MO-Rasmussen: Romney up 3 against Obama

[Tender Branson]

45% Romney
42% Obama

More later when the release is on their site ...

[cavalcade]

That would make it trending pretty significantly for Obama.

[Tender Branson]

That would make it trending pretty significantly for Obama.

Well, not really if you factor in the MoE.

Rasmussen also has Obama leading Romney by 43-42 nationally today.

In 2008 the margin between the US and MO was about 7%, now it is 4%. No big deal.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Another must win for the GOP within the margin of error?

The GOP cannot go into 2012 with NC, MO, VA, FL and OH being tossups unless they somehow truly manage to make PA, MI, NM, WI and MN tossups as well. 

[Tender Branson]

Release is up now:

45% Romney
42% Obama

47% Obama
43% Gingrich

47% Obama
39% Cain

Missouri narrowly went for Republican John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, and now 47% of voters in the state at least somewhat approve of the job Obama is doing as president. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove. This includes 27% who Strongly Approve of the president’s performance and 43% who Strongly Disapprove. This is in line with findings nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Romney runs stronger against the president among both male and female voters than Gingrich and Cain do. As is the case nationally, voters under 40 tend to favor Obama, while older voters lean toward the Republicans.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Romney leads the president by 21 points. Gingrich runs even with Obama among these voters, while Cain trails the incumbent by 10.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/missouri/missouri_2012_romney_45_obama_42

[Lief 🗽]

So Missouri is back to being a bellwether according to Scotty?

[Miles]

'Awfully generous of Rasmussen.

[Jacobtm]

Republican Landslide

[Holmes]

I would expect Missouri to be significantly more Republican.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Solid R -> Toss-Up?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is he losing a fourth of the GOP or is the MO GOP that small?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I honestly expected Obama to be doing worse in MO...

[pbrower2a]

I would expect Missouri to be significantly more Republican.

In view of how Missouri voted in the 2008 election... the Republican nominee will have to win Missouri by at least 5% to have a real chance of winning the Presidency (which is about like saying that President Obama will have to win Iowa by at least 5% to have a real chance of winning re-election). President Obama is likely to spend considerable time in Missouri, and the Democrats are going to have a powerful GOTV effort based on unions in Kansas City and St. Louis to protect a vulnerable US Senator. Contrast Georgia, which has no Senator up for re-election.

Missouri and Arizona are the two McCain states most likely to flip to President Obama in 2012 -- Missouri because it was extremely close in 2008, and Arizona because the Republican nominee absolutely won't be from Arizona this time. The Favorite Son effect is worth about 10%, and John McCain won the state by less than that margin in 2008.

At this stage, being down by 3% to the strongest-possible GOP nominee in Missouri isn't a bad spot for the President.

The Republican nominee now absolutely must win Arizona, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia to have a chance.   

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is he losing a fourth of the GOP or is the MO GOP that small?

Missouri has been drifting R in recent decades. Despite winning the US by about 5% overall, the President barely won the state. Missouri straddles the Midwest and has the political characteristics of a state in the northeastern quadrant of the US in anything north of a line from the southern edges of the Kansas City and St. Louis metro areas. South of that line it is basically Kansas along the US 71 corridor and Arkansas in the rest of southern Missouri.

The Missouri Ozarks are culturally very similar to the Ozarks in Arkansas and Oklahoma -- and the central and southern Appalachians. President Obama is a very poor match for this region as an exotic, cosmopolitan egghead... which is about like saying that James DeMint would be a horrible match for Iowa. Culture often decides who can win certain states. A southern moderate or liberal (Clinton, Gore, and to some extent Carter in 1976) can hold his own in the North, but a southern reactionary would do horribly north of the Ohio and Potomac. On the other side a d@mnyankee liberal is going to fare badly in the more rural parts of the upper South and Deep South. Barack Obama is about the biggest d@mnyankee that there is, and he won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia by appealing to the parts of those states most like the North and to large African-American populations. 
 

[memphis]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

[Torie]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

Delaware.    Probably not really if you mean big metro areas versus the rest of the state, but PA if that is the test would be a competitor, which has its own twin metro areas, one on each side of the state, as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is he losing a fourth of the GOP or is the MO GOP that small?

Missouri has been drifting R in recent decades. Despite winning the US by about 5% overall, the President barely won the state. Missouri straddles the Midwest and has the political characteristics of a state in the northeastern quadrant of the US in anything north of a line from the southern edges of the Kansas City and St. Louis metro areas. South of that line it is basically Kansas along the US 71 corridor and Arkansas in the rest of southern Missouri.

The Missouri Ozarks are culturally very similar to the Ozarks in Arkansas and Oklahoma -- and the central and southern Appalachians. President Obama is a very poor match for this region as an exotic, cosmopolitan egghead... which is about like saying that James DeMint would be a horrible match for Iowa. Culture often decides who can win certain states. A southern moderate or liberal (Clinton, Gore, and to some extent Carter in 1976) can hold his own in the North, but a southern reactionary would do horribly north of the Ohio and Potomac. On the other side a d@mnyankee liberal is going to fare badly in the more rural parts of the upper South and Deep South. Barack Obama is about the biggest d@mnyankee that there is, and he won Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia by appealing to the parts of those states most like the North and to large African-American populations. 
 

What does that have to do with irreconcilable Republicans (to Romney) and or the size of the MO GOP in terms of voter ID? They may be valid points, but I don't see the relevance.

[memphis]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

Delaware.    Probably not really if you mean big metro areas versus the rest of the state, but PA if that is the test would be a competitor, which has its own twin metro areas, one on each side of the state, as well.

Delaware's not a bad suggestion, though it is, of course, rather small and uncompetitive at the general level. PA is not as good a model becuase of all those pesky GOP small metro counties in and around Lancaster. They actually have quite high populations for as GOP as they are. Although, if I must nitpick, Springfield Missouri goes against my original point too. The thing about Missouri is that it had a bit of the old industrial base, a bit of the oldschool conservadem, the formerly GOP St Louis County. It's easily more GOP and conservative than the country as a whole, but it has a bit of everything. It, or maybe Ohio, could be the most average, nondescript state in the union.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

Perhaps Texas?

Every major city is fairly Democratic to certain extents.  However it's not just the rural areas which are heavily Republican but the suburbs as well which is why Texas is still not competitive.  If it wasn't for the major cities the Democrats would only have a 2 Democratic Representatives in the House.  The others are in the major cities in heavily gerrymandered districts; 1 in Dallas, 3 in Houston, 1 in Austin, 1 in San Antonio, 1 in El Paso

[memphis]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

Perhaps Texas?

Every major city is fairly Democratic to certain extents.  However it's not just the rural areas which are heavily Republican but the suburbs as well which is why Texas is still not competitive.  If it wasn't for the major cities the Democrats would only have a 2 Democratic Representatives in the House.  The others are in the major cities in heavily gerrymandered districts; 1 in Dallas, 3 in Houston, 1 in Austin, 1 in San Antonio, 1 in El Paso

Texas is definately not a good example. Dallas Metroplex and Houston Metro (the big tamales) are strongly GOP. San Antonio Metro is moderately GOP. Austin, El Paso and McAllen/Brownsville are the only Dem metro areas and those are much smaller than Dallas and Houston. Plus you have all the rural Dem areas in the far South.

[pbrower2a]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

Pennsylvania is very clear, although a right-wing Republican has a tough time winning in a Presidential election.
 
Georgia is another -- because of Atlanta, Savannah, and Athens.. maybe Columbus, Democrats think that they have a chance.   

[SufferedMore ThanJesus]

So in other words, 2012 is not going to be 1964, 1992, 1996, 2000, or 2004...but a repeat of 2008?

[pbrower2a]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

Perhaps Texas?

Every major city is fairly Democratic to certain extents.  However it's not just the rural areas which are heavily Republican but the suburbs as well which is why Texas is still not competitive.  If it wasn't for the major cities the Democrats would only have a 2 Democratic Representatives in the House.  The others are in the major cities in heavily gerrymandered districts; 1 in Dallas, 3 in Houston, 1 in Austin, 1 in San Antonio, 1 in El Paso

Texas is definately not a good example. Dallas Metroplex and Houston Metro (the big tamales) are strongly GOP. San Antonio Metro is moderately GOP. Austin, El Paso and McAllen/Brownsville are the only Dem metro areas and those are much smaller than Dallas and Houston. Plus you have all the rural Dem areas in the far South.

More precisely -- Bexar County (San Antonio), Dallas County (Dallas), Harris County (Houston), and Travis County (Austin) went for President Obama. Tarrant County (which consists of urban Fort Worth and Arlington and is more suburban than urban -- a good description of Arlington, Texas is Orange County, California without the beach) went for John McCain. Greater Midland-Odessa, Amarillo, and Lubbock went for McCain. 

What is remarkable about Texas (also Georgia) in 2008 is that the suburbs did not go for Obama.  Suburban areas in most other parts of the country did because Obama campaigned heavily in Suburbia in swing states. Texas was not a swing state.  Texas was not a swing state. With the wrong GOP nominee it can be in 2012.

The "rural Dem areas" in the South are so because of the large Hispanic (Mexican-American) majorities.     

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

Perhaps Texas?

Every major city is fairly Democratic to certain extents.  However it's not just the rural areas which are heavily Republican but the suburbs as well which is why Texas is still not competitive.  If it wasn't for the major cities the Democrats would only have a 2 Democratic Representatives in the House.  The others are in the major cities in heavily gerrymandered districts; 1 in Dallas, 3 in Houston, 1 in Austin, 1 in San Antonio, 1 in El Paso

Texas is definately not a good example. Dallas Metroplex and Houston Metro (the big tamales) are strongly GOP. San Antonio Metro is moderately GOP. Austin, El Paso and McAllen/Brownsville are the only Dem metro areas and those are much smaller than Dallas and Houston. Plus you have all the rural Dem areas in the far South.

I'm talking about the cities, not the metro areas.  I made that clear in my description.  The suburbs are very Republican which is what makes the metro areas overall Republican and which is what keeps Texas as a solid Republican state.  

So Texas is more along the lines of "urban vs rural & suburban"

Historically East Texas use to be Democratic and Dallas and Houston were hard core Republican.  However East Texas has been trending away from the Democrats dramatically and Dallas and Houston have had fairly major shifts to the left.  Plus like I pointed out the cities make great Democratic vote sinks for redistricting.

Also keep in mind when talking about the two big metro areas; DFW and Houston are so geographically big due to poor planning and suburban sprawl that they are nearly as large as Massachusetts.  The Philadelphia metro while similar in population to Greater Houson is nearly half of the geographic size.  Many of the counties included in the official terminology of greater DFW and greater Houston are essentially rural counties (Delta, Hunt, Parker, Wise, Waller, Ausitin, San Jacinto) so there is not much in common with the true city and real urban life, much less suburban in some cases.  I lived in one a rural county which is included in the definition of a major metro, and there is nothing similar about them, people fly the flag of small town America (metaphorically of course) and brag about how their crime rate is so much lower than the "city".  They are truly distinct areas.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Is there a better state illustrating the urban v rural divide in politics?

Perhaps Texas?

Every major city is fairly Democratic to certain extents.  However it's not just the rural areas which are heavily Republican but the suburbs as well which is why Texas is still not competitive.  If it wasn't for the major cities the Democrats would only have a 2 Democratic Representatives in the House.  The others are in the major cities in heavily gerrymandered districts; 1 in Dallas, 3 in Houston, 1 in Austin, 1 in San Antonio, 1 in El Paso

Texas is definately not a good example. Dallas Metroplex and Houston Metro (the big tamales) are strongly GOP. San Antonio Metro is moderately GOP. Austin, El Paso and McAllen/Brownsville are the only Dem metro areas and those are much smaller than Dallas and Houston. Plus you have all the rural Dem areas in the far South.

More precisely -- Bexar County (San Antonio), Dallas County (Dallas), Harris County (Houston), and Travis County (Austin) went for President Obama. Tarrant County (which consists of urban Fort Worth and Arlington and is more suburban than urban -- a good description of Arlington, Texas is Orange County, California without the beach) went for John McCain. Greater Midland-Odessa, Amarillo, and Lubbock went for McCain. 

What is remarkable about Texas (also Georgia) in 2008 is that the suburbs did not go for Obama.  Suburban areas in most other parts of the country did because Obama campaigned heavily in Suburbia in swing states. Texas was not a swing state.  Texas was not a swing state. With the wrong GOP nominee it can be in 2012.

The "rural Dem areas" in the South are so because of the large Hispanic (Mexican-American) majorities.     

It's also important to note like you did that the small-to-mid sized cities (Midland, Odessa, Lubbock, Tyler, Longview, etc) are heavily Republican