I think he's more like the Mark Udall of 2016.
What issue does Blunt talk about to death?
I was referring to the fact that he didn't seem particularly vulnerable at first, and the trend in this state is favorable to his party, but he's getting a stronger challenge than expected.
I am glad I called this a year ago. While I underestimated McGinty (I guess?), I always thought Blunt was going to be vulnerable:
Yeah, Blunt isn't going to lose. Democrats really shouldn't spend any money on this race, 100% of what they can spend in MO should go to the governor's race.
#BluntmorevulnerablethanToomey
Eh, Blunt's basically winning all the Todd Akin voters right now. Nothing surprising here. Also don't know how this proves that Blunt's less vulnerable than Toomey, not to mention that polls one year before the election don't tell us much at all. I'd still be more shocked if Katie McGinty (lol) wins than if Kander (who might be the best Democratic recruit) wins. People here forget that Missouri just elected a liberal Senator with 55% of the vote and by a margin of 16 POINTS.
I'm not suggesting that Democrats should give up on this race. They should simply be aware that Blunt will probably win unless it's a wave year, or he makes a big blunder of some kind. If 2016 starts looking like a neutral or Republican-leaning year, Democrats shouldn't invest too much in this race, and should focus on easier pick-up opportunities.
I get your point, but that's what they said about ND and IN in 2012 
Predicting individual Senate races is very difficult.
I'll admit that I did underestimate his vulnerability, but given that Toomey has trailed McGinty more often than not in recent polls, I don't think we can say that Blunt is more vulnerable than him at this point. Also, this is not shaping up to be a neutral or Republican-leaning year.
