MO-Rasmussen: McCain up 9 against Clinton and 15 against Obama

[Tender Branson]

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

McCain: 50%
Clinton: 41%

McCain: 53%
Obama: 38%

In Missouri, McCain attracts support from 87% of Republicans against both Democrats and holds a modest lead among unaffiliated voters. Clinton earns 79% of the vote from Democrats while Obama attracts 67%. Among men, McCain leads both Democrats by a wide margin. Among women, he has a nine-point advantage over Obama but trails Clinton by five.

McCain is viewed favorably by 59% of the state’s voters, Obama by 47%, and Clinton by 45%.

Link

[agcatter]

Pretty much identical to Survey USA 12 days ago.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

It will be only a matter of time before polls in Colorado, VA, Ohio, perhaps even PA and Michigan will follow this trend of McCain beating both Democratic candidates by double digits.

2008 = 1988

[Democratic Hawk]

Well if McCain is only holding a modest lead among unaffiliated voters with these numbers, as of now, he must be doing reasonably well among Missouri Democrats.

In February, it was:

McCain 43% - Clinton 42%

McCain 42% - Obama 40%

McCain's favorables are up 5%, Obama and Clinton's down 2% and he is running stronger among women, especially against Obama

Dave

[Tender Branson]

With McCain getting 87% of Republicans and Obama 20% less from Democrats we can only pray for Clinton to endorse Obama once she drops out. If she refuses, McCain might have an easy time.

[Wiz in Wis]

If Clinton were to not endorse Obama, she would have 0 chance at 2012, the party elites wouldn't stand for it and they would rally around Sen Warner, etc. If she steals it at the DNC she won't win, so she really can only protect her legacy by endorsing. I don't think she's as stupid as she has been behaving these last few weeks.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Who cares if she does endorse him? It's not like it will  be meaningful and everyone knows she won't actually mean it. Looks like Missouri is solid GOP for now.

[agcatter]

It's early but Obama is hemorhaging white Democrats.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Who cares if she does endorse him? It's not like it will  be meaningful and everyone knows she won't actually mean it. Looks like Missouri is solid GOP for now.

^^^^^^^^^^^

[Democratic Hawk]

It will be only a matter of time before polls in Colorado, VA, Ohio, perhaps even PA and Michigan will follow this trend of McCain beating both Democratic candidates by double digits.

2008 = 1988

Now why should states that voted for Kerry in 2004, like PA and MI, swing so decisively towards McCain in 2008 given voters' concerns about the economy? What is to say that voters won't, ultimately, opt for a pragmatic progressive alternative?

Surprising as it may seem ideologically conservative Republicans can be cackhandedly incompetent. Nevertheless, just because Bush has, as good as, proven himself that it doesn't follow that voters have the same perception about McCain, who, as of now, running strong. And that is the challenge Democrats must meet if they are to win in November

Liberal, liberal, liberal might not necessarily be as effective a line of attack as it once was. After Bush, most voters may well be looking for competence over ideology. In being an early advocate of the Iraq 'surge', which appears to be working, McCain will be perceived as having exercised good judgement. This to a point will innoculate him from Bush

This election could well be decided on national security, which gives McCain a big advantage; unless Democrats can somehow close the 'credibility' gap, or concerns about the economy, which could well swing it the way of the Democrat, especially if things deteriorate further

It is only March and there is plenty of time for 'events' to conspire to shift things decisively one way or another. The person who wins the election may well be the one who has the big ideas to reassure an anxious middle and working class that things can only get better than they are now. And that is call only they can make

I remain optimistic that a Democrat can win; but I'm by no means confident that they will

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

It's early but Obama is hemorhaging white Democrats.

Well Obama is down 2% in Missouri; while the early undecideds have, obviously, broken heavily for McCain to give him such a commanding lead. It doesn't follow that it's going to stay that way moving forward

Dave

[agcatter]

Hawk, neither side can be confident:

1.  it's waaay too early
2.  events - terrorist attack, economy really tanks, etc
3.  you have the debates
4.  a candidate says something really stupid - gaphe by McCain, Michelle Obama doesn't stay gagged.

It will be decided by one or two syates - book it.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It will be only a matter of time before polls in Colorado, VA, Ohio, perhaps even PA and Michigan will follow this trend of McCain beating both Democratic candidates by double digits.

2008 = 1988

Now why should states that voted for Kerry in 2004, like PA and MI, swing so decisively towards McCain in 2008 given voters' concerns about the economy? What is to say that voters won't, ultimately, opt for a pragmatic progressive alternative?

Surprising as it may seem ideologically conservative Republicans can be cackhandedly incompetent. Nevertheless, just because Bush has, as good as, proven himself that it doesn't follow that voters have the same perception about McCain, who, as of now, running strong. And that is the challenge Democrats must meet if they are to win in November

Liberal, liberal, liberal might not necessarily be as effective a line of attack as it once was. After Bush, most voters may well be looking for competence over ideology. In being an early advocate of the Iraq 'surge', which appears to be working, McCain will be perceived as having exercised good judgement. This to a point will innoculate him from Bush

This election could well be decided on national security, which gives McCain a big advantage; unless Democrats can somehow close the 'credibility' gap, or concerns about the economy, which could well swing it the way of the Democrat, especially if things deteriorate further

It is only March and there is plenty of time for 'events' to conspire to shift things decisively one way or another. The person who wins the election may well be the one who has the big ideas to reassure an anxious middle and working class that things can only get better than they are now. And that is call only they can make

I remain optimistic that a Democrat can win; but I'm by no means confident that they will

Dave

The argument McCain is Bush, McCain is Bush! probably won't work either, and the argument McCain can't win any Kerry states, McCain can't win any Kerry states! is getting old too. He may not win any in the end, but right now the chances are very good that he picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan, New Hampshire, possibly makes New Jersey and Massachusetts competitive.

On the flip side, Obama will make Bush states like Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico and Iowa competitive.

I've seen you and others pose this argument over and over again and right now it looks foolish going at it. Obama is simply not popular among these white, lunch pale Democrats.

Did it ever dawn on you that maybe the American people prefer McCain to Obama when it comes to the economy (which is true from exit polls in Texas and Ohio primaries)? We don't like to hear that our taxes are going to be raised to pay for social programs like free college tuition and healthcare. At least, the majority of us do not. He'll have a hard time convincing the majority of voters that he can turn the economy around by raising taxes, increasing government spending, and building the economy "from the bottom" up, because that goes against any econ 101 class ever taught. 

[JohnCA246]

The most important vote in Missouri are the Kansas City suburbs and periphery.  Democrats pretty much have to carry that to win.  There are also a handful of counties in the middle where there are universities, but the key are the KC suburbs.  I don't think industrial workers are going to be as critical here as commuters.  Unfortunately for Democrats, however, I think McCain is going to be a very strong candidate in this demographic.

[Person Man]

Well,

It will be only a matter of time before polls in Colorado, VA, Ohio, perhaps even PA and Michigan will follow this trend of McCain beating both Democratic candidates by double digits.

2008 = 1988

Now why should states that voted for Kerry in 2004, like PA and MI, swing so decisively towards McCain in 2008 given voters' concerns about the economy? What is to say that voters won't, ultimately, opt for a pragmatic progressive alternative?

Surprising as it may seem ideologically conservative Republicans can be cackhandedly incompetent. Nevertheless, just because Bush has, as good as, proven himself that it doesn't follow that voters have the same perception about McCain, who, as of now, running strong. And that is the challenge Democrats must meet if they are to win in November

Liberal, liberal, liberal might not necessarily be as effective a line of attack as it once was. After Bush, most voters may well be looking for competence over ideology. In being an early advocate of the Iraq 'surge', which appears to be working, McCain will be perceived as having exercised good judgement. This to a point will innoculate him from Bush

This election could well be decided on national security, which gives McCain a big advantage; unless Democrats can somehow close the 'credibility' gap, or concerns about the economy, which could well swing it the way of the Democrat, especially if things deteriorate further

It is only March and there is plenty of time for 'events' to conspire to shift things decisively one way or another. The person who wins the election may well be the one who has the big ideas to reassure an anxious middle and working class that things can only get better than they are now. And that is call only they can make

I remain optimistic that a Democrat can win; but I'm by no means confident that they will

Dave

The argument McCain is Bush, McCain is Bush! probably won't work either, and the argument McCain can't win any Kerry states, McCain can't win any Kerry states! is getting old too. He may not win any in the end, but right now the chances are very good that he picks up Pennsylvania and Michigan, New Hampshire, possibly makes New Jersey and Massachusetts competitive.

On the flip side, Obama will make Bush states like Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico and Iowa competitive.

I've seen you and others pose this argument over and over again and right now it looks foolish going at it. Obama is simply not popular among these white, lunch pale Democrats.

Did it ever dawn on you that maybe the American people prefer McCain to Obama when it comes to the economy (which is true from exit polls in Texas and Ohio primaries)? We don't like to hear that our taxes are going to be raised to pay for social programs like free college tuition and healthcare. At least, the majority of us do not. He'll have a hard time convincing the majority of voters that he can turn the economy around by raising taxes, increasing government spending, and building the economy "from the bottom" up, because that goes against any econ 101 class ever taught. 

I would read a book called the "Folklore of Capitalism" by Thurman Arnold.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It will be only a matter of time before polls in Colorado, VA, Ohio, perhaps even PA and Michigan will follow this trend of McCain beating both Democratic candidates by double digits.

2008 = 1988

Only Clinton is as bad as Dukakis.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I think it's way too early to say that Missouri is solid GOP. Wait until the Democrats have a nominee first. It's a bit discouraging to see both of their numbers tank in this state, but that is to be expected after the fighting the last few months.

[Democratic Hawk]

Hawk, neither side can be confident:

1.  it's waaay too early

Yep

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A terrorist attack, on the one hand, could work against Republicans, if voters feel that they are no safer than they were in 2001 and they construe this of a consequence of a misguided foreign policy; on the other, there could be a backlash against Democrats if voters feel that that Congress' perceived soft-line on wiretapping, and such security measures, could have prevented such an attack

A really tanking economy can't do McCain or the Republicans any good whatsoever. Bush will be blamed, and rightly so, and McCain is in no position to blame Bush, except to distance himself from Bush's prolifigate spending, but what if most voters want investment in healthcare, education, etc  especially if they personally begin to feel more socio-economically insecure?

God forbid a terrorist attack happening; while a major recession has potentially serious consequences well beyond the shores of the USA

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where either candidate will play to their own strengths. Obama will make McCain look staid, old and tired; while Clinton is just one strong debater who could just outclass McCain

Will McCain get so frustrated that his temper gets the better of him? If so, does that diminish his high personal favorables?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the more McCain gaffes, the more voters might begin to wonder if such absent-mindedness is a sympton of old age; Michelle Obama just has to button-it

Dave

[Person Man]

Though, what works against us, as can be seen in AH defering to common knowledge to attack half of the democratic platform can simply be attributed to faith in the current state ideology. This was very dominant in the late 19th century and early 20th century and who knows what it could take to allow people to look past it. I mean currently, Obama's "Hope" and "Change" is considered "whiney" because he lacks faith in the current ideology. I mean, what's optimism? Is it faith in the way things are and that they can't get any worse? Or is it hope that there is something out there that's better than what we have now?

[The Hack Hater]

This drop in the polls is only temporary, but the margin is significant. However, If Hillary gets behind Obama if he wins the nomination, then there's a good chance that Obama could win this state. I think that if Obama doesn't win Pennsylvania, states like Missouri, and certain western states like CO and NV could be what puts him over the top. But if Obama doesn't win Missouri, it could all be for nothing.

[agcatter]

I gotta believe a terrorist attack is really political bad news for Obama. The good news is terrorists aren't stupid, they aren't gonna hit us before the election.  Who would they rather face?  McCain or Obama?  Scratch terrorist attack from my list.  Thanks to the Obama candidacy we are safe at least until after the election.  Thank you for running Barack.

I doubt if Michelle is capable of closing her piehole.  She has so much to tell us about our mean, racist country.  Keep speaking your mind Michelle.

[Person Man]

I gotta believe a terrorist attack is really political bad news for Obama. The good news is terrorists aren't stupid, they aren't gonna hit us before the election.  Who would they rather face?  McCain or Obama?  Scratch terrorist attack from my list.  Thanks to the Obama candidacy we are safe at least until after the election.  Thank you for running Barack.

I doubt if Michelle is capable of closing her piehole.  She has so much to tell us about our mean, racist country.  Keep speaking your mind Michelle.

Gee, what a hack. When are we going to stop being paralysed by fear?

[exopolitician]

I gotta believe a terrorist attack is really political bad news for Obama. The good news is terrorists aren't stupid, they aren't gonna hit us before the election.  Who would they rather face?  McCain or Obama?  Scratch terrorist attack from my list.  Thanks to the Obama candidacy we are safe at least until after the election.  Thank you for running Barack.

I doubt if Michelle is capable of closing her piehole.  She has so much to tell us about our mean, racist country.  Keep speaking your mind Michelle.

Its a sad day indeed when someone is hoping for a terrorist attack to win them an election. Plus Michelle hasnt recieved any press time since her little speech a few months ago. So I dont understand where all this "oh michelle needs to keep her mouth shut" business is coming from.

[agcatter]

Who exactly said they were "hoping for a terrorist attack".  I actually said the opposite but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

The Obamiacs are losing it.  For crying out loud, it was just one lonely poll out of one state.  Chill.

[Reaganfan]

Who exactly said they were "hoping for a terrorist attack".  I actually said the opposite but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

The Obamiacs are losing it.  For crying out loud, it was just one lonely poll out of one state.  Chill.

They thought he was gonna be a strong candidate and now are figuring out he very well may lose, and they will then say it was because of race.