Missouri, The Bellwether State For A Century, No Longer That!

Missouri, the state created under a compromise in 1820, became the bellwether state in Presidential elections from 1904 to 2004.

Missouri, always considered a Midwestern state, was one of the border states that did NOT join the Confederate States of America during the Civil War, despite having slavery.

Missouri, with the cities of St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield, trending Democratic as most cities did, however saw the rural parts of the state trending Republican as the years went by, and those three cities now represent less percentage of the population than they did in 1990.

So the evangelical Christian Right has become much more of the dominant influence in the rural areas, and Barack Obama could not win Missouri either in 2008 or 2012, and lost by a substantial margin in 2012.

It is now clear that Missouri is trending Republican more and more, and is much more like Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi, than it is like its neighbors of Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota!

Therefore, it is clear that Missouri is now a Southern, rather than Midwestern, state, and that the lack of population growth in St. Louis, Kansas City, and Springfield, together less than 20 percent of the state population, will make it difficult for any Democrat to win the state in a Presidential election.

The only reason for Claire McCaskill holding her Senate seat and Jay Nixon being Governor is their ability to come across as a conservative Democrat, and to have GOP opponents who are not well liked by the Missouri population.

So the bellwether state of Missouri is no more!

2 comments on “Missouri, The Bellwether State For A Century, No Longer That!

  1. D June 18, 2014 4:47 am

    In Elections 2008 and 2012, the male voters of Missouri gave Barack Obama percentages of support close to the national results: Obama received 49 percent of the male vote nationally and 48 percent from Missouri males in Election 2008; Obama received 45 percent of the male vote nationally and 43 percent from Missouri males in Election 2012.

    It’s the women of Missouri who mathematically underperformed. Barack Obama nationally carried the female vote with 56 percent but received 50 percent from Missouri females in Election 2008 (which is why John McCain held in the Republican column by a mere 3,903 raw votes and a margin of R+0.13!); Obama nationally carried the female vote with 55 percent but received a losing 45 percent from Missouri females in Election 2012.

    During that 1904 to 2004 reign of Missouri having carried for winners in 25 of 26 election cycles, the 1956 re-election of Dwight Eisenhower that saw him fail to hold Missouri was one in which he won the U.S. Popular Vote by a margin of R+15.40. (He went up from R+10.85 in 1952.) All six other carried states by a 1956 Adlai Stevenson, Ike’s Democratic opponent from both his 1950s elections, came from states of the Old Confederacy. Those six were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina (near flip for Ike), and South Carolina.

    Bill Clinton is the last winning Democrat to have carried Missouri (from both his elections). In 1992, he won a Democratic pickup of the White House (with unseating incumbent Republican George Bush) and likewise Democratic pickup of Missouri with a margin that exceeded his national number: D+5.56 with his popular-vote margin; D+10.15 was his carriage of Missouri. But in 1996, Clinton was re-elected with a higher national margin (D+8.52), and a statewide margin with retaining carriage of Missouri by a number less his national number (D+6.30).

    It was in 1996 that Missouri began its leaning to the Republicans. And, just as it’s true that nothing lasts forever, so too the former bellwether status that was Missouri.

    In that year of 1996, Virginia and Colorado started voting alike with their statewide margins. (They haven’t been further apart in spread since 2004, when there was only a 3.53 percent difference between them with both having carried for re-election of incumbent Republican George W. Bush.) In 2008 and 2012, the state Missouri most closely resembled was Indiana. Despite the fact they officially carried differently in 2008, over both elections they have not been further apart in their margins spread than 1.16.

    This may be a developing trend between Missouri and Indiana. It also suggests that, not unlike from the past (when Missouri carried for numerous losing Democrats in prevailing Republican years from the second half of the 1800s), for a winning member of the current Democratic Party (no longer with their base in the Old Confederacy which is now the base of today’s Republican Party), he/she will have to win the U.S. Popular Vote by a margin in the high single-digits to pull in Missouri (and Indiana).

    SIDE NOTE: For everyone born no earlier than November 9, 1960, the day after the election of 35th president of the United States John Kennedy, there is only one state which has carried in every presidential election in one’s thus far lifetime. That state is Ohio. Since 1964, it is the only state with an unbroken steak: 48 years’ worth, from 13 consecutive cycles, of “getting it right.” In each of the 1964 to 2012 elections, Ohio has performed statewide margins no greater than five percentage points from the national outcome. There is no other state that can claim that. And in 2012, Ohio was the only state in which the male and female voting support, for a re-elected Barack Obama, matched the national numbers: 45 percent of males; a carried 55 percent of females. In 2016, it is highly likely that Ohio will once again carry for the winner. That would make it 14 consecutive cycles. And with historically cumulative results like that, one may ask, “What Missouri Bellwether?”

  2. Ronald June 18, 2014 7:18 am

    Wow, what a detailed analysis, D, for which I and all my readers thank you profusely!

    This is another reason why Ohio, and I would say Columbus, the state capital, is definitely the best place for the Democrats to hold their 2016 National Nominating Convention for President! Anything that can influence the vote for the Democrats is crucial to be done.

    Also, as another thought, it makes the idea of nominating Ohio Governor John Kasich as the GOP nominee something the Republican Party should consider carefully. Although, as I see it, in the Electoral College, the Democrats have a guaranteed win, with or without Ohio, but preferably, of course, with Ohio!

    Thanks again, D! Keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.