MO-SEN: Blunt stands by Trump, says he'll still vote for him

[heatcharger]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/784756154442272768

Congratulations to Senator-elect Jason Kander!

You know, I wasn't buying the "Blunt is doomed" narrative on here, but now it seems like he's asking to lose.

[Kevin]

This is Missouri which Trunp is likely to win regardless.

If anything I could see this helping Blunt.

[heatcharger]

This is Missouri which Trunp is likely to win regardless.

If anything I could see this helping Blunt.

I highly doubt this will help him at all. If this was Alabama, I'd agree with you, but Missouri at least has some moral boundaries; see Todd Akin.

[Maxwell]

Blunt is a very poor candidate and I'm quite surprised that he managed to win by 13 points in 2010. However, Kander doesn't have this in the bag. Tossup for now.

Blunt is very much the definition of establishment Republican hatchet man. I'm almost surprised he even went for the Senate bid - he was very high in House leadership. I guess he was told he wouldn't be promoted any longer or something. These type of guys don't tend to do well statewide unless their state is so overwhelmingly Republican.

Blunt is the kind of guy you don't want to see in the daylight.

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

Someone needs to poll this race, and actually release the poll.

[Ebsy]

I think sticking with Trump is the right move for Blunt. He needs their votes.

[publicunofficial]

This is Missouri which Trunp is likely to win regardless.

If anything I could see this helping Blunt.

At this point, Trump winning Missouri is not a given.

[JerryArkansas]

Looks like this is the moment I was talking about.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This won't help him, but I'm not sure it will hurt him much either.

[Xing]

I think this could hurt Blunt, since it limits his potential to win people who aren't voting for Trump. I really want to see a non-internal poll of this race.

[jamestroll]

Someone needs to poll this race, and actually release the poll.

haha there are tons of polls.. but none released.

Very irritating to me!

Anyway, I never said Blunt was doomed. Blunt Kander is a barn burner. Considering the temperament of Missourians, I would suspect Clinton would win it in a close one now. But we need to see what the debate tomorrow and next few weeks will be.

[Fitzgerald]

You know, I don't claim to be a genius when it comes to political tactics, but after the smash success of Kander's blindfold ad last month I really don't think Blunt wants to be handing him ammo (ha) for more of them.

[Dr. Arch]

Great job Blunt. Like Ayotte, enjoy the last months in your seat.

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

How Missouri is voting this year makes no sense. Blunt runs tons of ads stressing his ability to work across the aisle, that Kander and Clinton agree on every important issue, and that Kander was an inept SOS who had to be stopped by courts from manipulating elections on three separate occasions, and yet they run to the democrat because he can put together a gun blindfolded. As if that matters.

I'm not saying that Blunt can't win. But this really shouldn't even be close. Kander's an extremely partisan dem who will vote with Clinton 99% of the time. I have nothing against democrats as a whole - I've endorsed John Gregg, Ann Kirkpatrick, Pete Gallego, Chris Koster, Doug Owens, Patrick Murphy, and Ron Wyden this year among others. But Kander is way more partisan than any of them are, and does not deserve to be in the Senate.

[Young Conservative]

Missouri is a state where Trump is still likely to win.

[Gass3268]

How Missouri is voting this year makes no sense. Blunt runs tons of ads stressing his ability to work across the aisle, that Kander and Clinton agree on every important issue, and that Kander was an inept SOS who had to be stopped by courts from manipulating elections on three separate occasions, and yet they run to the democrat because he can put together a gun blindfolded. As if that matters.

I'm not saying that Blunt can't win. But this really shouldn't even be close. Kander's an extremely partisan dem who will vote with Clinton 99% of the time. I have nothing against democrats as a whole - I've endorsed John Gregg, Ann Kirkpatrick, Pete Gallego, Chris Koster, Doug Owens, Patrick Murphy, and Ron Wyden this year among others. But Kander is way more partisan than any of them are, and does not deserve to be in the Senate.

Hopefully he joins Duckworth and McGinty in kicking out snakes like Kirk, Toomey, and Blunt.

[Tartarus Sauce]

IIRC, Blunt hasn't been outperforming Trump on the ballot by that much, while Kander is prominently leaping over Clinton. Even if she doesn't win the state, a subpar output for Trump could end up undermining Blunt and propelling Kander into the seat. Keeping the Trump supporters on his good side is Blunt's least bad option here, but if Trump ends up underperforming Romney's numbers in Missouri (which looks pretty damn likely at this point), he's toast anyway.

[Indy Texas]

How Missouri is voting this year makes no sense. Blunt runs tons of ads stressing his ability to work across the aisle, that Kander and Clinton agree on every important issue, and that Kander was an inept SOS who had to be stopped by courts from manipulating elections on three separate occasions, and yet they run to the democrat because he can put together a gun blindfolded. As if that matters.

I'm not saying that Blunt can't win. But this really shouldn't even be close. Kander's an extremely partisan dem who will vote with Clinton 99% of the time. I have nothing against democrats as a whole - I've endorsed John Gregg, Ann Kirkpatrick, Pete Gallego, Chris Koster, Doug Owens, Patrick Murphy, and Ron Wyden this year among others. But Kander is way more partisan than any of them are, and does not deserve to be in the Senate.

Because MUH GUNS! MUH GUNS IS ALL THAT MATTERS!!!

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

How Missouri is voting this year makes no sense. Blunt runs tons of ads stressing his ability to work across the aisle, that Kander and Clinton agree on every important issue, and that Kander was an inept SOS who had to be stopped by courts from manipulating elections on three separate occasions, and yet they run to the democrat because he can put together a gun blindfolded. As if that matters.

I'm not saying that Blunt can't win. But this really shouldn't even be close. Kander's an extremely partisan dem who will vote with Clinton 99% of the time. I have nothing against democrats as a whole - I've endorsed John Gregg, Ann Kirkpatrick, Pete Gallego, Chris Koster, Doug Owens, Patrick Murphy, and Ron Wyden this year among others. But Kander is way more partisan than any of them are, and does not deserve to be in the Senate.

Because MUH GUNS! MUH GUNS IS ALL THAT MATTERS!!!

But apparently Kander's F rating from the NRA doesn't.

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

It's pretty laughable that Wulfric prefers Blunt to Kander because Kander is "too partisan". Don't get me wrong, Kander will probably be a pretty standard Democrat in the Senate but because of the state he'll represent, he'll at least have to pay some lip service to "moderate types" (whatever that means nowadays), which I'd think that someone like Wulfric would love. Blunt, on the other hand, is the definition of a partisan hack bought out by special interests; how can you say "VOTE OUT ALL CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS" and still back an ex-Minority Whip? That doesn't even make sense.

A Hillary Clinton national campaign chairman (yes, Kander is literally that) that has little to no actual policy differences with her aside from the Iran Deal is not a moderate in any sense of the word. Plus, he does his current job poorly, why promote him?

[windjammer]

How Missouri is voting this year makes no sense. Blunt runs tons of ads stressing his ability to work across the aisle, that Kander and Clinton agree on every important issue, and that Kander was an inept SOS who had to be stopped by courts from manipulating elections on three separate occasions, and yet they run to the democrat because he can put together a gun blindfolded. As if that matters.

I'm not saying that Blunt can't win. But this really shouldn't even be close. Kander's an extremely partisan dem who will vote with Clinton 99% of the time. I have nothing against democrats as a whole - I've endorsed John Gregg, Ann Kirkpatrick, Pete Gallego, Chris Koster, Doug Owens, Patrick Murphy, and Ron Wyden this year among others. But Kander is way more partisan than any of them are, and does not deserve to be in the Senate.

Well I can see 4 reasons:
- Rural democrats: there is a non negligeable chunk of voters who were previously democrats but have  become republicans because of immigration, guns etc.
- Hillary Clinton isn't the MO democrat senate nominee, even if her approval rating rose recently (around -10 instead of -20 before), she's still unpopular, and even more in a conservative leaning state.
- Blunt: He seems to have a run a terrible campaign, he's clearly associated with establishment (and in this year this is bad news) and he seems to be so unlikable.
-Jason Kander:no matter what you can think of him, he's a strong campaigner, his ad with guns was particularly smart for example.

[Fitzgerald]

It's pretty laughable that Wulfric prefers Blunt to Kander because Kander is "too partisan". Don't get me wrong, Kander will probably be a pretty standard Democrat in the Senate but because of the state he'll represent, he'll at least have to pay some lip service to "moderate types" (whatever that means nowadays), which I'd think that someone like Wulfric would love. Blunt, on the other hand, is the definition of a partisan hack bought out by special interests; how can you say "VOTE OUT ALL CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS" and still back an ex-Minority Whip? That doesn't even make sense.

A Hillary Clinton national campaign chairman (yes, Kander is literally that) that has little to no actual policy differences with her aside from the Iran Deal is not a moderate in any sense of the word. Plus, he does his current job poorly, why promote him?

That's an interesting theory coming from someone living in Minnesota.

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

It's pretty laughable that Wulfric prefers Blunt to Kander because Kander is "too partisan". Don't get me wrong, Kander will probably be a pretty standard Democrat in the Senate but because of the state he'll represent, he'll at least have to pay some lip service to "moderate types" (whatever that means nowadays), which I'd think that someone like Wulfric would love. Blunt, on the other hand, is the definition of a partisan hack bought out by special interests; how can you say "VOTE OUT ALL CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS" and still back an ex-Minority Whip? That doesn't even make sense.

A Hillary Clinton national campaign chairman (yes, Kander is literally that) that has little to no actual policy differences with her aside from the Iran Deal is not a moderate in any sense of the word. Plus, he does his current job poorly, why promote him?

That's an interesting theory coming from someone living in Minnesota.

Running out of ballots during the presidential primary and having to be stopped by courts from manipulating elections on three separate occasions is not evidence of doing a good job.

[Heisenberg]

It's pretty laughable that Wulfric prefers Blunt to Kander because Kander is "too partisan". Don't get me wrong, Kander will probably be a pretty standard Democrat in the Senate but because of the state he'll represent, he'll at least have to pay some lip service to "moderate types" (whatever that means nowadays), which I'd think that someone like Wulfric would love. Blunt, on the other hand, is the definition of a partisan hack bought out by special interests; how can you say "VOTE OUT ALL CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS" and still back an ex-Minority Whip? That doesn't even make sense.

A Hillary Clinton national campaign chairman (yes, Kander is literally that) that has little to no actual policy differences with her aside from the Iran Deal is not a moderate in any sense of the word. Plus, he does his current job poorly, why promote him?

That's an interesting theory coming from someone living in Minnesota.

Running out of ballots during the presidential primary and having to be stopped by courts from manipulating elections on three separate occasions is not evidence of doing a good job.

Blunt even made an ad about it.

[publicunofficial]

"Go Blunt! We must show America that Kanderism is not the answer!!!"