Talk Elections

I haven't heard a candidate make this argument since Fay Boozman in 1998 claimed that nature's protective shield meant victims of rape don't get pregnant.

But there's Todd Akin, blazing a trail with his mouth. Victims of "legitimate rape" don't get pregnant, he says.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-legitimate-rape.php

The parallels to Colorado ala 2010 are beginning to take root.

I would not want to be the guy at Akin HQ who takes the call from the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson after this jaw-dropping comment from Akin. The billionaires are sinking a ton of cash into ads to win this seat over and all they need is a competent flagbearer to ride Romney's coattails.

Now here's a guaranteed campaign ad.

...it's really strange how I was randomly reading up on Specter's 1992 primary opponent a few hours ago and how he said basically the same thing.

This throws everything in the air. What a jackass.

I don't think Akin is bad enough to be considered Buck/Angle caliber, but I could be wrong...

Angle was on her own planet of unelectability. I could see Akin being equivalent to Buck, but benefiting from Missouri's Republican lean.

You'd think, given all the electoral evidence out there, that even the most obnoxiously troglodytian Republican candidates (or, at least, their handlers) would know that making crass and offensive comments relating to rape is a sure, certain and absolutely guaranteed vote loser.

McCaskill really did get her preferred candidate.

Facepalm.

At least he recanted very quickly.

Curious to know how the female body tells the difference between a legitimate rape and an illegitimate rape. Something involving hormones?

Congratulations on your re-election, Senator McCaskill.


According to the science, the female body yes mhm it science yes and then uh huh and (il)legitimate rape yes, and then no baby!

Should I feel ashamed that I heard about this due to a stupid Twitter "trend"?

They should have nominated Steelman. Almost to much like Colorado, even down to Palin picking a better candidate, only to have the primary pick a far less solid choice.

I find his comment repulsive, but do not believe one slip of the tongue should spell the end for a candidate....the 24 hour news media will ensure it gets air time over any of his policy speeches I am sure

This is like the fifth time he has said something of this caliber of stupidity since January.

What a moron.

Let's cross our fingers for a Torricelli-Lautenberg move here.

So this will be the ... fourth? Senate race the Tea Party has cost the Republicans?  Thanks, guys...

Is it too late for Mittens to replace Ryan with this guy? I'm sure the conservatives will light up like a Christmas tree.

Nope, someone this incredibly ignorant should not be allowed anywhere near an elective office.

Akin doesn't make any policy speeches.  He just says one bat crap crazy repulsive thing after the other

It's rather telling that absolutely nobody is even trying to spin this. I'd like to get Mitt's opinion on the subject.

He has 2 days to withdraw, at which point the party will be able to select a replacement nominee.
If that happens, well, they might go with Jim Talent as a unity candidate.

There would have to be a serious amount of pressure exerted from within the GOP to do that, and I don't see him doing so even if there were such pressure.

Disgusting.

McCaskill's response (go Claire):

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/akin-say-legitimate-rape-won-t-cause-pregnancy/article_48d20ca8-ea35-11e1-b167-0019bb30f31a.html (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/akin-say-legitimate-rape-won-t-cause-pregnancy/article_48d20ca8-ea35-11e1-b167-0019bb30f31a.html)

She may win this yet.

Well, this is a first step - the idea of a withdrawal is being discussed - http://twitchy.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-has-until-tuesday-aug-21-to-drop-out-of-u-s-senate-race/ (http://twitchy.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-has-until-tuesday-aug-21-to-drop-out-of-u-s-senate-race/)

The fact that withdrawal's even being discussed is making this funny. And it really shouldn't be.

Even though I started this thread, I'm kind of shocked that people are seriously floating withdrawal and Nate Silver thinks he would lose 10 points in the polls. Not by the responses of Republicans here - I didn't expect anyone here would feel anything but embarrassment and anger. But I thought this was the kind of thing that was survivable and that Akin would probably still win unless he continued to fumble. I guess it's a good thing that maybe it isn't.

This is one of the only times I would say this, but... Good.

And I thought we might lose this seat by a good margin. Might get competetive again ... :)

The War on Women continues.

Yet another probable Republican pickup turns into a nightmare for the national GOP.

Well, the anti-abortion nuts are getting more and more brazen. Arizona passed a ban on abortion with no exceptions after 20 weeks. If you have a life threatening emergency in the 21st week, you've got to quickly leave the state.

Somehow I don't see Akin dropping out as something that would benefit Republicans, even if they nominate a better candidate afterwards.

So...less than 24 hours.  Not going to happen.

Yeah, there's no war on women at all, guys.  Not when a Republican candidate basically says most rape victims are lying sl*ts.

WTF is it with these people and rape. It is basically the exact same kind of sh**t Buck said in that 1999 phone call. Only his was worse because he basically said that directly to a victim and over the phone to boot. Not the mention why hell would you want to discuss that over a phone and not in person, more or less come up with an "alternative scenario" that involved her "asking for it".

It is very difficult to call him the Tea Party candidate and thus attribute his nomination to him. If anything he is a far-right, establishment, socially conservative Congressmen of 12 years. Brunner got the backing of most of the TP groups, while Steelman got Sarah Palin's endorsement. Brunner was a businessman and Steelman had previously challenged the establishment choice in the 2008 GOP Gubernatorial primary to see who would lose to Jay Nixon.

Also, he followed the Fischer, Thompson, "He who throws the least mud near the election wins" model. He was third in the polls for months and down in the teens until just two weeks prior to the election. This is one case where the TP would have saved us a seat.

It's a disgusting comment. It's probably best he steps down.

Romney has distanced himself from the comment, interestingly suggesting that he and Paul Ryan support abortion rights for rape victims, which is a new stance for Ryan.

If only the GOP nominated Sarah Steelman. :(

Or Brunner, but he's rather boring, albeit able to self fund.

Akin is supposedly holding a press conference at 3 PM Central.

Hope he drops. McCaskill can rake in the cash in a futile effort to hold that seat.

Hope he drops on the principle of someone who says crap like this not being a US Senator or in the position to become one.

He's probably not going to drop. Candidates like this are far too self-assured and arrogant to drop out, even if they know they're out of touch.

Akin is a member of the Tea Party Caucus, FWIW.

Akin is really a f**king moron for even mentioning something like this, even if it was taken out of context. However, given that MO is a lot more GOP leaning then CO and NV where for the Buck/Angle comparisons he could still probably win.

What I don't understand is how it's even possible to say something like this.

Even if he were to win, with this albatross around his neck, would the Senate Republicans let him join their caucus?

As for how this idea got started, fetal resorption does occur and conceivably the stress of "legitimate rape" could cause the lining of the uterus to be unreceptive to the blastocyst.  Not that there are any legitimate studies that show that this hypothesis has any validity.  Of course, one could argue it's the fault of rape victims who don't get upset enough that this doesn't happen.  NOT!

Ron Johnson is also calling for Akin to step aside. (https://twitter.com/ron4senate/status/237582523465596928)

what are the rules if he steps down? Does the state party just pick someone or does it go to the 2nd place from the primary? 

Akin doesn't have to withdraw by tomorrow. He can be removed (of course, if he agrees) by court order - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/20/the-two-ways-todd-akin-could-withdraw/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/20/the-two-ways-todd-akin-could-withdraw/)

The state GOP committee would then pick a replacement.

'Saw this on my news feed just now:

()

He needs to step aside. Even though I supported Steelman in the primary, the nomination should go to Brunner, as he placed second.

It'd be very selfish of him, IMO, if he stayed in this race. Of course, all politicians are selfish, so meh.

Aiken went on Huckabee's radio show and said "I'm not a quitter and my belief is we're going to take this thing forward"

If he doesnt want to leave, I dont see how the party can force him. Will the RNCC back him up and spend money? You can be sure that the DNCC are going to go all in on Claire now that she has a chance

If the GOP wants to lose this seat with class, they'll run Steelman or Brunner on a 3rd Party/Independent ticket. Akin will go down in flames and the second place loser will have a raised profile, which could be beneficial for Governor in 2016.

Without Missouri, the Republican path to 51 seats becomes a lot more complicated.

The far-right seems to love blowing their chances; they already let us keep Nevada, Colorado, and Delaware.

Cornyn is gently trying to push Akin out.

It just moves out two years.

Expect a couple polls to be released in the next couple days that show Akin down by a decent amount. Then you'll see the MOGOP start pressuring him.

Sabato claims NRSC is pulling out. Crossroads already pulled out.

If so, Akin needs to drop out now.

Wow, that was fast. He's such a hasbeen already that people have stopped remembering how his name is spelled.

Family Research Council is the rare GOP group rushing to defend Akin.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/family-research-council-pac-enthusiastically-backs-todd-akin

Dana Bash also reported that the NRSC has told him to get out. Romney all but called on him to quit. Now what's this I hear about 9/25 or something?

That's the second deadline. To withdraw then, he needs a court order unless the state election board shows good reason why they cannot accept it.

Erik Erikson claims Akin is quitting. Reported five minutes ago.

Breaking on Twitter that Akin will withdraw tomorrow. Guessing Brunner replaces him as primary runner-up. He has $$$ and infrastructure ready to go.

Just putting it out there, but if Akin made these comments in 2004, would the reaction by the GOP be the same? T'was the height of the religious right after all, and FRC are defending him now.

Sabato also suggested that to avoid intraparty divisions the MO GOP could nominate Jim Talent or Matt Blunt. Dunno how realistic that is, but we'll find out tomorrow.

As someone that is religious and opposed to abortion (though with exceptions), I have to say that's a really asinine thing you just said.

I'm rooting for Talent either way.

They can't do any better than the guy who lost last time and the old Governor who epic failed so badly he didn't run again because he was trailing by double digits?

Matt Blunt can't run for one obvious reason.

Yeah, so it will be even more pathetic if Claire loses to one of them, right?

Talent would easily handle McCaskill. 2012 is a much better year than 2006 was for Republicans, and on top of that, McCaskill has certainly not been a moderate hero some might have thought she would be back in 2006.

Talent is now advising Romney and is being tipped for the Pentagon. So if they pick someone from outside the primary it would be Graves or Blunt (who lest we forget, has beaten McCaskill before).

Talent didn't want to run a yearlong bitter campaign. With this, he would get to leapfrog that step, run a 3 month campaign, and let crossroads/NRSC fuel his victory.

Republicans now say Akin can be eaten by the vultures:


http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/national/AP-Source-Funding-drying-up-for-Mo-candidate_55607582

This may have been answered before, but who gets to pick Akin's replacement if he leaves?

The question is, can this guy be swayed by the establishment GOP. The hard right are with him, including FRC. Does he care if the party drops him?

I'm curious, is he also running for his congressional seat as well? Does he have anything to fall back on if he loses? If so, what are Boehner and Cantor saying? Will they threaten him with loss of committee positions if he doesnt drop out?

MO GOP State Committee members

And of course he isn't running for his House seat right now. Former Ambassador Ann Wagner is the GOP nominee there.

Brunner/Schweich/Talent are potential replacements.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gop-source-gop-officials-looking-to-replace-akin

Akin just said on Hannity that he's staying in. They have to do whatever's necessary to get him out of there.

Just made it worse: "I read in 'medical reports' that women can have a 'reaction' to rape that stops pregnancy."

He is doubling down?  Seriously?

And this guy is on the science committee?

Erickson just tweeted that consultants are saying he's going while Akin & his team are denying it. Talent said he's not running. So Brunner or Schweich will take up the mantle. Preferably Brunner since he has name ID, $$$ & infrastructure ready to go.

Am I the only one who thinks this is a massive overreaction to what he said? I mean, it was stupid, but saying stupid things happens all the time in politics. The actual text of what he said wasn't that bad. I guess if you're using as a proxy for a pattern it's ok.

I agree; I don't think the backlash to Ken Buck's similar comments was nearly this bad...

As I said, just putting the idea out there.

Truly the hero our times deserve.

So is Akin in or out?

He says he's in.

Trying to stay in. TPM says the tell will be how much money he raises in the next day or so to see if he survives.

And some people wonder why those with Graduate-level degrees skew heavily Democratic.

This guy is an embarrassment for the Republicans. I hope his replacement in the House is more sane and pragmatic, and I wish Senator McCaskill a productive second term.

It wasn't just "stupid." Most of us on this forum have the privilege of not having to be wary of members of the opposite sex much of the time. We don't have to be especially careful in terms of where we park our cars, where we walk at night, or what we do at parties. Women live with this fear much more than men do, for good reason.

What Akin said was incredibly offensive, not just to women who have been raped, but to all women...hell, a lot of men too. People who have a sense of respect and empathy for anyone at all should be appalled, but I guess that's too much to ask of some people.

I just went and took a look at Akin's facebook page for the hell of it. The dude is getting absolutely savaged on there by liberals who joined up to troll him but also by his actual conservative supporters (or ex-supporters). He's finished. They better figure out some way to remove him.

There is a difference between saying something right now and having said something ten years ago.

It's hard to think of many things that would be worse.

Akin is toast politically if he drops out.  The only hope for his personal political future is to stay in and dare the establishment to stay on the sidelines.  If he thinks this has a chance to blow over, he'll stay.

He's toast politically if he stays in because then a) McCaskill coasts into the Senate b) he's vacating his House seat to run. So he's unemployed now or in January.

This isn't a Biden-level gaffe. This is macaca-level.

Of course, he is obviously a far right conservative and engratiating himself with the latest movement of the base suits his interests. But my point wasn't that he is not far right, he most certainly is. My point was this was a primary of three TP candidates, two of which had better claim to the title then he did. Thus the one difference to Colorado, is that it isn't possible to blame the TP for scuddling this seat like could be said of Indiana if things go badly there.

Palin-level.


Just changed my prediction from GOP-tossup to lean Dem btw.

Intrade now has McCaskill narrowly favored to hold the seat.

NRO on possible replacements if Akin quits:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314512/mo-republican-wagner-deltalentdel-schweich-being-talked-about-akin-replacements-katrin

Ann Wagner is not that much of a winner either to tell you the truth. Does anyone remember her bid for RNC chair her comments during that?

Talent would be my choice, followed by Steelman or Graves. The best choice would probably be a women in the aftermath of what has happened so with Talent out, my pick is once again Steelman.

All this matters not, unless Akin gets out. I am still very skeptical of him doing so. 

Well, this has been rather fun to watch. Though honestly there are a number of similar comments that have been made over the years by GOP (and democrat) congressmen that I find to be similarly offensive and yet have not resulted in the same sort of backlash.

They don't want a repeat of Colorado. Especially after Reid's tax accusations, which makes them hunger for the Senate majority even more.

That's because Congressmen aren't Senators.

Regardless of semantics, the point I was trying to make was that if the Tea Party had never formally organized, and instead just been reflected in the mood of the electorate, Republicans would probably have the seats in Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado, and be a clear favorite in Missouri this year rather than a clear underdog.

I won't complain though.

How so? Wouldn't Akin have just been the establishment candidate and frontrunner in the primary from the start? He has the So-Cons, he has been in Congress for more then a decade, and establishment most certainly wouldn't have backed Steelman or even Brunner.

All the groups, organization and people associated with the TP supported either Steelman or Brunner. So I don't see how "The organizing of the TP" had an impact on this primary. There is no link as all those organizations backed Akin's opponents. And more to the point, he didn't follow the TP insurgent path to victory as much as the Fischer/Thompson path whereby the guy throwing the least mud right before the election wins, rather than the most conservative candidate (Thompson hardly could be called such). Such a trend is more than likely a reaction to the hard edged politics and negativity that defined the TP era of 2009-2011.

Your point seems to boil down to the old argument that all the GOP duds originated with the TP, which is completely ridiculous. Even the "blame the TP" meme only really works with one of the three 2010 defeats you mentioned and that is Delaware. In Nevada, another candidate collapsed and another didn't get off the ground, leaving Angle, unknown (espeically her negative qualities) to most of state, as pretty much the last candidate standing as much as a TP insurgent. There is no guarrantee that any of the others could have even stood up to Reid any better then she did as they all had issues.  In Colorado, Norton was vulnerable because she was uninspiring and many viewed her as a puppet of higher powers in the state. She may have lost the general as well but for different reasons then Buck did.

Unless you can show me where the TP enabled Akin to beat a more establishment candidate in the MO primary, your point doesn't work. There were no "more establishment" type candidates in the race then himself. And while he was a TP candidate by self affiliation, he had the least claim to that title of the three candidates.

This wouldn't have happened in 2004 because there was no Youtube, no Twitter, no social media.  It just wouldn't have blown up to the same extent.

Ah... I meant legislators, my bad.

Idiots.  Even if Akin stays in, McCaskill winning isn't a sure thing.

Now they have to strip him of seniority and assignments. Expelling him from caucus would result in a total loss of leverage.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/todd-akin-im-not-quitting-ads.php

What will happen if he drops out?  Will the Republicans select someone else, or will it just be Claire versus all the minor party candidates?

I said "narrowly favored", not "sure thing".

The state party selects someone else.

The Onion really couldn't have written this.

It'd certainly be a lot more likely than her not winning.

For Intrade to have changed so much, there must be a lot of people thinking Akin will stay in and bomb.  McCaskill should not be narrowly favored.  Akin is more likely than not to leave, it's just a question of how long and on what terms, and as I said, even if he did stay on the ballot, he might still pull this off.

Even if there's a replacement candidate who the party can agree on, it's not a certainty that that person would be able to get their act together for a solid senate campaign from scratch.  So I don't think Akin dropping out means definite GOP pickup (not that it was a definite GOP pickup even before Akin made the gaffe).  Anyway, one's assessment of the race depends heavily on how high one rates the chances of Akin dropping out, which there's probably a fair amount of disagreement over.

Anyway, as of right now, the Intrade prices have pulled back to an exact 50/50 tie.

Akin was the weakest of the three contenders in the primary.  He won because the other two were busy fighting each other and McCaskill's successful criticism of him as too conservative so as to increase his appeal to primary voters.  So long as the MO GOP doesn't nominate someone crazy (and it won't) as the replacement, ey will do better than Akin.

Report that Paul Ryan called Akin yesterday. Source says it was "not a brief call." Ryan apparently didn't ask him to drop out...which I don't buy.

So Akin has apologized.

Of course, we still don't know if the apology was legitimate or forcible.

As an example of just how big this is, the BBC, which rarely talks about US Politics, had Akin's comments as one of the lead headline stories for the six o'clock news. I just checked a second ago and they're doing an extended interview with their US correspondents over just how damaging Akin's remarks were.

Romney has now called on Akin to get out, for what little that's worth.

I originally saw heard about this controversy as one of the top six BBC stories at the airport.


I actually think it's worth quite a bit. Now I think he may actually leave the race. Having your party's presidential candidate calling for you to get out is close to the last straw.

He's on Hannity now and apparently name-checked some famous Missourians who were products of rape-induced pregnancy. Getting worse every day.

Aw that's not good.

First deadline has passed.

Wow!

What happens then if Akin drops out since the deadline has already passed?

If we can recall, MO Democrats in 2000 faced a similar problem. However, one of a diffrent circumstance's where they lost their Senatorial senatorial candidate after the deadline to replace their name had passed. Although the candidate who was Governor Carnahan had died in a plane crash, but his name still remained on the ballot.

Is this going to be the same case when Akin finally throws in the towel or can the GOP fully remove his name from any assocation with this race?

There is another deadline for the same thing to be done, but by court order. I don't know when that deadline is. Some have mentioned Sept 25th, so that may be the absolute final deadline to get rid of him.

Sept. 25 is that deadline.

Haha, he really did that?

The laws of physics do not allow you to "recant" such a statement.


yes.

He is a 60 something year old man with two daughters.  He makes six figures/year.  He has access to the library of Congress.  He sits on the House SCIENCE committee.  How could he make such a statement?  How?  I guess we should blame the teachers' unions for him not learning how a vagina works.

Huck is 100% behind Akin.

http://thepage.time.com/2012/08/23/huckabee-goes-all-in-for-akin/

New Rasmussen Poll. McCaskill up 10 points 48-38. Last poll in June had Akin up 3.

Safe Akin. This controversy will low over in a couple of weeks and Akin will easily beat McCaskill. This is Missouri and I see no reason for any of the socons (basically all of Akin's base) to change their votes based on this. And the fact that Huckabee is supporting Akin helps him A LOT.

So Huckabee signals he has no interest in a presidential run.  I don't blame him.  That private sector money is too good.  Why hassle with the press and all that responsibility.

According to Mason Dixon (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/ec51f6bb-61e1-5943-aea2-fff264df2cb8.html), a majority of those who still support Akin against McCaskill want him to withdraw. Amongst those undecided, 67% want him to withdraw.

It is time for a thread title change "Akin really has blown this!"

I was going to change it, but after Rand Paul won, I refuse to believe McCaskill has better than 60% odds of winning.

Are you trying not to sound like a troll?

I just don't see how her chances are less then 90%. You have to look at this man's history and he is a walking gaffe-bomb thrower. He alone will serve to remind people, more or less what McCaskill will be doing with all the windfall of donations she will likely be receiving. The only way for Akin to come back is to keep his head down and hope people forgive/forget about him. His history tells me he doesn't possess the ability to do that at all.

PPP has Akin and McCaskill at a virtual dead heat, with Akin at 44% and McCaskill at 45 %. Still, since triple-P is practically James Carville, I'm rather dubious about this poll's results, considering how other polls have a much larger gap between the two. In fact, I think it would be in PPP's interest to give Akin false hope in order to keep him in the race. We'll have to see...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/30/poll-akin-mccaskill-race-still-tossup/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/30/poll-akin-mccaskill-race-still-tossup/)

     This may be the worst campaign gaffe since George Allen in 2006.

()

You'd think a campaign in such desperation mode would use spell check!

...that's the card Akin is playing? Really? Sorry but I don't think donors are going to make the connection. Too loose.

I wonder how many people are donating to both Akin and the "corrupt party bosses" :P

If Republican rank-and-file cede their right to pick nominees to the establishment in Washington, then Charlie Crist will be the type of "Republican" they select. The seemlessness of Crist's transition from "Republican" to "Independent" to liberal Democrat ought to be an eyeopener to the rank-and-file.

I'm not disagreeing that Crist/Crist types are typically the choices of the bosses and that the rank and file members shouldn't cede their right to choose (look who you're talking to here). I'm questioning the use of the Crist example as a contribution strategy. I just don't think people are going to make the connection (even politically saavy donors in Missouri).

You'd think that the "Christian" Todd Akin would be able to spot that, spell check or no!

What pray tell would the spellchecker flag?

Spell check is probably what made the mistake.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/newt-gingrich-fundraising-for-todd-akin-monday/

Is Akin really staying in the race?

I think it's safe to say he is at this point. Pretty hilarious.

I think it's been clear for awhile that he's staying in...

Today is the final deadline for Akin to get out....

The scary thing is, Akin may still win this.

I'd put his chances at about 35%. A clear chance, but he's still an underdog atm.

He's still the underdog, but his gaffs have not been fatal.  He's closing. 

I'm seriously getting an Intrade account just so I can buy Akin.

What's his money?

Yeah I can still see him pulling it out eventually, though McCaskill's chances are probably around 70% and increasing.

Where's the evidence of that?

JJ's fourth rule of elections.

Akin, still a sexist creep: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/27/akin-mccaskill-more-ladylike-in-last-election/

The polls that we're listing under the polling section. 

https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2012/polls.php?fips=29&class=1

We're now listing it as a tossup (though I'd question the R+1)

J. J's Fourth Rule of Elections:  Read the current polling before commenting on it.

Px's firtst rule of elections: follow your own goddamn rules if you want any of us to take you seriously.

Let me see if I can explain this to you Lyndon.

Late August, Rasmussen had Akin down by 10.  In September, Rasmussen had him down by 6.  That means that Akin is "closing."  See how that works?


All of that (including a Chilenski poll, that I don't really trust) is posted on the polling section that I previously linked.   If you click the link, you can read it for yourself.  You have have to move that little arrow over the link and click.

If you do that, you will notice that MO is now gray.  That is the color of a toss up; that means MO is closer (even though that is partly based on a poll I don't really trust).  I didn't change the color; I didn't take the poll. 

I was, in fact, rather surprised it was closing (and I don't trust that one poll).  Still, I looked at it, since when I first looked at the map, it lighter than the other states a few day ago.  I was very much surprised when someone questioned that the race was closing when the data said it was closing.

Akin claims McCaskill's not "ladylike," eh?  Some male politicians just have no clue how to operate when their opponent is a competent female.  

We now have our answer to McCaskill's ad when she asked "What will he say next?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3wcMsb8GA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT3wcMsb8GA)

I thought his biological ovary defense system comment was far worse than the Macaca comment. 

I do not understand why the polls are closing.

Wow! I must admit that came out of the blue and runs contrary to all the polling evidence.

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/politics/2012/09/27/sen-john-cornyn-says-gop-is-not-going-to-spend-money-to-help-missouri-senate-candidate-todd-akin/ (http://blogs.courier-journal.com/politics/2012/09/27/sen-john-cornyn-says-gop-is-not-going-to-spend-money-to-help-missouri-senate-candidate-todd-akin/)

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said on Thursday that he does not intend to put money into the race of controversial Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin.

“We have no plans to do so,” Cornyn told The Courier-Journal in an interview just a short time ago.

“I just think that this is not a winnable race,” he said. “We have to make tough calculations based on limited resources and where to allocate it, where it will have the best likelihood of electing a Republican senator.”

Just because the polling is close doesn't mean it is winnable. Especially if you think the particular canidate has a ceiling that will ensure he loses as result of some controversy. In New Jersey you don't even need a controversy for that to happen.

The guy can be leading 44-38 and still lose, because no one will vote for him beyond 45%.

Now on the flip side of that is the potential for an unpolling. Supporting AKin is likely to be seen as embarrasing. So there may be a number of people who aren't selecting Akin in these polls but do so on election day. Of course there is also the people who are overcome with the seriousness of their vote and can't bring themselves to vote for him when it is also said and done. Those two probably cancel each other out for the most part.

Akins only possibility is a net marginal underpolling (The first scenario above outweighs the later) and a decision by some based on the decline in GOP chances nationwide to rally around the flag and reduce the damage by holding their noses and voting for Akin. Still I don't see either getting him to 50%.

I think he can legitimately claim that throwing money in here is washing it down the drain. You can disagree, but such a claim isn't baseless.

Cornyn is saying that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has limited resources?

Is the Republican Party going to transit money from the presidential campaign to the congressional campaign to give them more breathing space?

Guys, if Akin ends up winning this, let's finally conclude there is no hope left for America.

Akin releases that he was arrested at an abortion clinic for an anti abortion protest two decades ago.

Great...now Missouri can elect a criminal to the US Senate...

An arrest does not make you a criminal.

He suggested recently that he opposes the Equal Pay Act.

How about we look at the operating phrase here: "two decades ago".

As Craigo said, one arrest twenty years ago does not make one a criminal. Rod Blagojevich is a criminal. As stupid a statement as he has made, Akin is not.

That makes him a sexist. There is no reason to oppose that.

Cornyn and the rest of the establishment screwed up badly and are trying to minimize the damage they have inflicted upon themselves. Their first line was that they wouldn't spend a dime even if the race was tied. Many conservatives correctly noted that was tantamount to an endorsement of McCaskill, whom voted for Obamacare and the trillion dollar "stimulus" boondoggle. That put Cornyn in the awkward position of soliciting conservatives to support Republican nominees in some states while de facto endorsing a liberal Democratic in MO.

Cornyn is now trying to smooth things over by claiming that he is not intentionally sandbagging Akin, but, rather merely bowing to the political reality that the RNC and Rove are sandbagging him. I suggest that this isn't going to go over well with conservatives. During the last weeks of 2010, the Republicans injected millions of dollars into California in a hopeless attempt to elect a moderate Senator there. Conservatives aren't blind to the reality that Cornyn's judgments about whom to triage, and whom to support, seem skewed against conservatives.

At this point, Cornyn's best option is simply to resign. If he wants to persist, his best option is spend a million on Akin in the next several days and see what happens.

The best option is for Akin to lose by a landslide, the better to teach a certain wing of the Pub party a lesson - a lesson that it seems necessary to be given frequently.

The best option is for Akin to win. It would teach another wing of the Republican party a lesson they don't seem to have accepted: conservatives nominees don't serve at their pleasure.

It's not out of the question he could still win, but at this point the odds are against it.  The parallels with "macaca" and the Ken Buck/Sharron Angle crowd are pretty clear.  The fact he followed up his "legitimate rape" comment with the "ladylike" comment shows what a horrible candidate he is.  The race has (with good reason) turned into a referendum on Akin.  Now that the deadline has passed, I expect McCaskill to all-out attack and try to bury him ASAP.

We will probably hold the Senate because Akin is batsh!t crazy. 

My first impulse would be to agree with this sentiment, but then I have to remember that my MP said "I oppose the wholesale slaughter-on-demand of the innocent unborn" and opposes abortion in all circumstances. Many Todd Akins out there in elected office, just that they're smart enough not to tell the whole world that they're misogynists.

Indeed, that's the point. The depressing thing isn't that people like Akin exist, but that a majority of people could actually elect them even after their sickening views are widely exposed. And we're not even talking about a small nutjob-filled constituency, but a freaking 6-million-inhabitants State which is conservative but not overwhelmingly so.

Akin isn't 'conservative', he's a misogynistic [pick one: lunatic, idiot, bullsh**t artist].

It is precisely this sort of unjustified attack against Todd Akin that has engendered a backlash. If Todd Akins does win the race, one of the people he will have to thank is you.

1) That makes him an opponent of the bill, no more, no less.

2) There are reasons to oppose the bill.

"Hey, we know we're disgusting bigots, but we ain't gonna be told we're disgusting bigots by you liberal elites! Bigot pride!" - The intellectual state of the conservative movement.

I'm pretty sure that the Republican establishment does not want to deal with this guy managing to get elected on a night where Romney is beaten badly. Talk about Tea Party porn.

I still think he's done for personally btw but we'll see.

If he does manage to get reelected, it will likely be because Romney somehow pulled 8 to 9 point victory out of his ass in Missouri. Huffpo has an article along these lines. Not at all impossible if the rural areas surge out of fear of a Democrat sweep, and a bunch of voters polling as Romney/McCaskil in the surburbs secretly vote for Akin with no one watching. Missouri suburbs are still highly conservative compared to the rest of the country, and the most suburban district is Akin's! However such a pro-Romney result can only happen if Romney is winning or just falling short nationwide. The only difference between this possibility and the one I talked abotu before regarding the, "poll one way vote another" people, is that the group wouldn't have to be as big in this situation, as the rural turnout would make up more of the difference.

Besides, I am not concerned at all about this, "We should have nominated a more conservative candiate". Hell that is the very argument many Romney supporters used for their candidate in a so different world of 2008 and still use when comparing him to McCain. And the funny thing is that it will still serve my purposes regarding the strategic direction of the GOP, considering who the most likely candidates are and their traits and skills. >:D
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I saw somewhere where the NRSC is considering supporting him now? I know there for a while after his comment that the state party demanded that his signs be taken now, but lately they've been sprouting up everywhere across the state. McCaskill has been running ads going after all the crazy stuff he's said in addition to the rape comment, like his opposition to raising the minimum wage and his comparison of student loans to "stage 3 cancer." Unfortunately, he is our state's Michele Bachmann/Steve King loon. Don't discount the possibility that he could pull this one out since the state is more cuckoo crazy for Cocoa Puffs than Nevada and Colorado. It pains me to say that, but maybe Claire can hope for some coattails on Jay Nixon, who looks all but guaranteed to win a second term as our Governor.

At this point the NRSC would benefit more by blowing $2 to $3 million on the Libertarian candidate then on Akin.

This is a fun thread to read with hindsight :)

Yes. Akin not only "could blow this", but did it so spectacularly, that i have few analogs. So did Mourdock and some other right-wing fanatics)))

()

McCaskill's ad strategy once he passed the final deadline was brutal and brilliant.

Yeah his gaffe wasn't fatal, I'm sure there's another explanation for losing by over 15%...