Bold Prediction: HILLARY TO WIN MO in '16 (if she runs)

[Joshgreen]

Hear me now, quote me later.

[⛄]

That's not a bold prediction.

[IceSpear]

Is this really that bold? Hillary winning MO isn't exactly farfetched considering it was a virtual tie in 2008, and Hillary is likely to perform better there relative to her national popular vote than Obama did.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'd say working with Obama probably (although by now means certainly) poisons that well.

[Mister Mets]

That's not a bold prediction.

It kinda is.

Looking at presidential elections since 1928, parties tend to peak and slowly lose support. And when that happens they almost always lose states.

It's often not enough to lose the election.

FDR lost 8 states from 1936 to 1940, although it was still enough to win comfortably. He lost a few more states from 1940 to 1944, although he did gain Michigan.

In 1988, George HW Bush lost nine states Reagan had won in 1984.

In 2012, Obama lost two of the states he had won in 2008, a rare case of a party peaking in the first election (although there were unusual circumstances in 2008.)

I'd bet on Clinton not winning any state Obama lost in 2012, for a variety of reasons. Incumbents do better than non-incumbents. Obama's a better campaigner than she is.

I certainly wouldn't bet on her winning a state an incumbent President lost by over nine points in a good year for the party.

[⛄]

I'd bet on Clinton not winning any state Obama lost in 2012, for a variety of reasons. Incumbents do better than non-incumbents. Obama's a better campaigner than she is.

That may be right, but while Obama arousing hatred in the Upper South, Clinton is adored down there.
You're not the only one refusing that bet - even Democrats do it - but imho Missouri, Arkansas and West Virginia are safe for her (as long as Huckabee doesn't run, which he won't).

[BlueSwan]

I'd bet on Clinton not winning any state Obama lost in 2012, for a variety of reasons. Incumbents do better than non-incumbents. Obama's a better campaigner than she is.

That may be right, but while Obama arousing hatred in the Upper South, Clinton is adored down there.
You're not the only one refusing that bet - even Democrats do it - but imho Missouri, Arkansas and West Virginia are safe for her (as long as Huckabee doesn't run, which he won't).

West Virginia safe for Clinton?? That's......bold.

[Mister Mets]

I'd bet on Clinton not winning any state Obama lost in 2012, for a variety of reasons. Incumbents do better than non-incumbents. Obama's a better campaigner than she is.

That may be right, but while Obama arousing hatred in the Upper South, Clinton is adored down there.
You're not the only one refusing that bet - even Democrats do it - but imho Missouri, Arkansas and West Virginia are safe for her (as long as Huckabee doesn't run, which he won't).

Saying it's safe is a bold prediction.

There are several degrees of how effectively can do in a state.

You can say that an outside shot in a state.
Beyond that, you can say that a candidate has an even chance of winning the state. These are the states they'll win half the time.
Slightly beyond that, a candidate may have a better than even chance of winning a state. These are the states they'll win more than half the time.
A candidate will have an even better chance of winning a safe state. These are the states parties win barring unexpected catastrophies.

[eric82oslo]

I think it is likely (at least not unlikely) that Missouri will flip for Hillary, however I think it's even more likely that Arizona will actually flip this time around, knowing that Hillary is regarded pretty much as a goddess within the Latino community.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Eh, it's possible, if we nominate a crazy and the national climate is against us. She might even win Arkansas if the Republican is a gaffe machine.

But not West Virginia. It's not moving 20+ points to the left in one cycle, unless Hillary wins a landslide on the order of 1964.

[RogueBeaver]

About as likely as the Pub nominee winning MN, but whatever floats your boat.

[Bull Moose Base]

In 9 of the last 10 presidential elections, Missouri went to whichever candidate was more like a white Southerner. So if the GOP nominates Huckabee or Paul, I think it'll be tough for her.

[Matty]

Hardly a bold prediction. MO has voting patterns more similar to iowa than the south.

[henster]

I think she will narrow to margin there to within 5 points but I doubt she will even contest the state considering she doesn't even need it to win.

[Rockefeller GOP]

In 9 of the last 10 presidential elections, Missouri went to whichever candidate was more like a white Southerner. So if the GOP nominates Huckabee or Paul, I think it'll be tough for her.

Right, but if it's, say, Christie vs. Clinton, I'd consider Missouri a toss up, maybe even lean Hillary.  KY, AR and WV, despite what some here say, would most certainly be in play.  WV is still a Democratic state... Period.

[Maxwell]

a bolder prediction would be Hillary wins Kentucky or something.

[IceSpear]

That's not a bold prediction.

It kinda is.

Looking at presidential elections since 1928, parties tend to peak and slowly lose support. And when that happens they almost always lose states.

It's often not enough to lose the election.

FDR lost 8 states from 1936 to 1940, although it was still enough to win comfortably. He lost a few more states from 1940 to 1944, although he did gain Michigan.

In 1988, George HW Bush lost nine states Reagan had won in 1984.

In 2012, Obama lost two of the states he had won in 2008, a rare case of a party peaking in the first election (although there were unusual circumstances in 2008.)

I'd bet on Clinton not winning any state Obama lost in 2012, for a variety of reasons. Incumbents do better than non-incumbents. Obama's a better campaigner than she is.

I certainly wouldn't bet on her winning a state an incumbent President lost by over nine points in a good year for the party.

You're putting way too much weight on outdated "trends" that are basically meant to be broken. Just a couple examples in the last couple elections: Missouri always voting for the winner, Ken Cuccinelli being assured victory in Virginia, Richard Burr being doomed to lose re-election

If you go back a couple decades, you can find even dumber "trends" that people spoke of as gospel. Such as how before 1992, a Democrat could not win without Alabama.

[eric82oslo]

KY, AR and WV, despite what some here say, would most certainly be in play.  WV is still a Democratic state... Period.

It doesn't look that way in polling so far, where Hillary is trailing badly in WV despite facing no competition at all nationwide. The only way she could possibly win back WV I think is either if she'd decide to spend a week or two campaigning there intensely or if she'd win in a meltdown landslide of say about 20%.

[pbrower2a]

We have no recent polls of Missouri. The state most similar in its voting pattern to Missouri is now Georgia, which has a very different history. Missouri has a Rust Belt city (St. Louis), Kansas City (which I find hard to characterize), and parts similar to neighboring Iowa, Kansas, and the Arkansas Ozarks.  It even has an area that looks and feels like the Deep South (the extreme southeast), characteristic of Mississippi or eastern Arkansas -- cotton country.

Missouri isn't in an obvious region; like Texas it straddles regions and is not a region in itself. Unlike Texas it does not have a region within itself.