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 ...
Agreed. Last thing Missouri needs in Washington is the “Snoop Sisters!” Carnahan/MacCaskill
No, I wont. There is a reason why Roy repudiated some of his votes during the 2001-2003 time frame and made it right. His constituency (thats me) didnt stand for it. To me, that is far more measure of a man and real leadership than some untagible and yet to define set of criteria that I have yet to see.
To be perfectly honest, I would settle for a nonflashy work horse who voted and represented me and kept my freedoms and liberties than someone who is on the front of the newspaper all the time.
Jim Talent was more of a moderate - but still had a principled conservative back bone. He was a work horse who busted his tail for Missourians. Some Missourians disagreed with that philosophy and voted for Claire McCaskill in 2006. Look where that landed the nation, let alone the state.
Perhaps that, in addition to the fact Roy is my Congressman, is why I am probably overly sensative to the matter.
Ok. Got it. Should have searched before I asked. Just was not aware he’d been named to Board (MOSERS).
Always regret Hulshof/Steelman fight. Knife fight more like it. Both bled red, and Nixon led...
I hold Jim Talent and John Ashcroft in a much higher regard, both got shafted (Kit Bond I’m just rather mild about). Roy just doesn’t get any sympathy from me, and frankly, his son’s cowardice in cutting and running from the Gubernatorial reelection fight in 2008 (which led to that senseless internecine battle between two good people, Steelman and Hulshof), just solidified my negative opinion of the family. Had Matt stayed put, fought the good fight and lost however narrowly (like Bond did running for reelection to the same office in ‘76 against Teasdale), a lot of folks would’ve unapologetically supported him to run for the Senate (instead of his father). I’m only glad the rumor that Roy would install his son in his House seat didn’t pan out.
I agree with your point about preferring a workhorse, but once they seek out leadership, that’s what they must be judged on. I’d rather someone who only votes right 75-85% of the time who is an aggressive leader who gets the job done than someone who is 95%+ who couldn’t lead himself out a paper bag.
Wish Purgason would have waited and run against McCaskill. However, Carnahan cost us over 400,000 dollars in taxpayer money with the voter fraud lawsuit. She was one shoddy Sec of State and how ironic the charges were dismissed around the time Obommie “the Commie” came to MO to campaign for her.
Found out on her site she wants to cut nukes and is going to use Blunt’s vote to go into Iraq as her “ploy” against him. Blunt can bury her if he campaigns hard and exposes her for the radical liberal she is
Blunt will make a great senator. You will be the sorry one if Carnahan wins.
Uh oh, now you’re picking on my favorite Blunt - Matt. I LOVED having him for Governor, I believe he is truly a good human being, too good to be a politician. He made the best decisions as governor, I agreed with everything I knew that he did while Governor.
Someone here on FR knew someone close to the family and said Matt just wasn’t mean enough or crooked enough to be in politics. I can see that. Some people just aren’t made to be politicians.
“According some Freepers unless someone’s ACU rating is 175.99 they are a RINO.”
You’ve been reading my diary! ;-)
This is a battle of the dynasties, the Blunt Dynasty versus the Carnahan Dynasty. I was sure dissapointed when Blunt ran. Jim Talent was who I had hoped for, as he was an excellent Senator.
Yep, although disagree on Talent. Good man, but poor politician. Peter Kinder would have been a great candidate and would have likely blown Carnahan out of the water.
This is one of those races that is a toss-up, all things being equal. In 2010, Blunt has a clear edge, while in 2006 Carnahan likely would have won.
I really hope Robin’s brother Russ get’s defeated too in MO-03.
I make no apologies for being tough on him. He lost all credibility when he wet his underwear at the prospect of facing Poppin’ Jay Nixon. We needed a strong-willed, courageous and tough Governor to stay put and be in charge to preside over redistricting, but he cut and run. I cannot give praise to someone who willfully chose to do that and left the party totally in the lurch. Remember, even if he had lost reelection (like Kit Bond did in ‘76), if he gave it his all, he’d have left office with his credibility and strength of character and strong support for the next available office (a la Jim Talent after that appalling 2000 election situation). I wouldn’t support Matt for dogcatcher now, and he only has himself to blame for that.
Yes, I would’ve preferred to support either Sarah Steelman or Peter Kinder for the Senate this year. At least Kinder didn’t chicken out running for reelection in ‘08 like Matt did. I hope he takes out Nixon in ‘12 (or the moronic McCaskill).
That’s what I do too. Vote for the most conservative person in the primary and (sometimes reluctantly) vote the R in the fall.
Ick I was gonna say I'd rather Steelman was the Senate candidate..
I'd have preferred Talent over Blunt but Talent having lost 2 statewide races already isn't ideal either. Peter Kinder may have been a good choice. But he wants to take Nixon down in 2012 instead. Too bad Kinder was the only GOP statewide victor in 08. There's a long history of narrow rat wins in Missouri.
“Talent having lost 2 statewide races already”
What matters is the margins. Talent lost in 2000 on a recount against a much better-known opponent. In 2006, Talent lost by only 3% against a statewide elected official in a heavily ‘Rat year. Talent was also hurt by the Ruch Limbaugh/Michael J. Fox flap.
I'm not a huge fan of Blunt, but I'll vote for him. Nonetheless, I can assure you no matter how bad the political climate is in Missouri, no Democrat would ever, ever win a statewide election by 15 points. There simply aren't enough Democrats here to pull that off. I know you follow elections closely and are well-informed, but that is way off base. All that being said, Carnahan needs to go down in flames.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not urging anyone NOT to vote for him now that the primary is settled (unlike in neighboring IL where I’m actively encouraging people to vote against the Socialist Combiner Mark Kirk), only that we shouldn’t expect him to be much of a leader. But I’ll have to take issue on your point about a Democrat not winning MO by a wide margin. Even as McCain won narrowly in 2008, Jay Nixon beat Kenny Hulshof for the Governorship by an embarrassing 19% (58%-39%), but Robin Carnahan topped them all, winning by a jaw-dropping 26% in the same election, blowing away her opponent by a 62-36% margin (giving Robin the unfortunate distinction of being THE highest vote-getter for a statewide office holder (at nearly 1.8 million votes) in the history of Missouri). It was why back when she was initially looking to run in 2010, she was the odds-on favorite to win (and why I was truly alarmed that if Blunt were to face her, she’d blow him away by 15% if this were a similar year to ‘06 or ‘08 — of course, this being an anti-Dem year as I predicted with Zero in power, that’s the sole reason she’ll likely lose).
He really should have won in 2006 he was the incumbant. I wonder if a weak campaign was partly responsible?
Sam Graves would have been ideal.
Hoping to see Hulshof run for McCaskill’s seat. Talent did a great job in the Senate, but probably tired of the political circuit. Steelman can't do it. She just doesn't have good character or sound judgment. As a woman, I am sick and tired of women in politics. Most of them are more crooked than the men. There are exceptions, but most women in politics will compromise principles faster than you can say “money.”
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.