Posted on 08/12/2010 6:24:08 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
The race between Republican Congressman Roy Blunt and Democrat Robin Carnahan in Missouri’s U.S. Senate race is little changed after both candidates easily won their party primaries last week.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Missouri Voters shows Blunt with 50% support, while Carnahan earns 43% of the vote.
Two weeks ago, Blunt posted a 49% to 43% lead over Carnahan, Missouri’s current secretary of state. Blunt has run slightly ahead of Carnahan in surveys all year, with support ranging from 45% to 50%. She, in turn, has picked up 41% to 45% of the vote in those same surveys.
Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate in the race, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Blunt-71%.
Purgason-13%
Were this 2008, “Spawn of Carnahan” would defeat any Republican....
Roy “McCain” Blunt - 59% crossovers.
Good one!
Wow, now I KNOW you aren't from Missouri or Roy's Congressional district. If there is one thing that Roy does, it is stop and listen to people. I know he has especially tried to talk and listen to "tea partiers."
If there is a single reason why Roy won this district by the large margins, it is because he takes the time to stop and listen to people. It is also probably why he is winning. If you dont believe me, take time to stop and read how often he is criss-crossing the state and visiting not just large cities, but the smaller stops along the way.
So no, even in 2008 I dont believe he would lose by such a wide margin - unless we have people do to Roy what they did to Hulshof.
For those who dont remember - Sarah Steelman fired both torpedoes in the primary into Hulshof's bow and pretty much handed Nixon the battle plans on how to defeat Kenny in the fall.
The end result was a land slide for Nixon (Steelman's husband ended up with a job from Nixon later in 2009).
So really you could say whether or not Carnahan wins this year depends upon how many of the lies equating Roy to a RINO people are willing to buy into.
The problem is, many tea partiers aren't so much interested in talking with and listening to elected officials as they are banging their own drums about how great they are.
He can “listen” to all the people in the world, but whether he “hears” them is something entirely different, and it still won’t change my assessment of him. He is an establishment RINO, not a reformer. I note you chose not to challenge my conclusion of his tenure as House Whip. He should’ve retired from Congress in shame for his being AWOL on the job. He’s not the only one who was incompetent, as my former Senator Frist was just as bad as Majority Leader. Blunt’s only getting a promotion because of the climate, not because he earned it, he certainly didn’t.
That applies more to the elected officials who think they're better than "the little people."
I think one of the biggest consistent problems that people have in interpreting and understanding what is going on right now is found in the assumption that all elected officials are Washington koolaid drinkers who look down on us "little people."
Some are, some aren't. A lot of them aren't. Jim DeMint strikes me as a standup kind of guy. So does Pat Toomey. So does Michelle Bachmann (well, standup kind of girl). So does Paul Ryan. So do a number of others.
Sure, on the other hand, you have the McCains, the Grahams, the Bob Bennetts, and so forth. Jerks all, who need to be diselected pronto.
But this attitude of "throw 'em all out" I think is stupid and ill-founded. Toss the bad ones, keep the good ones. And there are more good ones than people give credit for, I think.
But then again, in an environment like Free Republic, where everytime a primary between two or three solidly conservative candidates finally happens, and the supporters of the loser(s) start screeching about how the winner is a "RINO" (even when he/she is obviously not), it's not surprising that this sort of emotionally-charged attitude finds play.
Prove it. Show me where Roy's policies stand in opposition to limited government. He may not be a libertarian, but over the years he has more than proven him self to be conservative. Again, I know because he is my congressman and to be honest, I am sick of seeing his good name - and my district by proxy - drug through the mud.
You can legitimately complain about a number of votes Roy made in 2001 until about 2003 or so. They were not popular here at home and renounced them later - and has proven it in Congress over and over again when it counts (during votes).
I choose not to refute your comment about his tenure ad Whip because guess what, it is NOT RELEVENT. I know *gasp*. What is relevent is how the man voted and what policies he is pushing. I know *shock*.
If you have specific policy issues proving he is a RINO and especially in the past couple of years, lets hear it. If you can show me that he is not listening to his constituents here in the 7th Cong district - and those Missourians who he is talking to state wide now, show me. Other wise, stop spreading misinformation and helping Obama by electing Carnahan.
I would add that unless you are from Missouri (maybe even 7th Congressional district) - you have no right to comment on Roy being a success or failure simply because he did his job well and indeed "hears" from the constituency.
Blunt is NO rino and fought to repeal and reform Obamacare. On the other hand Carnahan is a full blown leftwing nutcase and MO and America has had enough of her ilk.
Purgason LOST..get over it. Missouri does not need Carnahan so take your sour grapes and turn them into some real wine. A few sips may just cure your ailment.
Blunt is a conservative and will make a great senator. It is faux conservatives that will do anything to see Blunt lose to the wretched Carnahan. BTW, better believe the ACORN folks and Soros money will be behind Robin “us blind” Carnahan
Problem is, many of those people, even some who claim to side with us (gov’t reformers) have drunk the kool-aid (or just share contempt without having to... look at the comments of Ken Buck in the CO Senate race). Though I understand the concern about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we could toss 99% of those currently in office and do better. Of course, as with anything, over time, most of those reformers curdle and need to be replaced. It seems like even the best ones spoil after 6 years, rare few last longer.
You'll eat those words someday.
Wrong, Bob. He was in a leadership capacity, and he was grossly incompetent. That is the paramount concern here. His voting record doesn't play nearly as big a role as his LEADERSHIP does. And in case that's not enough, you take a look at the disastrous losses while on HIS watch in a leadership capacity. A party whip is a very important position. They're supposed to be high profile and constantly defending the party and its agenda in all media capacities. Roy was nowhere to be found in doing so. What was outrageous was that he was RETAINED in that position even after our disastrous losses in '06. Your other red herring arguments about his district don't interest me in the least. You remind me of the sycophants who kept defending the execrable ex-Governor from Massachusetts, willfully choosing to ignore how disastrous he was as a party leader, yet deserving of the Presidency. My argument against Blunt was a simple one. You don't reward failure with promotion.
In what capacity did Steelman’s hubby land a job with Nixon?
Okay, so his voting record doesnt count - even when it establishes Roy as being a rock solid conservative. I see clearly now.
They're supposed to be high profile and constantly defending the party and its agenda in all media capacities. Roy was nowhere to be found in doing so.
Your arugment is sprawling, still lacks relevency and most importantly untrue. Most recently (and relevent) Blunt worked on pushing for market based healthcare reform. (see this 2009 video straight from his office website - 30 sec google search http://blunt.house.gov/Read.aspx?ID=1059)
Perhaps most telling is that to this point you have yet to cite specifics and more importantly, how those examples of allegations should encourage Missouri voters to stay home and or vote for Robin Carnahan.
Okay. Found it. MOSERS Board.
Bob, you just don’t get it. Same as with the Slick Willard sycophants. Doesn’t matter how awful a job he did in leadership, you’ll support him to the death regardless. It’s more a testament to your mentality. Were I across the border in Missouri, would I vote for him ? Yes, in the general, but it wouldn’t be a vote FOR him as a vote AGAINST Carnahan. Don’t expect him to be a leader in the Senate, because he NEVER was in the House, and that’s the whole point. He’s part of the problem with respect to the GOP leadership, and he’s not the only one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.