MO Senate: Talent, McCaskill tied in new Rasmussen Poll

[TheresNoMoney]

This will be a top-tier race. Republican-leaning pollster Rasmussen has the two candidates tied at 46% in a new poll of 500 likely voters:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Missouri%20Senate.htm

[Moooooo]

Its gonna' come down to money.  Talent will outspend McCaskill somewhere in the range of 2 to 1 or posibly even 3 to 1.  I hope Im wrong, but I think a lot of Republicans will be saved by the dollar in 2006.

[12th Doctor]

This will be a top-tier race. Republican-leaning pollster Rasmussen has the two candidates tied at 46% in a new poll of 500 likely voters:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Missouri%20Senate.htm

Considering all of the disease there is, currently, with Republican leadership all around the country, these numbers are pretty damn good.  If things start to pick up again, Talent should have no real problem winning this seat.  I predict that you will see his numbers rise once this whole Roberts thing has come to a head.

[12th Doctor]

Its gonna' come down to money.  Talent will outspend McCaskill somewhere in the range of 2 to 1 or posibly even 3 to 1.  I hope Im wrong, but I think a lot of Republicans will be saved by the dollar in 2006.

Yeah, that makes sense, considering that pro-Kerry and anti-Bush groups massively outspent their counter parts in 2004.

[Ben.]

I wouldn't say that Rasmussen leans towards the GOP... generally their pretty fair, though I'd be a fool not to give Vorlon the final word when it comes to rating them.

Talent vs McCaskill will be a competitive race, though I'd have said that in an evens year there is a slight lean towards the GOP.

Talent is not as unpopular as say DeWine in OH and McCaskill is not as powerful a candidate as Casey in PA… but with all that said the race will be competitive and if, as seems increasingly likely, there is a general anti-majority party sentiment next fall I can see McCaskill winning it.

But at the moment Talent with his sizable war chest, all be it with lukewarm approval numbers is the slight favourite IMHO.      

[Moooooo]

Yeah, that makes sense, considering that pro-Kerry and anti-Bush groups massively outspent their counter parts in 2004.

I guess you havent been paying attention to Talents fudraising numbers thus far.  They happend to be outstanding.

I didnt know Bush was up for re-election in 2006?

[TheresNoMoney]

Its gonna' come down to money.  Talent will outspend McCaskill somewhere in the range of 2 to 1 or posibly even 3 to 1.

No way. McCaskill will raise a good deal of money and the DSCC and DNC will chip in a lot.

She wouldn't have entered the race if she had worries about money. The Republicans have more endangered incumbents than the Democrats do and will have to spread their money around to more candidates.

[TheresNoMoney]

Considering all of the disease there is, currently, with Republican leadership all around the country, these numbers are pretty damn good.

Not for an incumbent in a Republican state. McCaskill hasn't even started campaigning yet.

[12th Doctor]

Yeah, that makes sense, considering that pro-Kerry and anti-Bush groups massively outspent their counter parts in 2004.

I guess you havent been paying attention to Talents fudraising numbers thus far.  They happend to be outstanding.

I didnt know Bush was up for re-election in 2006?

They are rather impressive, however, it won't be long before 527's start pouring money into Senate races.  Your theory that the Republican will massivly outspend Democrats is quite flawed.

[12th Doctor]

Considering all of the disease there is, currently, with Republican leadership all around the country, these numbers are pretty damn good.

Not for an incumbent in a Republican state. McCaskill hasn't even started campaigning yet.

Which is precisely why I am not worried.  None of these guys have started campaigning yet.  Once they do, you will see a totally different dynamic to this race and all the other Senate races.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Considering all of the disease there is, currently, with Republican leadership all around the country, these numbers are pretty damn good.

Not for an incumbent in a Republican state. McCaskill hasn't even started campaigning yet.

Which is precisely why I am not worried.  None of these guys have started campaigning yet.  Once they do, you will see a totally different dynamic to this race and all the other Senate races.

You also said you weren't worried about the Colorado Senate seat either and it was a case where Democrats "were making a big deal out of nothing"

[12th Doctor]

Considering all of the disease there is, currently, with Republican leadership all around the country, these numbers are pretty damn good.

Not for an incumbent in a Republican state. McCaskill hasn't even started campaigning yet.

Which is precisely why I am not worried.  None of these guys have started campaigning yet.  Once they do, you will see a totally different dynamic to this race and all the other Senate races.

You also said you weren't worried about the Colorado Senate seat either and it was a case where Democrats "were making a big deal out of nothing"

At the time, I had no idea that Pete Coors was going to run such an ineffective campaign.  In the final weeks, I stated that it looked like we would probably lose the seat.  The final outcome was, in no way, certain even on election night.

I also did not foresee the effect that MADD would have on the campaign.

[MissCatholic]

Coors was a terrible candidate. Talent will be fine as long as he avoids any scandal and gets some decent cash in. The dems will struggle to get above 46%

[TheresNoMoney]

Coors was a terrible candidate. Talent will be fine as long as he avoids any scandal and gets some decent cash in. The dems will struggle to get above 46%

Naw, Talent only got 49.8% in 2002 against a weaker opponent than McCaskill.  if I was a betting man, I'd put money on her to squeek this one out.

Also, Bush and Governor Blunt's approval ratings in Missouri are horrendous. This certainly won't help Talent.

[MissCatholic]

Missouri has gone way to the right since 2002. The only good thing is that the dems have invested in MO.

[ian]

This will be a top-tier race. Republican-leaning pollster Rasmussen has the two candidates tied at 46% in a new poll of 500 likely voters:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Missouri%20Senate.htm

I TOLD YOU SO!  I TOLD YOU SO!  I TOLD YOU SO!
If you were here about a half-year before last year's election, you would know that I am a huge Rasmussen Reports fan; they rarely release a bogus poll.  Actually, I have NEVER seen a bogus poll from Rasmussen!
This race will be top-tier.  I think we can win!!!

[AuH2O]

Whatever. Talent is going to win-- I'll go with someone who has won (and is the incumbent) over a known-quantity loser any day.

And the GOP does and will have a substantial money advantage-- just by virtue of being the majority party they would have that. Democrats did a great job in 2004 of mobilizing everything at their disposal, but that won't work in an off-year election, and they still were outspent.

MO won't be a blowout but I'm hardly concerned as of September, 2005 in a vote occuring November, 2006.

[Sarnstrom]

Whatever. Talent is going to win-- I'll go with someone who has won (and is the incumbent) over a known-quantity loser any day.

Actually Talent has ran in two statewide elections and he lost one and won one. McCaskill has ran in three statewide elections and she won two and lost one narrowly.

I predict that McCaskill will win with 52% to Talent's 47%.

[Jake]

Naw, Talent only got 49.8% in 2002 against a weaker opponent than McCaskill.

Challengers always do much better once they are incumbents, it's common sense. Talent already is raising millions, and should easily outspend McKaskill and the RNC will pour their record fundraising dollars into the race.

[Keystone Phil]

McCaskill is a popular statewide official but is not popular enough to beat a fairly popular incumbent. This isn't Santorum vs. Casey here. McCaskill is not an extremely popular public figure. Give her some money but Talent will have more. Unless he gets himself into serious trouble, the GOP should not be concerned with this race. We have to focus on PA, MT, RI and maybe even OH.

[TheresNoMoney]

I hope the GOP doesn't focus on this race.

[Keystone Phil]

I hope the GOP doesn't focus on this race.

You can't give me one good reason why Talent is vulnerable.

[TheresNoMoney]

You can't give me one good reason why Talent is vulnerable.

Bush approval rating: 38%-58%
Blunt approval rating: 35%-60%
Talent approval rating: 48%-39%

Latest Poll: 46-46

Statewide backlash against Republicans. Talent votes with BushCo nearly 100% of the time. Talent didn't prevent closing of St. Louis military base in MO. There are only so many single issue anti-choice voters out there. You can't win elections just from the anti-choice vote. Gay marriage was already banned in 2004, so that won't be an issue. McCaskill is on the correct side of the stem cell debate as well. Opposition to social security phaseout (which Talent supports). Worsening economic conditions in Missouri.

If that is not vulnerability, then I don't know what it.

[Jake]

None of those are reasons why Talent is vulnerable. They are reasons why you think McCaskill will win.

[Alcon]

None of those are reasons why Talent is vulnerable. They are reasons why you think McCaskill will win.

If McCaskill wins, Talent loses.

If there's reasons why McCaskill can win, there are reasons why Talent can lose.

I'm not sure I understand what you're going for here?