Articles and Analysis


MO: 2010 Sen (Rasmussen 2/10)

Topics: poll

2/10/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)


2010 Senate
49% Blunt, 42% Carnahan (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Roy Blunt: 54 / 40
Robin Carnahan: 49 / 45

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 40 / 59 (chart)
Gov. Nixon: 56 / 41 (chart)



Well, polls like these are perfect examples why the Democrats are losing their faithful supporters. They aren't delivering. I am beginning to wonder if Obama should just scrap bi-partisanship in the next few months. I personally feel let down because health care had been huge issues for the president. Rasmussen has probably discounted these young progressives as unlikely voters. They will be correct if Harry Reid, Pelosi and Obama start acting like they are the majority party.



Leaves me to wonder whether Mass was completely Coakley's fault or the fact that democrats in the senate have spent a year bickering and mass residents said why send another democrat to the senate when all they do is nothing.



Coakley was a horrible candidate. A my Mass friends called her Lizard Lips. This race is comepetitive as MO ones always are.



You guys are still playing the bad candidiate thing? The new Dem talking point to explain any and all losses seems to be to blame the candidiate, not the message.

I for one love that strategy!



"They aren't delivering. I am beginning to wonder if Obama should just scrap bi-partisanship in the next few months."

That's the whole problem FL&P, there's been no bi-partisanship at all. Look at all the bumps the President has gotten over the past year, they've come when he's been out promising bi-partisanship. But the American public aren't stupid. They're willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt, but when he doesn't produce on his rhetoric his approvals continue to sink.



Obama's approvals will continue to sink as long as he continues doing nothing. As horrible of a president as GWB was, he got a lot done. If George Bush wanted a bill past Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist would hand it to him on a silver platter. Instead Obama just continue to let every bill fail with Harry "do nothing" Reid. This is why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary.



"If George Bush wanted a bill past Dennis Hastert and Bill Frist would hand it to him on a silver platter."

I don't think it was that easy for him. Recall the massive failures on social security and immigration, and immigration was due primarily to opposition from his own party. A big thing in his first term was energy, and a comprehensive energy bill was never passed. Medicare part D only passed the house by one vote and only 61 votes in the senate for cloture. CAFTA also only passed the house with a couple votes.

He got a lot of terrorism related things through. It was hard for anyone to argue against that in the wake of 9/11.

It does seem like Bush was somewhat more successful dealing with the Senate than Obama has been. The senate was somewhat different under Bush, though - there were a few republican moderates not inclined to support him but a significant number of democratic moderates that were. The republican moderates are gone but the conservative dems remain; arguably this puts Obama in a tougher position regarding the senate than Bush had. The current congress has a far more polarized senate.



"The republican moderates are gone but the conservative dems remain; arguably this puts Obama in a tougher position regarding the senate than Bush had. The current congress has a far more polarized senate."
Ok this is the kind of BS which is the reason why we are getting nothing done. We don't need the votes of conservative democrats or moderate republican votes, all we need is 50 votes + Joe Biden and they can use the nuclear option to overide a filibuster for all I care. Very frankly, the democrats have not been aggressive at getting an agenda past at all.

As much as everyone says Coakley was a horrible candidate, her poll numbers only started declining once Brown nationalized the race. As far as I'm concerned, maybe if democrats had gotten their act together over the summer, there probably would have been a senator Coakley no matter what kind of campaign she ran.

But most of all I think that Obama has a lot of blame also. He made a lot of promises he couldn't keep and in my opinion did not have the experience to be president. This is why I know I made the right choice in voting for Clinton in the primary. Obama's solution for a problem is just to make an exciting speech. Its getting old and when "Obama girl" starts expressing her concerns, something is seriously wrong here.

I'm not saying that I agree with the stuff that Stillow and Field Marshall yap about on this site, most of the time I believe they are wrong. However, I do believe that the self-destruction of the democrats in Washington is rediculous. Getting nothing done just pisses voters off. Republicans will turn out in high numbers in 2010 cause they want to oust democrats in the majority. Independents will vote R by double digits because they are annoyed at the incompetance of democrats in Washington right now. Many democrats will not turn out because they are are annoyed that their party is not passing a progressive agenda so they say think why bother voting at all.

As far as I'm concerned Harry Reid has turned the senate into an episode of Seinfeld, a show about nothing. Except its not funny when its happening in real life. We don't need to be giving Mary Landrieu 300,000 dollars to get her vote. We don't need to be giving Ben Nelson a rediculous deal for Nebraska to get his vote. We don't need to strip out the public option to get Joe Leiberman's vote. Democrats need to show some guts get 50+ votes Joe Biden and use the nuclear option to pass health care and they could probably get a good progressive bill that would be much more popular. However, instead they passed a do nothing bill (which won't even make it through conference) and let the republicans convince americans that the bill is evil. The health care bill isn't evil it just doesn't change anything one way or another.

This all explains why people like Martha Coakley or Robin Carnahan are struggling to win their elections. In Missouri, he Carnahans are a dynasty and Robin should really be impossible to beat despite the competitive political nature of the state due to the fact that her opponent is Roy Blunt. Roy Blunt is not very well liked in MO and known for making racist gaffs. However, independents voters who absolutely love Robin Carnahan and hate Blunt would hold their nose and vote for Blunt rather than send another democrat to Washington.



I agree with you on a lot of points, Jmartin. However, bi-partisanship, or the illusion of it, is very important to senators for whatever reason. People like Bayh and Nelson have made a career on voting against the dems epecially when the dems could pick up votes for cover like Chafee, Sununu, or McCain (the pre-2008 version).

The republicans have become more and more of a unified bloc over the past couple of decades as ideological polarization has increased, but the democrats have significant dissension among their ranks and always have in the post-war era. That the dems were able to get 60 of 60 votes was amazing to me. Frankly, I think if Ted Kennedy had not gotten sick and died when he did, we'd have health care reform passed months ago. He picked the wrong time to die and the democrats pissed on his grave with the poor way they handled health care.

The upside is that I think republicans will have difficulty putting together a majority or holding it for very long unless they loosen their ideological straightjackets, which they show no evidence of doing.


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.