Comments on: Trump candidacy threatens MO’s Blunt

By: Willy Kessler

Willy Kessler — Thu, 12 May 2016 21:14:00 +0000

I essentially agree with both you and KatB, bu I keep hoping that the turnout in KC and STL might be more favorable for Kander during a presidential election year. I also think that Kander’s got some pluses which, coupled with Blunt’s low approval in the far right cadres, might make him (Blunt) more vulnerable than usual. Of course, I hadn’t counted on all the Koch money we’ll probably see dumped on Blunt.

At any rate, I’m going to act like Kander could do it. After all, who’da though that Bernie Sanders would give Hillary Clinton such a rugh time. Anything’s possible, even if not probable.

By: Stacy Mergenthal

Stacy Mergenthal — Thu, 12 May 2016 20:52:00 +0000

I agree with KatB. Claire McCaskill is also conservative, which is a must when running in a state where progressive candidates are rejected with depressing frequency by voters with a consistently poor Democratic turn-out. (Also, in a state heavily gerrymandered by Republicans.) I imagine her largely-middle-of-the-road positions ensure she scores well with both parties’ voters. Best of luck to Jason Kander in defeating deploringly corrupt Blunt. He’s got my vote.

By: KatB

KatB — Thu, 12 May 2016 18:07:00 +0000

I don’t think Blunt has anything to worry about, unfortunately. I regularly travel in about 75% of the state, and the redness is the norm. It doesn’t matter how blue St. Louis and Kansas City can be, the dwindling of education in the rural counties virtually guarantees a Republican re-election. The defeat of Akin was I think just a perfect gaffe storm for we Democrats. Unfortunately.