McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - December '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Sat Dec 19, 2009 at 18:45:02 PM CST

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?:

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - November '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 14:52:54 PM CST

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:

"A Gentleman's Agreement"?: Bond, Stadium Bond

by: Michael Bersin

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 14:56:36 PM CST

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.

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - September '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 18:53:21 PM CDT

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:

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - August '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Wed Sep 02, 2009 at 14:24:02 PM CDT

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?

Ideology

Conservative [38% of sample]
32% - approve
65% - disapprove
2% - not sure

Moderate [36% of sample]
64% - approve
30% - disapprove
6% - not sure

Liberal [15% of sample]
69% - approve
29% - disapprove
2% - not sure

The August numbers for Kit Bond:

McConnell, McCain, and Bond, oh my! - the Stenographer strikes again

by: Michael Bersin

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 18:25:39 PM CDT

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

Online:

GOP senators criticize health care overhaul during forum in KC
By STEVE KRASKE
The Kansas City Star

....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....

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.

The videos of the Senate bill mark ups are here:

Committee: Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Date: Wednesday, June 17 - Friday, June 26,
Place: SD-106 / SR-325...

Blogs exist because old media phones it in. And nature abhors a vacuum.

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - July '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 13:24:44 PM CDT

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?

Ideology

Conservative [34% of sample]
32% - approve
62% - disapprove
6% - not sure

Moderate [36% of sample]
53% - approve
40% - disapprove
9% - not sure

Liberal [18% of sample]
62% - approve
36% - disapprove
2% - not sure

As for those conservative republicans?:

...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.

The July numbers for Kit Bond:

"New Dem Health Plan Has Public Option, Lower Cost"

by: Clark

Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 09:56:09 AM CDT

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.  

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - May '09 and June '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 05:00:00 AM CDT

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)

Gender

Male [48% of sample]
55% - approve
42% - disapprove
3% - not sure

Female [52% of sample]
50% - approve
41% - disapprove
9% - not sure

The June numbers for Kit Bond:

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - April '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Mon May 04, 2009 at 06:41:56 AM CDT

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:

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - March '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Fri Apr 10, 2009 at 11:08:55 AM CDT

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
49% - approve
44% - disapprove
7% - not sure

Democrats [41% of sample]
68% - approve
25% - disapprove
7% - not sure

republicans [31% of sample]
23% - approve
72% - disapprove
4% - not sure

Independents [20% of sample]
46% - approve
46% - disapprove
8% - not sure

Compared to February Claire McCaskill's approval numbers have dropped. There is significant erosion among Democrats and republicans. The approval among Independents remains unchanged (an even split).

Let's look at the March numbers for Kit Bond:

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - February '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:37:30 AM CST

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
54% - approve
40% - disapprove
6% - not sure

Democrats [33% of sample]
83% - approve
14% - disapprove
3% - not sure

republicans [33% of sample]
35% - approve
62% - disapprove
3% - not sure

Independents [27% of sample]
44% - approve
44% - disapprove
12% - not sure

Compared to January Claire McCaskill's overall numbers haven't changed much. There is some improvement among self-identified republicans. This month's survey sampling has a lower percentage of Democrats and a higher percentage of republicans.

Let's take a look at the numbers for Kit Bond:

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - January '09 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 15:40:51 PM CST

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
39% - disapprove
10% - not sure

Democrats [43% of sample]
78% - approve
18% - disapprove
4% - not sure

republicans [26% of sample]
22% - approve
66% - disapprove
12% - not sure

Independents [26% of sample]
39% - approve
48% - disapprove
14% - not sure

Hmmm. Claire McCaskill only has a net positive approval from Democrats. I wonder who she's listening to?

Let's take a look at the numbers for Kit "I'm not sure what I said, but what the hell, I'm outta here in less than two years" Bond:

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - October '08 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 06:40:34 AM CDT

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City and KMOX in St. Louis.

Can you say "Wall Street bailout" really fast?

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - May '08 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 21:20:21 PM CDT

The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City and KSDK in St. Louis.

McCaskill (D) and Bond (r) approval - April '08 - SurveyUSA

by: Michael Bersin

Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 17:45:37 PM CDT

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
46% - disapprove
5% - not sure

Democrats [39% of sample]
66% - approve
30% - disapprove
5% - not sure

republicans [24% of sample]
30% - approve
66% - disapprove
5% - not sure

Independents [29% of sample]
47% - approve
49% - disapprove
4% - not sure

Mukasey: Claire McCaskill votes against torture, Kit Bond votes for it

by: Michael Bersin

Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 16:05:27 PM CST

Claire McCaskill was one of 40 "No" votes. Kit Bond was one of 53 "Yes" votes.

Senators Alexander (R-TN), Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Cornyn (R-TX), Dodd (D-CT), McCain (R-AZ) and  Obama (D-IL) did not vote.

Let's see what Kit Bond voted for:

SLPD comes down hard on The Decider SCHIP Veto

by: tonva

Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:25:20 AM CDT

Just about everything the President and his surrogates have said about the bill is wrong.  It does not cover illegal immigrants and upper income children. It is not designed to get families to drop private insurance and, instead get a free ride from a public program.  Nor is it a "socialized type medicine"…as Dana Perino said last week.

To be perfectly clear, SCHIP was never intended to insure "poor" children, or kids living below the poverty level.  It was developed to insure children of parents who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid and too little to purchase insurance on their own.
Perino's socialized medicine argument, is rendered moot by the fact the several months ago, the Decider himself received, in the form of a colonoscopy performed by government
employed physicians at government run hospitals, a piece of the finest socialized medicine in the world. Indeed, as the SLPD states, "Mr. Bush will qualify for this same socialized health care for the rest of his life."
And about the covering of children of illegal immigrants, Dennis Kucinich, the most liberal democratic presidential candidate voted against the compromise bill because he thought it should have covered the children of legal immigrants.
Finally the cost issue, as Eugene Robinson of the WaPo puts it so succinctly:

The cost of covering an additional 4 million children was estimated at around $35 billion over five years. That's a lot of money. But in the context of a $13 trillion economy -- and set against Bush's history of devil-may-care, "buy the house another round" spending -- it's chump change.

The Decider, feeling a chill from the Hill, has offered to throw a little more money into the pot and call that a compromise.  But Harry Reid has said that "We are not going to compromise" while calling The Decider's offer to "add a little extra money" to the program an insult.  Reid is not alone in standing firm. Recent polls show that  68% of Americans know that Bush vetoed the SCHIP compromise bill and 72% support the bill.

  Any changes that may come to the bill in the area of overall cost or eligibility apparently will come only after a failed override vote.  And to according to Republican, Phil English (R-Pa), "The changes necessary to get more Republicans on the margins are actually fairly modest".  And how about this from your good friend and mine, Roy Blunt who states bluntly "Five billion is not enough!"  Charles Grassley sputters on and Orrin Hatch states the President has received bad advice. Right on pragmatic ones!

But wait!  Here comes MO's nattering nuisance, Sam Graves, with a KC Star op-ed published on 10/03 in which he holds forth:

This legislation that President Bush vetoed Wednesday would make it easier for illegal immigrants to get taxpayer funded health care. …would wipe away the current requirement for multiple sources of identification and require merely a name and a Social Security number to apply for benefits.  The only safeguard would be a single statement that says no illegal immigrants can get benefits…

Sam Graves should be excused from the House in order to spend more time tilting at windmills, although I daresay the original tilter was an honorable man with good intent, while Graves may be somewhat short on knightly virtue. Ditto, Todd Akin.  Kit Bond is looking somewhat firmer and Roy Blunt seems not at all convinced about anything.  Maybe he's just scared.  Some gentle rallying outside his office could work to some good.  Opinion is divided on whether or not Congress will override.  We have two weeks to call, to rally, to make a difference. 

Not to be overlooked, Dennis Kucinich's vote against the compromise bill.  I am sure his reasoning is correct, however he needs to vote to override the veto taking care not to end up siding with Bush.

Where Our Legislators Stand on CAFOs

by: hotflash

Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 15:46:46 PM CDT

Democrats don't always behave as I would have them do.  Democratic Rep. Ike Skelton (pictured), for example, is sponsoring House legislation (a companion bill to one being offered by Kit Bond) to have CAFO (Contained Animal Feeding Operation) waste declared non-toxic.  Such a law would effectively remove CAFOs from EPA oversight.

To pretend that animal waste in those concentrations isn't toxic is horse hockey.  McDonald County, in the very southwest corner of the state, is dotted with CAFOs, and every water body in that county is on the impaired water bodies list.

Is Larry Craig a Hypocrite?

by: hotflash

Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:16:02 PM CDT

Larry Craig is toast.  You know that.

Even Kit Bond, who zipped his lips when David Vitter (R-LA) admitted to soliciting sex from prostitutes, has publicly condemned Craig.

"It is unacceptable for a member of Congress to be soliciting sex in public restrooms," Bond said.