DEMOCRATS: Should the Democratic Party compete for Missouri in 2016?

[Suburbia]

If Hillary Clinton declines in 2016, is the state gone for the Democrats, or should the Democratic nominee try hard to pickup the state?

[eric82oslo]

It depends on what the polls will tell, but at this point, definitely. I'm not as bullish on Missouri as most others on this forum though. I think it will still lean Republican, perhaps even by quite a bit, even with Hillary on the ticket. The thing is that it's one of those states, with West Virginia and North Dakota, that has very rapidly deteriorated for the Democratic candidates during the 21st century so far.

[IceSpear]

There's been no polls (since MO has no interesting 2014 races) but I'm guessing Hillary will be strong there considering her polling in Arkansas. So yes, tentatively.

[BlueSwan]

Depends on the candidate and how much money the campaign have to spend, but without Hillary Missouri is probably a goner.

[Mr. Illini]

With Hillary, absolutely.

Without Hillary, probably not.

[pbrower2a]

Without Hillary, the Democrats are on the defensive in much of the map. With her, Missouri is a potential target. There are seats up for grabs in 2016.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No, regardless of the nominee.

[SWE]

No, regardless of the nominee.

[Orser67]

With Hillary (and perhaps a few other select candidates), it might be worth polling, with good poll results possibly leading to further involvement. My fear though is that resources would be wasted on a state unlikely to be vital to any winning effort. On the other hand, a campaign there could help Dem efforts in the Senate and Gov races, and potentially help re-build the state party in the long run.

Still, with most candidates, I would say no.

[pbrower2a]

Arizona is a better target, especially if John McCain is retiring from the Senate.

[SWE]

Arizona is a better target, especially if John McCain is retiring from the Senate.

Democrat's odds of winning Arizona would probably go down in McCain retired

[⛄]

With Hillary on the ticket: no
Without her on the ticket: yes

[Bojack Horseman]

McCain only won Missouri by about 3900 votes, and it voted for Bill in both 1992 and 1996. I have faith.

[IceSpear]

With Hillary on the ticket: no
Without her on the ticket: yes

what

[⛄]

With Hillary on the ticket: no
Without her on the ticket: yes

what

Missouri is safe Democrat if Hilary runs. Why ought she waste money there?

[SWE]

With Hillary on the ticket: no
Without her on the ticket: yes

what

Missouri is safe Democrat if Hilary runs. Why ought she waste money there?

With Hillary on the ticket: no
Without her on the ticket: yes

what

[IceSpear]

With Hillary on the ticket: no
Without her on the ticket: yes

what

Missouri is safe Democrat if Hilary runs. Why ought she waste money there?

Don't you think you may be jumping the gun just a bit here?

[DS0816]

If the nominated Democrat is poised to win election to the presidency with a popular-vote margin in high single-digits, at a minimum, the answer is yes to Missouri and Indiana. Their statewide margins, from Elections 2008 and 2012, were no greater than 1.16 percent in spread. (This is true even though, in 2008, they officially carried differently.) Beginning with 2008, they may be on a trajectory similar to the one started in 1996 with Virginia and Colorado: closely connected margins indicating a pair of states that have become likeminded in presidential voting outcomes. Along with my response, add Georgia and Arizona. (Similar reason. Except for 2004, the two states have been no more than 5 percentage points in spread from each other—even though these two states officially carried differently with both Elections 1992 and 1996.)

[Non Swing Voter]

No, in my opinion Missouri represents the past.  They need to focus on the future.  The future is: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Virginia, Florida.  As Obama proved, you can push trends along a little faster with the right outreach.  They should work on building the groundwork to make states like Arizona and Colorado regular democratic states, rather than focusing energy on winning Missouri for perhaps the last time in a generation.

I personally think the Democrats are likely to win in 2016 so I'd rather they build momentum for 2020 in states they might ultimately lose in 2016 rather than win a few more electoral votes.

[WalterMitty]

no.  unfortunately i dont think martin o'malley can win there.

[DS0816]

No, in my opinion Missouri represents the past.  They need to focus on the future.  The future is: Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Virginia, Florida.  As Obama proved, you can push trends along a little faster with the right outreach.  They should work on building the groundwork to make states like Arizona and Colorado regular democratic states, rather than focusing energy on winning Missouri for perhaps the last time in a generation.

I personally think the Democrats are likely to win in 2016 so I'd rather they build momentum for 2020 in states they might ultimately lose in 2016 rather than win a few more electoral votes.

If the Democrats win a third consecutive cycle in 2016, and with Hillary Clinton emerging with a higher popular-vote margin than the re-elected 2012 one by President Barack Obama, then one should look to the lowest-ranked states (of a total 24) from the losing 2012 Republican column of Mitt Romney.

20. Indiana (Republican pickup), R+10.20
21. Missouri, R+9.36
22. Arizona, R+9.04
23. Georgia, R+7.80
24. North Carolina (Republican pickup), R+2.04

Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District was also a 2012 Republican pickup, by a margin of just over 7 percentage points, and carries similarly to Indiana. (They had tighter margin spreads from Elections 2004 and 2008.)

I would not write off Missouri and/or Indiana from the Democratic Party's potential. We're in a period where the percentage of states being carried in winning presidential elections is underperforming the historical average. We're overdue for a landslide in the Electoral College. And why shouldn't that be viewed as an opportunity, given realigning periods, for the in-party?

[Suburbia]

Missouri could be competitive again in 2016. Democrats shouldn't abandon Missouri in 2016 or the future.

[Ljube]

The Democrats don't need Missouri, so no.

[IceSpear]

The Democrats don't need Missouri, so no.

Obama didn't need Florida, Ohio, or Virginia either. So he should have conceded them to Romney?

[Ljube]

The Democrats don't need Missouri, so no.

Obama didn't need Florida, Ohio, or Virginia either. So he should have conceded them to Romney?

Obama had too much money to burn. I don't think Hillary will have comparable amounts of money.

Competing in states that are unnecessary is a luxury Hillary just might not be able to afford.