Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

MO: 47% Blunt, 45% Carnahan (Rasmussen 7/13)

Topics: Missouri , Poll , senate

Rasmussen
7/13/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Missouri

2010 Senate
47% Blunt (R), 45% Carnahan (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Roy Blunt: 55 / 38
Robin Carnahan: 50 / 46

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 45 / 55 (chart)
Gov. Nixon: 55 / 42 (chart)

 

Comments
iVote:

From 2 weeks ago:

Blunt -1

Carnahan +2

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

Can't see Carnahan winning this one with Obama at 44/55. Obama will be a net drag for Dem candidates in many states.

____________________

Porchnik:

Carnahan ahead. Nice.

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

"Carnahan ahead. Nice."

Can you not read numbers?

____________________

Farleftandproud:

This proves my point. There is no way Obama's approval could be higher in MO than in NH. I think both PPP and Quinipiac need to poll both MO and NH.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

July and August are not good months for Obama. I predict by Sept. and October, he'll be averaging above water approval on every poll other than You Gov/Economist Democracy Corp and Rasmussen

I predict on Gallup he'll average between 48-53 by October.

Even though Obama's approval may be underwater in many states, he won't actually campaign in those places. He'll likely stick to IL, WA, WI (Feingold's opponent owns $250,000 stock in BP), and California. Some governors races in states who like him like VT and Maine could use his help.

Democrats won tough elections before Obama was a household name, and they can still win elections without his help.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

For Rasmussen to show this result with LV's means this race is basically a tie.

"Can't see Carnahan winning this one with Obama at 44/55."

Well, it's better than Obama's numbers in New Hampshire, lol!

Jay Nixon is a democrat and his approval is 55/42, amazingly high for an incumbent democratic governor.

Believe it or not, Obama is not on every voter's mind when deciding these races. Only the partisans think that.

Although Obama should definitely stay away. The sitting president is always polarizing, just as likely to inflame opponents than rally supporters. All sitting presidents have that effect. Nixon did, Reagan did, Clinton did, Bush II did.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

You seem to forget that is also about a candidate's likeability factor. Carnahan would have breezed to victory in 2006 or 2008. They voted for her dead father over Ashcroft. Although I would vote for a dead person over Ashcroft for that matter also. Carnahans are well liked and I think she can pull it off. OH,NC, and MO will be the most likely pickups for the Dems. I think OH and MO have about the same probabilty of going Democrat. MO with 2 Dems and Mass with only one. Who would have thought it?

____________________

Paleo:

I think Dems have a far better shot in KY than NC.

""Carnahan ahead. Nice."

Can you not read numbers?"

Yes, that's why he/she said Carnahan was ahead. You have to factor in the Rasmussen house effect.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Dems have a shot at this one. Blunt isn't as popular as Rasmussen has him at, and he isn't a very good campaigner. I predict if he'll win, he'll be a one termer like his son as Governor, and John Ashcroft as Senator.

The best case scenario which wouldn't happen, would be to win in MO, KY and Ohio to balance off the likely losses in AR, DE, ND, and IN

____________________

iVote:

@Gtfan4ever

"Can you not read numbers?"

Can you??? LOL

"Can't see Carnahan winning this one with Obama at 44/55."

He's at 45 not 44.

Idiot...

____________________

Field Marshal:

Wow Ivote... how very tolerant and compassionate you are for a liberal. pathetic....

____________________

iVote:

Excuse me?

____________________

iVote:

Your post made no sense at all, but one thing is clear.

You calling anyone that doesn't agree with you a liberal is no different from Farleft calling everyone that doesn't agree with him a racist.

____________________

Ned:

Ding...score one for iVote!!! lol. Good observation. It is a little sad that FM has to stoop to calling people liberals, and libbies and whatever creative name he can think of to describe those that disagree with him..Just so you know FM, it doesn't make your argument stronger, it only makes you look childish.

____________________

obamalover:

@iVote

FM also likes to call Jews certain Nazi leaders. FM is hardly the paragon of tolerance.

____________________

williame123:

@iVote

"You calling anyone that doesn't agree with you a liberal is no different from Farleft calling everyone that doesn't agree with him a racist."

Being a liberal is as bad as being a racist? I didn't know that. Forgive me for being a proud LIBERALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

____________________

Field Marshal:

It is a little sad that FM has to stoop to calling people liberals, and libbies and whatever creative name he can think of to describe those that disagree with him.

LOL! Are they not liberals? Do the liberals on here not call me a conservative? Should i whine in retort? Where am i? You guys are in your own little world.

And i see Obamalover chiming in with his usual nonsense. Typical. You must be a hoot at dinner parties.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

What nonsense? You have referred to me as Goebbels on a couple of occasions despite the fact of my Jewish ancestry and losing relatives in the Holocaust. You're shameless.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Actually, i didn't call you Goebbels; i called you someone who would fall for Goebbels' propaganda very easily. And judging by the dumb racial comments along with the DNC misinformed talking points you spout, it was fairly accurate. Your Jewish ancestry has NOTHING to do with it. But congratulations nonetheless.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

You are basically saying I would fall for Goebbels' anti-Jewish propaganda very easily. That is disgusting to say to anyone, especially for someone of Jewish ancestry. You are a miserable human being. You truly have no shame.

____________________

John1:

geez, is it always about bigotry and race with the people on this site. It seems like in every poll you have someone accusing someone else of racism or bigotry or being anti-gay or anti-Jew or something. I thought Obama was the post racial president?

____________________

seg:

Aaron_in_TX:
"Obama is not on every voter's mind when deciding these races."

Surely someone as well informed as you knows that the president's dis-approval has a strong effect on congressional races in the off year. That has been shown by Silver and many others.

In this particular election, I think Obama and the demo Congress are seen as a set. The Blue Dogs rolling over on ObamaCare (Vers. 0.3) removed the chance of establishing a separable political identy.

The latest on ObamaCare funding of abortions (so much for Stupak) could be an issue that will grow stronger every week until the election. It makes a liar out of Obama, kicks the props out from under the anti-abortion Blue Dogs, and inflames the anti-abortion crowd. They had been quiescent until now.

____________________

seg:

obamalover:
I do not think you would "fall for Goebbels' anti-Jewish propaganda very easily."

Even you are not that naive. However, you are naive enough to fall for leftist dictators, such as Chavez, Castro, Morales, and no doubt others. You have said admiring things about Chavez in your postings several times I have seen, yet Chavez is the scourge of Jews in his own country.

You seem incapable of understanding that many people in those countries would hate you for supporting their debasement from the comfort and security of the U.S.

You come across to the me as an example of what Lenin contemptously called "useful idiots." Those reporters and academics he sneered at were not unintelligent in the academic sense; they were made stupid by their desire to see their political vision become a reality.

Sadly, most of them hung onto their dream view even when the Gulag was common knowledge. Some American communist Jews abandoned Stalin when he turned on Jews in his "doctors' plot," but many others continued as apologists for the Soviet system even as their fellow Jews were migrating en masse to Israel and the US in Breznev's time. Soviet Jews were long past the point of being useful idiots.

Having difficulty seeing an unpleasant truth is common to us all but afflicts some much more severely than others. When combined with a utopian longing, it usually indicates a deep unhappiness with one's present condition, leading to the fantasy that some external agent can make the world perfect.

The reality is that our world is what we make of it. Furthermore, we never achieve our final goals; in our journey of life we see only the journey. If we live it with honesty and love for others, we can make the journey better for others and more fulfilling for ourselves. If we are willing to sacrifice others for the beauty of our final objective, we usually make others and ourselves miserable.

I would like to think that in your case, it is a failure of imagination. You would have to be in the Gulag to understand the evil of communism. You would have to live in Venezuela to undertand the stupid, dysfunctional banality of Chavez's revolution. You will have to experience the long-term effects conservatives warn about to understand the stupidities and dysfunctions ObamaCare and prolifigate spending will bring.

____________________

obamalover:

@seg

I have never ever said anything admiring in regards to Chavez. I hate him. Why must you lie to prove an idiotic point? But lying is what you conservatives do best.

If anyone is naive it is the teabaggers who are dumb enough to believe any crazy conspiracy theory out there: obama is a secret Muslim, the government purposefully caused the BP oil leak etc.

Heck even you and the Nazis agreed on at least one thing: Homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Actually, homosexuals do have the same rights as heterosexuals. More lies from Obamalover.

farleft is the one who admires chavez. OL admires obama. What the difference is between obama and chavez isnt large enought to stick a pin between.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Homosexuals do not have the right to adopt in all states, and they do not have the right to marry the one they love. More lies from Field Marshal.

And saying there is not much difference between a latin American dictator and Obama is exactly what I'm talking about. It is those kind of delusions that make teabaggers so crazy.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Surely someone as well informed as you knows that the president's dis-approval has a strong effect on congressional races in the off year. That has been shown by Silver and many others."

The exits of the 2009 races showed that the people who voted to "send a message" to Obama were about 20% con and 20% pro and so cancelled each other out. The other 60% said the president "made no difference" in their decision.

We are in those respective 20% blocs but the majority of people aren't.

The correlation with disapproval I imagine has some sort of relationship with voter turnout of supporters/detractors in mid-terms which was probably what Silver et al were talking about.

____________________



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