On December 18th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from December 11th through the 13th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error 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
48% – approve
45% – disapprove
7% – not sure
Democrats [36% of sample]
70% – approve
24% – disapprove
7% – not sure
republicans [29% of sample]
32% – approve
61% – disapprove
7% – not sure
Independents [28% of sample]
38% – approve
56% – disapprove
6% – not sure
Keeping the months long trend and looking at the November numbers, Claire McCaskill’s overall approval, when compared to President Obama, remain stable.
Senator McCaskill’s disapproval numbers among Democrats remain high (at 24%), though slightly better when compared to the November numbers.
The percentage of self-identified liberals who are not happy when it comes to approving of the job Claire McCaskill is doing remains significant (yet stable), though there has been some improvement among Conservatives. There is slippage among Moderates. You think Claire might be pulling that Overton Window a little too far to the right for them, too?:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?
Ideology
Conservative [39% of sample]
28% – approve
66% – disapprove
6% – not sure
Moderate [35% of sample]
58% – approve
38% – disapprove
4% – not sure
Liberal [14% of sample]
69% – approve
24% – disapprove
7% – not sure
The samples for Conservatives, Moderates, and Liberals are similar to the November poll.
The December numbers for Kit Bond aren’t particularly stellar, but are a small net positive:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?
All
49% – approve
42% – disapprove
10% – not sure
Democrats [36% of sample]
40% – approve
51% – disapprove
9% – not sure
republicans [29% of sample]
64% – approve
28% – disapprove
8% – not sure
Independents [28% of sample]
50% – approve
43% – disapprove
7% – not sure
Kit Bond’s approval numbers among republicans have declined since the November survey. His numbers among “Independents” and Democrats have improved. Evidently, for 40% of Democrats bringing home the bacon trumps obstructing health care reform. Any guesses on that 28% of disapproving republicans?
On November 25th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from November 20th through the 22nd showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error 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
48% – approve
48% – disapprove
4% – not sure
Democrats [30% of sample]
70% – approve
27% – disapprove
3% – not sure
republicans [31% of sample]
28% – approve
69% – disapprove
3% – not sure
Independents [232 of sample]
41% – approve
56% – disapprove
3% – not sure
Again, looking at September, Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers, when compared to President Obama, are relatively stable.
Senator McCaskill’s disapproval numbers among Democrats have increased (to 27%) when compared to September.
The percentage of self-identified liberals who are not happy when it comes to approving of the job Claire McCaskill doing is still significant:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?
Ideology
Conservative [40% of sample]
20% – approve
76% – disapprove
3% – not sure
Moderate [34% of sample]
66% – approve
33% – disapprove
1% – not sure
Liberal [13% of sample]
65% – approve
28% – disapprove
7% – not sure
The sample of Conservatives is 40% in the November poll and 32% in the September poll. The sample of Liberals is 13% in the November poll and 16% in the September poll.
The November numbers for Kit Bond aren’t that good either:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?
All
47% – approve
44% – disapprove
8% – not sure
Democrats [30% of sample]
35% – approve
58% – disapprove
7% – not sure
republicans [31% of sample]
72% – approve
23% – disapprove
4% – not sure
Independents [32% of sample]
45% – approve
45% – disapprove
11% – not sure
Kit Bond’s approval numbers among republicans have improved over September. His numbers among “Independents” and Democrats remain unchanged.
This is the seventeenth post in an ongoing series as we file Missouri Sunshine Law (RSMo 610) requests and investigate the non-renewal of the contract of University of Central Missouri President Aaron Podolefsky. Links to previous coverage are below the fold. BG and MB
From the Warrensburg Daily-Star Journal (note: this story is not available on-line), September 28, 1995:
The Daily Star-Journal, Warrensburg, MO, Thursday, September 28, 1995 [Sports, page 4]
New Facility Will Be Named Audrey Walton Stadium
Audrey J. Walton, a Versailles woman who provided the lead gift for construction of Central Missouri State University’s new football stadium, will now have her name associated with that facility as the result of action taken yesterday by the university’s Board of Regents….
….”We are pleased to associate Mrs. Walton’s name with a facility that would not have been possible if it weren’t for her generosity,” said Ed Elliott, university president. “Since there were no state funds available for this type of project, we turned to alumni and friends of the university, and we were overwhelmed by their outstanding show of support.”
Walton said she became interested in assisting the university after watching “Sportspage,” a program which airs on KMOS-TV, Central’s public television station, which indicated that the original stadium, built in 1928, needed to be replaced. She called Athletics Director Jerry Hughes, himself a native of Versailles, to find out how she might get involved. Then Hughes and President Elliott made a presentation to her outlining what was needed, and she agreed to make a contribution….
From 2007:
[….]
Date: 10/15/2007 11:01 AM
Subject: Walton Stadium Bond
[….]
When we met to discuss the “BOG – Annual Debt Service” report, an item that came up was the funding for the Walton Stadium Bond. The 1999 Bond Agreement (legal document for the refinancing) states “all income and revenues derived by the University from the operation of the Stadium Facility including revenues from the Designated Portion of the Student Fee, investment and rental income are to be applied to pay interest on the bonds less current expenses”.
I don’t know why the suite rental income was ever recorded on the Foundation’s books to begin with but it has since the inception of the original bond (1995). The Foundation used to transfer the suite proceeds back to the University but [….] instructed the transfer be discontinued. The suite income is approximately $44,000 annually. I think [….] wanted the suite income to pay for the expenses Athletics was charging to the Foundation.
Since the Walton Stadium operating costs are borne by the General Fund, in my opinion, the Walton Stadium suite income should be directed to the General Fund to be in compliance with the Bond Agreement. Other Walton Stadium income such as football ticket sales, concessions etc are in the Athletics budget (General Fund).
The designated portion of the student fee referenced in paragraph 1 above, is the $1.25 Facilities fee per credit hour. The $1.25 Facilities fee totals approximately $280,000 annually; so you couple the $280,000 With the suite income of $44,000 that basically would cover the annual Walton Stadium bond payment of $329,000. We have always used the $1.25 Facility Fee to pay for the Stadium Bond but have not received the Walton Suite Income for a few years.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
[….]
Well, we thought something happened in 2007. You think the university president fixed that problem? You think that may have upset some people? We understand that the suite income is now going toward the bond payment.
There are some stories in archives from 1994 and 1995 about the stadium and those bonds and the financing of the stadium.
….The University Board of Regents received bids for construction Aug. 16. However, the lowest bid was $6.5 million, $2.1 million above the university’s budgeted cost of $4.4 million.
Jerry Hughes, Central athletic director, said that university officials will meet with architects to try to cut costs. Highes said that he thought the project would be able to continue without much delay….
Muleskinner, Thursday, December 1, 1994. [Sports, page 9]
New Stadium to vault Central ahead of MIAA
By J.R. Belew
Staff writer
….Thomas Edmunds, senior vice president for business affairs, said the cost of the new structure is $5 million. It is funded by alumni donations and $4 million in bonds….
….”They (the suites) are helping pay for the rest of the stadium by the way we package them,” Hughes said….
Alumni Today, Winter 1995, page 9
Fundraising for stadium continues
….Cost of the new stadium to be built at Vernon Kennedy Field, is $4.4 million. The Foundation has approximately $2 million to be raised for the project….
Muleskinner, Thursday, August 24, 1995. [Sports, page 9]
Stadium almost ready for the first game
By Jean Ann Nichols
Sports Editor
…When complete, the newly constructed stadium will consist of a lower and upper level of metal bleacher seats as well as two levels of luxury suites and a press box….
….The suites, for either eight or 16 people, are furnished with theater seats, televisions, refrigerators and counters. The suites are available to either businesses or private individuals. An eight person suit sells for $50,000 for 10 years and a 16 person suite sells for $100,000.
Edmunds said the suites have sold very well, and only a few remain unsold. The revenue from the suites was used as part of the funding for the stadium….
Muleskinner, Thursday, September 28, 1995. [page 1]
New stadium to be named for Walton
By Darin Sparks
Staff Writer
The Board of Regents unanimously voted to name the new football stadium for Audrey J. Walton of Versailles, Mo., at yesterday’s meeting.
The amount received for the stadium is $5.5 million. Walton is the major donor. The largest single gift was $1 million….
….President Ed Elliott said donations by Walton and others made the stadium possible.
“We are pleased to associate Mrs. Walton’s name with a facility that would not have been possible if it weren’t for her generosity,” he said. “Since there were no state funds available for this type of project, we turned to alumni friends of the university, and we were overwhelmed by their outstanding show of support….
Muleskinner, Thursday, October 19, 1995. [page 1]
Stadium might require general revenue funds
Use of general funds depends of donations collected
by Darin Sparks
Staff Writer
The Audrey J. Walton Stadium at Vernon Kennedy Field has cost an estimated $5.8 million, $4 million of which was raised in bonds that the university has to pay back in 20 years….
….If Central does not receive enough money in donations to pay off the bonds, the payments will be taken from the university’s general funds, Edmunds said.
“You have to pledge something against it,” Edmunds said. “And in this case it is university revenues….”
….Steven Boone, assistant professor of chemistry, said faculty were told that the stadium would be paid for by private donations.
“It is my underst
anding that the funding for the stadium is from donations,” he said.
Joseph Mazza, professor of speech communications….said, to his understanding, the bonds were to be paid off by donations.
“Initially, there was a $1 million pledge from an anonymous source,” he said. “We know who that was now, and because of the time restrainsts for receiving donations, we had to sell bonds to cover the cost of the project….”
On September 30th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from September 27th through the 28th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error 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
43% – disapprove
7% – not sure
Democrats [37% of sample]
76% – approve
22% – disapprove
2% – not sure
republicans [25% of sample]
28% – approve
64% – disapprove
9% – not sure
Independents [29% of sample]
42% – approve
50% – disapprove
8% – not sure
Compared to August Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers, when compared to President Obama and Kit Bond, are relatively stable.
Senator McCaskill’s disapproval numbers among Democrats have increased when compared to August. The August disapproval numbers among “Independents” have decreased significantly, with the approval number from this group improving slightly.
The percentage of self-identified liberals who are “not sure” when it comes to approval of the job Claire McCaskill is doing has increased significantly:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?
Ideology
Conservative [32% of sample]
28% – approve
70% – disapprove
2% – not sure
Moderate [39% of sample]
63% – approve
33% – disapprove
4% – not sure
Liberal [16% of sample]
65% – approve
24% – disapprove
11% – not sure
The September numbers for Kit Bond aren’t very good:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?
…Well, well, well. It’s a rarity when Senator “sit on the fence and bring home the bacon” Bond (r) has a lower approval number (barely) than Claire McCaskill. There’s been some slippage in the numbers for Bond among republicans and Democrats.
Kit Bond has more fence sitters. The decline in the “not sure” (the undecidieds) in Claire McCaskill’s approval numbers may be an indication of polarization. It is possible, as she has been subjected to public verbal assault by irrational teabaggers at her town halls, that the Democratic base is tending to reflexively defend her. And some republicans and especially “Independents” are going the other way (yes, some republicans are going into the approval column, too). Time will tell.
On August 31st SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from August 26th through the 27th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error 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
52% – approve
43% – disapprove
5% – not sure
Democrats [41% of sample]
77% – approve
17% – disapprove
6% – not sure
republicans [30% of sample]
31% – approve
67% – disapprove
2% – not sure
Independents [23% of sample]
38% – approve
62% – disapprove
1% – not sure
Compared to July Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers have improved.
Senator McCaskill’s approval numbers among Democrats and republicans have improved when compared to July. The August disapproval numbers among “Independents” have increased, with the approval number in this group holding steady.
Claire McCaskill’s approval numbers among self identified liberals has improved.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?
All
51% – approve
39% – disapprove
10% – not sure
Democrats [41% of sample]
38% – approve
50% – disapprove
12% – not sure
republicans [30% of sample]
71% – approve
23% – disapprove
6% – not sure
Independents [23% of sample]
49% – approve
46% – disapprove
5% – not sure
Well, well, well. It’s a rarity when Senator “sit on the fence and bring home the bacon” Bond (r) has a lower approval number (barely) than Claire McCaskill. There’s been some slippage in the numbers for Bond among republicans and Democrats.
Kit Bond has more fence sitters. The decline in the “not sure” (the undecidieds) in Claire McCaskill’s approval numbers may be an indication of polarization. It is possible, as she has been subjected to public verbal assault by irrational teabaggers at her town halls, that the Democratic base is tending to reflexively defend her. And some republicans and especially “Independents” are going the other way (yes, some republicans are going into the approval column, too). Time will tell.
Senators Mitch McConnell (r), John McCain (r), and Kit Bond (r) came to Kansas City on Monday for a closed (to the public) health care forum. They obviously weren’t too interested in fielding questions from teabaggers.
The coverage in today’s Kansas City Star was revealing. The dead trees headline in the Kansas City Edition, page B1:
HEALTH REFORM BLASTED IN KC: At Children’s Mercy, three GOP senators say say compromise with Democrats hasn’t been found
….The Republicans said they also were miffed at Democrats for not doing enough to include them in ongoing negotiations.
“So far, there’s been no bipartisanship involved in reforming health care in America,” McCain complained….
[emphasis added]
Okay, just hold on a minute there. Senator Claire McCaskill (D) stated in Jefferson City (and at three other town halls I attended):
….[18:40] And the other thing you can do there, which might be interesting, ’cause you’re here and you obviously care very deeply, you might watch the live video, not live, it’s taped video, of all the the mark up sessions in the [Senate] bill. Fifty-two hours of mark up sessions on the bill. Thirteen Democrats, ten Republicans. There were a lot of amendments, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds that were written up. There were about two hundred that were considered. Of the two hundred amendments that were considered and adopted on this bill in this fifty-two hours a hundred and sixty-seven of them were sponsored by the Republican members of the committee and thirty-one of them were sponsored by the Democratic members of the committee. So, there was [applause], there were really a bipartisan [crowd shouting], the interesting thing [voice, shouting: “What happened to the other thirty (inaudible)?”] there really was a bi, and you can watch it. You can go on and watch it. You don’t have to read something that somebody else has written. You can go on and watch it live. You can see the Republican members offering the amendments. You can see the discussion. You can understand, maybe the, the thinking behind some of the amendments and why they were offering them. And it might be a way that you could see, face to face, what really happened in fifty-two hours of consideration on this bill, instead of some of the misinformation that’s gotten out there [19:57]….
“…Of the two hundred amendments that were considered and adopted on this bill in this fifty-two hours a hundred and sixty-seven of them were sponsored by the Republican members of the committee and thirty-one of them were sponsored by the Democratic members of the committee….”
Someone other than a stenographer might try to reconcile those competing statements.
On July 31st SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from July 17th through the 19th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error 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
47% – approve
47% – disapprove
7% – not sure
Democrats [41% of sample]
69% – approve
26% – disapprove
5% – not sure
republicans [27% of sample]
24% – approve
68% – disapprove
7% – not sure
Independents [26% of sample]
39% – approve
55% – disapprove
7% – not sure
Compared to June Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers have dropped.
Senator McCaskill’s approval numbers among Democrats and Independents have dropped when compared to June. The July disapproval numbers from liberals are on the high side:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?
…They’re pissed that Obama is president. They’re pissed that McCain isn’t. They’re pissed that Jim Talent isn’t their senator. They probably voted for George W. Bush twice (and probably his daddy twice). They’d probably be pissed if you pointed out that dubya is and was a monumental screw-up – it reminds them that they made that particular choice. They didn’t vote for Claire. They’ll never vote for Claire….
….No matter what anyone does they’ll be pissed and stay pissed. And they ain’t voting for any Democrats. Ever…
The numbers for Democrats and liberals are striking. More on that later.
When traveling in Europe while studying abroad in college, I would occasionally run into people in hostels who had a strange view of traveling. I would ask them where they had just arrived from, and they would reply something like, “Oh, we just did Budapest.” Anyone who said they had just “done” a city was hard-pressed to be able to tell me precisely what they had done, other than a pub crawl. Which was annoying, because I liked to find out about travel experiences from other travelers – what was worth the trip, what was nice enough but too crowded or expensive, etc. The “I just did…” response gave me zero information on how great or terrible destination was.
That’s the way this article left me after an initial giddiness about the CBO score of $600 billion over 10 years to cover 97% of Americans, including a government-run public health insurance plan. Sure, I’m glad to find out that leading Democrats on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee included a public option, glad that they had the CBO score the health care plan with the public option this time, and I’m elated that the CBO scored the bill as much cheaper than the incomplete plan submitted back in May. But I still feel like the reporter just “did” the public option.
From the article, all I know is that there’s potentially going to be a $60 billion a year government-run health insurance plan. I have no idea from the article whether a trigger will be put in place, a threshhold that will need to be crossed in order to activate the public option. I don’t know if the plan will be offered nationally or state-by-state. I don’t know if it will be accountable to Congress. I don’t know if it will be available to all Americans, or just those who can’t currently get coverage. All of these points would make a big difference in whether I would support such a bill or oppose it.
So I’m begging reporters to ask about what a public option would entail when you write about its inclusion in a health care reform bill. And fortunately, dear reader, we don’t need a reporter to help us find out where our Senators, at least, stand on these very important questions. Please ask Senators McCaskill and Bond for specific responses.
Do you support a public healthcare option as part of healthcare reform?
If so, do you support a public healthcare option that is available on day one?
Do you support a public healthcare option that is national, available everywhere, and accountable to Congress?
Do you support a public healthcare option that can bargain for rates from providers and big drug companies?
Still haven’t heard back from either Bond or McCaskill after two weeks of asking the question.
On June 25th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from June 12th through the 14th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error 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? (June 2009)
All
52% – approve
41% – disapprove
6% – not sure
Democrats [41% of sample]
74% – approve
22% – disapprove
4% – not sure
republicans [27% of sample]
19% – approve
71% – disapprove
10% – not sure
Independents [25% of sample]
54% – approve
40% – disapprove
5% – not sure
Compared to April Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers have remained roughly the same. The approval numbers among Democrats, republicans, Independents are also similar to the April numbers.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator? (June 2009)
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator? (June 2009)
All
55% – approve
35% – disapprove
10% – not sure
Democrats [41% of sample]
45% – approve
49% – disapprove
6% – not sure
republicans [27% of sample]
75% – approve
13% – disapprove
13% – not sure
Independents [25% of sample]
52% – approve
36% – disapprove
12% – not sure
SurveyUSA posted the results of a 600 sample poll taken from May 28th to the 29th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). There is no release date. The margin of error 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? (May 2009)
All
49% – approve
43% – disapprove
8% – not sure
Democrats [42% of sample]
67% – approve
25% – disapprove
8% – not sure
republicans [32% of sample]
30% – approve
62% – disapprove
8% – not sure
Independents [25% of sample]
48% – approve
46% – disapprove
6% – not sure
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator? (May 2009)
All
50% – approve
41% – disapprove
10% – not sure
Democrats [42% of sample]
44% – approve
49% – disapprove
7% – not sure
republicans [32% of sample]
63% – approve
24% – disapprove
13% – not sure
Independents [21% of sample]
42% – approve
51% – disapprove
8% – not sure
Overall, when compared to the bracketing April and June polls respondents had a darker view of the universe. What is striking in this particular poll is the relatively smaller polarization (it’s still there, though) among self identified republican respondents when compared to the April and June polls.
On May 1st SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll of adults taken in Missouri from April 24th through the 26th showing the approval numbers for Senators Claire McCaskill (D) and Kit Bond (r). The margin of error 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
51% – approve
40% – disapprove
8% – not sure
Democrats [39% of sample]
72% – approve
23% – disapprove
5% – not sure
republicans [26% of sample]
21% – approve
71% – disapprove
9% – not sure
Independents [27% of sample]
53% – approve
41% – disapprove
6% – not sure
Compared to March Claire McCaskill’s overall approval numbers have improved slightly. The approval numbers among Independents has improved significantly. The numbers among Democrats and republicans remain essentially unchanged. It appears that whatever Claire McCaskill does, those republican numbers ain’t gonna budge.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Claire McCaskill is doing as United States Senator?
Gender
Male [48% of sample]
55% – approve
38% – disapprove
7% – not sure
Female [52% of sample]
48% – approve
43% – disapprove
9% – not sure
Hmmm. There appears to be something of a gender gap.
Let’s look at the April numbers for Kit Bond:
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Kit Bond is doing as United States Senator?
All
48% – approve
39% – disapprove
13% – not sure
Democrats [39% of sample]
36% – approve
51% – disapprove
12% – not sure
republicans [26% of sample]
73% – approve
19% – disapprove
8% – not sure
Independents [27% of sample]
41% – approve
46% – disapprove
12% – not sure
The senior senator’s overall approval numbers continue their decline. So much for a legacy, eh? When you’re in the party of only “NO” it tends to have a deleterious effect on your likability. There is a decline in approval among Democrats when compared to the March numbers. When you’re not “bipartisan” and things suck, apparently you lose support among the folks that you’ve previously sold on your “bipartisanship” (well, that and pork delivery, too). No matter what Kit Bond doesn’t do, his republican numbers remain rock solidly unchanged.
There’s no gender gap for Kit Bond. The numbers are almost identical.
