MO-SEN 2018: The Megathread

[mds32]

Back to the actual subject.

Do we think that Wagner is going to waltz through a primary or will she actually have competition? Hartzler seems the more likely one to contest.

[jamestroll]

There will certainly be competition and there will be an argument against her that people like Graves and Hartzler stuck with Trump when Wagner did not. Some are encouraging Peter Kinder to come in also in 2018.

No clue who will win the primary. Wagner, on paper, would be tough to beat. But very few Missouri races have gone by early conventional wisdom. So who knows.

[HAnnA MArin County]

There will certainly be competition and there will be an argument against her that people like Graves and Hartzler stuck with Trump when Wagner did not. Some are encouraging Peter Kinder to come in also in 2018.

No clue who will win the primary. Wagner, on paper, would be tough to beat. But very few Missouri races have gone by early conventional wisdom. So who knows.

lolno

[windjammer]

Back to the actual subject.

Do we think that Wagner is going to waltz through a primary or will she actually have competition? Hartzler seems the more likely one to contest.

There are Vicky Hartzler And Sam Graves who are mentioned. No idea of their interest though

[DavidB.]

All these "rules" about elections that Atlas has are often based solely on the last general election. This election we already broke a rule. The rule being that Democrats have a lock on the presidency.

They do not. Trump won. And yet, Democrats are not "dead", they still won the popular vote. Even if I admit that is meaningless under the constitution.

Democratic turnout was lower in this election compared to 2012 and 2008. There is no hard rule or evidence in November 2016 that Democratic turnout will be low in November 2018.

The lesson of this election is not that all rules are wrong and all facts can be ignored, it is that we shouldn't be blind to the idea that they may be wrong and that we should remain critical. I'm also not saying Dem turnout will be lower compared to 2018, but I see no reason why Dem turnout would be higher than in 2014 or 2010 unless Trump is massively unpopular. The point is that mobilizing Dem voters is much harder than mobilizing GOP voters. That was true before the 2016 general election too. It may not be that hard if Trump is super unpopular, but if his approvals are 40%-50%, 2018 will be a lean R election. The difference with the midterms in the 00s is that Dems now have a much harder time winning white voters.

David, there is really no way you can know that.

I agree, that statement was a bit much. However, so is many people's assumption that Tester/Heitkamp are now saved.

Even when I rant about 2018, I'm only making educated guesses. Independents could completely turn on Republicans like 2006, Democrats could experience a surge in turnout while Republicans, upset by Trump, a man many didn't explicitly support for him so much as a vote against Clinton, stay home, and a fair number of Republicans could switch over. OR maybe none of that happens.

It is clear that Republicans, for now, still have a structural midterm advantage in a number of ways, but that is by no means an ironclad insulator against backlash.

All I can say is, just keep an eye on the Generic Ballot question for 2018 and Trump's approval ratings. If you see Trump constantly floating around the low 40s (or lower) and a generic congressional ballot polls showing Democrats up by mid-high single digits or low double digits, Republicans could very well be in for big trouble in 2018. They might not lose the Senate but the House and many state legislatures/governorships would be at risk.

Or maybe, it's a wash. Who knows, but there are ways to see a backlash coming ahead of time. It's rarely a genuine surprise and in some cases can be seen long before election day.

You're right.

2016 was a neutral year.

Lol, 2016 was far worse for Democrats than 2014.

2016 was worse in effect (unexpectedly losing the White House, unexpectedly not taking back the Senate) but in terms of electoral results 2014 was obviously worse for Democrats than 2016. If 2016 were worse for Dems than 2014, the GOP would have won NV-Sen and NH-Sen too, and IL-Sen would have been much closer. None of that happened. However, 2016 was also not a "neutral" year. Republicans winning Wisconsin and Michigan is quite something.

[jamestroll]

I have said that I think Democrats will suffer a net loss in the Senate due to sheer math and the map, but I doubt it will  be a blood bath.

[jamestroll]

Back to normal posts,

I will not count McCaskill out yet just because it is so early, but we will know by next summer if the race is worth the Democrats contesting or not, IMO.

She is a strong savvy campaigner, and could face a favorable national environment, and seems willing to work with Trump on many issues.

Wagner would be tough to beat in theory, but Koster was supposed to be tough in theory to beat also.

[Figueira]

Every state that voted for Trump elected a Republican Senator this year. Something to keep in mind when you're predicting a Democratic wave in 2018.

2016 was a neutral year.

Lol, 2016 was far worse for Democrats than 2014.

I never said it wasn't "bad" for the Democrats; it was obviously awful for us. But in terms of the national mood on election day, it was neutral: Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, while House Republicans narrowly won the popular vote. Obviously the effect of this was disastrous for Democrats, but that doesn't mean it was a "Republican year."

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Is her name pronounced like the composer?

[Figueira]

Is her name pronounced like the composer?

No, sadly.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://redalertpolitics.com/2017/02/28/austin-petersen-optimistic-trump-may-run-senate-republican/#LmuKM7kpdLGVjWIV.99

Yes, that Austin Petersen. If he actually is the R nominee against McCaskill, I imagine she wins comfortably.

[MT Treasurer]

He won't get the R nomination, but even if he does, McCaskill won't win "comfortably", lmao. Atlas believing that McCaskill is some titan who is heavily favored for reelection is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on this forum.

Edit: I think she could win simply because the MO Republican Party is so terrible, but people here are seriously underestimating how vulnerable she is. I'd be shocked if she wins reelection against a non-joke Republican.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

He won't get the R nomination, but even if he does, McCaskill won't win "comfortably", lmao. Atlas believing that McCaskill is some titan who is heavily favored for reelection is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on this forum.

You know I don't believe she's favored to win against generic R, I just think Petersen would be a poor opponent.

[peterthlee]

He won't get the R nomination, but even if he does, McCaskill won't win "comfortably", lmao. Atlas believing that McCaskill is some titan who is heavily favored for reelection is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on this forum.

At least not for me. I rank this race as pure tossup, tilt D at most. If she triumphs, it will be decided by 1 percentage point or less. I still do not rule out the odds that she gets kicked out of office by 5-10 points.

[Heisenberg]

He won't get the R nomination, but even if he does, McCaskill won't win "comfortably", lmao. Atlas believing that McCaskill is some titan who is heavily favored for reelection is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on this forum.

Petersen won't win (primary or general), and I imagine McCaskill would do well (for a Democrat) in the rural, social conservative areas. Yes, Petersen is pro-life and pro-gun, and McCaskill isn't either, but McCaskill has been around for a while, and seems to be pretty religious, while Petersen is openly atheist, and calls himself "very culturally liberal" as well (again, McCaskill is no conservadem, but she is no Elizabeth Warren either and has been taking the right steps).

[peterthlee]

He won't get the R nomination, but even if he does, McCaskill won't win "comfortably", lmao. Atlas believing that McCaskill is some titan who is heavily favored for reelection is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on this forum.

Petersen won't win (primary or general), and I imagine McCaskill would do well (for a Democrat) in the rural, social conservative areas. Yes, Petersen is pro-life and pro-gun, and McCaskill isn't either, but McCaskill has been around for a while, and seems to be pretty religious, while Petersen is openly atheist, and calls himself "very culturally liberal" as well (again, McCaskill is no conservadem, but she is no Elizabeth Warren either and has been taking the right steps).

Yea. Best picture of this Senate race.

[Vosem]

Petersen would definitely be better than Ann Wagner or Josh Hawley just from an ideological perspective, though I'd imagine Wagner is the most electable candidate. I'd love to vote for him if I lived in Missouri.

[JA]

He won't get the R nomination, but even if he does, McCaskill won't win "comfortably", lmao. Atlas believing that McCaskill is some titan who is heavily favored for reelection is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on this forum.

Petersen won't win (primary or general), and I imagine McCaskill would do well (for a Democrat) in the rural, social conservative areas. Yes, Petersen is pro-life and pro-gun, and McCaskill isn't either, but McCaskill has been around for a while, and seems to be pretty religious, while Petersen is openly atheist, and calls himself "very culturally liberal" as well (again, McCaskill is no conservadem, but she is no Elizabeth Warren either and has been taking the right steps).

Yea. Best picture of this Senate race.

[MT Treasurer]

He won't get the R nomination, but even if he does, McCaskill won't win "comfortably", lmao. Atlas believing that McCaskill is some titan who is heavily favored for reelection is truly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on this forum.

You know I don't believe she's favored to win against generic R, I just think Petersen would be a poor opponent.

Yeah, but how do you know he is so unelectable that he would lose "comfortably"? I know the MO GOP is terribly incompetent (which is the only bright spot for her), but Petersen is no Akin and McCaskill is no Kander either.  He might not be a good fit for his state, but neither is she. I'm more afraid of Sam Graves or Billy Long blowing the race, honestly.

[jamestroll]

McCaskill could well lose but likely won't be blanched.

I am encouraging Austin Peterson to run as a libertarian to split the anti McCaskill vote.

I do think MO Dems will win future statewide contests. 2008 showed the state as too Democratic but I think 2016 was a bit inflated Republicabn.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I have a hard time seeing a dumbass, immature prick like Peterson winning against the graceful but also surprisingly cunning McCaskill. He should run for the House and be a douchebag there. That way the GOP can field a serious challenger and some of Peterson's decent views can still actually be heard.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I have a hard time seeing a dumbass, immature prick like Peterson winning against the graceful but also surprisingly cunning McCaskill. He should run for the House and be a douchebag there. That way the GOP can field a serious challenger and some of Peterson's decent views can still actually be heard.

He lives in Kansas City (i.e. Emanuel Cleaver's district). Running for the house isn't an option.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I have a hard time seeing a dumbass, immature prick like Peterson winning against the graceful but also surprisingly cunning McCaskill. He should run for the House and be a douchebag there. That way the GOP can field a serious challenger and some of Peterson's decent views can still actually be heard.

He lives in Kansas City (i.e. Emanuel Cleaver's district). Running for the house isn't an option.

Really? I thought he was Wagner's district for some reason.

[PPT Spiral]

I would be forced to vote for McCaskill in such a matchup. Good God.

[jamestroll]

I would be forced to vote for McCaskill in such a matchup. Good God.

Thank you for your support!