What do the President need to do to seal the deal in Missouri?

[pbrower2a]

It'll be tough for him to win MO. After all, it was 8 points more Republican than the national average.

I agree. MO has been moving away from the Democrat since at least 1988 or so.

In 2012, Obama probably needs to win by an even bigger margin nationally than last year to carry MO, barring a reversal of this 20 year old trend.

Even with no cause other than the Age Wave (adults under 34, as opposed to 30 in 2008), the national trend toward the Democrats will likely give Barack Obama about a 9% advantage nationwide in a re-election bid -- and that means that Missouri goes for him. (Montana does too, but forget anything else. It also means that Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire all go to Obama by margins greater than 10%, and that his leads solidify in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina. That's against a candidate as appealing as John McCain was in 2008 -- someone far better qualified to be President than was George W. Bush. Anything else (GA? ND? SD? AZ? SC?) that he didn't win in 2008? Other factors will have to be in play.

That's not to say things are entirely so simple; the President will need to avoid scandals,  have no international situations blow up, and no recurrence of an economic meltdown at the wrong time.  In 2012 Obama will run on his record in 2012 and be unstoppable, with perhaps an Eisenhower-scale landslide, or run from his record and be defeated. In 2008 Obama won three states that Democratic nominees for President hadn't won since 1964 (IN, NC, VA).

[Rowan]

It'll be tough for him to win MO. After all, it was 8 points more Republican than the national average.

I agree. MO has been moving away from the Democrat since at least 1988 or so.

In 2012, Obama probably needs to win by an even bigger margin nationally than last year to carry MO, barring a reversal of this 20 year old trend.

Even with no cause other than the Age Wave (adults under 34, as opposed to 30 in 2008), the national trend toward the Democrats will likely give Barack Obama about a 9% advantage nationwide in a re-election bid -- and that means that Missouri goes for him. (Montana does too, but forget anything else. It also means that Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire all go to Obama by margins greater than 10%, and that his leads solidify in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina. That's against a candidate as appealing as John McCain was in 2008 -- someone far better qualified to be President than was George W. Bush. Anything else (GA? ND? SD? AZ? SC?) that he didn't win in 2008? Other factors will have to be in play.

That's not to say things are entirely so simple; the President will need to avoid scandals,  have no international situations blow up, and no recurrence of an economic meltdown at the wrong time.  In 2012 Obama will run on his record in 2012 and be unstoppable, with perhaps an Eisenhower-scale landslide, or run from his record and be defeated. In 2008 Obama won three states that Democratic nominees for President hadn't won since 1964 (IN, NC, VA).

Okay, so you're on record for a 9 point win. Good to know. And will you please shut up about your stupid "age wave", it is nothing but conjecture on your part and you are assuming the rest of the electorate votes the same way as in 2008. It is TERRIBLE logic, no matter how many times you say it.

[pbrower2a]

It'll be tough for him to win MO. After all, it was 8 points more Republican than the national average.

I agree. MO has been moving away from the Democrat since at least 1988 or so.

In 2012, Obama probably needs to win by an even bigger margin nationally than last year to carry MO, barring a reversal of this 20 year old trend.

Even with no cause other than the Age Wave (adults under 34, as opposed to 30 in 2008), the national trend toward the Democrats will likely give Barack Obama about a 9% advantage nationwide in a re-election bid -- and that means that Missouri goes for him. (Montana does too, but forget anything else. It also means that Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire all go to Obama by margins greater than 10%, and that his leads solidify in Florida, Ohio, Indiana, and North Carolina. That's against a candidate as appealing as John McCain was in 2008 -- someone far better qualified to be President than was George W. Bush. Anything else (GA? ND? SD? AZ? SC?) that he didn't win in 2008? Other factors will have to be in play.

That's not to say things are entirely so simple; the President will need to avoid scandals,  have no international situations blow up, and no recurrence of an economic meltdown at the wrong time.  In 2012 Obama will run on his record in 2012 and be unstoppable, with perhaps an Eisenhower-scale landslide, or run from his record and be defeated. In 2008 Obama won three states that Democratic nominees for President hadn't won since 1964 (IN, NC, VA).

Okay, so you're on record for a 9 point win. Good to know. And will you please shut up about your stupid "age wave", it is nothing but conjecture on your part and you are assuming the rest of the electorate votes the same way as in 2008. It is TERRIBLE logic, no matter how many times you say it.

Of course repetition proves nothing other than the proclivity of the person who repeats the idea or concept.

You make a mountain of a molehill. The effect of the Age Wave in 2008 was only 27 electoral votes (NC, IN, NE-02); in 2012 it figures to be 14 electoral votes (MO, MT). It will be enough to make Texas interesting in 2012, but Texas goes to Obama only in an Eisenhower-scale landslide (about 450 electoral votes).

Of course it's conjecture. Everything is conjecture because we are trying to forecast some event almost 39 months away. The Age Wave, as I see it, is as real as ethnic divides in the electorate even if less rigid. Any GOP nominee for President must either cut into the tendency for young adults to vote Democratic or fare far stronger among middle-aged or elderly voters of 2012 to have any chance at all to win election.

The Age Wave alone decided only two states in 2008 (Indiana and North Carolina), and one could just as easily ascribe Obama victories in those states to something else -- Jewish populations, growth in Latino populations, GLBT, levels of campaign presence... but one still can't deny that if Obama had gotten tepid support from young adults in those states that he would have lost them.

As I see it only two states (Missouri and Montana) would go to Obama in 2012  solely due to the marginal effects of the Age Wave if nothing else changes. Note that those are marginal effects. Young voters remain decidedly Democratic, and any shift of them to the Republican nominee will require strong counteraction of the Age Wave. 41 electoral votes will not be enough to change the nature of the 2012 election; the Republicans will have to pick up about 75 electoral votes to make things close (which would include IN, NC, and NE-02, and  FL and OH as well) -- and that the Republicans would have to more than undo the Age Effect.

My expression of this topic in the form of a map:

 

Explanation                                                                                                    EV Cumulative

Reddish-black: "Metropolitan America" -- Fuhgeddaboudit.                          209  209
Deep Red: "Suburban America" -- Obama must absolutely win all of these.  55   264
Red: Obama victory zone: OH, FL, or two of CO, NV, and VA                          74  338 
Pink: Age Wave Obama wins, 2008 (NC, IN, NE-02)                                    27 365

The Age Wave alone strengthens all 2008 wins for Obama in 2012.

Dark  orange : Obama wins, 2012 (MO, MT)                                                   14  379 

Anything beyond this will require something other than the effect of the Age Wave in politics

Beige: Arizona  (reversal of Favorite Son effect, 2008-2012):                        10   389

Anything beyond this requires political changes that I cannot yet predict, but that I can't rule out, either. In arbitrary order of likelihood:

Pale green: Clinton-but-not-Obama states "return"                                     38   437
Dark green: racially-polarized Deep South                                                  39   466
Pale blue:  Small-but-unlikely gains, Upper Plains                                         9   475
Medium blue: Texas                                                                                       34   509

Beyond this, Obama wins are all but impossible:


Deep blue: No way!                                                                                       29   538
                     

I am playing loose with one category: Clinton won Louisiana twice but never won South Carolina. South Carolina was much closer than Louisiana in 2008. The Age Wave is weak in the Dakotas.

Here's one way of looking at it: the ability of Barack Obama to get votes in 2012 will attest to whether he is an effective -- or ineffective -- President. I have established a standard that prevents people from claiming that he won over Americans when the cause is little more than demographic change. He can survive as President with nearly 100 fewer electoral votes.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

[DS0816]

Depends on the state of the country, the state of the GOP, the state of the swing.

My prediction, in advance, is that imporvements will be made in this country (because they'll have to), and the Republican Party will be defeated in a massive landslide. The tenets for a ten-elections, presidential cycle that sees the GOP, for the most part, out in the cold.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Missouri Is the Mccain state most likely to flip.Plus Mccain just barely won Missouri.The wisedom was here It would be a easy win for Mccain yet he just barely won the state.


Missouri Is the Mccain state that Obama has the best approval In.The way things are going If he campagins In Missouri he can take the state.

For those thinking Hillary would have been stronger remember Obama beat her In the primary.
And If people think the younger voters that came out for Obama would have come out for her they are crazy.She had her own problems with some Democrats too.

Wrong. Disproportionate power to black voters in Democratic primaries and caucuses that clearly don't reflect a population's will did Hillary in. She was much stronger as a candidate and would've won a landslide. I would've voted Hillary over McCain without thinking twice. Obama, on the other hand, is bad enough to make me vote for someone like Huckabee.

You are correct. Her biggest problem was among African Americans (gee, wonder why); if you look at exit polls, she won the youth vote in plenty of states, even California. I know Hillary would have carried Missouri had she been the nominee; she polled much better than Obama did throughout the entire process and was even beating McCain in most polls, albeit within the margin of error. And yes, it is worth noting that almost every county in Missouri swung to the Democrats with the exception of the Bootheel (which, ironically, is one of the blackest and poorest areas of the state); why, I'm not for sure. The Bootheel is heavily Democratic at the local level with Democrats controlling virtually all county offices and most if not all of the Bootheel elects a Democrat to the Missouri State House of Representatives. Some of the reason may be racism, especially in Pemiscot County, which voted for all Democrats except Barack Obama and Joe Allen, the sacrificial lamb who challenged the immensely popular incumbent U.S. Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R, MO-08).

But yes, if you look at the primary results, Hillary won almost every county in the state and did extremely well in the rural parts of the state, and this is where Democrats must be strong in order to win the state. Hillary had a stronger message that resonated with voters here: jobs, jobs and jobs. I live here and people around here were more concerned about their jobs and the state of the economy more so than the "change" and "yes we can" rhetoric that came from Obama. People here remember how good they had it when Bill was in office and how secure they felt and I'm sure the Bubba effect probably played well here too. Obama was more than likely perceived to be nothing but a "big city liberal intellectual from Chicago" and perhaps some folks around here remembered his elitist comments about how people in Rural America get "bitter" and cling to their guns and religion, and when you speak of these things in condescending ways, it doesn't really resonate with rural voters particularly in the Bible Belt.

I do think Missouri will flip to the Democrats in 2012 if but only if Obama's approval ratings continue to improve and if the economy shows signs of recovering. If it's an off/neutral year, it will just depend on the voter turnout. In 2008, turnout was much higher in the Republican stronholds like Greene County in Southwest Missouri (which includes Springfield) and St. Charles County, which contains many St. Louis exurbs. If he would get our Governor Jay Nixon (who has a 60% approval job rating so far) to campaign for him in the state, that might help him out as well in 2012, but we'll just have to wait to see.