MO-SEN: Hawley +7 in internal, McCaskill DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMED

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Hawley 49
McCaskill 42

OnMessage (R) internal

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/claire-mccaskill-on-the-ropes-per-fresh-poll-from-josh-hawley

538 House effect adjusts it to Hawley +1.2

[Xing]

Obviously exaggerated, but this much of a lead in an internal is enough to suggest that Hawley is slightly ahead.

[Zaybay]

Really wish I had a good old poll of this race that wasnt an R internal, because the last 2-3 polls have been. All I can gleam is that McCaskill is slightly down in a completely tossup race, but I have no idea on the margins, or anything.

[MT Treasurer]

Exaggerated, but it should be obvious to everyone that McCaskill is in big trouble.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Exaggerated, but it should be obvious to everyone that McCaskill is in big trouble.

Yeah, she would be Blanched in a Clinton midterm.

[KingSweden]

I wouldn’t be surprised by any result from Hawley +2 to McCaskill +2

[Ebsy]

I wonder which I believe, all the public polling which shows a tied race, or an internal from the same people who show Scott up by a similar margin in Florida.

[IceSpear]

Didn't we used to have an internal megathread back in 2014/2016? I guess it's pointless now since it's so late, but...why don't we have one this year?

[IceSpear]

She probably is unironically doomed. We haven’t seen a lead from her in over a month

Remington is a pretty good pollster in MO and their numbers haven't budged at all since July. Every poll they've had has Hawley up 1-2 points. How is that "doomed?"

[KingSweden]

She probably is unironically doomed. We haven’t seen a lead from her in over a month

Remington is a pretty good pollster in MO and their numbers haven't budged at all since July. Every poll they've had has Hawley up 1-2 points. How is that "doomed?"

Right. It’ll all - bold statement - come down to a turnout game, I think. Will be super close either way

[IceSpear]

She probably is unironically doomed. We haven’t seen a lead from her in over a month

Remington is a pretty good pollster in MO and their numbers haven't budged at all since July. Every poll they've had has Hawley up 1-2 points. How is that "doomed?"

I think the undecideds are probably racist hicks who don’t think Hawley is racist enough. But really I’m just setting my expectations of voters exceedingly low until they prove me wrong

LOL, I mean it's Missouri, so that's a plausible theory I guess...

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

Lean R.

[Pandaguineapig]

Adds to my theory that Hawley is up 2 to 3 with most of the undecideds being conservative leaning

[History505]

This is going to be one of those races that come down to the wire.

[MycroftCZ]

Hawley's got the advantage right now but this is an internal and McCaskill's a good closer. Still think AirClaire pulls this one out.

[Senator Incitatus]

Hawley's got the advantage right now but this is an internal and McCaskill's a good closer. Still think AirClaire pulls this one out.

What suggests McCaskill is a closer? The only outfit to poll the 2012 race twice this late was PPP, and they had her lead shrinking.

[Seriously?]

Hawley's got the advantage right now but this is an internal and McCaskill's a good closer. Still think AirClaire pulls this one out.

What suggests McCaskill is a closer? The only outfit to poll the 2012 race twice this late was PPP, and they had her lead shrinking.

McCaskill seems to always be vulnerable, but closes the deal somehow. With that said, this race still remains a tossup, perhaps slight edge to Hawley, which can be easily overcome.

[DataGuy]

I would be surprised of Hawley wins by that much, but right now my rating for this race would be Tilt R. This pollster does have a historical Republican bias of 1.1%, so I would adjust it down to Hawley +6.

Nonetheless, I have heard reports that Hawley's internals are very consistently showing him in the lead, and most publicly released polls in the last month have corroborated that. Although it may very well be that campaigns tend only release their best internals, thus leading to some apparent bias, I think it's wrong to assume that all internals inherently favor the candidate paying for them. After all, the candidate more than anyone else has the most need for an accurate picture of the race. If they're being fed biased and rose-tinted polls, they're only harming themselves.

My guess at this moment is somewhere around Hawley +2.

[Senator Incitatus]

Hawley's got the advantage right now but this is an internal and McCaskill's a good closer. Still think AirClaire pulls this one out.

What suggests McCaskill is a closer? The only outfit to poll the 2012 race twice this late was PPP, and they had her lead shrinking.

McCaskill seems to always be vulnerable, but closes the deal somehow. With that said, this race still remains a tossup, perhaps slight edge to Hawley, which can be easily overcome.

That doesn't make her a closer; it just makes her the person who got to run against Todd Akin.

Additional info: In 2004, it was also around this time that she began to slip further behind Blunt. The only race where she clearly expanded her polling advantage from this point forward was 2006, and that could be attributed to the national wave for Democrats. She still underperformed most of the late polling in that race.

I would be surprised of Hawley wins by that much, but right now my rating for this race would be Tilt R. This pollster does have a historical Republican bias of 1.1%, so I would adjust it down to Hawley +6.

Nonetheless, I have heard reports that Hawley's internals are very consistently showing him in the lead, and most publicly released polls in the last month have corroborated that. Although it may very well be that campaigns tend only release their best internals, thus leading to some apparent bias, I think it's wrong to assume that all internals inherently favor the candidate paying for them. After all, the candidate more than anyone else has the most need for an accurate picture of the race. If they're being fed biased and rose-tinted polls, they're only harming themselves.

My guess at this moment is somewhere around Hawley +2.

The issue isn't that the polls are inaccurate, just that they might be withholding polls to influence the race.

[swf541]

Literally one of the worst internal posters of this year (what a 13 point swing difference in Florida between this firm and reputable public polling) throw this in the trash and pray we get a decent pollster

[DataGuy]

Hawley's got the advantage right now but this is an internal and McCaskill's a good closer. Still think AirClaire pulls this one out.

What suggests McCaskill is a closer? The only outfit to poll the 2012 race twice this late was PPP, and they had her lead shrinking.

McCaskill seems to always be vulnerable, but closes the deal somehow. With that said, this race still remains a tossup, perhaps slight edge to Hawley, which can be easily overcome.

That doesn't make her a closer; it just makes her the person who got to run against Todd Akin.

Additional info: In 2004, it was also around this time that she began to slip further behind Blunt. The only race where she clearly expanded her polling advantage from this point forward was 2006, and that could be attributed to the national wave for Democrats. She still underperformed most of the late polling in that race.

I would be surprised of Hawley wins by that much, but right now my rating for this race would be Tilt R. This pollster does have a historical Republican bias of 1.1%, so I would adjust it down to Hawley +6.

Nonetheless, I have heard reports that Hawley's internals are very consistently showing him in the lead, and most publicly released polls in the last month have corroborated that. Although it may very well be that campaigns tend only release their best internals, thus leading to some apparent bias, I think it's wrong to assume that all internals inherently favor the candidate paying for them. After all, the candidate more than anyone else has the most need for an accurate picture of the race. If they're being fed biased and rose-tinted polls, they're only harming themselves.

My guess at this moment is somewhere around Hawley +2.

The issue isn't that the polls are inaccurate, just that they might be withholding polls to influence the race.

That's pretty much what I said: "Although it may very well be that campaigns tend only release their best internals, thus leading to some apparent bias ..."

All campaigns have a tendency to publicize the internals that show them with the best numbers, which can lead to a apparent bias relative to the final results. But even though this particular poll might be exaggerated slightly, everything I've heard indicates that Hawley is clearly leading the polls.

[DavidB.]

Not too reputable. Tossup remains a tossup. But I'd be more surprised if McCaskill wins than if Hawley wins.

[Wisconsin+17]

MO Tossup -> Lean R, based on demographics, etc.

[windjammer]

It's more tilt rep I guess

[jamestroll]

omg.. calm down everyone.

Even I do not believe this poll. I believe Hawley will win by a hair but there is no doubt McCaskill is in a very dicey situation. She is not popular and Democrats may have been better off if she retired.