Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

MO: 48% Blunt, 43% Carnahan (Rasmussen 6/28)

Topics: Missouri , poll

Rasmussen
6/28/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Missouri

2010 Senate
48% Blunt (R), 43% Carnahan (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Roy Blunt: 54 / 33
Robin Carnahan

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 47 / 53 (chart)
Gov. Nixon: 60 / 37 (chart)

 

Comments
melvin:

If the Blacks turns out in big numbers around the Stlouis area i believe Carnahan is going to win this,because if Rasmussen has him down by 5 it means Carnahan must be tied with Blunt.The Democrats have to start attacking the Gop on the Social Security age limit especially.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

WHen will someone else start conducting this poll? I think this race has little to do with the candidates but simply the history of poor turnout in midterms, especially in Missouri.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

Electoral vote has an interesting article about Rasmussen today. I think it sums up Rasmussen pretty fairly. They weight Republicans higher since the pollster thinks that the turnout will be higher for Reps. I guess we shall see but if the turnout remains the same as 06 or 08 then Rasmussen numbers are off. I guess we'll see. Where are Carnahan's favorability ratings? Obama's approval rating here is higher than some of the states that voted for him. (they were close, 5000 votes seperated McCain and Obama) On another note, people must be tired of the Rhetoric at FOx News. 10.45 % ratings decrease since last year (USA TOday Nielsen ratings).

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

BLunt, who is technically the incumbent, isn't polling over 50%. According to the conservative bloggers on here, he must be in trouble then.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Blunt is such a boring candidate. He is so pro-washington and clearly has huge corporate interests. I heard he was the biggest recipient of Halliburton money. I hope Missouri doesn't regress, but I think it is going to. Too many Americans are so gullable. When Bush was unpopular, they wanted change and now that Obama is facing so many problems handled poorly in the previous administration he is getting demonized.

When you see how poor our education system is throughout the country and the rationale many people have, and the fact we trail in literacy, it is no wonder why people fall for certain candidates who are puppets of corporate America.

____________________

Paleo:

"Good polls are expensive to do, and if you're seeing a particular organization doing a slew of polls, you've to ask: 1) how reliable are those numbers, or 2) where is the money coming from to conduct those polls?"

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/06/30/a_little_secret_about_polls.html

____________________

Field Marshal:

Farleft,

You're a funny guy. I love that quote. "I hope Missouri doesn't regress, but I think it is going to." Classic.

And the fact that you used the "too many Americans are gullable [sic[" remark on the GOP voters when you had Obama come to power on the gullibility of tons of first time young voters is hysterical. Where do you come up with your funny material?

Oh, I'm assuming your entire post was one big satire.

____________________

Paleo:

Like Ohio, this race is a tossup. Although Dems have a better chance in Ohio. Their two best chances for a pickup.

____________________

scottkj:

When is Daily KOS (R2K) going to poll this race? This will give us a better indication of where this race stands. They are the most reliable pollster out there :)

Whereas Rasmussen has been proven to be fraudulent, Daily KOS is above reproach and is the most accurate pollster by far.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

"Obama is facing so many problems handled poorly in the previous administration he is getting demonized."

Actually, Bush couldn't fix things because he inherited problems from Carter who couldn't fix things because he inherited problems from McKinley who couldn't fix things because he inherited problems from Washington who couldn't fix things because he inherited them from King George who couldn't fix things because he inherited them from Moses.

So lets all blame Moses because Obama is powerless to do anything.

@CHRIS MERKEY:

There was another interesting article at Gallup last week where they acknowledged that their registered voter model in the generic elections consistantly underreports republicans by 8%. When they switch to a likely voter model on September 1st, they expect to see an 8 point jump toward republicans.

Rasmussen already uses a likely voter model. According to that Gallup article, Rasmussen is simply taking what Gallup knows to be true and is applying it now instead of waiting 2 months.

____________________

tjampel:

Carnahan needs to try to make the race about Blunt and his views, actions, morality or lack thereof, and not so great personality. He's not a very charasmatic campaigner and can certainly be portrayed as an insider who votes for specific corporate interests that he receives money from. If I were running the Carnahan campaign I'd roll out a new Ad every few weeks focusing on Blunts Big Business and Lobbyist ties. I'd also, simultaneously do whatever I could to revive the scandal Blunt was involved in as well (his extramarital affair with a tobacco lobbyist and subsequent divorce and remarriage...to the same lobbyist)). The scandal really highlights the kind of person that Blunt is. He really DOES get in bed with big business.

This won't make Carnahan more attractive to voters. The goal is to make Blunt more dislikable/toxic than he is now. Carnahan is pretty likeable; voters have no strong reason (other than ideology) to disdain voting for her.

If the race is about Obama or Dems Blunt will win pretty easily.

____________________

Paleo:

"scottkj:
When is Daily KOS (R2K) going to poll this race? This will give us a better indication of where this race stands. They are the most reliable pollster out there :)

Whereas Rasmussen has been proven to be fraudulent, Daily KOS is above reproach and is the most accurate pollster by far."

At least dKos admitted they were relying on an, allegedly, fraudulent pollster.

____________________

Xenobion:

Lets all stop thinking and blame Moses. It hurts to think to realize if you place one person in a situation after what another person wrought that it should be instantaneously fixed naturally. I have no conception of time, logistics, or personal blame. All I know is I'm stupid and angry and need to be heard.

____________________

Mike E:

When you account for the Reich-mass-KKK-en effect this is 99% for the Dem, 1% for the Rep.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Every president blames their predecessor if they come from the opposite party.

____________________

hoosier_gary:

Sure they do. Some of them eventually stop because it starts making them look powerless and inefectual.

It only took Nancy Pelosi and her democrat scourge 2 years to cause this mess. Obama should have made some progress 18 months after taking office but he is just making things even worse. He and his supporters now look like morons every time they try the blame bush excuse.

____________________

Paleo:

No, you look like a moron when you try to blame Pelosi and claim Obama has made things worse. It was the less government, less regulation, cut taxes for the rich ideology that got us into this mess. When Obama took office, the economy was bleeding 700,000 jobs a month. Now, it's putting up positive, albeit not strong enough, numbers.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

____________________

Xenobion:

Blame the people who overturned Glass-Steagall. It created the mortgage bubble while embracing the deregulation of banks over non dollar backed investments. Self-regulation got us into the mess. That's where too big to fail came from. If we were regulating these industries they probably wouldn't have gotten too big and not failed. That's what you get for unfettered lazzie-faire Reganesque capitalism.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Every president blames their predecessor if they come from the opposite party.

Agreed. But Obama was the first to blame his predecessor during his inauguration speech with Bush sitting 5 feet away. Not even Lincoln who REALLY had something to blame his predecessor for did that. But one is smart and classy and the other isn't so there's your difference.

It was the less government, less regulation, cut taxes for the rich ideology that got us into this mess.

Paleo, no offense but you look the same way when you blame tax cuts for the rich, less government and less regulation for this mess as well. It idiotic to think lower taxes caused a recession. Its also dumb to think we had less government. Bush increased the size of government more than Clinton. Even less regulation is not accurate. We had the same amount of regulation, but regulation is done by government employees who, let's face it, aren't in the same league of intelligence of Wall St. employees. Gov't regulation will always be backward looking. The only lightening of regulation that occurred under Bush was the raising of leverage ratios which, indeed had a hand in the crisis. But don't forget they also added a huge regulatory requirement with Sarbanes-Oxley which was the largest financial regulation since 1933.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Blame the people who overturned Glass-Steagall.

Tim Geithner, "I do not believe that the removal of Glass-Steagall had any impact on the current crisis."

That's what you get for unfettered lazzie-faire Reganesque capitalism.

When did we ever have lazzie (sic) -faire capitalism? I don't think we even did in the 1880's. We are much closer to socialism than laissez-faire capitalism. What a ridiculous notion.

____________________

Paleo:

They never regulated derivatives. That was specifically exempted by the Gramm-Leach-Biley act signed by Bill Clinton. As noted above, Clinton also signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, which permitted systematic risk to become widespread in 2008. Those two examples of lack of regulation played a big role in the '08 collapse. Clinton and Co. bought into that Republican ideology that if we just keep our hands off the financial sector, everything will turn out alright.

As to taxes, the maldistribution of wealth, in large part because of low tax rates for the wealthy, played a large part in the Great Depression. It's also played a role this time.

____________________

seg:

"You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts."

I've noticed this quote is almost always used when the facts, themselves, can support a variety of opposing opinions (which they almost always do). The appearance of a logically indisputable conclusion almost always involves cherry-picking facts that support that argument. Responding with a different set of cherry-picked facts to make the opposite "irrefutable" argument does not make you a neutral arbiter fit to judge the scholarship of the other disputant. It makes both of you mere debaters.

If you can prove that a quote or a statistic is incorrectly repeated from the source referenced by the first party, then fine. If you cite a different source or a different set of statistics, you have not proven erroneous facts. You have proven that you and your sources disagree with him and his.

In other words, this particular put-down is generally inane. Let us add this to the list of "put-downs" that receive universal raspberries. In fact, let us consider a better argument the only possible put down and dispense with snark unless it is: (1) original or originally applied, and (2) humorous.

____________________

Paleo:

"Tim Geithner, "I do not believe that the removal of Glass-Steagall had any impact on the current crisis.""

Of course he would say that. What did you expect him (and Summers and Rubin) to say since he was there when it happened.

____________________

Paleo:

"But Obama was the first to blame his predecessor during his inauguration speech with Bush sitting 5 feet away."

Really? Ask Jimmy Carter about that. Or dig up Herbert Hoover and ask him. That's a patently false statement.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Of course he would say that. What did you expect him (and Summers and Rubin) to say since he was there when it happened.

Given that he was under oath in front of a dozen senators, the truth.

Since you seem to know more than Geithner, explain how Glass-Steagall impacted the current crisis.

____________________

vincent106:

fannie, freddie, and the cra were the leading drivers for the financial crisis. Canada has less regulation than we do and didnt have the same issues. But they have little government involvement into pushing people into homes they cannot afford.

____________________

Mike E:

The economy was collapsed by incompetent democrats. Bill Clintons drive to get people who couldn’t afford homes into homes started the collapse of Freddie and Fanny. Chris Dodd, who was meant to be a mortgage watchdog and his pal Angelo (CEO of Country Wide), typified the Dem corruption that gave us the recession. Barney Frank ("evil Repubs who want to rein in the mortgage lending Hate poor people") typified the lefty incompetence that caused the recession. Socialism has failed everywhere, why should the US be any different. Fasten your seat belts folks, Barry is driving us over a cliff.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'm not here to defend Tim Geithner. The fact he defended Glass-Stegall would make him hands off on our banking system which has been notoriously a conservative position. But really this goes far above the 1-dimensional partisan politics and goes towards out partisan understanding of economic thought regulation vs. nonregulation. Ideas that have been debated since really the time of Carter and Regan. We've found the answer to self regulation... our current economic mess.

As we've all here played out, the mess started a long time ago with many people involved, both dems and republicans.

I don't think Obama blaming Bush is unfounded, it happened on his watch and he had 8 years to stop it from happening. Blaming the implosion on Obama as if he owns the economy now is rather funny because you really don't end up owning an economy till your first term ends.

____________________

Paleo:

"Given that he was under oath in front of a dozen senators, the truth."

I know you folks like to impeach people for lying about sex, but you should be able to tell the difference between a statement of fact under oath and an opinion.

It's not a matter of knowing more than Geither, it's that Geithner had a clear conflict of interest in giving his opinion.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Let us add this to the list of "put-downs" that receive universal raspberries."

LOL, there are a bunch of old saws I get tired of hearing.

But obviously statistics and "facts" can be cherry picked or manipulated to say whatever you want them to.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Obama was the first to blame his predecessor during his inauguration speech with Bush sitting 5 feet away."

I skimmed over it and I didn't see any "blame Bush" in it. There was a lot about a new direction, but that's no different than Clinton's or Reagan's inauguation speeches. But if you can find any blame Bush in it then point it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20text-obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Of course a lot is veiled criticism, but not too different than this one:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres61.html

____________________

Field Marshal:

How did Glass-Steagall contribute to the crisis? I'm not saying it didn't but many libies who have ZERO understanding of economic policy use it as some sort of panacea reason for the crisis. Of course they are being fed it by big government libies who are instilling propaganda into their choir to blame Wall St.

Personally, blaming Glass-Steagall is ridiculous. As someone who works "on Wall St" (from CO), blaming Glass-Steagall is similar to blaming just Fannie and Freddie. The biggest hand in the crisis was actually everyday citizens and their insatiable use of debt and want. Second was probably the governments GSEs and third was probably Wall St, namely AIG and Lehman.

____________________

seg:

"What got us into this mess?"

Answer: everthing listed above plus one not mentioned (or that I missed) but far more important: TMFD (too much f***** debt).

If you have TMFD, something has to happen and it will be bad unless you act decisively to reduce the debt. It will pop out in asset bubbles, loss of currency value, frail financial systems, excessive risk taking, and on and on. It will overwhelm any and all regulatory efforts.

Second, Bush, Paulson, Greenspan, Clinton, Reich, Summers, Geitner, Bernanke, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd etc. ALL had heavy hands in this disaster, not to mention the FED, SEC, FHA, Fanny and Sally, ad nauseum.

De-regulation, stupid regulation, over-regulation, lax regulators, the Community Reinvestment Act, over-leveraging, etc., all were responsible. Oddly, every "advanced" country in the world (except Canada) did exactly the same stupid things we did, no matter what their nominal regulatory system claimed they did. Canada was staid and boring and had no bullshit on loaning to people who could not afford it (which includes far, far more than poor people in the US).

The point is, everything played a role, but the main character was DEBT.

Bush added greatly to the debt with unfunded initiatives (senior drugs, TSA, Iraq and Afghanistan). Obama saw Bush's $2T and has raised him far more, with still far more baked now into the cake. One failed stripped a layer of shingles off the roof without replacing them, the latter is busy removing the tar paper and the plywood.

Okay, let's string them all up! Fine with me, but what are we going to do? The federal government right now is borrowing $0.43 per dollar of expenditure right now. Shall we have a
43-50% tax increase across the board or 43-50% decrease in spending? Prefer a combination of each?

Reduced spending hurts a lot of dependent people and it jolts the economy in the short run. Increased taxes permanently reduces the growth of the economy. The more you shift the burden to the "wealthy," the greater the growth reduction -- and you can not extract this much money from them, period! Say VAT ?

So this squabbling over fault is like a family facing foreclosure trying to shift blame to a scapegoat when ALL were greedy, stupid, and totally feckless. They would do better to all admit their need to change their ways drastically, including setting a budget that stays within revenues (with revenue reduced by debt payments).

Good luck to whoever wins in November. The side in the minority should be envied. They can shamelessly critize all the stupid, irresponsible things the winner will surely do.

____________________

Xenobion:

Glass-Steagall changed the role of banks in putting them into investments and other securities that are not FDIC backed. The money was in the mortgage backed securities and their complete buying power allowed them to invest heavily from grandma's savings account into a hedge fund composed of mortgage backed securities. Most people loved the idea because the sheer buying power of our banks to move a particular investment market meant big bucks.

Now investment firms and banks are one in the same. They used to be largely separate, differentiate the risk based off of what products they offered to individuals and the capital they'd generate from those products.

We essentially need to go back to Glass-Steagall and divorce the two again because banks should be in business for banking, not investing grandma's savings account into risky securities.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

From what I understand, Canada has more regulation of its banks and didn't have a housing boom, thus it was well-positioned to weather the financial crisis.

____________________

Field Marshal:

X,

You do realize that no other industrialized nation forbids the combination of investment and commercial banks. I mean, you used that argument for health care, surely its good enough for banking.

If we did reimpose Glass-Steagall, you would quickly see all of our larger banks disappear and foreign banks, who don't have such nonsense, swoop in and take more of our jobs and capital. Now, i'm sure that will please the nutty liberals who hate capitalism, Wall St. etc, but outside of fantasyland, the US would fall way behind in finance.

You last sentence show you know very little about banking. There are already very strict regulations where banks can invest depositor funds not to mention the capital requirements being very strict, even compared to France and Germany.

Seg's post is 100% right. You should read it several times. Send it to your lefty buddies.

@seg,

Yes, debt is the culprit, both public and private. The GOP is responsible for all the spending and lack of regulation onto individuals and mortgage brokers. And the Dems are responsible for pushing "fairness" and equality at the expense of common sense by pushing banks, and the government, into lending to people who would have almost no chance in paying it back.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Also, the culture of the financial sector in Canada is very different too. They have a low risk/low reward philosophy there in both banking and in their financial markets. Kind of the opposite of what we have.

The distribution of wealth is also quite a bit more even in Canada, their ultra-rich control less of the wealth there. The middle class households with assets btw $100,000 and $1 million control 70% of the wealth. In America those people control maybe 40%.

I don't know what you're trying to say, but if you're using Canada as a model, you're going to make a lot of liberals happy.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Aaron,

Canada has very similar banking regulation to the US. They just didn't have the government forcing banks into making bad loans and banks that made very poor decisions. They do have slightly different regulation on mortgage brokers which we need but that didn't cause the difference in the housing industry.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/38017232

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Well, the very things you're praising Canada for are the things people used to criticize them for. They had low GDP growth during the housing boom years when we had more.

____________________

Xenobion:

I'm sorry to break this to you FM but our banks are regulated and foreign banks on our soil are regulated to U.S. standards, not their own. If we really want to play the "You don't know jack about banking/economics card" you just played it. The Feds set the standards, the capital transactions, ect. are all regulated within our boarders. Banks have acted within Glass-Steagall for 70 years and we haven't seen a massive takeover of our banking system.

You assume the banking system is intra-competitive with global banks, which it is but only within each respective nation, not that the Bank of Scotland has the looney toons regulations so lets all located our accounts there. This is why you and I don't have Swiss bank accounts or some offshore bannana republic account. The rules are all the same if we want our money here and that's why banks like HSBC are already making inroads penetrating the US market. Its all fair game here.

I don't think you get that Glass-Steagall was a deregulation processes on behalf of the Feds to banks.

____________________

Field Marshal:

X,

I'll ignore the remark that i don't know anything about this issue because that's absurd. The banking system is intra-competitive. You are right that you and I won't just change to some Swiss bank, or Canadian bank. However, institutions, corporations, and high net worth individuals will. These are the high margin, high return clients for banks. Its not grandma putting her SS check into a CD.

Fact is that GS was obsolete in most respects. The distinction between most of the financial instruments used by commercial banks had become melded together with investment banking products, thus the two industries were competing head on.

Most foreign banks were exempt from many of the provisions of the GS act. This gave them an inherent advantage offering higher yielding products. Even US investment houses which had less regulation were stealing away depositors from commercial banks allowing savers to open money market accounts with check writing yielding far more than a traditional savings account.

If Glass Steagall wasn't repealed, the financial crisis would still have unfolded EXACTLY as it did with the stark difference that we would have far fewer community and small commercial banks, credit unions, and thrifts. They would have all gone out of business long before the crash. Investment banks were already allowed to trade risky assets which most people fault as the cause of the financial crisis. In fact, the crisis could have been worse, or better. Worse if the investment banks had more capital as it soaked up more savings from commercial banks which it then invested in risky assets exacerbating the crisis. Or it could have been better as investment banks would have had more capital and less leverage. Who knows.

But to fault Glass Steagalls repeal as the cause is again, ridiculous.

____________________

DB:

I keep reading on a lot of these posts that Republicans are going to win all these elections because of Obama. I disagree. These elections, even though they are for the Senate, are still based on how things appear to voters in that state. Democrats still have a good chance in a lot of elections (unless you believe all the Right-leaning Rasmussen polling).

____________________

Paleo:

Righties citing Canada? A country they usually love to bash and deride. What's next, Europe? What hypocrites.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Paleo,

Obviously you didn't read the posts clearly enough. The premise of my argument was that deregulation- the elimination of Glass-Steagall- had really little to do with the financial crisis. It appeared that MORE government involvement did.

Canada has NO stricter rules in their banking regs nor do they restrict commercial and investment banking cohabitation. And yet they didn't have the same crisis. What they also do not have is a Fannie, Freddie, or CRA accounting for 75% of all home loans in their country.

Europe is a whole different story. Their standard of living is in sharp decline. I wouldn't invest in Europe even with YOUR money.

____________________

Paleo:

"The premise of my argument was that deregulation- the elimination of Glass-Steagall- had really little to do with the financial crisis. It appeared that MORE government involvement did."

When the facts conflict with the dogma, get rid of the facts.

As for Glass-Steagal, its repeal made the spread of systemic risk easier.

"But how did these commercial banks get themselves in this mess in the first place? Through reckless investing in highly toxic securities with the depositor’s money and cavalier risk mangement.

Glass Steagall Act of 1933 (after the Great Depression) was passed to prevent THIS very scenario from happening again. Glass Steagall Act seperated the activities of the commercial banks from those of the riskier investment banks. AND for 66 years it worked.

But, after years of lobbying by powerful Wall Street bankers, the Glass Steagal Act was repealed in 1999, allowing commercial banks to once again engage in risky investment banking activities.

Result: 9 years later we paid the price."

http://www.macmllc.com/blog1/2009/10/26/systemic-risk-and-glass-steagall-act-of-1933/

____________________



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