MO-MOScout: GOP leading Senate and Auditor's race, Hawley at 50%

[DrScholl]

Don't sleep on Claire McCaskill. Plus, Hawley has some issues with residency that McCaskill is ready to hit him on. http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article167777887.html

[MarkD]

I still think that McCaskill will win a third term in 2018, but it will be very close and more competitive than 2012 in a sense.

She has two strategies to win reelection in 2018:

Appeal to rural and suburban voters outside of STL and KC as she is doing with the town halls and meetings, of all races, or:

Re-energize the liberal, urban base in Columbia, Jefferson City, St. Louis, Kansas City. What electoral strategy does she use?

Will black voters vote for McCaskill again after her tepid 2014 response to Michael Brown's shooting?

Tilt R/Tossup.

You don't know the politics of Jefferson City very well.

Of course McCaskill will need to win some rural counties in order to stay competitive. I think she might be able to win if she carries only one third as many rural counties as in 2012, and she will probably need to win Jefferson COUNTY (southern suburbs of St. Louis).

Based on the turnout among black regions of St. Louis in 2016, I don't think that black turnout will be great next year either.

[krazen1211]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dont think McCaskill beats Akin without the gaffe (and the publicity the gaffe got) at all. After that idiotic statement he also got crippled with fundraising.

As for the poll, no tabs no respect for the poll. But it does line up with what id expect, still no proof.

Akin was polling roughly +5-7 like Hawley is now.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

I've been trying to be very optimistic in only labeling this race as Tilt R, but I'm more or less ready to move it to Lean R for now considering that the last couple polls have been pretty consistent.

[Meatball Ron]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is awesome. I think McCaskill's certainly at a disadvantage, but if she paints her opponent as an out-of touch, Ivy elite, she just might get the margins she needs in the rural areas of the state to win.

[MarkD]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is awesome. I think McCaskill's certainly at a disadvantage, but if she paints her opponent as an out-of touch, Ivy elite, she just might get the margins she needs in the rural areas of the state to win.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is awesome. I think McCaskill's certainly at a disadvantage, but if she paints her opponent as an out-of touch, Ivy elite, she just might get the margins she needs in the rural areas of the state to win.

The obvious counter to the whole "You bent the rules!!!" argument is: "How does that change the fact that you're an out of touch liberal?"

[Maxwell]

I imagined Claire McCaskill was going to start out behind - she seems to do better as the underdog anyways.

[Devils30]

Dems would be better if they had Kander here

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

This race isnt lost for McCaskill yet, but its gonna be a real tough one.

[Jeppe]

Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson were losing by larger margins in polling much later in the election cycle. Give it time, McCaskill could still turn it around, especially if Trump's approval ratings dip even further (the Senate margin is very close to Trump's own approval rating). Hawley could also turn out to be a weak candidate and blow the race by failing to excite the base. A lot of variables in play, and I think a toss-up rating is warranted.

[Xing]

Clearly a poll showing her down more than a year out means she's finished. Hawley's got this in the bag, just like Senator Heck did.

[The Other Castro]

Here Lies the Missouri Democratic Party. At least they were taken out swiftly in just 2 election cycles.

FTFY

Declaring a race dead for the incumbent of an opposition party in a year likely to swing hard against the party in power is absolute bonkers. No amount of polling or ill-informed punditry will change that fact.

Your begging for the Missouri Democratic Party to be a thing is admirable, but pointless.

Rest assured that I do not care about the Missouri Democratic Party in this context absent the consequences the Senate seat has for the country at large. You do not know what is going to happen, and I do not know what is going to happen in this race, so you can drop that omniscient tone of yours.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Here Lies the Missouri Democratic Party. At least they were taken out swiftly in just 2 election cycles.

FTFY

Declaring a race dead for the incumbent of an opposition party in a year likely to swing hard against the party in power is absolute bonkers. No amount of polling or ill-informed punditry will change that fact.

Your begging for the Missouri Democratic Party to be a thing is admirable, but pointless.

Rest assured that I do not care about the Missouri Democratic Party in this context absent the consequences the Senate seat has for the country at large. You do not know what is going to happen, and I do not know what is going to happen in this race, so you can drop that omniscient tone of yours.

We don't know in the sense that we don't know if Tim Kaine or Angus King will be reelected. Yes, something miraculous could happen to save McCaskill, most likely Petersen winning the R nomination, but it would be just that - a miracle.

[Rjjr77]

As much as I despise McCaskill, I believe she would have beaten Akin even without that gaffe (though it would have been closer - probably a 6- to 8-point win or so). People forget that this guy ran a terrible campaign even before the gaffe happened, and there's a reson why Akin was her preferred candidate from the very beginning. Also, no Democratic incumbent was really going to lose in 2012 anyway, except MAYBE Nelson in NE. Honestly, 2012 was an absolute disaster for Republicans at all levels.

McCaskill absolutely would have lost, even his weak campaign would have been enough to cost had it not been for the gaffe, his money absolutely dried up afterwards. He was leading, and beginning to pull away in some polls. In fact the only reason mccaskill won by so much is all the undecideds broke for her at the end.

[Rjjr77]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dont think McCaskill beats Akin without the gaffe (and the publicity the gaffe got) at all. After that idiotic statement he also got crippled with fundraising.

As for the poll, no tabs no respect for the poll. But it does line up with what id expect, still no proof.

She outperformed the RCP polling average by almost 10 points. IIRC, when Akin was leading, he was only up by single digits.

Cool story? do you know what that even means? McCaskill got literally every undecided voter to break her way, do you think that would have happened without legitimate rape?

 Akin saw 18 point flips in polling after the legitimate rape comment, it absolutely was the only reason McCaskill won.

[Meatball Ron]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is awesome. I think McCaskill's certainly at a disadvantage, but if she paints her opponent as an out-of touch, Ivy elite, she just might get the margins she needs in the rural areas of the state to win.

It makes no difference if Hawley is an Ivy-league outsider. People vote for personalities, not policies. The only thing McCaskill has going for her is that Hawley is as low energy as her. The guy is like a politician straight out of central casting trained like a seal with Koch brothers sound bites. He's also terrible at dishing out the racist innuendos and red meat to the base which is basically a must for today's GOP candidates. If Trump keeps getting mired in scandal, fails legislatively (which is bound to happen), and the economy starts slowing down then I doubt GOP voters will show up in droves for this guy while the RTW ballot initiative might serve as McCaskills third electoral lifeline.

Isn't the Ivy-league outsider thing more of a personality issue than a policy issue? In any case, I see what you're saying though and generally agree.

[MT Treasurer]

McCaskill absolutely would have lost, even his weak campaign would have been enough to cost had it not been for the gaffe, his money absolutely dried up afterwards. He was leading, and beginning to pull away in some polls. In fact the only reason mccaskill won by so much is all the undecideds broke for her at the end.

Many Republicans were leading in 2012 until... well, they weren't. Think of Tommy Thompson or Rick Berg. Candidates don't win by 16 points just because of one gaffe of their opponent. Akin's campaign made her look like a moderate, which was far more devastating than anything Akin said. 2012 was a massive Democratic wave year, no Democratic incumbent (including Tester) was going to lose that year. Yeah, undecideds broke for her at the end, but undecideds broke Democratic virtually everywhere else as well. Republicans made a ton of mistakes in 2012, and 2018 is their chance to prove that they have learned the lessons from 2012 (because if they haven't, MO will probably the only state they flip - and they'll lose NV, AZ and probably one or two other seats at the same time). Don't let anyone tell you that Democrats can't flip the Senate in 2018, they can if Republicans take things for granted again.

[Heisenberg]

McCaskill absolutely would have lost, even his weak campaign would have been enough to cost had it not been for the gaffe, his money absolutely dried up afterwards. He was leading, and beginning to pull away in some polls. In fact the only reason mccaskill won by so much is all the undecideds broke for her at the end.

Many Republicans were leading in 2012 until... well, they weren't. Think of Tommy Thompson or Rick Berg. Candidates don't win by 16 points just because of one gaffe of their opponent. Akin's campaign made her look like a moderate, which was far more devastating than anything Akin said. 2012 was a massive Democratic wave year, no Democratic incumbent (including Tester) was going to lose that year. Yeah, undecideds broke for her at the end, but undecideds broke Democratic virtually everywhere else as well. Republicans made a ton of mistakes in 2012, and 2018 is their chance to prove that they have learned the lessons from 2012 (because if they haven't, MO will probably the only state they flip - and they'll lose NV, AZ and probably one or two other seats at the same time). Don't let anyone tell you that Democrats can't flip the Senate in 2018, they can if Republicans take things for granted again.

Exactly. 2012 was very winnable for Republicans, and many other seats could have flipped, but they all would have had to have had things go WAY differently.

[jamestroll]

Let's not get to heated over counterfactual arguments here.  There is no way to prove them.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

McCaskill absolutely would have lost, even his weak campaign would have been enough to cost had it not been for the gaffe, his money absolutely dried up afterwards. He was leading, and beginning to pull away in some polls. In fact the only reason mccaskill won by so much is all the undecideds broke for her at the end.

Many Republicans were leading in 2012 until... well, they weren't. Think of Tommy Thompson or Rick Berg. Candidates don't win by 16 points just because of one gaffe of their opponent. Akin's campaign made her look like a moderate, which was far more devastating than anything Akin said. 2012 was a massive Democratic wave year, no Democratic incumbent (including Tester) was going to lose that year. Yeah, undecideds broke for her at the end, but undecideds broke Democratic virtually everywhere else as well. Republicans made a ton of mistakes in 2012, and 2018 is their chance to prove that they have learned the lessons from 2012 (because if they haven't, MO will probably the only state they flip - and they'll lose NV, AZ and probably one or two other seats at the same time). Don't let anyone tell you that Democrats can't flip the Senate in 2018, they can if Republicans take things for granted again.

The only flippable republican seats are AZ, NV, and UT. Saying Dems can win in TX, TN, NE, MS or WY is like saying Sheldon Whitehouse can lose reelection. Of course, if Jones pulls off the AL special and there's some other special election, then the Dems would have a shot, as long as they only lost MO - if Donnelly is losing, Dems probably aren't winning Utah either, and then it would be 4 pickups, 2 losses, which comes out to a 50-50 Collins Majority.

[MT Treasurer]

^Yeah, it would be some combination of winning the special election in AL/UT if there's a three-way race/Flake's seat/Heller's seat/a potential AZ special election. Extremely unlikely, and I don't think it will happen. But Republicans can't take anything for granted.

TX, TN, NE, MS or WY aren't going to flip, of course.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Claire won't win so get her out!

[Coraxion]

McCaskill absolutely would have lost, even his weak campaign would have been enough to cost had it not been for the gaffe, his money absolutely dried up afterwards. He was leading, and beginning to pull away in some polls. In fact the only reason mccaskill won by so much is all the undecideds broke for her at the end.

Many Republicans were leading in 2012 until... well, they weren't. Think of Tommy Thompson or Rick Berg. Candidates don't win by 16 points just because of one gaffe of their opponent. Akin's campaign made her look like a moderate, which was far more devastating than anything Akin said. 2012 was a massive Democratic wave year, no Democratic incumbent (including Tester) was going to lose that year. Yeah, undecideds broke for her at the end, but undecideds broke Democratic virtually everywhere else as well. Republicans made a ton of mistakes in 2012, and 2018 is their chance to prove that they have learned the lessons from 2012 (because if they haven't, MO will probably the only state they flip - and they'll lose NV, AZ and probably one or two other seats at the same time). Don't let anyone tell you that Democrats can't flip the Senate in 2018, they can if Republicans take things for granted again.

The only flippable republican seats are AZ, NV, and UT. Saying Dems can win in TX, TN, NE, MS or WY is like saying Sheldon Whitehouse can lose reelection. Of course, if Jones pulls off the AL special and there's some other special election, then the Dems would have a shot, as long as they only lost MO - if Donnelly is losing, Dems probably aren't winning Utah either, and then it would be 4 pickups, 2 losses, which comes out to a 50-50 Collins Majority.

^Yeah, it would be some combination of winning the special election in AL/UT if there's a three-way race/Flake's seat/Heller's seat/a potential AZ special election. Extremely unlikely, and I don't think it will happen. But Republicans can't take anything for granted.

TX, TN, NE, MS or WY aren't going to flip, of course.

If I may explain on behalf of Wulfric and TN Volunteer, as a Utahan...

A lot of people don't buy that Utah is anything other than Safe R. I think Likely R is a fair rating. Orrin Hatch is a weak incumbent with terrible approval ratings, and multiple polls show that most Utahans would prefer that he retire. If (IF) the Dem nominee is someone competent like, say, Matheson, it could be in play. A possible third-party run by McMuffin also makes it worth watching.

[TheLeftwardTide]

McCaskill absolutely would have lost, even his weak campaign would have been enough to cost had it not been for the gaffe, his money absolutely dried up afterwards. He was leading, and beginning to pull away in some polls. In fact the only reason mccaskill won by so much is all the undecideds broke for her at the end.

Many Republicans were leading in 2012 until... well, they weren't. Think of Tommy Thompson or Rick Berg. Candidates don't win by 16 points just because of one gaffe of their opponent. Akin's campaign made her look like a moderate, which was far more devastating than anything Akin said. 2012 was a massive Democratic wave year, no Democratic incumbent (including Tester) was going to lose that year. Yeah, undecideds broke for her at the end, but undecideds broke Democratic virtually everywhere else as well. Republicans made a ton of mistakes in 2012, and 2018 is their chance to prove that they have learned the lessons from 2012 (because if they haven't, MO will probably the only state they flip - and they'll lose NV, AZ and probably one or two other seats at the same time). Don't let anyone tell you that Democrats can't flip the Senate in 2018, they can if Republicans take things for granted again.

The only flippable republican seats are AZ, NV, and UT. Saying Dems can win in TX, TN, NE, MS or WY is like saying Sheldon Whitehouse can lose reelection. Of course, if Jones pulls off the AL special and there's some other special election, then the Dems would have a shot, as long as they only lost MO - if Donnelly is losing, Dems probably aren't winning Utah either, and then it would be 4 pickups, 2 losses, which comes out to a 50-50 Collins Majority.

McCaskill surviving is more likely than Jones winning. The best path to a Democratic Senate majority is holding onto all incumbent seats + AZ + NV + TX/AL/AZ-McCain. The best realistic hope for the Democrats is a 50/50 Senate tie.