Jay Nixon not ruling out run

[DevotedDemocrat]

His name goes against him.

[King]

Yay, someone in the Dems more boring and white than the GOP field.

[Mr. Illini]

Nixon would be an absolutely fantastic candidate. He is liberal enough to keep northerners happy but is very relatable for southerners. His approval ratings are very high in Missouri, no matter who is suing him.

[Suburbia]

His name goes against him.

He spoke at the National Governor's Association meeting and may consider running if Hillary doesn't. His name may go against him,", but he said at the meeting that the "heartland" needs a voice in the Democratic Party. He may be viewed as "too DINO". I think he may run for Senate against Blunt.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/jay-nixon-democrats-need-voice-2016-108838.html

[user12345]

The only way he could win a primary is if Hillary didn't run. He is a more moderate Democrat and can reach out to the moderate Republicans without abandoning the more liberal Democrats. He won 54% of the vote in Missouri when we swung even redder (bluer on here) in the presidential election.

[Free Bird]

Even if he isn't related, the name is still toxic 40 years later

[Dixie Reborn]

This guy may actually be a great Democratic nominee. Being a popular governor from an agricultural, conservative state, he can attract many moderate Republicans and rural voters into his coalition.

[Indy Texas]

Even if he isn't related, the name is still toxic 40 years later

Nixon now,
Nixon now,
More than ever,
Nixon now,
Nixon now,
Nixon now
For you and me...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

His name goes against him.

LOL, I doubt his name would be his biggest problem.

[Dixie Reborn]

His name goes against him.

LOL, I doubt his name would be his biggest problem.

His party identification would be.

[Panda Express]

Why would his name be toxic nationwide but not in Missouri?

[Bojack Horseman]

He needs to run for Senate and get rid of Roy Blunt. That should be his main focus.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map. 

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

[Suburbia]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map. 

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map. 

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path. 

[NHLiberal]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map. 

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path. 

Agreed that it would probably be Kander, though Clint Zweifel, the State Treasurer, would be strong as well. MO has a good Democratic bench.

Also, FuzzyBear, I think you underestimate Nixon's chances against Blunt. I think if he gets in, it would start out as a pure tossup. Blunt's pretty unpopular, and Nixon's well-liked.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map. 

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path. 

Agreed that it would probably be Kander, though Clint Zweifel, the State Treasurer, would be strong as well. MO has a good Democratic bench.

Also, FuzzyBear, I think you underestimate Nixon's chances against Blunt. I think if he gets in, it would start out as a pure tossup. Blunt's pretty unpopular, and Nixon's well-liked.

Nixon is the new 1984 Jim Hunt.  Hunt chose to run against Jesse Helms at the end of his 2nd term as NC Governor.  Helms was not real popular; he didn't win very strongly in his 1978 re-election and Hunt was projected as a slight favorite in the beginning.

What happened was that 1984 was a pretty nationalized election in NC in 1984.  Reagan not only won the state, he took Helms with him.  Hunt was put on the defensive when asked if he supported Mondale, and, even worse for Hunt, which policies of Mondale he disagreed with.  Hunt lost the election 53-47, and while he went back to the Governor's mansion in 1992, he never ran for the Senate again.  His loss in 1984 effectively ended Hunt's chances for the national ticket.  (He would have been a better pick for Kerry than John Edwards, but he was considered too old by that time.)

Nixon is in the same position.  The GOP is likely to carry the Presidential race in MO in 2012, and the Governorship is open, due to term limits.  The Democrats in MO do have a deep bench, but keeping the Governorship will not be easy, and Blunt has a solid base and the advantages of incumbency.  Nixon has some crossover appeal to independents and weak Republicans, but that is more applicable to a race for a state office than it is for a natonal one.  And the 2016 political environment in MO is sure to be highly nationalized.  If Nixon runs against Blunt and loses, his political career is over.  I agree that it's highly likely that the Blunt race may be the only game in town for Nixon, but in some ways, he may be better off in the long term running a Presidential campaign, even if it doesn't get very far.

[IceSpear]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map.  

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path.  

Agreed that it would probably be Kander, though Clint Zweifel, the State Treasurer, would be strong as well. MO has a good Democratic bench.

Also, FuzzyBear, I think you underestimate Nixon's chances against Blunt. I think if he gets in, it would start out as a pure tossup. Blunt's pretty unpopular, and Nixon's well-liked.

Nixon is the new 1984 Jim Hunt.  Hunt chose to run against Jesse Helms at the end of his 2nd term as NC Governor.  Helms was not real popular; he didn't win very strongly in his 1978 re-election and Hunt was projected as a slight favorite in the beginning.

What happened was that 1984 was a pretty nationalized election in NC in 1984.  Reagan not only won the state, he took Helms with him.  Hunt was put on the defensive when asked if he supported Mondale, and, even worse for Hunt, which policies of Mondale he disagreed with.  Hunt lost the election 53-47, and while he went back to the Governor's mansion in 1992, he never ran for the Senate again.  His loss in 1984 effectively ended Hunt's chances for the national ticket.  (He would have been a better pick for Kerry than John Edwards, but he was considered too old by that time.)

Nixon is in the same position.  The GOP is likely to carry the Presidential race in MO in 2012, and the Governorship is open, due to term limits.  The Democrats in MO do have a deep bench, but keeping the Governorship will not be easy, and Blunt has a solid base and the advantages of incumbency.  Nixon has some crossover appeal to independents and weak Republicans, but that is more applicable to a race for a state office than it is for a natonal one.  And the 2016 political environment in MO is sure to be highly nationalized.  If Nixon runs against Blunt and loses, his political career is over.  I agree that it's highly likely that the Blunt race may be the only game in town for Nixon, but in some ways, he may be better off in the long term running a Presidential campaign, even if it doesn't get very far.

Reagan won North Carolina by 24 points in 1984. It's very possible that Hillary could carry Missouri, or at the very least keep it within 5 points, and will CERTAINLY keep it within single digits. The 2012 result in Missouri was an aberration. People here are going to be very surprised when the first 2016 poll of Missouri is released.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map.  

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path.  

Agreed that it would probably be Kander, though Clint Zweifel, the State Treasurer, would be strong as well. MO has a good Democratic bench.

Also, FuzzyBear, I think you underestimate Nixon's chances against Blunt. I think if he gets in, it would start out as a pure tossup. Blunt's pretty unpopular, and Nixon's well-liked.

Nixon is the new 1984 Jim Hunt.  Hunt chose to run against Jesse Helms at the end of his 2nd term as NC Governor.  Helms was not real popular; he didn't win very strongly in his 1978 re-election and Hunt was projected as a slight favorite in the beginning.

What happened was that 1984 was a pretty nationalized election in NC in 1984.  Reagan not only won the state, he took Helms with him.  Hunt was put on the defensive when asked if he supported Mondale, and, even worse for Hunt, which policies of Mondale he disagreed with.  Hunt lost the election 53-47, and while he went back to the Governor's mansion in 1992, he never ran for the Senate again.  His loss in 1984 effectively ended Hunt's chances for the national ticket.  (He would have been a better pick for Kerry than John Edwards, but he was considered too old by that time.)

Nixon is in the same position.  The GOP is likely to carry the Presidential race in MO in 2012, and the Governorship is open, due to term limits.  The Democrats in MO do have a deep bench, but keeping the Governorship will not be easy, and Blunt has a solid base and the advantages of incumbency.  Nixon has some crossover appeal to independents and weak Republicans, but that is more applicable to a race for a state office than it is for a natonal one.  And the 2016 political environment in MO is sure to be highly nationalized.  If Nixon runs against Blunt and loses, his political career is over.  I agree that it's highly likely that the Blunt race may be the only game in town for Nixon, but in some ways, he may be better off in the long term running a Presidential campaign, even if it doesn't get very far.

Reagan won North Carolina by 24 points in 1984. It's very possible that Hillary could carry Missouri, or at the very least keep it within 5 points, and will CERTAINLY keep it within single digits. The 2012 result in Missouri was an aberration. People here are going to be very surprised when the first 2016 poll of Missouri is released.

You could be right about this.  You've made several points here that merit discussion.

Reagan did win NC by 24 points in 1984 and the 1984 election was relatively nationalized, but not to the degree as elections are nationalized today.  NC in 1984 was, arguably, more Democratic at the state and local level than MO is now.  Ticket-splitting was far more common then it is now, and the trend of ticket-splitting continued through the 1990s; it is really only at the start of this century that we've gone back to being more straight-ticket in our voting again.  The Democrats do have a deep bench of statewide officeholders, and that's a big plus for MO Dems.  (Not every Obama state can say that.)

How much of an aberration the 2012 vote in MO was is open to question.  MO is becoming more polarized; it's populace outside of Kansas City and St. Louis is becoming progressively more Republican at all levels.  MO is also the home of a number of conservative religious denominations, including the Assemblies of God, which is the fastest growing denomination in America today.  It's entire Congressional delegation, outside of Kansas City and St. Louis, is Republican; the only two (2) Democrats in the Congressional delegation are black, and from the inner city.  The state is trending Republican, and I don't think that there's much debate about that.  The question I have is whether the aberration in MO voting in 2012 was Romney's strong showing in carrying the state or McCaskill's sold victory over Todd Akin, the "legitimate rape" guy.  Personally, I think McCaskill's victory was the aberration; MO is, in many ways, going the way of WV.

Why is that?  The simple answer is "white voters", but all white voters are not equal.  MO does, however, have a large contingent of Border State Whites; voters who (A) are ancestrally Democratic, (B) are culturally conservative, (C) are generally Protestant churchgoers, and (D) are of Scot-Irish descent.  They are white voters who feel a minimum of "ethnic" identity; they consider themselves to be "Americans".  They are descended from folks who initially settled the Colonies and who moved west.  These voters are moving to the GOP faster than any other group of white voters; they are the folks that have catapulted AR to where it is Republican at all levels, and where WV may well be after 2016.  These are the white Democratic voters that kept those states Democratic, but who bailed on the Democrats due to Obama. 

Personally, I don't think that these voters can be won back by the Democrats.  The party is too liberal on social issues, and social issues now provide a line of cleavage between the two (2) parties.  If the Democrats want to boost their numbers in MO, the only hope they have are making inroads in suburban voters that are socially moderate-to-liberal.  They're not going to win back the voters that once gave MO a 9 to 1 Democratic House delegation.

[IceSpear]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map.  

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path.  

Agreed that it would probably be Kander, though Clint Zweifel, the State Treasurer, would be strong as well. MO has a good Democratic bench.

Also, FuzzyBear, I think you underestimate Nixon's chances against Blunt. I think if he gets in, it would start out as a pure tossup. Blunt's pretty unpopular, and Nixon's well-liked.

Nixon is the new 1984 Jim Hunt.  Hunt chose to run against Jesse Helms at the end of his 2nd term as NC Governor.  Helms was not real popular; he didn't win very strongly in his 1978 re-election and Hunt was projected as a slight favorite in the beginning.

What happened was that 1984 was a pretty nationalized election in NC in 1984.  Reagan not only won the state, he took Helms with him.  Hunt was put on the defensive when asked if he supported Mondale, and, even worse for Hunt, which policies of Mondale he disagreed with.  Hunt lost the election 53-47, and while he went back to the Governor's mansion in 1992, he never ran for the Senate again.  His loss in 1984 effectively ended Hunt's chances for the national ticket.  (He would have been a better pick for Kerry than John Edwards, but he was considered too old by that time.)

Nixon is in the same position.  The GOP is likely to carry the Presidential race in MO in 2012, and the Governorship is open, due to term limits.  The Democrats in MO do have a deep bench, but keeping the Governorship will not be easy, and Blunt has a solid base and the advantages of incumbency.  Nixon has some crossover appeal to independents and weak Republicans, but that is more applicable to a race for a state office than it is for a natonal one.  And the 2016 political environment in MO is sure to be highly nationalized.  If Nixon runs against Blunt and loses, his political career is over.  I agree that it's highly likely that the Blunt race may be the only game in town for Nixon, but in some ways, he may be better off in the long term running a Presidential campaign, even if it doesn't get very far.

Reagan won North Carolina by 24 points in 1984. It's very possible that Hillary could carry Missouri, or at the very least keep it within 5 points, and will CERTAINLY keep it within single digits. The 2012 result in Missouri was an aberration. People here are going to be very surprised when the first 2016 poll of Missouri is released.

You could be right about this.  You've made several points here that merit discussion.

Reagan did win NC by 24 points in 1984 and the 1984 election was relatively nationalized, but not to the degree as elections are nationalized today.  NC in 1984 was, arguably, more Democratic at the state and local level than MO is now.  Ticket-splitting was far more common then it is now, and the trend of ticket-splitting continued through the 1990s; it is really only at the start of this century that we've gone back to being more straight-ticket in our voting again.  The Democrats do have a deep bench of statewide officeholders, and that's a big plus for MO Dems.  (Not every Obama state can say that.)

How much of an aberration the 2012 vote in MO was is open to question.  MO is becoming more polarized; it's populace outside of Kansas City and St. Louis is becoming progressively more Republican at all levels.  MO is also the home of a number of conservative religious denominations, including the Assemblies of God, which is the fastest growing denomination in America today.  It's entire Congressional delegation, outside of Kansas City and St. Louis, is Republican; the only two (2) Democrats in the Congressional delegation are black, and from the inner city.  The state is trending Republican, and I don't think that there's much debate about that.  The question I have is whether the aberration in MO voting in 2012 was Romney's strong showing in carrying the state or McCaskill's sold victory over Todd Akin, the "legitimate rape" guy.  Personally, I think McCaskill's victory was the aberration; MO is, in many ways, going the way of WV.

Why is that?  The simple answer is "white voters", but all white voters are not equal.  MO does, however, have a large contingent of Border State Whites; voters who (A) are ancestrally Democratic, (B) are culturally conservative, (C) are generally Protestant churchgoers, and (D) are of Scot-Irish descent.  They are white voters who feel a minimum of "ethnic" identity; they consider themselves to be "Americans".  They are descended from folks who initially settled the Colonies and who moved west.  These voters are moving to the GOP faster than any other group of white voters; they are the folks that have catapulted AR to where it is Republican at all levels, and where WV may well be after 2016.  These are the white Democratic voters that kept those states Democratic, but who bailed on the Democrats due to Obama. 

Personally, I don't think that these voters can be won back by the Democrats.  The party is too liberal on social issues, and social issues now provide a line of cleavage between the two (2) parties.  If the Democrats want to boost their numbers in MO, the only hope they have are making inroads in suburban voters that are socially moderate-to-liberal.  They're not going to win back the voters that once gave MO a 9 to 1 Democratic House delegation.

Missouri is certainly trending Republican (with McCaskill's blowout being an aberration), no doubt about that. The question is whether or not it's trending so fast that it is unreachable for Hillary Clinton and especially Jay Nixon. I doubt that for several reasons.

For one, let's remember that in 2008, McCain only won Missouri by 0.13%. This was despite the fact that Obama severely underperformed, even in comparison to Kerry, in these ancestral Democratic areas of Missouri that you mention, that have a lot of similarities to Arkansas. Obama was pretty much confined to the urban areas only, and was STILL able to almost eke out a win in a state that was not a good match for him.

In 2012, while nobody expected Missouri to be close, the margin was a bit inflated. But Obama never contested the state, and Obama fell even further among these ancestral Democrats (see West Virginia and Arkansas). Polls currently show Hillary Clinton winning or tied in states like Arkansas and Louisiana. I still don't think she'll win Arkansas in the end, but she doesn't need to perform at Bill Clinton levels among these ancestral Democrats in order to win Missouri. She just needs to improve among them (which almost any Democrat aside from Obama probably would, but Hillary is uniquely suited to do this).

In fact, back to the original point, Jay Nixon is even better suited than Hillary is to do this, due to his home state status. Blunt is not popular by any stretch of the imagination, and he was actually trailing Robin Carnahan in the polls before the 2010 Republican wave dragged him over the finish line. Nixon is a much stronger candidate than Carnahan. I'd view this as a pure toss up if Nixon jumped in, and if Hillary is able to keep Missouri within a few points (which I expect she would, if not outright win it) I'd actually say that Nixon would be the favorite to win.

[NHLiberal]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map. 

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path. 

Agreed that it would probably be Kander, though Clint Zweifel, the State Treasurer, would be strong as well. MO has a good Democratic bench.

Also, FuzzyBear, I think you underestimate Nixon's chances against Blunt. I think if he gets in, it would start out as a pure tossup. Blunt's pretty unpopular, and Nixon's well-liked.

Nixon is the new 1984 Jim Hunt.  Hunt chose to run against Jesse Helms at the end of his 2nd term as NC Governor.  Helms was not real popular; he didn't win very strongly in his 1978 re-election and Hunt was projected as a slight favorite in the beginning.

What happened was that 1984 was a pretty nationalized election in NC in 1984.  Reagan not only won the state, he took Helms with him.  Hunt was put on the defensive when asked if he supported Mondale, and, even worse for Hunt, which policies of Mondale he disagreed with.  Hunt lost the election 53-47, and while he went back to the Governor's mansion in 1992, he never ran for the Senate again.  His loss in 1984 effectively ended Hunt's chances for the national ticket.  (He would have been a better pick for Kerry than John Edwards, but he was considered too old by that time.)

Nixon is in the same position.  The GOP is likely to carry the Presidential race in MO in 2012, and the Governorship is open, due to term limits.  The Democrats in MO do have a deep bench, but keeping the Governorship will not be easy, and Blunt has a solid base and the advantages of incumbency.  Nixon has some crossover appeal to independents and weak Republicans, but that is more applicable to a race for a state office than it is for a natonal one.  And the 2016 political environment in MO is sure to be highly nationalized.  If Nixon runs against Blunt and loses, his political career is over.  I agree that it's highly likely that the Blunt race may be the only game in town for Nixon, but in some ways, he may be better off in the long term running a Presidential campaign, even if it doesn't get very far.

Talk to me when there is any reason to believe that the 2016 Republican nominee will be winning nationally by 18 or Missouri by 24. Or when there is any reason to believe that the Republican nominee will win the election period.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map. 

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path. 

Agreed that it would probably be Kander, though Clint Zweifel, the State Treasurer, would be strong as well. MO has a good Democratic bench.

Also, FuzzyBear, I think you underestimate Nixon's chances against Blunt. I think if he gets in, it would start out as a pure tossup. Blunt's pretty unpopular, and Nixon's well-liked.

Nixon is the new 1984 Jim Hunt.  Hunt chose to run against Jesse Helms at the end of his 2nd term as NC Governor.  Helms was not real popular; he didn't win very strongly in his 1978 re-election and Hunt was projected as a slight favorite in the beginning.

What happened was that 1984 was a pretty nationalized election in NC in 1984.  Reagan not only won the state, he took Helms with him.  Hunt was put on the defensive when asked if he supported Mondale, and, even worse for Hunt, which policies of Mondale he disagreed with.  Hunt lost the election 53-47, and while he went back to the Governor's mansion in 1992, he never ran for the Senate again.  His loss in 1984 effectively ended Hunt's chances for the national ticket.  (He would have been a better pick for Kerry than John Edwards, but he was considered too old by that time.)

Nixon is in the same position.  The GOP is likely to carry the Presidential race in MO in 2012, and the Governorship is open, due to term limits.  The Democrats in MO do have a deep bench, but keeping the Governorship will not be easy, and Blunt has a solid base and the advantages of incumbency.  Nixon has some crossover appeal to independents and weak Republicans, but that is more applicable to a race for a state office than it is for a natonal one.  And the 2016 political environment in MO is sure to be highly nationalized.  If Nixon runs against Blunt and loses, his political career is over.  I agree that it's highly likely that the Blunt race may be the only game in town for Nixon, but in some ways, he may be better off in the long term running a Presidential campaign, even if it doesn't get very far.

Talk to me when there is any reason to believe that the 2016 Republican nominee will be winning nationally by 18 or Missouri by 24. Or when there is any reason to believe that the Republican nominee will win the election period.

Political parties are far more ideologically based now, as opposed to 1984.  What happened over time (according to Michael Barone in THE ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS 1996) was that, over time, the vast majority of voters cast their ballots for Members of Congress (both houses) for either Republicans, or Democrats who were claiming to be moderates or conservatives, yet every year, important liberal legislation passed Congress, often by a handful of votes.  This was masked somewhat during Republican Administrations, but the advent of C-SPAN brought this to the attention of voters, and the advent of the Clinton Administration really brought this phenomenon of conservative and moderate members of Congress providing liberals with narrow victories for their legislative proposals.  The effect of this discovery was a realignment along more ideological lines.  It's why we're not likely to see a large caucus of moderate-to-conservative Democrats in either House of Congress any time soon.

Such a development makes a 10 point Romney win in a state the equivalent of a 24 point Reagan win in 1984.  There are fewer swing voters in play, the electorate is less elastic, and party identification is more solidified.  Ronald Reagan was elected by Reagan Democrats who voted Democratic for everyone on the ballot but him.  Bush 43 was elected by Republicans and by a small core of independent moderate voters who were relatively non-ideological.  There was no huge groundswell of Bush 43 Democrats, and there was no huge groundswell of Obama Republicans in 2008. 

[IceSpear]

Nixon's a new face on the national scene, but he's a career politician in MO and is not someone who can credibly label him as an "outsider".  He's got executive experience, but no foreign policy chops.  He's a logical VP pick for Hillary Clinton, and he might help expand the map. 

I don't see Nixon as a credible Presidential candidate, and I really don't see him running against Blunt unless he's promised loads of money.  I wouldn't be surprised if he opts out of running against Blunt in the hopes of being selected for the national ticket.  I would be slightly surprised if Nixon were to beat Blunt; MO is trending GOP and I don't see Blunt losing in such a nationalized election.  Yes, Claire McCaskill clobbered Todd Akin in 2012, but look at the "help" Akin gave her.

If Nixon doesn't run against Blunt, who is the Missouri Democrats' best choice?

Probably Secretary of State Jason Kander.  Chris Koster is running for Governor already.  Kander would have to think long and hard about risking it all to challenge Blunt, who isn't an overly endangered incumbent; he's young, perhaps a future Governor, and he could be re-elected to his current position, but Koster is blocking that path. 

Agreed that it would probably be Kander, though Clint Zweifel, the State Treasurer, would be strong as well. MO has a good Democratic bench.

Also, FuzzyBear, I think you underestimate Nixon's chances against Blunt. I think if he gets in, it would start out as a pure tossup. Blunt's pretty unpopular, and Nixon's well-liked.

Nixon is the new 1984 Jim Hunt.  Hunt chose to run against Jesse Helms at the end of his 2nd term as NC Governor.  Helms was not real popular; he didn't win very strongly in his 1978 re-election and Hunt was projected as a slight favorite in the beginning.

What happened was that 1984 was a pretty nationalized election in NC in 1984.  Reagan not only won the state, he took Helms with him.  Hunt was put on the defensive when asked if he supported Mondale, and, even worse for Hunt, which policies of Mondale he disagreed with.  Hunt lost the election 53-47, and while he went back to the Governor's mansion in 1992, he never ran for the Senate again.  His loss in 1984 effectively ended Hunt's chances for the national ticket.  (He would have been a better pick for Kerry than John Edwards, but he was considered too old by that time.)

Nixon is in the same position.  The GOP is likely to carry the Presidential race in MO in 2012, and the Governorship is open, due to term limits.  The Democrats in MO do have a deep bench, but keeping the Governorship will not be easy, and Blunt has a solid base and the advantages of incumbency.  Nixon has some crossover appeal to independents and weak Republicans, but that is more applicable to a race for a state office than it is for a natonal one.  And the 2016 political environment in MO is sure to be highly nationalized.  If Nixon runs against Blunt and loses, his political career is over.  I agree that it's highly likely that the Blunt race may be the only game in town for Nixon, but in some ways, he may be better off in the long term running a Presidential campaign, even if it doesn't get very far.

Talk to me when there is any reason to believe that the 2016 Republican nominee will be winning nationally by 18 or Missouri by 24. Or when there is any reason to believe that the Republican nominee will win the election period.

Political parties are far more ideologically based now, as opposed to 1984.  What happened over time (according to Michael Barone in THE ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS 1996) was that, over time, the vast majority of voters cast their ballots for Members of Congress (both houses) for either Republicans, or Democrats who were claiming to be moderates or conservatives, yet every year, important liberal legislation passed Congress, often by a handful of votes.  This was masked somewhat during Republican Administrations, but the advent of C-SPAN brought this to the attention of voters, and the advent of the Clinton Administration really brought this phenomenon of conservative and moderate members of Congress providing liberals with narrow victories for their legislative proposals.  The effect of this discovery was a realignment along more ideological lines.  It's why we're not likely to see a large caucus of moderate-to-conservative Democrats in either House of Congress any time soon.

Such a development makes a 10 point Romney win in a state the equivalent of a 24 point Reagan win in 1984.  There are fewer swing voters in play, the electorate is less elastic, and party identification is more solidified.  Ronald Reagan was elected by Reagan Democrats who voted Democratic for everyone on the ballot but him.  Bush 43 was elected by Republicans and by a small core of independent moderate voters who were relatively non-ideological.  There was no huge groundswell of Bush 43 Democrats, and there was no huge groundswell of Obama Republicans in 2008. 

While political polarization is increasing, as I said in my previous post, I think you're overestimating its degree. Let's not forget that it wasn't too long ago that there was a Republican Senator from Massachusetts, and there still is a Democratic Senator from North Dakota...and MO is much swingier than either ND or MA. Nixon could easily beat Blunt.

[Suburbia]

Should Nixon run for president and and if wins the nomination, he may face problems over
racial tensions and the "his slow response" some in the media are saying about him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/14/missouri-gov-jay-nixon-has-been-at-the-center-of-racial-tension-before-ferguson/

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

He wouldn't win MO. What exactly would he bring to a ticket?