MO-Remington Research: Blunt+10

[MT Treasurer]

Roy Blunt (R, inc.): 43%
Jason Kander (D): 33%
Undecided: 23%

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article44352912.html
http://moscout.com/blunt-leads-kander/

[KingSweden]

Unfamiliar with this pollster's track record, but this seems about right. Blunt's not popular but still starts with a measurable advantage. Likely R.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The only state that seems safe R is IN. But, McCain, Blunt or Burr can lose under right circumstances.

Kander is a decorated Marine who served in Afghanistan. I hope he can get some momentum.

[Holmes]

I think Indiana is more winnable for Democrats than Missouri. It's at least shown that it could elect Democrats in presidential years for open senate seats (or rather, when the incumbent isn't on the ballot). Dems would need to run an excellent campaign and have a really bad Republican opponent to have any real chance though.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Both races have Gov racea, but since MO is a tossup,  I wikk go with Jason Kander at this point, but anything can happen.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yeah, Blunt isn't going to lose. Democrats really shouldn't spend any money on this race, 100% of what they can spend in MO should go to the governor's race.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

McCain, Blunt or Burr arent gonna lose in a 272 election. But, in a bigger wave election, a 303 election, McCain, maybe especially weak due to it being a Latino state.

But, I wouldn't put this down as a victory for Blunt just yet, Kander is a decorated veteran Marine who served in Afghanistan.  NC probably wont change or IN, even in a wave.

[Xing]

#BluntmorevulnerablethanToomey

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah, Blunt isn't going to lose. Democrats really shouldn't spend any money on this race, 100% of what they can spend in MO should go to the governor's race.

#BluntmorevulnerablethanToomey

Eh, Blunt's basically winning all the Todd Akin voters right now. Nothing surprising here. Also don't know how this proves that Blunt's less vulnerable than Toomey, not to mention that polls one year before the election don't tell us much at all. I'd still be more shocked if Katie McGinty (lol) wins than if Kander (who might be the best Democratic recruit next year) wins. People here forget that Missouri just elected a liberal Senator with 55% of the vote and by a margin of 16 POINTS.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems are gonna heavily invest in Pennsylvania, Kate McGinty will win.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yeah, Blunt isn't going to lose. Democrats really shouldn't spend any money on this race, 100% of what they can spend in MO should go to the governor's race.

#BluntmorevulnerablethanToomey

Eh, Blunt's basically winning all the Todd Akin voters right now. Nothing surprising here. Also don't know how this proves that Blunt's less vulnerable than Toomey, not to mention that polls one year before the election don't tell us much at all. I'd still be more shocked if Katie McGinty (lol) wins than if Kander (who might be the best Democratic recruit next year) wins. People here forget that Missouri just elected a liberal Senator with 55% of the vote and by a margin of 16 POINTS.

McCaskill only got that much of the vote because of Todd Akin's rape comments. Blunt isn't stupid enough to make such comments.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kstie McGinty, Strickland, Hassan and Murphy are rising stars.  And momentum in Pa is heading in Dems direction. I doubt Sestak will be nominee, but Toomey is in a fight either way.

[Xing]

Yeah, Blunt isn't going to lose. Democrats really shouldn't spend any money on this race, 100% of what they can spend in MO should go to the governor's race.

#BluntmorevulnerablethanToomey

Eh, Blunt's basically winning all the Todd Akin voters right now. Nothing surprising here. Also don't know how this proves that Blunt's less vulnerable than Toomey, not to mention that polls one year before the election don't tell us much at all. I'd still be more shocked if Katie McGinty (lol) wins than if Kander (who might be the best Democratic recruit next year) wins. People here forget that Missouri just elected a liberal Senator with 55% of the vote and by a margin of 16 POINTS.

That's why people who see polls showing Toomey ahead by slightly more than Blunt shouldn't assume that he's less vulnerable. Missouri re-elected Claire McCaskill so handily because her opponent was Todd Akin. Blunt is relatively inoffensive, and he'll get an enormous boost from the Republican ticket, while Toomey will, if anything, likely face at least minor head winds.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems are beginning to focus on Pa, NH, OH & FL, and abandoning these second tier contests.

Kander will be gov of MO in 2020.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Democrats would be stupid to give up this soon, with this many undecideds, and with Blunt's not-so-great approvals.


The Democrats would do well to invest in states like Missouri and Indiana for wave insurance. The GOP looks like it will nominate Trump (or at least damage itself with a freak show like in 2012), and if Hillary wins the election, it would be a missed chance to get 2 more Senate seats.

And even if they don't win, they've forced the GOP to divert money from defending Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and trying to take Colorado.

[Holmes]

No one is abandoning anything before the election campaign even starts. jfc

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The polls clearly show Dems have a shot in CO, FL, NH, OH, IL, WI & NV.

Dems arent winning MO, or AZ or NC, either.

[Xing]

I'm not suggesting that Democrats should give up on this race. They should simply be aware that Blunt will probably win unless it's a wave year, or he makes a big blunder of some kind. If 2016 starts looking like a neutral or Republican-leaning year, Democrats shouldn't invest too much in this race, and should focus on easier pick-up opportunities.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems are focuaed on jolly, Ayotte, Heck, Kirk & Johnson

[MT Treasurer]

I'm not suggesting that Democrats should give up on this race. They should simply be aware that Blunt will probably win unless it's a wave year, or he makes a big blunder of some kind. If 2016 starts looking like a neutral or Republican-leaning year, Democrats shouldn't invest too much in this race, and should focus on easier pick-up opportunities.

I get your point, but that's what they said about ND and IN in 2012 Predicting individual Senate races is very difficult.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Defeat of Portman will be the ND of 2012, not def of Blunt, because it will be unexpected, eventhough Strickland is a good opponent. Portman maybe more vulnerable than Toomey, because Dems are shifting resources to NH, but Strickland is good at fundraising too, better than Sestak or McGinty.

[pbrower2a]

If this pollster is not an R hack entity, then Blunt is statistically about a 50% proposition for re-election. Nate Silver says this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/myth-of-incumbent-50-rule/

...Senator Blunt will need to campaign to win, and he will have a tough struggle to get a bare win. He will not have a Republican wave to help him this time. Maybe he can win more decisively if he is able to talk tough on terrorism while Americans have a scare at the time -- in which case practically all Republicans do well.

Missouri seems to be drifting to the Right, which might save Senator Blunt.

How good is he as a campaigner? That may be the one big question. If he is an effective campaigner he wins no matter how strong an opponent he has. It is that simple. Republicans rarely had to be strong campaigners to win in 2010; 2016 will be a very different environment.

He is the incumbent, and after five years in the Senate he should be doing better than a 43% approval in a state that leans Republican. The Republicans have had plenty of opportunity to say stupid things... not that I make such a prediction.