day 25: missouri

[WalterMitty]

discuss missouri.

it is pretty obvious that missouri, like most rural areas, has been trending heavily to the right. 

will the republican trend continue?

[© tweed]

The winner of MO has won the electione very presidential year since 1960.

I'm sure everyone knew that though, it's still interesting.

[MaC]

yeah, Missouri doesn't go "Democrat" or"Republican", it goes for teh winner!

[phk]

I have a feeling that it wont really get democratic winners.

[memphis]

Like everybody said, Missouri is a swing state. Remember that they picked a dead man over John Ashcroft. Given how angry everybody is over gas prices, Iraq, etc., I wouldn't be surprised to see Missouri go to the Dem candidate in 2008, although it is by no means a guaranteed pick-up. Keep an eye on suburban Kansas City and Saint Louis. That is where the swing voters live. Saint Louis and Kansas City are going to stay Democratic and rural Missouri, especially SW in the Ozarks is going to stay Republican.

[Alcon]

This map:



And a result of only 53-46.

Goes to show how in play Missouri could be if we stopped sucking in rural areas.

[opebo]

This map:



And a result of only 53-46.

Goes to show how in play Missouri could be if we stopped sucking in rural areas.

Or suburbs. 

A shift of a few percent in just St. Louis county (not City), St. Charles, and Jefferson counties could tip the state.  Most of the dark blue stuff you see there has more cattle and hogs than people.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Basically the Democrats need to do to win MO is poll well in the cities, poll well in the more working class suburbs (quite a few of these in MO, btw... not that that sort of thing shows up very well on a county map) and put in good showings in certain rural areas (basically the "bootheel" et al and the old mining areas SW of St Louis) do better in the medium sized cities in the centre of the state and don't get utterly nuked in the non-Ozark rural areas...
Sounds a lot but it really, really isn't...

[© tweed]

Basically the Democrats need to do to win MO is poll well in the cities, poll well in the more working class suburbs (quite a few of these in MO, btw... not that that sort of thing shows up very well on a county map) and put in good showings in certain rural areas (basically the "bootheel" et al and the old mining areas SW of St Louis) do better in the medium sized cities in the centre of the state and don't get utterly nuked in the non-Ozark rural areas...
Sounds a lot but it really, really isn't...

Edwards probably would have made it much closer, maybe within 2%.  I know he's a liberal, but he isn't anywhere near Kerry in that category, and he sounds like he cares and that can't hurt in rural areas.

[Joe Republic]

With the exceptions of 1988 and 1996, Missouri has given the winning candidate a higher share of the vote than their national average.

2004: Missouri gave Bush 2.6% more than his national average.

2000: It gave Bush 2.55% more than his national average.  Note that in this case Missouri kinda loses its bellweather status, as Bush didn't win the nationwide popular vote.

1996: It gave Clinton 1.69% less than his nat. avg.  This was mainly because Perot fared better here also.

1992: Clinton got 1.06% more than his national average, despite Perot also doing better here than nationally.

1988: Gave Bush 1.54% less than the nat. avg.

1984: Gave Reagan 1.25% more than his nat. avg.

1980: Gave Reagan 0.41% more.

1976: Gave Carter 1.02% more.

1972: Gave Nixon 1.62% more.

1968: Gave Nixon 1.45% more.

1964: Gave Johnson 3.00% more.

1960: Gave Kennedy 0.54% more.

[Joe Republic]

It's also perhaps quite prophetic that the nation's most successful belweather state wasn't even considered much of a swing state last year.

[nini2287]

A lot of the KC suburbs are in Kansas/Illinois which messes up some of the suburban thought

[memphis]

A lot of the KC suburbs are in Kansas/Illinois which messes up some of the suburban thought

This is an important point. The Dems are very fortunate that the KC suburbs are in Kansas. Johnson County Kansas is very conservative. The Dems will not get to use a few liberal votes in in Madison and St. Clair counties in Illinois (suburban St. Louis), but this is not nearly as significant as the number of conservatives in Kansas. I would really keep an eye on St. Louis County (not city, which is always hugely Dem), St. Charles County (which the Dems won't win but may do better in), Jefferson County, and Clay County.

[opebo]

It's also perhaps quite prophetic that the nation's most successful belweather state wasn't even considered much of a swing state last year.

Prophetic how?  For Missouri's future status as a swing state or for Democrat's chances in future presidential elections?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Delaware also used to be considered a bellweather state until after 2000 and of course that means it actually was a bellweather for the popular vote till last election. Delaware was actually better than Missouri until 2000 in fact, it had voted for the winner in every election since 1932, Missouri since 1956.

So bellweathers can be quite misleading and not much faith should be put in them.

As for Missouri it's still not that out of reach for us, we just need a candidate who's not a Massachusetts liberal.

[Joe Republic]

It's also perhaps quite prophetic that the nation's most successful belweather state wasn't even considered much of a swing state last year.

Prophetic how?  For Missouri's future status as a swing state or for Democrat's chances in future presidential elections?

No, just for John Kerry's chances last year.  Most polls had Kerry constantly trailing Bush in MO, and it wasn't really considered a serious battleground state throughout the campaign.  I just think it's interesting to note that while the rest of the country was still fighting it out, one of the most successful bellweather states had already decided it.

Yeah I know this is effectively BS, but it's merely an observation.  As BRTD said, not too much attention should be paid to bellweather states.

[Gustaf]

One should keep in mind that Missouri is not just since 1960, it also successfully picked the winner in 24 out of the last 25 elections (that is, all 20th century runs upto 1956).

But not much faith should be put in them, as has been said. Missouri is probably still winnable for a Democrat like Clinton, but not for a Northeastern liberal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...then again the U.S at large isn't winnable for a Northeastern liberal

But I wouldn't have said this, say, 20 years ago. Not because the U.S has shifted to the right since then (it has on some wedge issues but the idea of small government etc is much less fashionable nowadays. So on balance not a large shift to the left or the right IMO) but because what the word "liberal" means has changed. Quite a lot in fact.

[Gustaf]

Good point. I started on an analysis in a thread somewhere on how there were really 3 parties back in the old days; Republicans, Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats. Ever since the Southern Democrats began to leave the national Democratic party has been struggling to win. 2000 and 2004 indicates that it's possible for a non-Southern Democrat to win the presidency, but we're yet to see it happen. And congress looks even worse.

[jimrtex]

It's also perhaps quite prophetic that the nation's most successful belweather state wasn't even considered much of a swing state last year.

bellwether.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

...then again the U.S at large isn't winnable for a Northeastern liberal

You make it sound like Kerry lost by a lot more than 2.1% in Ohio.

[WalterMitty]

...then again the U.S at large isn't winnable for a Northeastern liberal

You make it sound like Kerry lost by a lot more than 2.1% in Ohio.

are you finally conceding defeat in ohio?

[Gustaf]

...then again the U.S at large isn't winnable for a Northeastern liberal

You make it sound like Kerry lost by a lot more than 2.1% in Ohio.

Notice the smiley?

Anyhow, a Northeastern liberal has never won an election, at least not since the Civil Rights bill was introduced. In fact, no one has won without a strong Southern showing since then. I think Tennessee has a pretty good track record.

[RBH]

rural areas are voting for the GOP more

St. Louis County is more Democrat than ever

Jackson County is slightly more GOP (due to suburbs)

that summarizes most of the state

[Cubby]

What is it about Roy Blunt's district, in the Southwest of MO, that makes it so heavily GOP, much more so than the other rural areas of the state? I know the Branson/Country Music thing is there but that doesn't seem to be an answer, since Nashville votes Democrat.

Is Northern Missouri (rural) like Iowa or more conservative like Kansas and Arkansas, in cultural terms?

If the St. Louis county suburbs became Democrat eventually the same thing will happen with St. Charles County.