No Surprise, Readers Pick McCaskill Over Akin
Nobody should be shocked that readers overwhelmingly selected Sen. Claire McCaskill over Rep. Todd Akin last week. Readers of this blog are largely from the City of St. Louis, the opposite of voters in Missouri.
Q: Which candidate do you want to be elected the next US Senator from Missouri?
- Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) 143 [71.86%]
- Rep. Todd Akin (R) 35 [17.59%]
- Neutral/unsure/no opinion 21 [10.55%]
Without a doubt McCaskill will carry St. Louis. In the 2006 general election McCaskill received 95.56% of the vote in St. Louis, Republican challenger Jim Talent received just 3.6%. (two minor party candidates made up the difference)
The 2006 statewide numbers were very different. McCaskill received 49.6% of the vote to Talent’s 47.3% (see results).
Akin would be bad for urban cities. Akin voted against HB2847 (Employment, Infrastructure, and Transportation Appropriations) in December 2009, for example. Other nays include reauthorization of Amtrak. See Akin’s votes on transportation bills here.
Please join me in supporting Sen, Claire McCaskill on November 6th.
— Steve Patterson
I’m no large fan of either of them but when one candidate hates women, homosexuals and does everything based on “God’s plan,” the choice is pretty clear.
How about neither of the above and both parties have to come back within 60 days with a two new candidates? They are both just extensions of the current system of divide the population into liberal/conservative and conquer.
Also, Steve… how about a list of the things that Claire has done for cities in your view? I’m not saying it’s not there, but that would at least complete the article. Did she vote for all the bills that Akin voted against? Did she offer any new bills that Mr. Akin didn’t? What makes Claire a good candidate other than the fact that she’s not Todd Akin? And what are the reasons that people that are moderate should vote for her?
If you’re asking others to support her, I think these are all fair questions.
Thanks,
-Greg
Why should the parties come back in 60 days? This is an election, there is no do-over option because someone opened their mouth and said what they were really thinking.
Every voter owes it to themselves and the country to turn off the fake news and do research on the candidates. Only by personal interpretation can one make an informed choice.
What I was attempting to say is that there should be a third option that you can check that says “none of the above” and then offered that they come back in 60 days with new candidates. My belief is that when you have one candidate (Akin) who is an idiot and the other (Claire) who is generally disliked by enough people that the consensus was before Akin’s comments that she was the most likely to lose her seat in congress, that you have two weak candidates. Thus, rather than making voters choose the lesser of two evils, why not give the voter the option to say I want neither of them. I think people would be surprised at how many would use that option. I think it would drastically reshape elections. Thats just my opinion though.
Greg: I could not agree more with you. I lost all respect for Claire when she not only wouldn’t condemn Akin outright but poured millions into his campaign knowing he was the only candidate she could likely beat in the election. A recent poll by factcheck.org revealed that 82% of Americans would choose NONE OF THE ABOVE for this coming election in November. I know that I would!
Well, one’s a moral degenerate, a virulent misogynist, a religious hypocrite (what fundy “Christan” these days isn’t?), a huckster, a corporate tool, and a host of other negatives. The other’s a corporate tool, a neo-liberal, also a huckster, and not too much better than the comb-over candidate.
Maybe I’ll write-in myself. Vote for Me! lol