This move has national implications. If either or both Emerson or Hulshof run, their seats (safe GOP seats when they run) would become in play and become potential Democratic turnovers. The best thing for Republicans would be for their congresspeople to seek reelection and let Kinder or Steelman run for the governorship. While Kinder and Steelman’s positions would also be placed in greater risk of turnover, those offices don’t have the same national implications as control of Congress.

Steelman for Governor and Donnelly for Treasurer - I heard this may be a possibility

Actually I think the best thing for Missouri is to get one of the Republican congresspersons to run (preferably Hulshof.) I’ve had enough of the petty and short sighted politics that plague Jeff City currently.

Oracle - There was a time when I’d agree with you that these are swing districts. But I think it has been several years since that was the case. When Hulshof first won his district, a lot of us were surprised. But he pulled 61.4% in the last election, a tenth of a percent better than Todd Akin did in the safely Republican 2nd district. And Emerson got 71.6% in 2006, nearly as lopsided a win as Lacy Clay’s 72.9%. The Republicans would have to run a total loser for these districts to change hands.

Nick,

I guess you haven’t heard of the “slurge.” It’s a political science term that combines “sophomore surge” and retirement slump.”

Basically, when there is an open congressional seat, the margin of victory is pretty slim, but when an incumbent is elected to their second term, the margin of victory increases on average 9% or thereabouts.

Nothing personal, but I won’t support Emerson for Governor. She is clearly not capable and with a Democrat husband - no thanks!

Ok here’s a rumor. Bond is resigning after Super Tuesday, Roy becomes Senator and Matt takes/runs for his seat. Governor is Hulshof if he wants it. Bond will be the leader and stand down Steelman and Kidner. Loudon for LT Gov. No word from Jack Jackson. Geez Wow ETC………

Nick, as Nate notes, the winning percentage of the current incumbent congressman is a bad measure of the political tendency of a district when the seat is open. (E.g., Democrat Ike Skelton holds the 2nd most Republican district in the state; he won reelection last time by running a full 31 percentage points ahead of John Kerry. When he steps down or dies, Republicans take it (subject to how it gets redistricted).) While presidential vote is lower (Bush in 2004 got 59% in Hulshof’s district and 63% in Emerson’s), it is also a too-Republican benchmark for a rural MO congressional open seat. I don’t have the Talent-McCaskill numbers broken down by congressional district, but those numbers would be better. Furthermore, unless the Democrats blow it, this is shaping up as a Democratic year that will inflate Democratic numbers and deflate Republican numbers. Decent Republican candidates will still be favored, but they won’t be slam dunks.

As to your comparison with “the safely Republican 2nd district,” Republican strength in the suburbs is receding as fast as its strength is increasing in the rural districts. The 2nd district was MO’s most Republican district in the 1990s, but using the 2004 Bush vote as a gauge, the 2nd district was only the 4th most Republican district, which is damned near the median. Bush’s 60% there was topped by the SWMO 7th (67%), Skelton’s 4th (64%) and even Emerson’s 8th. Hulshof’s 9th was in fact the real median district at 59%.

I’ve also heard the Steelman for Governor, Donnelly for Treasurer thing. Sounds funny at first, but actually makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

Go for it, Margaret - as much as I support you - it makes more sense to chase the Treasurer gig when Steelman runs for Gov. I don’t care where your supporters go (probably to Harris, which is fine), I just want you to get a state-wide spot!!!