Why was MO Senate 2016 so close?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I’m sure this has been addressed here before, but I didn’t realize until today Blunt’s win was so narrow. He won by less than Ron Johnson in the same year. In fact, PA is the only Senate race Dems lost by a smaller margin.   

Two years later, Hawley would win against an incumbent by more in a national environment less favorable to Republicans.

[jamestroll]

Missouri had many more persuadable voters at that time and it is possible that without the Comey letter and last minute swings to Trump that Kander could have pulled it out.

Kander's campaign was also quite impressive. His ad about guns brought in a lot of national attention and raised his profile. Kander did a great job at disqualifying Roy Blunt as an out of touch elitist in Missouri but did not exactly explain why he was the ideal replacement.

An energic campaign against an uninspiring incumbent basically.

[Pollster]

A young and charismatic candidate with a statewide win already under his belt challenging an unpopular incumbent who didn't take the race seriously until the very end.

A veteran running in one of the most pro-military states in the nation.

Ran a gaffe-free, well-funded, message-disciplined campaign that perfectly exploited the exact vulnerabilities that Blunt was weakest on. Successfully avoided talking about controversial policy even when directly confronted by pivoting to a very popular and broadly applicable central message.

Correctly identified exactly where the suburban/educational trends in the state were the strongest and maximized his vote in those places while successfully and compellingly defusing culture war issues (see the gun ad) to stanch rural bleeding.

All in all, one of the most well-done campaigns I've seen in all the years I've worked on them.

[PAK Man]

Kander ran one of the strongest campaigns for a red-state Democrat in recent memory. He received nationwide publicity after he released an ad showing him assembling a gun blindfolded. And I think Blunt was unprepared for how strong of a challenger he proved to be.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

The unpopularity of Roy Blunt is the only explanation that makes sense.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Kander really did a good job at nationalizing a race in generally unfavorable territory the right way. Had the top of the ticket been slightly stronger, he prolly would've won. Blunt was seen as out of touch lazy establishment sort of canidate which didn't bode well, while Kander was this cool guy.