Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the plethora Midwestern wing nut, Tea Party, rabble rousers like Akin, Bachmann, Joe Walsh, Ron Paul, one would have to conclude Midwest women have no problem voting against their own self interests

I think you have the midwest confused with the south. There are blue states and states that cross over from election to election.

Aiken =. Mo, Bachnann = Mn. Walsh = In. Paul kyt. I'm confused?

Well, most if them don't prove anything except that you can find a conservative district practically anywhere. Aiken is going to lose statewide, Bachmann couldn't rise past her current level. And KY is the south, as is Texas so whichever Paul you are talking about that one isn't our fault.

Now if you want to look st states which are historical battlegrounds and therefore not rigid red or blue, look at this map.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2004CampaignAttention.png

Gosh of it was wingnut heaven then why are these states historically battlegrounds?

And if you want to see where the tea party is strongest, look here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/patchworknation/staticmaps/teaparty.html

Gosh That map doesn't exactly make The Midwest look like tea party heaven. You would have to say that honor goes to the west, and parts of the south.

Lastly look at how each region historically votes overall. The Midwest is the region most likely to shift from red to blue: http://www.gallup.com/poll/155597/midwest-west-competitive-regions-2012-election.aspx

The Democratic candidate has won in the East in each election since 1988.
The Republican has prevailed in the South in most elections since 1980, though Obama and John McCain tied in that region in 2008.
The West has tended to be more Democratic in recent elections, with the Democrat winning there each year since 1992 aside from 2004. Prior to 1992, Republicans generally won in the West.
The Midwest has generally been the most competitive and most likely to switch party allegiances, backing the Democrat in 1992, 1996, and 2008, and the Republican in 1988, 2000, and 2004. Thus, the Midwest has backed the electoral vote winner in each of the last six elections and the popular vote winner in five of the last six.

KC suburban mom here. It's the religious freaks around here that make us all look nutty! We are surrounded by big baptist churches that demand their congregation to vote republican, not matter what. Other churches do it too, but the baptists are the loudest around here. they certainly vote against their own best interest. Although, lately I've noticed that the republicans have been very quiet. I think Romney crossed the line. They would never admit if they plan to vote for Obama, but who knows what these people will do in the privacy of the voter booth.

During the 2008 election, my kids were coming home from school saying that their friends tell them that Obama kills babies. We figured out that it was always the kids that go to these churches. The main one around here has an abortion guilt support group.

Btw, I am a christian. We go to an episcopal church and it's quite liberal.

OP, you say that women in MO, yourself included, don't like McCaskill. Just curious: why is that?

All above Big 10. states. Not SEC

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With the plethora Midwestern wing nut, Tea Party, rabble rousers like Akin, Bachmann, Joe Walsh, Ron Paul, one would have to conclude Midwest women have no problem voting against their own self interests

I think you have the midwest confused with the south. There are blue states and states that cross over from election to election.

Aiken =. Mo, Bachnann = Mn. Walsh = In. Paul kyt. I'm confused?

Anonymous wrote:With the plethora Midwestern wing nut, Tea Party, rabble rousers like Akin, Bachmann, Joe Walsh, Ron Paul, one would have to conclude Midwest women have no problem voting against their own self interests

I think you have the midwest confused with the south. There are blue states and states that cross over from election to election.

With the plethora Midwestern wing nut, Tea Party, rabble rousers like Akin, Bachmann, Joe Walsh, Ron Paul, one would have to conclude Midwest women have no problem voting against their own self interests

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/10/internal-poll-s.php

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/kevin-mcdermott/mccaskill-maintains--point-lead-over-akin-in-new-rasmussen/article_d166ed02-1a2f-11e2-8db9-001a4bcf6878.html

The polls are showing between 8 Rasmussen and 14 mccaskill. Normally I would not believe internal
Polling but she has been underselling her lead because of fear that she would not get support and get whiplashed by GOP money.

Btw it's soon time to take note of who is backing Akin and hold them accountable. If you are willing to get behind this guy, either for his views or to grab the senate, then something is wrong with you as a political leader.

She will end up winning by 5-10. I can't see suburban KC/STL women who might be uncomfortable with Obama's socialist-like mutterings being okay with Akin's anti-woman mutterings. Plus, the occasional libertarian-leaning voter around the state who's okay with pro-life stuff (just not the cray cray pro-life stuff).

So Romney wins by 4 and McCaskill wins by 6.

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure where you are getting your numbers. The latest polls has them within 6 points and one even has Akin up slightly. All polls have shown his favor ability edges her's. The female gap is much closer too. She only leads that with 7 which is pretty typical for a female r/d spread in the Midwest (which is where I am from too). Honestly, I think everyone is pretty shocked at how close this race is. Most Rs wrote it off and have pulled their money out but he charges ahead.

NP here. Rasmussen has her up by 6.

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers. The latest polls has them within 6 points and one even has Akin up slightly. All polls have shown his favor ability edges her's. The female gap is much closer too. She only leads that with 7 which is pretty typical for a female r/d spread in the Midwest (which is where I am from too). Honestly, I think everyone is pretty shocked at how close this race is. Most Rs wrote it off and have pulled their money out but he charges ahead.

Anonymous wrote:That's very heartening. The last I had read Akin was likely to win. I hope he doesn't. He is the Anerican version of the Taliban when it comes to women's rights.

He's currently 12 points behind McCaskill. I'm betting he's 20%+ behind with women.

That's very heartening. The last I had read Akin was likely to win. I hope he doesn't. He is the Anerican version of the Taliban when it comes to women's rights.

Midwestern values include trusting women. The wingnuts truly do not understand that pro-life women expect to be trusted to make decisions consistent with their values, not forced by legislation.

My family is in Missouri where I was born and raised in a Catholic neighborhood. I have never seen anything like it. The level of energy of the dems and the number of women saying they will cross over because of Akin is astonishing.

McCaskill has a 12 point lead. People in Mo. don't really like her. I don't like her and I still gave money to her. So when people on this site wax poetic about the flyover states and midwest values like you are talking about someone you read about in National Geographic but haven't met in person, here is a dose of reality.

Women's issues are not just a liberal cause. Even really conservative women have their line in the sand. Akin proved where that line is drawn, even for a whole lot of pro life Republican women voters.