MO-SEN 2022 megathread: ERIC

[MT Treasurer]

This is honestly better than I expected, as Blunt's numbers have been worse before. In any case, we’ve seen this pattern before...

Blunt starts out with very poor approval ratings/polling deficits vs. the well-known Democrat/several liabilities compared to generic R -> looks highly vulnerable in the GE early on -> the race is hyped up as a great pick-up opportunity for Democrats -> Blunt ends up being saved by the environment as the race slowly but surely trends away from Democrats

Man, how quickly history repeats itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri#Polling_2

Party like it’s January 2009, but with Biden as P rather than VP. Sometimes you need absurd luck in politics, and Blunt has had a lot of it in his career. (I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t retire, though.)

[MT Treasurer]

This is one of the very few statewide/Senate races where Republicans would be better off without the incumbent, so Blunt running again isn’t exactly great news for the party. I’ll keep it at Likely R for now, and (hot take) I actually think there’s more upset potential for Democrats here than IA. Blunt can thank his lucky stars that Trump lost reelection.

[MT Treasurer]

“When he raised his fist and betrayed our democracy, Josh Hawley showed us who he really is,” Sifton said. “And when Senator Blunt was too weak to stand up to his party’s lies, he showed us who he is too.

“So next year, when that Senate seat is on the ballot, we the people of Missouri need to show who we are,” Sifton said. “I’m Scott Sifton and I believe in a Missouri where we raise our hands to support voting rights, not violent insurrection; to salute classroom teachers, not cop killers; and to stand up for racial justice, not white supremacy.”

I’m actually far more worried about this seat than IA (Blunt can thank his lucky stars that Trump lost reelection), but lumping in Blunt (whose relatively unique electoral weaknesses are entirely unrelated to Hawley's 'grandstanding') with Hawley & not-so-subtly evoking racial issues and national implications in a contest that’s best approached by de-emphasizing party affiliation and exploiting the incumbent's personal weaknesses isn’t as smart as he thinks. Pretty sure 'Blunt didn’t stand up to his party' won’t be a winning message for Democrats here, and if they seriously believe Hawley is an easier foil than Blunt (which I don’t think they actually do), this race won’t be particularly interesting.

Likely R.

[MT Treasurer]

Likely R -> Safe R

[MT Treasurer]

If you were a Democrat, would you prefer it if several of your party's "incumbents" in competitive/-ish states retired in a midterm under a Republican president or if they retired six years later in a presidential year of which you have no way of knowing who will be at the top of ticket/how trends will change/how it will turn out/etc.? There’s absolutely no need to overinterpret these retirements (especially since polling has actually been showing Republicans in a very good position in this particular state, not that we needed [potentially inaccurate] polling to come to that conclusion when common sense would/should have sufficed).

[MT Treasurer]

tossup imo

especially with trump not on the ballot and the fink on the ballot in ia tbh

[MT Treasurer]

LOL - These people will never learn

https://twitter.com/JMilesColeman/status/1368963820367020036?s=20

I for one am outraged he didn’t do the same in AL after the Shelby retirement

Sabato are still head and shoulders above other forecasters (see them being the only ones to get Florida right in 2020), but this is pretty embarrassing.

They also moved IA-SEN 2020 to Lean D a few weeks before the election and predicted that it was more likely to flip than NC and GA. You shouldn’t be surprised.

https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-senate-iowa-to-leans-democratic/

I get that the pundits' entire shtick only revolves around incumbency and open seats (and literally nothing else, apparently), but doing it in the case of Roy Blunt in Missouri who so clearly is a notoriously flawed incumbent is just the ultimate evidence that no substance is behind said shtick, not that we needed that evidence.

[MT Treasurer]

Wow, first I’m labeled a 'self-hating RINO' for applying the Tossup category fairly (and admittedly a little too) generously, the next day I’m called an 'ingrate' brain-dead moron on Twitter for pointing out that an incumbent who underperformed Trump by 15 points and comes as close to a caricature of the corrupt Washington establishment as you can get isn’t more electable than some other non-incumbent Republican would be in a state that despises insider politics and lobbyists. I do feel a little honored right now, honestly — confronting blatant character assassination like that will be great preparation for my 2048 OR 2050 run for Senate when Tester and Daines retire.

For those of you keeping track, here’s more: I’m a (Young) Kim guy through and through. Screenshot this before I can delete it.

[MT Treasurer]

Imagine being this out of touch:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/08/gop-sen-roy-blunt-will-not-run-for-reelection-474342

[MT Treasurer]

Not entirely convinced that Greitens will be the nominee yet, but if he does end up winning the nomination, it’s going to be so humiliating for Roy Blunt to watch Greitens of all people outperform his 2016 result by a lot.

[MT Treasurer]

Unpopular opinion: Greitens wouldn’t do worse than Blunt in a general election, and the race wouldn’t be any more likely to flip with Greitens than with Blunt. I could see it turning out to be more competitive than IA regardless of candidates in those two states (this wouldn’t be surprising at all), but that’s like saying CO is more competitive than IL.

[MT Treasurer]

It doesn't matter, this race is Safe R no matter what happens.

Doug Jones says hi.

And happily, it looks like a disgraced sex pest is also the GOP front runner here.

The main reason Jones won was because he was the D candidate in a special election in a massive D wave environment (the fact that he was facing an unpopular and criminally incompetent campaigner/serial underperformer obviously helped, but it’s hard to overstate how much turnout patterns were in the Democrats' favor in that election). Not at all comparable to this regular Senate election, which, indeed, is Likely/Safe R with pretty much any R candidate and will almost certainly be Safe R by election day.