform lacking the public option. Just like so many other things, politicians waste so much time arguing and trying to please their own party and supporters, that they forget about the millions of Americans who are uninsured. The status quo is not acceptable but only in America would the politicians put a price tag on people's lives, and a price tag on insuring at least 35 million Americans who don't get coverage. Before we can solve this problem that was solved years ago in nearly 50 other nations, our nation will go bankrupt if healthcare isn't fixed this year.

____________________

IdahoMulato:

@Stillow ... "I see the GOP picking up: NV, ND, AR, PA, DE, CT, CO, IL"
It's not going to happen. No way GOP is going to win DE, PA, ND and IL. Maybe they may squeak out CT, AR and AR if they fail to pass the healthcare bill.

____________________

Stillow:

Farleftandproud

That is not really accurate. Over 80 percent of Americans are perfectly happy with there existing coverage. Polls also show...and I beelive the average is now at 61 percent do not like the HCR changes that the Dems are pushing. Do people want reofrm, ye they do. But they want reform that makes sense and actually does some good. What the Dems are pushing is a disaster, the people know it and support for it trickles down each week.

HCR has lead to the resurgence of the GOP and its conservative base. The energy and desire to vote is defiantely with the right in this country right now. We saw this manifest itself in VA and NJ.

Its very lcear what will happen now. The Dems have locked themselves into a lose-lose position.....if they pass HCR, it will anger the right and the Indy's in this country will will cost them big in 2010. If they do not pass it, it will tick off the liberals which will cost them big in 2010. They cannot win now. Obama has united the GOP and divided the Dems. He has had the same effect as Bush had, but the parties are swapped.

Our economy is in recession and our g'ment is engaged in totally out of control spending....the Dems have set themselves up for a very very hard fall.

Idaho - DE, Castle polls very very well. PA, spector has major issues, the energy will be with Toomey. Spector has to somehow energzie a Dem base that spent years voting against him to suddenly go vote for him. His turn out will be low. ND, the GOP is going to convince Hoevan to run, if he does he will crush Dorgan, espeically if Dorgan votes for HCR in conservative ND. IL, early polls show Kirk doing very very well here, Kirk is a moderate republican who can very well pick this seat up in an anti Dem year which is what 2010 is shaping up to be.
As far as AR and CO, if they do pass HCR, those states will 100 percent go to the GOP....if Lincoln chooses not to support HCR, she will have a small chance of winning.

____________________

saywhat90:

The assumption that the hcr plan is opposed becuase it is a bad plan is ridiculous. Some may oppose because they don't think it is time to do helath care reform Some may oppse it because they don't like the fact there is no public option. Or some may oppose it becuase there is no medicare expansion provision in it. Progressive may now be joining the chorus of those who oppose the bill because it doesn't have what they like. And finally there are too many other things going on besides health care to say it is the reason why the dems are in trouble politically. The jobs market is still a problem, economy is stable barely, and some people are still upset about the deficit. Although it started last year it is still Obama's and the dems problem to fix. If they do then the election could very tip in there favor even if they fail at hcr. We have a long way to go before november. So I wouldn't be writing anything in stone.

____________________

Stillow:

With all due respect, its a liberal myth that some of HCR opposiition is because the bill is not liberal enough. Its part fo the same liberal myth that the reason Dems got killed in 94 was because HCR failed....when of course hte oppositee is true in both cases.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR