Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 11, 2019, 02:46:55 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  MO-Remington Research/Missouri Scout: Hillary trails by quite a bit in Missouri
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: MO-Remington Research/Missouri Scout: Hillary trails by quite a bit in Missouri  (Read 5302 times)
Nat. Sec. Council Member Dwarven Dragon
Wulfric
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,939
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.68, S: 1.22

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2015, 02:51:06 am »

These polls are assuming Clinton and Jeb win nonination. What will these poll look like if it is Walker? In some polls are performing better Jeb.

Bushes are a household name in Missouri.
READ the OP, Scott Walker was also tested and beat HRC 48-40.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,993
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2015, 02:51:46 am »

These polls are assuming Clinton and Jeb win nonination. What will these poll look like if it is Walker? In some polls are performing better Jeb.

Bushes are a household name in Missouri.

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.
Logged
Mr. Morden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 40,341
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2015, 02:57:12 am »

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.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 50,993
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2015, 03:02:56 am »

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.

Wink

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.
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2015, 03:19:50 am »

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.
Logged
Landslide Andy
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,727
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2015, 11:28:39 pm »

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.

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.
Logged
Landslide Andy
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31,727
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2015, 11:57:34 pm »

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.

Wink

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?
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2015, 06:27:11 am »

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.

Wink

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.     
Logged
bronz4141
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,030
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2015, 10:32:49 pm »

Hillary should campaign in Missouri until the last votes are cast in November 2016
Logged
Panda Express
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,149


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2015, 11:22:08 pm »

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.
Logged
Ebsy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,830
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 15, 2015, 11:30:24 pm »

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?
Logged
Panda Express
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,149


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2015, 11:56:49 pm »

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.
Logged
Former Democrat
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 250
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2015, 03:51:12 am »

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
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2015, 10:31:25 am »

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.   
Logged
seanNJ9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 508
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2015, 01:07:06 pm »

 Missouri is pretty much Kentucky now
Logged
bronz4141
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,030
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2015, 01:51:41 pm »

Missouri is pretty much Kentucky now
No. Hillary or a Kaine can win there. It's lean R, but still tossup.
Logged
bobloblaw
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,020
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2015, 11:49:55 am »

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. 

I dont like Bush, but youre nuts. He wont do disproportionally worse among hispanics.
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,527
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2015, 03:14:04 pm »

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. 

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.
Logged
President Griffin
Adam Griffin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,642
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 22, 2015, 06:56:22 am »

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. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC