Pretty sure it helped that Trump won the state by almost 20 points.
Another way to look at it is that Trump motivated hordes of anti-estalishment voters and Blue Dog Democrats who voted for him but also for Kander who would have otherwise stayed home. I honestly think that Blunt would have won by 6-8 points if someone like Kasich had been the GOP nominee. But yeah, his campaign was so terrible that I think he'll probably be gone in six years if Trump is reelected. Ugh.
-Not the case. Look at the swing map:
https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&fips=29&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=3
The biggest anti-Blunt swings from 2010 were in places that trended most against Trump. Blunt would not have won had anybody other than Trump been on the ballot. Kander did not come close due to "Blue Dog Democrats", but the college-educated.
I'm not sure what your point is? Look at that swing towards Kander in the rural areas and then compare it with the presidential map. Yes, I was also surprised that Blunt did so poorly in the suburbs, but there's a lot of WWC and minorities there. His terrible showing in the rural areas was what made the race so close.
As long as Blunt is the incumbent, I don't think this seat will ever be completely safe for the GOP. Blunt and McCaskill are both doing exactly the opposite of what a Senator needs to do in order to hold their seat.
This assumes that Missouri will even be winnable for a democrat in 6 years. Unless of course, you think someone is going to primary him.
Just like McCaskill, I think the seat might be much safer for Republicans if Blunt decided to retire or lost in a primary.
