On February 28th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll taken in Missouri from February 15th through the 17th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCakskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). Their overall approval numbers have changed little since January. The margin of error for both is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?

All

50% – approve

42% – disapprove

8% – not sure

Democrats [40% of sample]

65% – approve

30% – disapprove

5% – not sure

republicans [26% of sample]

29% – approve

67% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Independents [28% of sample]

49% – approve

37% – disapprove

14% – not sure

There’s been some improvement in her approval among republicans and erosion in the same among Democrats. It’s a wash in the overall numbers, but she should probably remember that those republicans aren’t going to man the phone banks and go door-to-door for her in 2012. How’s that telecom immunity working there for ya? Then again, at this rate it might not matter.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?

All

52% – approve

39% – disapprove

9% – not sure

Democrats [40% of sample]

37% – approve

53% – disapprove

10% – not sure

republicans [26% of sample]

76% – approve

18% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Independents [28% of sample]

50% – approve

39% – disapprove

10% – not sure

There’s a bit of erosion amongst the Independents.

Let’s look at Claire McCaskill’s approval and the issues questions:

Top Issues for Next President (Claire McCaskill’s approval numbers within each group)

Economy [32% of sample]

50% – approve

46% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Health Care [19% of sample]

48% – approve

36% – disapprove

15% – not sure

Terrorism [12% of sample]

42% – approve

55% – disapprove

3% – not sure

Immigration [12% of sample]

43% – approve

57% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Iraq [8% of sample]

67% – approve

29% – disapprove

4% – not sure

Environment [5% of sample]

61% – approve

27% – disapprove

12% – not sure

Social Security [5% of sample]

67% – approve

33% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Education [5% of sample]

44% – approve

17% – disapprove

38% – not sure

The republican “fear” base (terrorism and immigration) will never approve of Claire. The economy people are a might restive, don’t you think?

Let’s take a look at Kit Bond and the issues crosstabs:

Top Issues for Next President (Kit Bond’s approval numbers within each group)

Economy [32% of sample]

55% – approve

38% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Health Care [19% of sample]

42% – approve

41% – disapprove

16% – not sure

Terrorism [12% of sample]

75% – approve

19% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Immigration [12% of sample]

54% – approve

44% – disapprove

2% – not sure

Iraq [8% of sample]

46% – approve

41% – disapprove

13% – not sure

Environment [5% of sample]

49% – approve

30% – disapprove

21% – not sure

Social Security [5% of sample]

45% – approve

52% – disapprove

3% – not sure

Education [5% of sample]

34% – approve

60% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Hmm, the economy sucks so much that the Iraq War worriers are worrying about something else. Maybe it’s Social Security. there certainly are a lot more “unsure” responses. The “fear” base will always be there for Kit.

Feb 26 Post Dispatch had a short editorial saying Robin Carnahan is supporting a bill submitted by Sen. Rita Days requiring paper ballots to be printed for the Nov. election.  This is in response to a forecast by the National Assn of Secretaries of State that this election could bring out a record number of voters, perhaps even 80% turnout.  The Days bill wants the paper ballots to be available as back up to the touch-screen voting machines (DRE’s.)

But Cynthia Richards of Missourians for Honest elections told a group of West County Dems on Wed. evening that it’s all but certain that Sen. Joan Bray will up the ante and submit a bill requiring the USE of paper ballots in November for all voters except a person with a handicap who can only vote by touch-screen.

Of course, the Republicans will quash either of these bills, and, even if they are passed, Blunt will veto them.  So here’s what we need to do.

Old-fashioned people power (which, I think is coincidentally the definition of democracy) will have to demand the change.  Call the Secretary of State’s office at 800-699-8683 and ask for the director of elections, Kay Dinolfo.  Ask her WHEN (not if) the touch screen machines are going to be decertified as other states have done after finding all kinds of bugs in them.  Or email elections@sos.mo.gov with your message.

Then go to Mo for Honest Elections website at http://www.mohonestelections.org and ask how to get a copy of one of two DVD’s – “Stealing America Vote by Vote” or “UnCounted.”  I think Stealing America is a more convincing documentary than UnCounted, but they are both good.  UnCounted has interviews with Republicans who are just as outraged as Democrats by the “privatization of our elections and democratic process.”  

If the moneyed-interests can “flip” votes in their favor, we can stop wasting our time having elections.  If some tinpot dictatorship had the kind of problems with their elections that we are experiencing, our govt would be up in arms and sending in inspectors.  Well, in this case, WE are the government, so we’ll have to get busy and do the job ourselves.

Last night, counties and wards across Missouri held meetings to elect delegates to the Congressional district conventions.  This is my report of the meeting from Clinton County, Missouri, where we elected 2 Obama delegates and 2 Clinton delegates (plus alternates) to the 6th Congressional District convention.

First, a little background on Clinton County.  Traditionally, it is Democratic territory.  All of the County office-holders are Democratic, and we typically vote for all the Democratic State and Federal candidates in contested elections (although Bush won Clinton County in 2004–ugh).  So although we typically go D, we will (unfortunately) vote R on occasion.  But on the other hand, winning Clinton County doesn’t guarantee the Democratic candidate victory state-wide–we just don’t have that many votes here. In short, Clinton County is a necessary part of any successful, state-wide Democratic candidate’s electoral success.  If you can’t win in Clinton County, you probably can’t win state-wide.

Anyway, back to last night’s meeting.  All told, we had about 65 attendees, split equally between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton.  This seems pretty good to me, as the county population is about 20,000.  I wasn’t around for the 2004 meetings, but I was told that the turnout last night was double or triple the turnout from four years ago.  I was on the Obama side, and the election of delegates was by acclimation–no contested positions at all.  We got in there, we voted, and we were done by 7:50.

On February 27th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll taken in Missouri from February 15th through the 17th which shows that Matt “baby” Blunt received no sympathy bump from Missourians after he decided to become a lame duck and not run for reelection as governor. His overall numbers are similar to those in the January release. The margin of error is 4.1%.

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Matt Blunt is doing as Governor?

All

42% – approve

54% – disapprove

4% – not sure

Democrats [40% of sample]

26% – approve

70% – disapprove

4% – not sure

republicans [26% of sample]

71% – approve

28% – disapprove

2% – not sure

Independents [28% of sample]

38% – approve

56% – disapprove

6% – not sure

Okay, the sympathy bump theory isn’t exactly correct. Blunt received such from Democrats, but managed to achieve the opposite among Independents.

Over the past several months SurveyUSA has been running the same series of questions about the most important issue facing the next president – in this instance, cross tabbed with “baby” Blunt’s approval numbers.

Top Issues for Next President (“baby” Blunt’s approval numbers within each group)

Economy [32% of sample]

43% – approve

54% – disapprove

2% – not sure

Health Care [19% of sample]

26% – approve

64% – disapprove

10% – not sure

Terrorism [12% of sample]

73% – approve

26% – disapprove

1% – not sure

Immigration [12% of sample]

56% – approve

44% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Iraq [8% of sample]

34% – approve

60% – disapprove

7% – not sure

Education [6% of sample]

27% – approve

73% – disapprove

0% – not sure

Environment [5% of sample]

32% – approve

63% – disapprove

5% – not sure

Social Security [5% of sample]

33% – approve

67% – disapprove

0% – not sure

It’s interesting that Iraq as a ranked issue of importance to Missouri voters has slipped somewhat. Are there are other distractions in the news they choose to consume? Immigration and Terrorism have moved up somewhat. It would be interesting to see the party identification crosstabs with this issue. St. John McCain isn’t exactly in good stead with the republican base on this one.

Johnson County Democrats sign in to the caucus

Johnson County Democrats participated in tonight’s delegate selection caucus (the next step after the primary in the process for selecting delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Denver). Around 40 people showed up at the caucus location to select six Hillary Clinton delegates and three Barack Obama delegates to the 4th Congressional District meeting in late March and the state Democratic convention on May 10th.

I showed up about an hour before the scheduled 7:30 p.m. start of the proceedings. I signed in. The county Democratic chairman asked me to be the temporary caucus chair for the Hillary Clinton group.

People trickled in. A few minutes before the scheduled 7:30 p.m. start I commented to another individual that I didn’t think we’d have enough people to fill the six delegate slots and six alternate slots (three female, three male for each). It appeared that the Barack Obama contingent had shown up in much greater number. It turned out that I was wrong.

The Hillary Clinton group had 17 participants. The Barack Obama group had 19 participants. Originally there had been one more individual in the Obama group – it turned out that he had not voted in the primary. He could observe but he could not vote in the process.

Each individual in the respective caucuses then had to sign a statement of support for their candidate.

I was elected permanent chair of the caucus. We opened nominations and had four males and four females vie for the delegate slots. After the votes were counted I was among the three males elected to participate in the congressional district meeting and state Democratic convention. I will not be running for a national delegate spot – I did so and won in 2000 – it’s a good thing to let someone else have that opportunity.

The Hillary Clinton caucus listens to a speech by a delegate nominee

After the delegate positions were filled we repeated the process to elect six alternates. These positions are important – invariably most, if not all, of the alternates who show up to the state convention are seated as voting delegates due to elected delegates who don’t show for one reason or another.

In a month those of us who were elected will journey to our 4th Congressional District meeting in Warsaw, MO to elect three national Hillary Clinton delegates and two national Barack Obama delegates (note that there is no crossover voting – once you’ve committed to a candidate at the county caucus you’re restricted to participating for them at the subsequent levels of the process – you cannot “switch allegience” in the delegate selection process).

At age (almost) 50 I was the youngest person in the Hillary Clinton caucus. Most of the participants in our group were long time party activists.

The Barack Obama group had a mix of older party activists, some younger people, and quite a few first time participants who had been recruited to attend by a long time activist (he “brought his votes” – a crucial part of the caucus process). Incidentally, the long time activist was elected as a county delegate.

Brett Penrose hasn’t been to the buffet table on St. John McCain’s express so he’s not quite up to speed on the approved media establishment message. Somebody will need to get him the memo…

I can’t believe I actually bothered to watch last night’s Democratic presidential debate. Not because of the candidates, but because of Tim Russert.

Remember this?

…in 1974, when President Nixon, who was beleaguered by Watergate, he called on CBS’s Dan Rather at a conference with an audience of media executives. Rather was greeted with some booing and cheering. Nixon said to him, “Are you running for something?”

And Rather answered: “No, Mr. President. Are you?”

I do. I remember when we had aggressive journalists who questioned power – not pundit gasbags with myopia and no memory.

Tim Russert is like Dan Rather without the actual journalism – and only if you drop the IQ by 100 points and puff up the ego by the same amount.

As Timmeh! inserted himself into the debate – I asked myself, “Is he running for something?”  

Blogtopia (yes, we’re aware that skippy coined the phrase!) speaks:

Because He’s Profoundly Stupid

Obviously one can sense where Timmeh’s tribal sympathies lie and which voices are yapping in his ear, but more than that he’s a fundamentally stupid man. Because he seems to be at the top of the political press pyramid, everyone below him kisses his ass.

Our discourse is so stupid, and its king nitwit is Tim Russert.

Don’t take my word for it – read the nitwit’s:

…SEN. CLINTON: I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you’d have to say to Canada and Mexico that that’s exactly what we’re going to do. But you know, in fairness —

MR. RUSSERT: Just because — maybe Clinton —

SEN. CLINTON: Yes, I am serious.

MR. RUSSERT: You will get out. You will notify Mexico and Canada, NAFTA is gone in six months.

SEN. CLINTON: No, I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America.

But let’s be fair here, Tim. There are lots of parts of New York that have benefitted, just like there are lots of parts of Texas that have benefitted. The problem is in places like upstate New York, places like Youngstown, Toledo, and others throughout Ohio that have not benefitted. And if you look at what I have been saying, it has been consistent.

You know, Senator Obama told the farmers of Illinois a couple of years ago that he wanted more trade agreements. I — right now —

MR. RUSSERT: We’re going to get — we’re going to get to Senator Obama, but I want to stay on your terms —

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but that — but that is important —

MR. RUSSERT: — because this was something that you wrote about as a real success for your husband. You said it was good on balance for New York and America in 2004, and now you’re in Ohio and your words are much different, Senator. The record is very clear.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I — I — you don’t have all the record because you can go back and look at what I’ve said consistently. And I haven’t just said things; I have actually voted to toughen trade agreements, to try to put more teeth into our enforcement mechanisms. And I will continue to do so….

…MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.

And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?

SEN. CLINTON: No, Tim, because what happened in 2000 is that I thought Al Gore was going to be president. And when I made the pledge I was counting on having a Democratic White House, a Democratic president who shared my values about what we needed to do to make the economy work for everyone and to create shared prosperity.

And as you know, despite the difficulties of the Bush administration and a Republican Congress for six years of my first term I have worked very hard to create jobs but obviously as president I will have a lot more tools at my disposal. And the reason why we can create at least 5 million new jobs — I mean, this is not a big leap. Twenty-two point seven million new jobs were created during the eight years of the Clinton administration under my husband. We can create at least 5 million new jobs….

Uh, Timmeh! Who’s been president for the last seven years or so? Nitwit.

…MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, if the Iraqis said I’m sorry, we’re not happy with this arrangement; if you’re not going to stay in total and defend us, get out completely; they are a sovereign nation, you would listen?

SEN. CLINTON: Absolutely. And I believe that there is no military solution that the Americans who have been valiant in doing everything they were asked to do can really achieve in the absence of full cooperation from the Iraqi government. And —

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask — let me ask you this, Senator. I want to ask you —

SEN. CLINTON: And they need to take responsibility for themselves. And —

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask both of you this question, then. If we — if this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in total and al Qaeda resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as American president, to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe that what’s —

MR. RUSSERT: But this is reality.

SEN. CLINTON: No — well, it isn’t reality. You’re — you’re — you’re making lots of different hypothetical assessments.

I believe that it is in America’s interests and in the interests of the Iraqis for us to have an orderly withdrawal. I’ve been saying for many months that the administration has to do more to plan, and I’ve been pushing them to actually do it. I’ve also said that I would begin to withdraw within 60 days based on a plan that I asked begun to be put together as soon as I became president.

And I think we can take out one to two brigades a month. I’ve also been a leader in trying to prevent President Bush from getting us committed to staying in Iraq regardless for as long as Senator McCain and others have said it might be, 50 to a hundred years.

So, when you talk about what we need to do in Iraq, we have to make judgments about what is in the best interest of America. And I believe this is in the best interest….

And, of course, the stoopidest assertion of all from Timmeh! was targeted at Barack Obama.

I wonder if we can expect softball questions on lobbyists from Timmeh! when he next grills Saint John McCain of the Campaign Bus Buffet.

Clinton Rules are fast becoming “Democratic Candidate Rules”.