Post-Primary: Todd Akin The Biggest Surprise & Jay Nixon Would Win In November

Patch's polling of influential Republicans and Democrats in Missouri also reveals Lt. Governor Peter Kinder has a lot of work to do to rebuild bridges within his own party.

If the November election was held today, a majority of political insiders polled in Missouri, both Democrats and Republicans agreed that Gov. Jay Nixon would win a second term over St. Louis businessman Dave Spence.

That was one of the main results of a non-scientific survey of Patch's Red Arch/Blue Arch panelists, taken between Aug. 8 and Aug. 11, after last week's primary elections. A total of 29 responses came in from members of each party using an automated survey tool.

When asked about the governor's race, 96.6 percent of Democrats said Nixon would win if the election were held today, while 37.9 percent of Republicans went with Spence in the matchup.

 win in a spirited GOP primary fight to face Claire McCaskill for Missouri's U.S. Senate was far and away the biggest primary elections surprise, according to 62 percent of the Democrats and 51 percent of the Republicans polled.

Given the "if the election were held today" question in an Akin-McCaskill matchup, 89.6 percent of Republicans chose Akin, while 72.2 percent of Democrats went with McCaskill.

When Republicans were asked:  'Which candidate will have the toughest time bringing their primary opponents and supporters into the fold,' 50 percent said it would be Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, who fought off a challenge from State Senator Brad Lager despite a series of bad headlines over the past year related to 

"Many voters that supported Lager supported him because of Kinder's past personal choices. That sentiment won't change now," one participant wrote.

Another cited what they called Kinder's "outrageous past and his lack of acknowledging that he did any wrong in as far as the taxpayer's dollar was concerned. Just because he paid the funds back doesn't imply that it was okay!"

Kinder will face Democrat Susan Montee in November's general election.

Twenty-one point four of respondents said Dave Spence would have a tough time rallying his opponents, while 7.1 percent each mentioned  and State Representative Shane Schoeller, who won the primary campaign to run for Secretary of State.

What do you think of the post-primary landscape in Missouri? Tell us in the comment section.

Kevin Lane August 15, 2012 at 07:04 PM
Collin, As I've explained, when you reduce by large number the amount of businesses, of course those who remain will show more profit. It's misleading. You could achieve the same results by creating a Monopoly. It isn't more business. It isn't more profit. It's fewer businesses accepting what's left of the money being spent. There was nothing DE-regulatory about Fair Housing. Regulatory is even in the name for crying out loud. It FORCED banks to loan money that everyone new they would never get back. It caused creativity in the market, it didn't deregulate it. Did it also de-regulate Franklin Raines from making off with over $900 million in tax-payer dollars? You're right, the government didn't invent B, C, or even D loans, they FORCED them. The quote "unprecedented practices and profits" was in response to taxpayers covering the losses created by this un-wise wager, and the result of much of their banking competition going out of business due to this tragedy. (Bear Stearnes) Also, it's odd that those were some of the Banks whose underwriters were those that were bailed-out. (Goldmann-Sachs) What's also not incorrect is that one side tried to stop it, tried to regulate Fanny & Freddy, while the Dems that were cashing-in laughed at the very suggestion of a need for actual regulation. Ever hear of Ofeo? I'd love to show you the C-Span footage of this happening, but it wouldn't matter any more to you than any other actual facts do. But you are welcome to it.
Kevin Lane August 15, 2012 at 07:08 PM
No ma'am, One war, the second was entered into by this administration. Trying to argue that the government & their expenditures are smaller than they were is right around 180 degrees wrong, and there are endless examples of it. Likely information you got from a biased media, (a trait you attempted to assign to me, as I was trying explain that bias to you). Taxes are at a low, because you can't continue to drive businesses away & expect to collect more taxes. Businesses pay more taxes than their employees, thanks to the Dems, you now have fewer of both. You can try to blame the previous administration if you want, but again, you don't understand the actual events or the effects of them. Remember, many of the efforts by the previous administration, were attempts to turn aroun the effects of the administration previous to that, when the tax-increases & attacks on business & your home began. Unless you understand the Fair Housing Regulatory Act & the effects of it, including changing banking laws to allow those worthless loans to be bundled & sold back to tax payers as if they were worth something other than the cost of the paper they were printed on, then you don't understand what actually happened. If you don't know who Franklin Raines or Ofeo is, then you are exactly as good as those who fed you that information. It was not Bush who bet your homes, lost the bet, then made you buy those losses.
Kevin Lane August 15, 2012 at 07:16 PM
You don't ask for a level playing field, if you did you wouldn't be against a flat-tax, and for going after the rich, besides, all of you defended these same activities 4 years ago. Also, just because we all agree to pay for those things doesn't mean we should continue to do it the wrong way. It's cheaper in every way to let the states & municipalities handle some of these things, which means MORE money would actually get where it is going, instead of to a Federal government that is wasteful, irresponsible, and too far removed from ALL of these situations to even understand them. I thought you hadn't seen Romney's tax-returns, you speak as if you have. If he created a false birth... oops, I mean tax-return, would you be as willing to defend it as you are a Hawaiian birth-certificate that doesn't match others issued during the same time-period? His returns don't even matter to you. You just want to distract from what the greediest & most wasteful Fed ever does with OUR money, by trying to say that Romney should allow them to waste whatever they want of HIS. Look at what Romney does with his money, not what we do with yours. Hook, Line, & Sinker
Elizabeth August 15, 2012 at 07:21 PM
That is a complete misrepresentation of Conservative ideology. True conservatives want, as you put it, "freedom to grow up healthy, attain the highest level of education possible." We want the freedom to succeed. We are content to pay taxes that contribute to society as a whole. What we DON'T want is wasteful spending by our gov't. We don't want to see money that should be used to help people being misused by fraud, both by receivers and by politicians pandering for votes. We want to encourage entrepreneurship, not stifle it. (i.e.: the 13 year old whose hot dog stand was shut down b/c it was in competition with brick and mortar restaurants). We want people to succeed, not be disenfranchised by over-bearing gov't regulations. And before you get all twitchy, I'm not talking about clean air,food or whatever extreme example you're thinking of right now. There are thousands of tiny little nonsense regulations that business owners have to deal with every day that do absolutely NOTHING to improve society. Clearly you haven't read or understand Ayn Rand. If you had you would recognize that the antagonists in her works PREY on society for their own gain. They play the altruist, only wanting to help the little guy, but it is all a facade. Btw - Erskine Bowles, the White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton praised Ryan for being "honest, straightforward and sensible" and had good things to say about his budget plan.
Kevin Lane August 15, 2012 at 07:22 PM
Sensible, Are you aware that "our founding principals" were based on a Christian religion? You're lost. The only thing more frightening than Akin is his opponent & the status quo.
Peter Russo August 15, 2012 at 08:45 PM
Susan: I think you could agree that 80-90% Republicans are Christian. The Christian schools far outnumber public schools. Christians are known to Help anyone in need. (Charities, Free schooling , The needy foods and shelters) THAT IS THE PEOPLE. CHARITES and neighbors always took care of their own communitiies. That is history. So please don't say Republicans want everyone to take care of themselves. History and the thousands of Christian Charities is how Republicans take care of communities. Yes Even you , if you had the need.
Peter Russo August 15, 2012 at 08:47 PM
ELIZABETH: Well Said, my lady. Nice to see someone actually understands what a community should be.
RegalT62 August 15, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Susan and Elizabeth, this is what a dialog is! I like hearing the ideas of people - even if I disagree with them. Thank you both for rescuing this discussion from the silly depth it evolved towards. Elizabeth, you don't want government to over regulate business but what do you think of the how the previous administration - and the ending of Glass-Steigall act under Clinton - did on not regulating and providing appropriate oversight of the financial and mortgage industry? When companies were allowed to sell a knowingly failing financial product, and then buy insurance on that same product without anyone calling foul, I think that you can't allow corporations, or share holders, to run wild with no restrictions. And then expect to be bailed out by our tax dollars after literally losing the hard earned money of their clients who are left with nothing! Greed, the pursuit of profit and the lack of any belief in a social contract makes it necessary for government to watch out for the little guys. Thoughts?
RDBet August 15, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Peter, I agree that Christian charities do great work, and I have donated and volunteered for such organizations many times. However, I think you are vastly overestimating the power of these organizations to coordinate and help in all the places where needed. Often times these same charities are begging for Government to help them in their efforts. Also, think of other countries such as Pakistan where the Islam is the main religion, and their charities run the schools and give out aid, but sometimes at a cost of to the recipients (madrassahs). It is not always a healthy situation. ------- It's odd that this neo-conservatism has tried to ally itself with Christianity so closely. The conservative icon, Reagan was not known to be particularly religious (though I am sure neo-con revisionists will say otherwise). Ayn Rand, another neo-con icon -was in favor of abortion rights, and was not only an athiest -but uncompromising towards religion. When Ayn Rand died, she was on social security and medicare....
Mike August 15, 2012 at 09:42 PM
Peter Russo said: 3:45 pm on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 The Christian schools far outnumber public schools. Peter - I'm not sure what your point was but this is completely and utterly incorrect. The last number I saw there were 4 public schools for every Christian school. That figure was from 2006. I know there are fewer Catholic schools today then there were in 2006. http://www.educationbug.org/a/public-school-vs--christian-school.html
Elizabeth August 15, 2012 at 09:48 PM
Tamara - I wasn't referring to what I consider "Big" regulations or maybe a better way to say it is "regulations on big things". The financial mess that came of bad mortgages + insuring against their success, etc screams for some sort of oversight. When I say less government regulation, I mean literally "less", not do away with it all together. I'm talking about the day to day things that eat into a company's profitability. An example I can think of is a woman who invented and wants to sell a maternity pillow. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/penalty-of-law-meet-an-american-entrepreneur-thats-battling-against-govt-red-tape-via-a-maternity-pillow/ Or http://cherylchumley.blogspot.com/2012/07/yet-another-red-tape-horror-story-feds.html Or my personal favorite, the EPA fining refineries for not adding a cellulose product that hasn't been invented yet. There can be common sense regulation, but right now government at every level has gotten out of control. They want alternative energy, but good luck getting a wind mill or solar panels on your property.
Steve Stegen August 16, 2012 at 01:31 AM
Whoa! Wait a minute. I think some of you here who seem to claim knowledge of our founding fathers; DO NOT! First, the Boston Tea Party was a protest against the East India Company (A CORPORATION) and Parliament. Guess who many of the owners of that Corporation were? Parliament members wanted to put smaller American businessmen (tea companies) out of business and create a monopoly for their Corporation. So, we were founded with a natural mistrust of Corporations and for years, they were very much limited by States and Congress. It was only later, as they became more influential that they reached the status they have today. So, its not anti-American to mistrust Corporations. Furthermore, three of the better known founders didn't particularly consider themselves Christians. More Agnostics than anything. One was Ben Franklin. In fact, Ben Franklin left money to every Church (some not Christian) in Philadelphia through his will, including those less popular in some minds to this day. How about some of you folks get up and drive to a tax supported public library and start reading books about our history, instead of relying on cable news. You owe it to your kids, if nothing else.
Rockwood 25 August 16, 2012 at 02:21 AM
Tamara is correct on her many good points. Devon and Kevin, you're listening to talking points and they're only a distorted slice of what is real. The Banking Deregulation began back in the Reagan era and continued over the years; it has been a terribly failed experiment. Those regulations kept banking out of serious trouble for decades and we could use them, along with updates for newer technology, again. It's been made to look simple so that the case can be misstated, and has been. Really being educated in these things is quite boring and a bit messy for most. The soundbites get people fired up but does not accurately reflect reality in history, past or present or the choices presented. As soon as one speaks of "all" or "never" or "take care of everything", it shows an extreme position and one devoid of the true state and nuances of the situations. The clean air you breathe, clean water you drink are all due to those nasty regulations, and it wasn't always like this even in my lifetime. There are too many who believe they know what they're running toward but haven't really experienced the lack of the protections that are being fought over. People who can't go out, orange skies with an obscured sun, hospitals filled with people of all ages and health who were damaged by the air, were all regular summer occurances for years. I don't want to go back to that for myself or for the younger generations. Easy to complain while living with the benefits not knowing otherwise.
Rockwood 25 August 16, 2012 at 02:29 AM
Devon, a flat tax hurts people the less they make. If one makes $30,000, 10% is $3000, leaving $27,000 for the family to live on. If one makes $1,000,000, the tax is an appreciable $100,000 but leaves their family $900,000 to live on. One is cutting to the bone someone who can least afford it; not so true to the other. Simplified but fact.
Rockwood 25 August 16, 2012 at 02:35 AM
Solyndra was not a good investment, true. But along the way, there were many forms of oil subsidies, natural gas subsidies and...name a subsidized technology, that no one knew which trials were going to work or not, but we knew we had to invest in energy or the technology or medicine, to get the country to a better, more advantaged place. It has worked and worked well. We need new technologies for many reasons, not the least of which other countries are developing them faster than we are. The oil companies and other mature industries no longer NEED the subsidies, but too many in Congress refuse to pull that plug and anger their big donors. The winning formula has always been to invest in fledglings and let the mature ones go off on their own. Some fledglings don't make it. Any way you look at it, though, continued subsidies for Big Oil, Big Ag and the like are a waste of our resources.
Sonny Pondrom August 16, 2012 at 03:20 AM
And another president (Teddy Roosevelt) was known as the "Trust Buster' when at the turn of the 20th Century corporations got out of hand.
RegalT62 August 16, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Elizabeth, Thank you for responding! When I first read your post I was in total agreement - especially about the woman who is selling her maternity pillow. It sound so stupid to have to buy the tag in all the states. But after thinking about it, I don't know if there is a good solution in this situation. One reason we are such a powerhouse economically is because we can do interstate commerce easily. The EU tried to address those issues in its formation and we all know of the troubles it has experienced. I as a consumer, I want to know what I purchase. I want to know that there is nothing harmful in the fill of a pillow - or that my food I'm buying has been genetically altered. In fact, we all hold the "government" responsible when a product goes wrong - like "why didn't "they" make a company disclose that its product was harmful"? So there is a constant balance between commerce and protection for the consumer. So why isn't one Federal protection law enough, why do all the state have to "double dip" and charge a fee for selling a pillow? This is my concern when I hear the argument for return of control to the states and cities. They each want their cut, and need the revenue from such fees to operate. Further, is it fair to allow one small business owner to by-pass rules that her competitors have to play by? Sure, the hit of buying multiple tags is worse for her than a multimillion dollar company but isn't that truly fair competition? It's a hard one!
RegalT62 August 16, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Steve and Sonny, Good reminders that we have been here before - and are still debating those same issues!
RegalT62 August 16, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Rockwood 25, thank you for elevating the conversation (and I appreciate that you think I have some good points)! I sometimes feel that those who are advocating "small" government really only want things cut that won't affect them. Environmental protection laws are not only vitally important for us as citizens, but also important for making the whole economic wheel turn. An unhealthy (and uneducated) population hurts production and creativity needed to promote innovation and progress. I was recently reading about the difficulty both China and India have in attracting top talent. When a top-notch engineer is considering where to work, she is reluctant to choose a city in those countries with horrible air, polluted water and lax regulations on simple issues like chemical disposal. When there is a terrorist attempt, people blame law enforcement and the TSA for not catching them before it happens. Those people need resources. I, for one, don't complain about taxes. I feel I get an amazing deal - great roads, safety, public education (tricky one because I have the resources to pick and choose where I live), the postal service (which is amazing - for 50 cents I can send a physical item across the country in two days), clean water. I don't agree where all my taxes go (drones, war, etc.) but I gladly participate and do my part. We do have it good!
Devon Seddon August 16, 2012 at 05:06 PM
Wrong again. You always want to blame de-regulation. De-regulation HAS to follow over-regulation, an idea with no proof of success. Carter over-regulated, crashed the economy, and it had to be reigned back-in. Same with Clinton & Bush. Now it has to be done again. You're trained to say de-regulation is the problem, yet can't comprehend the damage to an economy that over-regulation does. You can try to apply ficticious attributes to anyone who points out you don't know what you're talking about all you want, but I'm not talking about sound-bites, I'm talking about results of actual policies. Regulation makes taxes go up, prices go up, unemployment go up, chases away industry, has an overall negative effect on the economy & reduces tax revenue. It's not an experiment, it's proven fact. I'm going to need you to explain how regulation "kept banking out of serious trouble for decades". Do you mean by forcing them to loan money to people who couldn't pay it back? Or how the tax-payers bailed them out afterward? Or how it left many people homeless with bad credit? Whether you are capable of understanding what I'm trying to tell you or not, I have given you examples & a chain of results. You have given none of that, just said that you are right because you know who regulates & who doesn't. Thank you for pointing out the "givens", now try looking through actual results. Here's your chance, don't just make incorrect statements, back them up with fact. Problem is, you can't.
Devon Seddon August 16, 2012 at 05:07 PM
Completely free, endless, and limitless energy, provided by Earth, was discovered back in the 1920's. Every scientist in the world knows it. Over 72 governments own & use the technology for something else. Yet, do we use it for free energy? Do they even teach us about it in school? No. I wonder why not. That's why I will never buy the "clean air"/"clean water" crap as a reason to let the government control everything. This is a subject they use to divide a country who fights over "alternative energy sources" while the Green movement is a multi-trillion dollar per year business. (I could go on about this all day, but it wouldn't matter.) Side note: Before you vote for a healthcare TAX (the largest tax increase ever), ask yourself how we went from the Wright Brothers to the Moon in 60 years, yet it has been more than 60 years since you've seen a cure of any kind. How is it we still use the same methods we used in the 1970's for treating cancer, even after trillions & trillions are spent every year on hospital bills, insurance, pharmeceuticals, taxes, research & "Susan G Komen"? The point is, they don't provide you with solutions, they hide them. They don't want cures, they want money. They don't want clean air & clean water, they want your money. This is what you want to put all of your trust in? Now they want to get into your personal lives, sexual lives, and control your healthcare, are you smart enough to see what the reason for that is?
RegalT62 August 16, 2012 at 05:36 PM
Devon, as a five year cancer survivor who works in the field of Oncology, your statements are wrong. My treatment, which included surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and oral aromatase inhibitors, all came from the most current science available. In fact, someone with an identical diagnosis today will have medication and treatment options available to them that I did not in 2006 and 2007. I am cancer free. I'm not sure you understand how complicated modern science and the human body is.
Devon Seddon August 16, 2012 at 07:21 PM
BTW, How much did that cost you? After you spent that money, have they gotten more from you or less? Are you still on medication for it? For the rest of your life, maybe? Chemo is not new technology, my grandmother, who was a 2-year cancer survivor in 1974 had chemo. Are you talking about early-detection? There are positive attributes to early detection, but there are also huge profits in it. Again, back to taking your money & offering you "treatments", not a cure. This 60-year period is the biggest jump in technology since the industrial revolution, yet cancer or otherwise, there are more diseased & diseases, not fewer. Trust them if you want, but not questioning things that are this blatant, I just think it's foolish. Do you know anyone on just 1 prescription? Do you know that the average drug (even post-cancer treatment drugs) has 70 negative side effects? Do you know some have upwards of 250? How many of those they gave you had zero? This leads to more sales. Complicated or not, I know there's been 0 cures in 60 years, I know science is funded & steered by grants & donations. I know if science doesn't make money for those "investing", they no longer invest. (Ex: 60 MPG carborator, JP Morgan & Nikola Tesla) PS - Thanks to the Department of Education - You'll have to look up Nikola Tesla on your own. BTW, if you are an oncologist, you use his technology daily, and are right now using 6-7 more. All discovered by a man they don't want you to know about. Ever wonder why?
RegalT62 August 16, 2012 at 08:43 PM
I hope you never have to deal with cancer or any other disease. I wish you good health and happiness with all my best intentions. But, if you ever do hear those dreaded words, I hope you do not request that your treatment be limited to what was available in the 1970's.
Peter Russo August 16, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Mike: I do not know anyone who claimed that they could not afford a morning after pill after a "rape" or "incest". That is a loaded PC question and you know it. Still , calling any poilitician a "moron" for Publicly holding his religious beliefs is unwarranted. You and I know that. Although , I do respect your rights to who and why you choose a candidate. Remember , Obama always said he "was against gay-marriage". That was PC, in my opinion. But, now that I know he lied about his true feelings, I will not vote for him (again). As thousands of other Christians will also do. I would do the same of AKIN, if I knew he was lying.
Peter Russo August 16, 2012 at 11:01 PM
TO RDbet: Charities are begging for Government support? Well, I do know that al charities under 25 employees are getting Govt support for health care. I would be skeptical the Govt would mix Public money direct to any Religious-Charity. That would create a political fire-storm, in my opinion.
Peter Russo August 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM
MIKE: You are correct> I am talking about the 50's-60's. City. Only Public high school was on any Radar screen back then. At least in my territory.
RDBet August 16, 2012 at 11:21 PM
It sounds like you agree there is a middle ground when it comes to regulation. Some of the past disarming of regulatory agencies, from mine safety to the SEC, was a disarming of these agencies. Instead of reforming and providing oversight for regulators-which is a job duty of elected officials-these politicians seem bent on dismantling the agencies, or doing away with them all together (as promised by several GOP candidates). To me, politicians do this out of twisted ideology, or payback to their donors from the business world. Thus the weakened agencies of various sorts are overmatched to regulate big business, and the regs miss their target and come down harder on smaller businesses as per your examples.
Devon Seddon August 16, 2012 at 11:42 PM
I hope that too Tamara, thank you. I do not wish you any ill-will, ever, PLEASE don't misunderstand. It's awesome you were able to persevere. Bless your heart. I have been close to those that have been afflicted, it's actually the source of my disdain. I was thankful that there were people there that wanted to help (those like you). BUT, when all they could do was take good-people's life savings (or any inheritance for their kids, who now get a bill instead), while their chances were still around that of a coin toss. I decided then, I would follow that money. When I did, I saw that there are at least 6 EXTREMELY powerful entities out there that continue to benefit ONLY as long as they treat but not cure. (Many lesser benefactors as well) Our healthcare industry no longer has incentive to be about healing anymore (it's not run by the ones like you unfortunately). The incentive is money. BIG money. Not the 'evil big corporations' that we're trained to hate, but the ones that deserve it. They have every incentive to hide a cure to make their money, and I believe they do. Think getting the government involved will fix it? Maybe, but not while they are the biggest benefactor, taking at least 1 piece of every single dollar. Doctor Bills, Drug Co's, Insurance, "Cure" Orgs, Researchers, Tax Dollars, etc. It only takes 1 member of any 1 of those entities to make a cure go away. ONE. Either they all come around or we do. It doesn't benefit them, only us, so WE have to.
Scott Simon August 17, 2012 at 12:43 AM
You pro Democrats pushing the notion the size of government today is smaller - there are more government union dues paying members than union dues paying members in the private sector. Please, don't tell me government is smaller.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something