Kentucky and Colorado are both toss-ups with Hillary? Uh, alright..
It's the CLINTON's.
It's the 90s again.
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.
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.
