| Election Name: | 2006 United States Senate election in Missouri |
| Country: | Missouri |
| Type: | presidential |
| Ongoing: | no |
| Previous Election: | 2002 United States Senate special election in Missouri |
| Previous Year: | 2002 (special) |
| Next Election: | 2012 United States Senate election in Missouri |
| Next Year: | 2012 |
| Election Date: | November 7, 2006 |
| Image1: | Claire McCaskill 2007.jpg |
| Nominee1: | Claire McCaskill |
| Party1: | Democratic Party (United States) |
| Popular Vote1: | 1,055,255 |
| Percentage1: | 49.58% |
| Nominee2: | Jim Talent |
| Party2: | Republican Party (United States) |
| Popular Vote2: | 1,006,941 |
| Percentage2: | 47.31% |
| Map Size: | 276px |
| U.S. Senator | |
| Before Election: | Jim Talent |
| Before Party: | Republican Party (United States) |
| After Election: | Claire McCaskill |
| After Party: | Democratic Party (United States) |
The 2006 United States Senate election in Missouri was held November 7, 2006, to decide who would serve as senator for Missouri between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2013. This election was the fifth consecutive even-number year in which a senate election was held in Missouri after elections in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004.
Incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent was elected in a 2002 special election over incumbent Democrat Jean Carnahan, who was appointed to the Senate seat after the posthumous election of her husband Mel Carnahan, who died in a plane crash shortly before the 2000 election. Talent ran for re-election for his first full term, his Democratic opponent was Missouri State Auditor Claire McCaskill.
Both Talent and McCaskill faced unknowns in their respective primaries on August 8 and defeated them soundly. Early on the morning of November 8, Talent conceded defeat to McCaskill, having faced considerable political headwinds. Talent lost the election with 47% of the vote, to 50% of the vote for McCaskill. This was the last election an incumbent Republican senator lost in Missouri.
The election was always expected to be very close, given the seat had changed hands twice, both by very narrow margins, in the prior six years. In 2000, the late Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan, a Democrat, narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Senator John Ashcroft 50% to 48%. Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash before election day, so his wife Jean Carnahan was appointed to the seat after the election. Two years later, in a special election held for the seat, incumbent Senator Jean Carnahan lost an even closer election to former Congressman Jim Talent, 50% to 49%.
See also: Missouri bellwether. The state of Missouri was a bellwether state throughout the twentieth century. It had voted for the winner of every presidential election starting in 1904, except for in 1956, when the state narrowly favored Adlai Stevenson over Dwight D. Eisenhower.
The state itself is bordered by both the South and Midwestern United States. In statewide elections for much of the prior century, Missouri had favored the Democratic Party. Beginning in 2000, however, Missouri began a gradual drift toward the Republican Party. In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, George W. Bush carried Missouri with a margin slightly greater than he received nationally.
Bush's 2004 victory also saw Missouri Republicans triumph in several down-ballot elections. Senator Kit Bond was re-elected by a decisive margin, and Matt Blunt won the election for Governor, narrowly defeating state auditor Claire McCaskill. The Republican Party also captured control of the state legislature for the first time in eighty years.
The Missouri contest was seen as vitally important to control of the United States Senate. Democrats needed to win six seats to take control of the chamber with 51 seats. To do this, they would need to retain their 19 incumbent seats, win two Republican-held seats in states won by John Kerry in 2004 (Rhode Island and Pennsylvania), and win four races in five states Bush had won (Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia). Thus, if Talent were re-elected, Republicans would need to win only one other seat to retain control of the Senate.
Talent, anticipating a tough re-election battle and attempting to dissuade challengers, had accumulated a large campaign fund.[1] For most of 2005, he had no opposition. State Senator Chuck Graham had briefly entered the race early in the year, but dropped out soon after. However, on August 30, 2005, Democrat Claire McCaskill announced her intention to run for Talent's Senate seat.
McCaskill started with a large financial disadvantage, but she was also an experienced candidate with high name recognition. McCaskill had run two successful campaigns for state auditor. She was also a candidate for governor in 2004, when she defeated the incumbent Democratic Governor Bob Holden in the primary election but lost with 48% of the vote in the general election.
Talent started statewide advertising on August 1, 2006, forcing some observers to suggest that Talent was on the ropes and therefore needed to reassert his image (damaged recently by his "flip-flopping" on stem cell research, his opposition to raising the minimum wage and a general feeling of antipathy from the body politic regarding his lack of notable achievements while in the Senate)[2] and pull ahead in a statistical dead heat.
Since joining the Senate in 2002, Talent had supported federal legislation that would ban stem cell research. This included co-sponsoring a bill (S.658)[3] sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback which would ban all forms of human cloning, including the cloning and destruction of human embryos.
On February 10, 2006, Talent withdrew his support for the bill,[4] citing the need to balance research and protection against human cloning. This move followed criticism by Talent's Democratic opponent in the 2006 election, Claire McCaskill, as well as pressure from Missouri business interests that oppose restrictions on stem cell research. Though this reversal was widely criticized as being due to politics,[5] Talent told the Associated Press, "The technology is changing all the time and so I'm always considering whether there is a better way to strike the balance.".[6] Talent suggests that moral concerns might be put to rest through a possible future scientific breakthrough - replicating embryonic stem cells without the use of cloned embryos.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 would amend the state constitution and allow, in line with federal law, stem cell research and treatment.[7] On May 1, 2006, Talent announced his opposition to the proposed ballot-initiative.[8] Stem cell research and treatment is working up to be a divisive issue for many Republicans and is taking a particular prominence in Missouri.[9] In the senate, he subsequently voted against expanding federal funds for embryonic stem cell research in July 2006.
Actor Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, appeared in a television campaign commercial for Claire McCaskill in late October, stated that Talent wanted to criminalize embryonic stem cell research. The commercial, which was one of many Fox had appeared in for politicians of both major political parties supportive of such research,[10] made national headlines.[11]
Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio talk show host, commented on the TV commercial, saying that Fox was "really shameless" and that he was "either off his medication or acting."[12] Limbaugh speculated that Fox may have intentionally not taken his medication to exaggerate the effects of his illness, saying "He's moving all around and shaking, and it's purely an act."[13] [14] Limbaugh followed up on October 25, 2006, saying, "When you wade into political life you have every right to say what you want, but you cannot in turn argue that no one has the right to take you on."
Elaine Richman, a neuroscientist, stated, "Anyone who knows the disease well would regard his movement as classic severe Parkinson's disease. Any other interpretation is misinformed."[15] On October 26, Fox responded to Limbaugh's claims, saying in an interview with Katie Couric, "The irony of it is that I was too medicated." He added that his condition during their interview reflected "a dearth of medication — not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it kicks in."[16] He further laughed, "That's funny — the notion that you could calculate it for effect."
Talent had a huge cash-on-hand advantage over McCaskill. Because of the way FEC filing works, Talent's numbers include the money he raised during his 2002 special election campaign. Totals are through July 19.
| Candidate | Funds Raised[17] | Cash On-Hand |
|---|---|---|
| Jim Talent (R) | $19,602,725 | $6,921,577 |
| Claire McCaskill (D) | $4,572,707 | $2,684,766 |
| Source | Ranking | As of | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| align=left | The Cook Political Report[19] | November 6, 2006 | ||
| align=left | Sabato's Crystal Ball[20] | November 6, 2006 | ||
| align=left | Rothenberg Political Report[21] | November 6, 2006 | ||
| align=left | Real Clear Politics[22] | November 6, 2006 |
A June 19–22, 2006 Research 2000 poll showed Talent's favorability rating was 47%-46%, with 7% having no opinion. Soon after, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll was released showing McCaskill with 49% favorability to Talent's 43%.[23]
| Source | Date | Claire McCaskill (D) | Jim Talent (R) | Frank Gilmour (L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| align=left | Rasmussen[24] | September 1, 2005 | 46% | 46% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[25] | November 9, 2005 | 47% | 45% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[26] | January 2, 2006 | 46% | 43% | ||
| align=left | Research 2000[27] | January 21, 2006 | 47% | 44% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[28] | February 8, 2006 | 41% | 46% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[29] | March 6, 2006 | 43% | 40% | ||
| align=left | Zogby/WSJ[30] | March 31, 2006 | 45% | 48% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[31] | April 4, 2006 | 42% | 41% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[32] | May 8, 2006 | 40% | 43% | ||
| align=left | Zogby/WSJ[33] | June 21, 2006 | 44% | 49% | ||
| align=left | Research 2000[34] | June 24, 2006 | 49% | 43% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[35] | June 27, 2006 | 42% | 42% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[36] | July 20, 2006 | 45% | 42% | ||
| align=left | Zogby/WSJ | July 24, 2006 | 45% | 49% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen | July 31, 2006 | 45% | 42% | ||
| align=left | SurveyUSA[37] | August 15, 2006 | 47% | 46% | 2% | |
| align=left | Rasmussen[38] | August 15, 2006 | 44% | 46% | ||
| align=left | Zogby/WSJ[39] | August 28, 2006 | 45% | 50% | ||
| align=left | Research 2000[40] | September 1, 2006 | 47% | 46% | 2% | |
| align=left | USA Today/Gallup[41] | September 5, 2006 | 44% | 50% | ||
| align=left | Zogby/WSJ | September 11, 2006 | 45% | 49% | ||
| align=left | SurveyUSA[42] | September 14, 2006 | 48% | 47% | 1% | |
| align=left | Rasmussen[43] | September 15, 2006 | 45% | 42% | ||
| align=left | Zogby/WSJ | September 28, 2006 | 45% | 47% | ||
| align=left | Mason-Dixon/MSNBC[44] | October 2, 2006 | 43% | 43% | ||
| align=left | Reuters/Zogby[45] | October 5, 2006 | 39% | 43% | ||
| align=left | USA Today/Gallup[46] | October 5, 2006 | 48% | 45% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[47] | October 7, 2006 | 44% | 43% | ||
| align=left | SurveyUSA[48] | October 12, 2006 | 51% | 42% | 3% | |
| align=left | Rasmussen[49] | October 13, 2006 | 44% | 45% | ||
| align=left | Bennett, Petts & Blumenthal (D)[50] | October 13, 2006 | 48% | 43% | ||
| align=left | Mason-Dixon/McClatchy-MSNBC[51] | October 24, 2006 | 46% | 43% | ||
| align=left | SurveyUSA[52] | October 24, 2006 | 45% | 48% | 2% | |
| align=left | Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg[53] | October 24, 2006 | 45% | 48% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[54] | October 27, 2006 | 46% | 48% | ||
| align=left | Research 2000[55] | October 28, 2006 | 47% | 47% | 2% | |
| align=left | Rasmussen[56] | October 30, 2006 | 48% | 47% | ||
| align=left | CNN/Opinion Research Corporation[57] | October 31, 2006 | 49% | 49% | ||
| align=left | SurveyUSA[58] | October 31, 2006 | 49% | 46% | 2% | |
| align=left | Reuters/Zogby[59] | November 2, 2006 | 46% | 43% | 6% | |
| align=left | Rasmussen[60] | November 2, 2006 | 49% | 48% | ||
| align=left | Mason-Dixon/MSNBC-McClatchy[61] | November 3, 2006 | 46% | 45% | ||
| align=left | Rasmussen[62] | November 5, 2006 | 48% | 49% | ||
| align=left | USA Today/Gallup[63] | November 5, 2006 | 49% | 45% | ||
| align=left | SurveyUSA[64] | November 5, 2006 | 51% | 42% | 4% | |
| align=left | SurveyUSA[65] | November 6, 2006 | 50% | 44% | 3% | |
| align=left | Polimetrix[66] | November 6, 2006 | 50% | 50% | ||
| align=left | OnPoint Polling and Research[67] | November 6, 2006 | 49% | 46% |
In single-issue polling, Talent's positions contradicted the majority of voters in the election on most issues: 66% of Missouri voters favored raising the minimum wage to $6.50 an hour;[7] [68] [69] 62% of Missouri voters favored raising taxes to replace Medicaid funding cut by the current Republican Governor, Matt Blunt; 54% opposed a law that would require all Missourians to show a photo ID before they vote; 58% favored campaign donation limitations; and 66% favored restoring Medicaid coverage to about 90,000 Missourians who lost coverage when Blunt and the Republican legislature tightened eligibility requirements.
When the polls closed in Missouri on election night the race was, as expected, too close to call. With 85% of the vote in and with still no call, McCaskill claimed victory. At the time McCaskill declared victory, she was ahead by a vote margin of 867,683 to Talent's 842,251 votes; in percentage terms, with 85% of the vote in, McCaskill led Talent, 49% to 48%. Finally, at 11:38 P.M. Central Time the Associated Press called McCaskill as the winner. St. Louis County, adjacent to St. Louis, and Jackson County, home of Kansas City, are probably what pushed McCaskill over the finish line.
Official campaign websites (Archived)