Why didn't Obama want to do a recount in Missouri?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Missouri was decided by less than 4k votes or 0.13% which put it in recount range. However, he declined to so and no challenges were filed. Obama obviously won in a landslide and it would have been pointless, but what is the harm in adding another state to his column? It would have made his landslide victory look even bigger and but him past 370EV, surely his campaign could afford a recount fee, and it could have been even free if the margin was close enough. If you can win by more why not, is my question?

[Mr.Phips]

Because he already had enough electoral votes to win without it.

[Motorcity]

4,000 votes is still too much to overcome.

At the state/national level, recounts only change results when its 1000 or less. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

[Bootes Void]

Because he won, it's pointless and doesn't change the outcone

[South Dakota Democrat]

In addition to what everyone else has already said, it would have made him look like a sore winner.

[Motorcity]

In hindsight, I think he should have done a recount

Had he won Missouri, even by crazy narrow margins, it would still be considered competeive in 2012 so hight turnout. Maybe Kander wins the 2016 senate race with a stronger state party but its a strecth

[Chips]

Because he already had enough electoral votes to win without it.