MO-Sen 2018: Wagner likely running

[RogueBeaver]

McCaskill says she will be running for reelection.

[syntaxerror]

Has McCaskill's favourables improved since 2012? If not she's losing against anyone.

Maybe she should stand down and let Nixon run instead.

[madelka]

Which candidate comes closest to Todd Akin?

[Xing]

McCaskill's in for a tough ride, but it's too soon to count her out.

[Orser67]

McCaskill seems doomed unless Republicans win in 2016, or 2018 turns out to be a 2002/1998-style midterm.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The GOP had a good 2010 & 2014. But, McCaskill isnt doomed

[MT Treasurer]

Maybe she should stand down and let Nixon run instead.

I think Kander would be a stronger candidate if he's able to keep it relatively close this year. This seems like a case where Republicans should hope to face the incumbent. McCaskill's odds of winning re-election get longer every time she opens her mouth.

[Miles]

This has been an open secret for a while now. Wagner told McCaskill to her face that she'd be running against her like last year, IIRC.

[Kingpoleon]

Jason Smith is preferable, but Ann Wagner isn't too bad I guess.

[IceSpear]

McCaskill will need another miracle to win this.

Does anyone still have Akin's number? We need a true conservative to run against her, not establishment liberal RINO Ann Wagner.

[windjammer]

She's likely toast. She will lose by 10 points or something like that.

I don't expect all republicans to rally behind Wagner though, there will be other credible republicans running too.

[/]

Safe R ;-;

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Let's get through 2016 first.  Around this time in 2004, many pundits were claiming that the Republicans had an unbreakable grip on both Houses of Congress.  There were even claims (I remember Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh saying these sorts of things in particular) that the Republicans would be guaranteed to control the House until at least the next redistricting and the Senate for at least the next 20 years.  We all know how that worked out  As late as June/July 2009 (basically until the Obamacare fight started really heating up in August), it was not uncommon to see articles concern-trolling the end of the Republican party as anything more than a Deep South/regional rump party.  In early 2009, it seemed like almost everyone on a non-Fox news network was going off about how Obama was some sort of Reaganesque prophet of American liberalism who would reshape the political landscape and that the 2010s would see the country make a radical shift to the left on par with its move to the right in the 1980s.

While that's all obviously quite different from saying McCaskill will probably lose (and yeah, the odds really aren't in her favor), she was also supposed to be a goner in 2012 (I even remember that at one point Akin was being touted as the strongest candidate by more than a few Republicans when he first got in, funny what a little hindsight can do to one's opinions ).  This whole business of predicting Senate races that aren't even up in the coming election cycle, while harmless, is pretty useless on a practical level.  The truth is that we don't have the foggiest idea about what kind of year 2018 will be and there are too many unknown unknowns (and known unknowns, for that matter) to make predictions with the level of confidence some of you guys have been doing in this thread.  

TL;DR: It's to early to say how some Senate races in 2016 (ex: FL-Sen) will shape up, much less 2018 races.  A lot can and will happen between now and then, so we really shouldn't be declaring that Senators are going to get Blanched this far out (not saying McCaskill won't lose badly, but it is really too early to say anything except that she's definitely the underdog at this ridiculously early stage).

[IceSpear]

Let's get through 2016 first.  Around this time in 2004, many pundits were claiming that the Republicans had an unbreakable grip on both Houses of Congress.  There were even claims (I remember Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh saying these sorts of things in particular) that the Republicans would be guaranteed to control the House until at least the next redistricting and the Senate for at least the next 20 years.  We all know how that worked out  As late as June/July 2009 (basically until the Obamacare fight started really heating up in August), it was not uncommon to see articles concern-trolling the end of the Republican party as anything more than a Deep South/regional rump party.  In early 2009, it seemed like almost everyone on a non-Fox news network was going off about how Obama was some sort of Reaganesque prophet of American liberalism who would reshape the political landscape and that the 2010s would see the country make a radical shift to the left on par with its move to the right in the 1980s.

While that's all obviously quite different from saying McCaskill will probably lose (and yeah, the odds really aren't in her favor), she was also supposed to be a goner in 2012 (I even remember that at one point Akin was being touted as the strongest candidate by more than a few Republicans when he first got in, funny what a little hindsight can do to one's opinions ).  This whole business of predicting Senate races that aren't even up in the coming election cycle, while harmless, is pretty useless on a practical level.  The truth is that we don't have the foggiest idea about what kind of year 2018 will be and there are too many unknown unknowns (and known unknowns, for that matter) to make predictions with the level of confidence some of you guys have been doing in this thread.  

TL;DR: It's to early to say how some Senate races in 2016 (ex: FL-Sen) will shape up, much less 2018 races.  A lot can and will happen between now and then, so we really shouldn't be declaring that Senators are going to get Blanched this far out (not saying McCaskill won't lose badly, but it is really too early to say anything except that she's definitely the underdog at this ridiculously early stage).

Remember when Democrats were nearly guaranteed to pick up Senate seats in 2010? Ha. I remember back when our only vulnerable seats were Arkansas (though Blanche was the favorite!) and California (but ONLY if Schwarzenegger ran!)

[YPestis25]

Jason Smith is preferable, but Ann Wagner isn't too bad I guess.

Wait, why do you think Smith is preferable? I live in his district, and know people who have met with him, and they say in short that he's very unimpressive.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

[JMT]

I think Wagner wins the nomination and defeats McCaskill, but it's also way too early to know at this stage

[Kingpoleon]

Jason Smith is preferable, but Ann Wagner isn't too bad I guess.

Wait, why do you think Smith is preferable? I live in his district, and know people who have met with him, and they say in short that he's very unimpressive.

Smith is pretty moderate and intellectual, if lacking a strong personality.

[YPestis25]

Jason Smith is preferable, but Ann Wagner isn't too bad I guess.

Wait, why do you think Smith is preferable? I live in his district, and know people who have met with him, and they say in short that he's very unimpressive.

Smith is pretty moderate and intellectual, if lacking a strong personality.

Eh, I wouldn't call him either. He's got the same ranking from the Heritage Foundation as Steve King. And why do you say he's intellectual?

[Kingpoleon]

"Oops." - Fellow Southerner

I confused him with Jo Ann Emerson, his predecessor. As far as being intellectual, IIRC he was a pretty good attorney prior to becoming involved in politics.

[windjammer]

Oh come on, she's not going to lose by 25 points.

[Heisenberg]

2018 looks very promising for the GOP in the Senate because Democrats have to defend a ton of seats, especially in MO, IN, MT, and ND, all of which are vulnerable.  Plus, 2018 is a midterm year, which means lower turnout, usually favoring the GOP (unless it turns out to be really bad for Republicans).  It's likely that Democrats will gain some Governorships due to Republicans defending so many.  For the House, it's too early to tell, and some gerrymandering lawsuits are still pending.  I think Ann Wagner, Greg Ballard, Jack Dalrymple, and Ryan Zinke are strong recruits for the four seats mentioned above.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2018 looks very promising for the GOP in the Senate because Democrats have to defend a ton of seats, especially in MO, IN, MT, and ND, all of which are vulnerable.  Plus, 2018 is a midterm year, which means lower turnout, usually favoring the GOP (unless it turns out to be really bad for Republicans).  It's likely that Democrats will gain some Governorships due to Republicans defending so many.  For the House, it's too early to tell, and some gerrymandering lawsuits are still pending.  I think Ann Wagner, Greg Ballard, Jack Dalrymple, and Ryan Zinke are strong recruits for the four seats mentioned above.

I wouldn't count on GOP performing like they did under Obama McCaskill, Tester, Brown and Donnelly are skilled campaigners and Flake will be tea partied and Heller has two Dems in Kate Marshall and Ross Miller ready to defeat him. Heikamp is the only untested one. And if Clinton is prez she won't be toxic to red state voters like in MO like Obama was.

Portman, Ayotte and Tooney are vulnerable this election cycle because of Trump may doom Senate GOP

[YPestis25]

"Oops." - Fellow Southerner

I confused him with Jo Ann Emerson, his predecessor. As far as being intellectual, IIRC he was a pretty good attorney prior to becoming involved in politics.

No worries. Emerson was a much better Representative than Smith will ever be in my opinion. I didn't agree with her on much of anything, but at least she had the decency to be one of the seven Republicans to vote to condemn Joe Wilson for his episode at the State of the Union.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

2018 looks very promising for the GOP in the Senate because Democrats have to defend a ton of seats, especially in MO, IN, MT, and ND, all of which are vulnerable.  Plus, 2018 is a midterm year, which means lower turnout, usually favoring the GOP (unless it turns out to be really bad for Republicans).  It's likely that Democrats will gain some Governorships due to Republicans defending so many.  For the House, it's too early to tell, and some gerrymandering lawsuits are still pending.  I think Ann Wagner, Greg Ballard, Jack Dalrymple, and Ryan Zinke are strong recruits for the four seats mentioned above.

I wouldn't count on GOP performing like they did under Obama McCaskill, Tester, Brown and Donnelly are skilled campaigners and Flake will be tea partied and Heller has two Dems in Kate Marshall and Ross Miller ready to defeat him. Heikamp is the only untested one. And if Clinton is prez she won't be toxic to red state voters like in MO like Obama was.

Portman, Ayotte and Tooney are vulnerable this election cycle because of Trump may doom Senate GOP

Of all the Dems you mentioned, other than Brown, Heitkamp is the strongest candidate and far likelier to survive than McCaskill. And while we're on the subject of Dalrymple, I don't understand why anyone would pick Senate over Governor.