MO-Mason-Dixon: Trump down 1 BEFORE the DNC

[pbrower2a]

Who cares about these polls with both under 45%...we all know MO will go for Trump by a solid margin in the end.

If Gary Johnson gets 10% of the vote in Missouri, then he will allow Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to win the state with about 45% of the vote. Democrats have a floor of about 45% in Missouri, and that could be enough to win this time.

I look at the three-way race as the reality this year.   

[pbrower2a]

Who cares about these polls with both under 45%...we all know MO will go for Trump by a solid margin in the end.

If Gary Johnson gets 10% of the vote in Missouri, then he will allow Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to win the state with about 45% of the vote. Democrats have a floor of about 45% in Missouri, and that could be enough to win this time.

I look at the three-way race as the reality this year.   

Only in your mind.

The math needs not stay in my mind. If Gary Johnson gets 10% of the vote, then the winner needs only 45%. Should Hillary Clinton campaign actively in Missouri, perhaps to support the Democratic challenger for a Senate seat (Barack Obama stayed away from Missouri in 2012, figuring that he could only hurt the Senate campaign of Claire McCaskill), and still got about 45% of the popular vote in Missouri.

What is 'new' about my math? Take away 10% from 100%, and someone who gets 45% wins.

So let's look at how previous non-winning Democrats did in Missouri:

Obama 2012 44.28 (good for staying away from the state!)
Obama 2008 49.23  (razor-thin loss)
Kerry 2004 46.10
Gore  2000 47.08
Dukakis 1988  47.85
Mondale 1984 39.88
Carter 1980 44.35
McGovern 1972  37.71

Even if Jimmy Carter could have won Missouri had John Anderson gotten a little over 11% of the vote in Missouri. McGovern and Mondale had problems other than Missouri, of course.  

...Hillary Clinton can win without Missouri. Should she win it the state is likely the difference between about 360 and 370 electoral votes. But she must campaign in Missouri, which will require the Democratic nominee for the Senate to seek her support.

We are all free to interpret the dynamic reality of this Presidential campaign. I know what I want -- Hillary Clinton winning the Presidency and having a Democratic wave that wins the Senate and the House 'back' for her. Such is my bias. I admit it.

I see the potential for a Trump collapse -- but it hasn't happened yet, so I don't count it. You may expect the Johnson/Weld campaign to collapse, but so far I doubt that it will. This is arguably the best third-party campaign, with two nominees who have good reason to take more Republican support away from Donald Trump than from Hillary Clinton.  Both Johnson and Weld have experience in elective office.  Not counting racist secessionists George Wallace and Strom Thurmond whose support was basically regional, this is the strongest third-party ticket since Theodore Roosevelt and Hiram Johnson. I'm not saying that Johnson/Weld will fare better than Ross Perot...  

You may believe that Hillary Clinton is a horrible nominee, worse even than Obama -- but that is your opinion.

  

[pbrower2a]

Instead of my Wesley Crusher gif, an actual serious response:

If Clinton had a 1 point lead, she would be buying ads here. Until we see an ad buy for STL and KC, assume that she is behind. That being said, the senate numbers (Blunt 47, Kander 43) are similar to PPP's so we can't completely throw out this poll

...or if she campaigns with Kander.

Missouri is probably on the fringe of competitiveness. The Senate race matters more in 2016 as it did in 2012. Is Hillary Clinton less problematic as a campaign partner than was Barack Obama? Quite possibly so. If she actively campaigns in Missouri she will do better than Obama did in 2012 in Missouri (Obama stayed clear of Missouri, and thus lost the state by about 10%)

If I now know that Hillary Clinton will get 47% of the popular vote in Missouri then I cannot tell whether she will win or lose Missouri. If Johnson gets 10% of the vote, then Hillary Clinton wins with anything over 45% of the vote.  If Johnson gets 5.8% of the popular vote in Missouri, then 47% might not be adequate for Hillary Clinton to win the state.

Then we have other questions: does the Mason-Dixon poll make sense? Can we interpret it to mean that Hillary Clinton will get anything over 45%?

NO!

There will be more polls. There will be a hot Senate race.

[pbrower2a]

Who cares about these polls with both under 45%...we all know MO will go for Trump by a solid margin in the end.

If Gary Johnson gets 10% of the vote in Missouri, then he will allow Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to win the state with about 45% of the vote. Democrats have a floor of about 45% in Missouri, and that could be enough to win this time.

I look at the three-way race as the reality this year.   

Obama got 44% of the vote in 2012 lol

1. 44% is not significantly different from 45%.

2. It's pretty good for not campaigning in the state because one does not want to hurt the chances of a Senate candidate. See also Indiana.

3. Barack Obama was a horrible cultural match -- on par with George McGovern or Walter Mondale -- in the Mountain South. Except for the Bootheel of Missouri (which is Deep South, where Obama did well only with blacks)  and the extensions of Greater Kansas City and St. Louis, southern Missouri is Mountain South, more like West Virginia than like Iowa. Hillary Clinton is a better match for the Mountain South -- perhaps enough better to flip enough of it so that the two large metro areas, still Democratic havens, will overpower the rest of Missouri.

4. Does Missouri matter? Only if Trump loses it. See also Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina. Clinton can win without it.