Talk Elections

Jeb Bush 50%
Hillary Clinton 40%
Undecided 10%

Scott Walker 48%
Hillary Clinton 40%
Undecided 9%

Rand Paul 47%
Hillary Clinton 42%
Undecided 11


https://20poundsofheadlines.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/poll-hillary-trails-3-gop-contenders-in-missouri

http://fox4kc.com/2015/02/20/blunt-beats-kander-in-early-political-poll

Remington was one of the few pollsters to get the KS Senate & Governor races more or less right last November.

Looks like Hillary isn't doing all too hot in Missouri ...

I'm pleasantly surprised by a lead that large. Probably just increasing polarization unfortunately as most swing states don't seem to be coming in our direction.

I think this is also the 1st Missouri poll that includes Hillary Clinton in 3 years or so.

One poll in Kansas doesn't make for a track record.

As I've said, MO is solid GOP. The state always had a high Republican floor, even when it was lean Dem.

Who are these guys?

As I have always said, Missouri's trend is powerful, going from 5% to the left of the nation in 1992 to 14% to the right of the nation in 2012 without ever trending democrat, and it can't be reversed (to the point where the state goes democrat for president) in one cycle barring a 2008-style wave. I shall now accept my accolades.

Missouri is not likely to be a 10% win for the Republican nominee in 2016. It will be competitive if Hillary Clinton does some campaigning there, especially as there will be a hot US Senate race.

Marist has been around for some time, and it polls for NBC News, which I expect to have some quality control.

Polls this early can mean something: that some alleged candidates are just not up to the level of political talent necessary for winning in the general election. I don't show Marco Rubio, and I don't show Joe Biden. Joe Biden had had plenty of opportunities to run for President before 2008 and the only way in which he ever becomes President is some personal tragedy. If Joe Biden wasn't ready for the President when he was in his 50s or 60s he isn't now. 

The 2014 elections demonstrate what was true in the Presidential race of 2012: the Republican Party has been very successful in cultivating white Southern Baptist voters, much as the Republicans were successful in cultivating Mormon voters around 1950.  Missouri used to be the bellwether state par excellence... but that is over.

A few years ago I saw a pattern: the Southern Baptist Church  is demographically strong up to roughly the Iowa-Missouri state line but weak to the north of the Iowa-Missouri state line. Barack Obama won Iowa decisively in 2008 and barely lost Missouri in 2008. Republicans would have won a Senate seat in Missouri in 2012 if their nominee hadn't made outrageous statements about a violent crime.   

This pollster suggests that Missouri will not be a GOP runaway as in 2012 under any Republican nominee. But if this holds, then Democrats can expect to win in the Mountain and Deep South only where there is a black majority. Missouri is now part of the Mountain South, and not the Midwest.

Missouri is still a lean Tossup state. Time will tell if Hillary will campaign there.

I think Hillary has a better chance of winning Arizona than Missouri. Jeb seems like a lousy candidate in the west, whatever gains he makes with Latinos he loses in whites. Westerners don't like DC insiders and both Jeb and Hillary cancel each other out. Paul is the best for the Mountain West.

I've said this before, Hillary has only a chance in flipping one Obama state and that's NC. Everything else you can forget about it she's not winning AZ as long as she supports full immigration reform or MO, AR, KY as long as she supports gun control.

Mexican-Americans (except in Texas) are going to take a long time to forgive Jeb's brother for the real estate hustle that hit Mexican-Americans hard. they were the ones most likely to buy a house with the shakiest qualifications, and they were the ones most likely to get burned  in the real estate crash. Texas? Texas' laws on underwriting loans for real estate had been reformed extensively in the 1980s, so there was no real estate loan based upon predatory lending in Texas to the extent that there was in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. 

Republican pollster with no track record...yeah, I'll wait for someone legitimate.

Marist is at least an established non-partisan polling firm. This is a partisan Republican firm that as far as I can tell has only released a single poll of Kansas. I'll take it about as seriously as I took that pollster nobody heard of showing Hillary up 5+ points in NC.

Ferguson swung Missouri even more rightward.

I dont think it matters just like in WVa, MO isnt a swing state at presidential level. But, Jeb isnt 10 pts shead in MO, he is up five there. Enough for Kander and Kostrr to make it a race thete.

She may also have a chance in Georgia if she is winning in a landslide (7+ points). Other than that, I agree with you.

Because Bushes always overperform in Missouri. I wasnt implying Dems will definately win the Senate seat there, it is playable due to the gov race being a tossup.  But, just wait until a new poll comes out. I am just saying Dems should throw in the towel here, just because of one poll.

How do you know that? Black turnout remained steady in 2013 and 2014.

How will they be more motivated than 2012? Their hatred for Obama dwarfs any similar feelings they ever had for Hillary and Bill.

Don't worry -- there WILL be more polls, and if this Remington poll is a partisan hack poll, some pollster will make it irrelevant.

NC and GA may very well stay red because they are inelastic, something Republicans forget is a problem in VA because it may not move much either. Not to mention those FL polls if Jeb isn't the nominee even if he is it's a toss.

People are so predictable.

Poll showing Hillary ahead = Democrats: "Dominating! She'll win here for sure!" Republicans: "It's too early to tell, there's no way she'll be that far ahead in a year."

Poll showing Hillary tied/trailing = Democrats: "It's too early, she could easily do better here in the future." Republicans: "Awesome, we've got this state in the bag, no question!"

I understand the rationale behind both arguments. It is early, but at the same time, Missouri is unlikely to be competitive. Still, I can't help but notice that people only seem to use the "it's early/there's still time" argument when they see a poll number they don't like.

READ the OP, Scott Walker was also tested and beat HRC 48-40.

The poll also shows Walker beating Clinton by 8 points (48-40).

And Walker only has a 50% name recognition right now outside WI.

MO in general is trending GOP for at least the last 25 years, so Hillary is unlikely to even come close there. Unless she wins by a landslide nationally. These are not the 90s anymore.

;)

Good find, but the first post was 2 years ago based on a poll that showed Clinton still strong in KY. Meanwhile, polls have come out that showed that Clinton has no chance anymore in KY, MO or WV and that it's more likely that she resembles Obama's maps in 2016 and not the 90s maps of Bill.

Yeah, the 2012 dream map may not be achievable in a 3 term Democratic run here. Clinton winning 272 or 270 may be more attainable with CO and OH being the bellweathers.

I don't think people are saying it's "too early", just that one partisan poll with a thin track record is not the end all be all of Missouri politics like many here are pretending it is.

That's not even true. The most recent Kentucky polls still show Hillary competitive there.

()

Obviously common sense tells us that MO will be more competitive than KY. Clearly, one or both of these polls are incorrect.

People using this partisan Republican poll with a close to nonexistent track record to "prove" that Missouri is safe R would be like using Gravis to "prove" Kentucky is a toss up. People are accepting it as gospel merely because a) nobody else has polled the state, so we have nothing to confirm or deny it and b) it backs up their preconceived notion of "Obama 2012 = Democratic ceiling". But considering how focused this site is on polling, you'd think people would learn not to take a single poll (particularly when it isn't a longstanding nonpartisan poll) as gospel. Weren't you all bashing pbrower for doing that to "prove" Toomey was doomed?

Missouri is less rural than Kentucky -- Kentucky basically has Louisville as a liberal base and Missouri has both Kansas City and St. Louis. Missouri also has more blacks. Like Missouri, Kentucky has a Senate seat up for grabs as well as some electoral votes for President.

Missouri in Presidential elections beginning in 2000:

Bush 50.42 - Gore 47.08
Bush 53.30 -  Kerry 46.10
McCain 49.36 - Obama 49.24 - Nader 0.61 - Barr 0.39
Romney 53.64 - Obama 44.28

Obama did some campaigning in Missouri in 2008, but not in 2012. He had good cause to avoid campaigning in Missouri in 2012; a Democratic incumbent was fighting for her political life in Missouri, and he found indication that his appearances there would only help the Republican. He did not need Missouri. I predict that Hillary Clinton will not be as unpopular in Missouri in 2016, and if she feels secure enough about winning the Presidential election and can help Democrats get elected to the Senate, then she will aid Democrats in the Senate.

...As for Senate Pat Toomey being "doomed" when an approval rating showed him at 28% --  I found it easy to say that he was "doomed" when he had an approval rating of 28%. Such means that many of those who voted for him then thought of him as a mistake. I wasn't sure that 28% was accurate; that is in the area of approval ratings of former Governor Corbett. Maybe the 28% approval rating was really 35% or something. I had no cause to believe that  partisan Republicans would continue to vote for him, as he has done nothing catastrophically wrong. He has yet to abuse power in the Senate as did Rick Santorum and has not gotten ensnared in a scandal involving a sexual predator.

So do I think him a sure thing with a poll that shows him at 43% a short time later? Hardly. Take the state into account. It's Pennsylvania, not a state likely to support partisan hacks who go too far one way or the other in their re-election bids. Pat Toomey is extreme-right on economics, having been Chairman of an organization called Club for Growth, an anti-union, anti-environment, anti-public sector organization that believes that the key to economic growth is to give the economic elites of America free rein. Nothing indicates that he has changed from such positions.

He barely got elected in a wave election, and he gets re-elected should the GOP have a wave like that of 2010 or 2014. Otherwise he has his work cut out. If he has 45-42 leads over losers of the previous election, virtual unknowns, and non-politicians, then maybe he is close to his ceiling of votes.

I CAN adjust my assessment of a situation to new data.     

Hillary should campaign in Missouri until the last votes are cast in November 2016

Missouri isn't going to be competitive in a 50/50 election. Hillary actually lost to Obama in the primary so it's not like she is a great fit for the state compared to Obama. Plus, the cities (St. Louis/Kansas City) have only shrunk further since the last election.

What?

Shrinking influence rather. The cities are growing slower than the state of Missouri as a whole and as that is the Dems base, that makes it harder for them with each year the cities lose influence on state politics.

MO isn`t in the swing state game anymore

even Obama lost it abrely in 2008 the best year for his party since 1964
 it`s a solid GOP state now

Hillary won`t win a Romney state back even not NC
and she don`t need to

only to held OH or VA and she will win probably

Barack Obama did no campaigning in Indiana (which he barely won in 2008) or Missouri (which he barely lost in 2008) in 2012 because his campaign appearances in those states could only the Democrats running for Senate seats there. Obama wanted Democrats to win the winnable Senate seats in those two states more than he wanted to make a vain effort to win their electoral votes. He chose wisely.

If Hillary Clinton projects to lose Indiana and Missouri about 54-46* but can help Democratic candidates win the Senate seats, she has her election as a near-certainty. She campaigns in Indiana and Missouri if such can help Democrats win a Senate majority. It is that simple. If she is fighting for her political life she does not do this. 

*The last Democratic nominee losing Indiana by 11% or less who did not lose nationally was William Jennings Bryan in 1908. Indiana really does swing, but rarely enough to go Democratic in a Presidential election.   

 Missouri is pretty much Kentucky now

No. Hillary or a Kaine can win there. It's lean R, but still tossup.

I dont like Bush, but youre nuts. He wont do disproportionally worse among hispanics.

I distinguished Texas, a state with a large Mexican-American population, with other states with large numbers of Hispanics. Mexican-Americans are more widespread than they used to be.

Texas had a nasty real estate bubble in the 1980s when the Democrats still had some influence in Texas... and the Texas state legislature enacted extensive reforms of residential lending. Texas was less burned by the implosion of the real estate bubble than California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Florida.

Mexican-Americans got burned badly because they were the last ones in the real estate bubble as borrowers.

Missouri is done. Let's stop citing a perfect storm of passing trends in 2008, or an incumbent Senator winning in 2012 because of a challenger so toxic that he damaged the entire national brand and was literally the worst Republican candidate of the cycle. While we're at it, we probably ought to go ahead and christen Jay Nixon as the last Democratic Governor Missouri will have for a long, long time.

Obama came so close in 2008 in Missouri because of, like I said, "passing trends". The fading conservadems and yellow dogs were still strong enough of a force there in combination with the national anti-Republican climate that it produced a result that almost handed a Democratic presidential candidate the state. Since then, whites have almost certainly become less Democratic as a whole and the people as a whole obviously do not lust for Democratic leadership/reject Republican leadership like they did in 2008. Hillary might do slightly better than Obama but I do not see her losing by less than 5.