If Hillary Clinton wins Missouri against any of the Republicans

[Suburbia]

If Hillary Clinton wins Missouri against any of the Republicans by 5-10 points in 2016, what does that mean for the Missouri Democrats and the Missouri GOP?

[Dwarven Dragon]

It means that there has been a major political realignment in the state, returning to the Dems the strength they had in the state in the 90s.*

Disclaimer: This is assuming she wins it against someone competent. If her opponent is Trump/Cruz/Huckabee etc., then it is just an accidental win, and the state will return to being deep red in 2018.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Clinton is better off in NC, Va,& OH, etc. Those states will be barraged by Clinton machine. The only one she will win it against is Trump.

[dudeabides]

It depends who her opponent is.

Bush and Rubio enter the race with Missouri in the "Safe R" column, where as with Kasich, Christie, Huckabee, or Paul, it's in the "lean R" column.

It's a toss-up until you get to Trump, Cruz, and Santorum where it then becomes a "strong D" state.

Long term, it probably doesn't mean much - it's a Republican state that has gone to the Democrats in the past.

[Tender Branson]

Please don't be naive.

Hillary would lose MO by between 10-15%.

[MT Treasurer]

LOL@Democrats calling PA "fools gold" for the GOP yet believing Hillary has a shot at carrying MO.

If Hillary Clinton wins Missouri against any of the Republicans by 5-10 points in 2016, what does that mean for the Missouri Democrats and the Missouri GOP?

It means that the GOP does not deserve to exist as a party anymore.

[The Mikado]

If Clinton wins MO by 5 it means she's won nationally by 10-12.

[Tender Branson]

If Clinton wins MO by 5 it means she's won nationally by 10-12.

More like 15-20% ...

[DrScholl]

Hillary doesn't need Missouri to win, so it's not like it's a big deal if she loses it. It won't be some miracle feat that the Republican carries it, because that is what it is expected. Missouri is not a swing state anymore.

[Adam Griffin]

LOL@Democrats calling PA "fools gold" for the GOP yet believing Hillary has a shot at carrying MO.

As if they're comparable. Obama barely lost Missouri in 2008, and he came closer to winning Georgia in 2008 than Romney did to winning Pennsylvania in 2012.

Also:

[Mehmentum]

Pennsylvania was 1.5 points more Democratic than the country in 2012.  Missouri as 13.3 points more Republican than the country.  There is no comparison between the two states. 

Missouri is trending hard for the Republicans.  In 2008, it was only slightly over 7 points more Republican than the nation.  It won't be a swing state in 2016, and a Democratic victory in the state means a huge electoral blowout.   

[TDAS04]

It could mean that Blunt loses.  But in any case, if Hillary wins Missouri, Bill Clinton can already plan on being First Gentlemen. 

[Simfan34]

This is clearly a time where one can say that there's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics.

[MT Treasurer]

Why would you include Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 wins? He also won Louisiana and Arkansas, as well as West Virginia. Nice try. Including Georgia is a non-sequitur in this discussion as well.

Also Republicans lost by 5 points nationally in 2012, while Obama won by 7 points nationally in 2008, so why would you compare those two years? Comparing 2004 to 2012 would make more sense.

Exactly.

PA = D+1 in 2012
MO = R+14 in 2012

Hmmm, which state has a better chance of flipping in 2016? Difficult question.   

[andrew_c]

It would mean the Republicans lost very badly.

[ElectionsGuy]

It means she won in a landslide.

[Adam Griffin]

Why would you include Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 wins? He also won Louisiana and Arkansas, as well as West Virginia. Nice try. Including Georgia is a non-sequitur in this discussion as well.

Also Republicans lost by 5 points nationally in 2012, while Obama won by 7 points nationally in 2008, so why would you compare those two years? Comparing 2004 to 2012 would make more sense.

Exactly.

PA = D+1 in 2012
MO = R+14 in 2012

Hmmm, which state has a better chance of flipping in 2016? Difficult question.  

Disclaimer: I have just done a lot of PVI and CPVI comparisons at the state and national level so it's possible I have crossed wires somewhere.

Because his wife is running for President in 2016, and only the most deluded of individuals think that there will not be nostalgia and/or camaraderie for a brand that was arguably strongest in the Upper South and lower Midwest throughout the 1990s? They're not all dead yet.

Exclude the 1990s if you'd like. If you want to bring 2004 into this, then you also have to bring the PVI for MO from 2004 into things. Literally the counter-argument for MO being completely off the table is based in one PVI score or one margin - 2012. Nobody thought IN was going to be competitive in 2012 because of one performance in 2008.

2012 gets brought up for many obvious reasons, but also because it's about the best that a national Republican can do until there's a realignment. The quality of a Democratic candidate and the moderation of a Republican candidate will not matter until the frothing, foaming masses in the Republican primary electorate cool themselves down and stop shoving every Republican nominee so far to the right in the primary that they lose the critical support they need to make it a close race, let alone win convincingly.

Also, Obama won by 4 points in 2012 versus 8 points in 2008; not sure why you phrased it so weirdly nor why you said 5 points. Republicans improved their margin of loss by less than one point more than that in PA (from a 10-point loss to a 5.5 point loss - nationally, Rs gained 4 points to the 4.5 gained in PA); Democrats slid in GA by one point less than they did nationally (from a 5-point loss to a 8-point loss - nationally, Rs gained 4 points to the 3 gained in GA). In PA = R+1 (rounded up) and in GA = D+1 relative to the change in national margin.

Georgia's relevant to any discussion whenever somebody brings up Pennsylvania as being obtainable for Republicans or talks mockingly about how it's "fool's gold", because PA is not going to flip. PA is not going to flip. PA is not going to flip. How much have the Republicans moved PA in nominal terms since 2000? Since 2004? Oh, that's right: not at all. In fact, it's more Democratic as a standalone state and just as Democratic in state PVI as it was in 2008; one point less D in PVI than it was in 2004. Congratulations to them on such an impressive movement! PVI/CPVI/any other equivalent measurement means f**k-all when the state is been moving away from you in nominal terms, which is not happening in GA.

GA is more Democratic than it was in 2000 or 2004 in nominal terms AND in PVI as well. Since 2004, GA has seen its D share of the vote increase by 4-5 points while PA has seen its R share of the vote decrease by 2 points, irrespective of PVI/CPVI.

PA:
2000: D+3
2004: D+2
2008: D+2
2012: D+1

GA:
2000: R+7
2004: R+7
2008: R+6
2012: R+6

Yet Democrats came closer to winning GA in 2008 than Republicans did PA in nominal terms and in actual state CPVI (Democrats did 2 points better than their state CPVI in GA; Republicans did 8 points worse than their state CPVI in PA). In 2012, Democrats did 2 points worse than their state CPVI in GA; Republicans did 4-5 points worse than their state CPVI in PA. In addition, in 2012, Republicans won GA by 8 but Democrats won PA by 6; relative to CPVI, Democrats still performed better in GA than PA (Ds lost GA by 8 in a R+10 CPVI 2012; Rs lost PA by 6 in a D+1 CPVI 2012).

Whether you go by the CPVI for the state, the PVI for the nation relative to the states or the nominal changes in vote percentage for the two minority parties, GA is moving statistically as much or more to the Democrats in every metric than PA is to the Republicans. People need to stop talking about PA.

TL;DR:

• I bring GA up because it's more likely to flip sooner for Ds than PA is for Rs
• GA was better for Ds relative to its state CPVI in 2008 than PA was for Rs
• GA was better for Ds relative to its state CPVI in 2012 than PA was for Rs
• GA was better for Ds relative to its national PVI in 2008 than PA was for Rs
• GA has moved in nominal terms toward the Democrats over the past 3 elections
• PA has moved in nominal terms away from the Republicans over the past 3 elections
• MO has one PVI that indicates it's uncompetitive; IN also had one PVI that said it was competitive

[Adam Griffin]

P.S.: not sure why I bothered doing such a write-up for such an emotionally volatile sock

[Adam Griffin]

P.S.: not sure why I bothered doing such a write-up for such an emotionally volatile sock

Ugh, calm down, dude. Democrats always get so angry when talking about Pennsylvania lol.

That was an interesting post and I agree with you that PA won't flip until there's a realignment. The Republican party is currently not prepared to win a presidential election (they can't even win Florida as it seems). The more I think about it, the more plausible it seems to me that Clinton will end up with 270 electoral votes (just as Moody's Model is currently predicting), which would be the best case scenario for Republicans. Worst case scenario? 2012 map without NC. A 270-268 loss will be enough to keep the Senate in Republican hands, though.

Just so we're clear, I wasn't talking about you.

[/]

It won't go for Clinton by 5-10 points, but I could see her winning it in quite a few situations.

Winning Missouri probably indicates that Clinton has also won NC, GA, AZ, and NE-02, which essentially means a landslide victory. It isn't implausible in 2016, but she would definitely have to gear up her campaigning.

[Kingpoleon]

From my understanding, partisans are generally convinced these unlikely states will flip:
Democratic:
- Missouri
- North Carolina
- Indiana
- Georgia
- Arizona
- NE-02

Republican:
- Virginia
- ME-2
- Oregon
- Massachusetts
- Wisconsin
- Michigan
- Pennsylvania

[okierepublican]

From my understanding, partisans are generally convinced these unlikely states will flip:
Democratic:
- Missouri
- North Carolina
- Indiana
- Georgia
- Arizona
- NE-02

Republican:
- Virginia
- ME-2
- Oregon
- Massachusetts
- Wisconsin
- Michigan
- Pennsylvania

How big of a landslide would it take for mass to turn red? That state is one the bluest in the nation.

[Clark Kent]

From my understanding, partisans are generally convinced these unlikely states will flip:
Democratic:
- Missouri
- North Carolina
- Indiana
- Georgia
- Arizona
- NE-02

Republican:
- Virginia
- ME-2
- Oregon
- Massachusetts
- Wisconsin
- Michigan
- Pennsylvania

How big of a landslide would it take for mass to turn red? That state is one the bluest in the nation.

Massachusetts really doesn't belong on that list. All the other states there are either swing or, at the very most, within 15% more Republican than the national average.


Going from 2012, the GOP would need to win a landslide with a 19.28% margin. For comparison, that is better than either of Eisenhower or Reagan's landslides, Teddy Roosevelt's landslide, and all but 1936 for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

Naturally, it would mean that she won in a landslide. It would probably be like Indiana in 2008; a state Democrats carried due to very favorable circumstances, but which would go back to being solidly Republican in 2020.