MO-Remington Research/Missouri Scout: Hillary trails by quite a bit in Missouri

[IceSpear]

Republican pollster with no track record...yeah, I'll wait for someone legitimate.

[IceSpear]

Who are these guys?

You weren't skeptical when the Marist Polls showed Hillary tied in South Carolina. Polls that early don't mean anything, no matter who leads. Although it gives us an indication of the competitiveness of Missouri.

Marist is at least an established non-partisan polling firm. This is a partisan Republican firm that as far as I can tell has only released a single poll of Kansas. I'll take it about as seriously as I took that pollster nobody heard of showing Hillary up 5+ points in NC.

[IceSpear]

People are so predictable.

Poll showing Hillary ahead = Democrats: "Dominating! She'll win here for sure!" Republicans: "It's too early to tell, there's no way she'll be that far ahead in a year."

Poll showing Hillary tied/trailing = Democrats: "It's too early, she could easily do better here in the future." Republicans: "Awesome, we've got this state in the bag, no question!"

I understand the rationale behind both arguments. It is early, but at the same time, Missouri is unlikely to be competitive. Still, I can't help but notice that people only seem to use the "it's early/there's still time" argument when they see a poll number they don't like.

I don't think people are saying it's "too early", just that one partisan poll with a thin track record is not the end all be all of Missouri politics like many here are pretending it is.

[IceSpear]

Kentucky and Colorado are both toss-ups with Hillary?  Uh, alright..

It's the CLINTON's.

It's the 90s again.

MO in general is trending GOP for at least the last 25 years, so Hillary is unlikely to even come close there. Unless she wins by a landslide nationally. These are not the 90s anymore.

Good find, but the first post was 2 years ago based on a poll that showed Clinton still strong in KY. Meanwhile, polls have come out that showed that Clinton has no chance anymore in KY, MO or WV and that it's more likely that she resembles Obama's maps in 2016 and not the 90s maps of Bill.

That's not even true. The most recent Kentucky polls still show Hillary competitive there.



Obviously common sense tells us that MO will be more competitive than KY. Clearly, one or both of these polls are incorrect.

People using this partisan Republican poll with a close to nonexistent track record to "prove" that Missouri is safe R would be like using Gravis to "prove" Kentucky is a toss up. People are accepting it as gospel merely because a) nobody else has polled the state, so we have nothing to confirm or deny it and b) it backs up their preconceived notion of "Obama 2012 = Democratic ceiling". But considering how focused this site is on polling, you'd think people would learn not to take a single poll (particularly when it isn't a longstanding nonpartisan poll) as gospel. Weren't you all bashing pbrower for doing that to "prove" Toomey was doomed?