Does Kander prove MO is not completely gone for Dems?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Kander received 46%, 8% higher than Clinton and 2% more than Obama 2012. In a better national environment for Dems he would have won. Could this translate to the national level?

[JA]

Yes and no. Kander outperformed the recent national Democratic Party in Missouri because he ran a state-specific campaign, which is common for Democrats in culturally conservative states. Also, they already have a Democratic Senator who has performed quite well in recent elections, so it is not exactly new for them.

Missouri is not completely gone for the Democrats; aside from states like Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc... most states at least somewhat in play, although it would take a unique candidate and the right electoral conditions for Missouri to vote for a Democrat over a Republican for President. Perhaps the biggest problems for Democrats in that state are gun rights, abortion, and especially their coastal elitist image.

[Pericles]

Missouri is not gone for the Dems but Kander didn't prove this.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

It is beyond gone for them in presidential races, but the right Democrat (one who is perceived as an outsider or moderate or populist or whatever) could easily win a Senate or gubernatorial race there. Missouri politics is quite awful, honestly. It is easily my least favorite "red" state.

What makes it different for a national candidate, if they'd vote for the exact same person on a local level? Trust?

[RINO Tom]

It is beyond gone for them in presidential races, but the right Democrat (one who is perceived as an outsider or moderate or populist or whatever) could easily win a Senate or gubernatorial race there. Missouri politics is quite awful, honestly. It is easily my least favorite "red" state.

What makes it different for a national candidate, if they'd vote for the exact same person on a local level? Trust?

Good question, it's not as if people like McCaskill or Kander are even remotely less liberal than Clinton or Obama. Apparently it doesn't take much to convince the average MO voter to vote for a Democrat, but for some reason they think the national Democratic party has abandonded them. Basically all you need to do is scream "muh outsider", "muh guns" and "muh Missouri values" and you'll be a shoo-in in MO. Awful state.

Yikes, tell us how you really feel.  Haha, I honestly can't say I feel strongly about a state as an entity besides having a real attachment to Illinois and Iowa!

[Santander]

If anything, it proves that it is gone.

[Virginiá]

If anything, it proves that it is gone.

How?

[jamestroll]

Eh.. I could see Democrats winning statewide again.

[Figueira]

Yes, for now at least. It would be nice to see a D trend there on the presidential level for the first time since the 1990s, though.

[SingingAnalyst]

It is beyond gone for them in presidential races, but the right Democrat (one who is perceived as an outsider or moderate or populist or whatever) could easily win a Senate or gubernatorial race there. Missouri politics is quite awful, honestly. It is easily my least favorite "red" state.

What makes it different for a national candidate, if they'd vote for the exact same person on a local level? Trust?

I think it is the level of responsibility, as well as the difference between someone being 1 of 50 (a governor) or 1 of 100 (a Senator) and being the one and only (a President). Tennesseeans voted for Al Gore for Senator, when he was 1 of 100--balanced by Senators of the other party as well as those that differed regionally and ideologically. But when it came time to vote to make Al Gore the chief decision maker of the land, Tennesseeans (by 51%-47%) said No.

[MarkD]

Just because 2014 and 2016 had such very lopsided margins for the Republicans is no reason to say that the Democrats of Missouri look as if they're hopelessly outnumbered. Look at the other successes Missouri Democrats had in 2006, 2008, and 2012.

The basics of what is below: I tallied all votes cast for President in the last 4 elections, the U.S. Senate races from 2002 to 2016, the U.S. House races from 2002 to 2016, all six of the state executive offices in Missouri from 2002 to 2016 (Governor, Lt. Gov. Sec. of State, Treasurer, Atty. Gen., and Auditor (I did not count the 2014 Auditor race - no Democrat ran for that office that year)), and all state legislative races from 2002 to 2016. I only included in the tallies the votes cast for Democrats and Republicans; I left out the votes for Libertarians and other candidates.
The sum of all those races: 52.10% of all the votes were for Republicans, 47.90% for Democrats.
2002: 49.08% for Republicans, 50.92% for Democrats.
2004: 51.00% for Republicans, 49.00% for Democrats.
2006: 48.99% for Republicans, 51.01% for Democrats.
2008: 46.32% for Republicans, 53.68% for Democrats.
2010: 58.70% for Republicans, 41.30% for Democrats.
2012: 49.84% for Republicans, 50.16% for Democrats.
2014: 65.99% for Republicans, 34.01% for Democrats. (There wasn't a race for U.S. Senate, and I did not include the votes for the Auditor's race because there was no Democratic candidate, so this was based just on the votes for U.S. House seats and state legislative seats.)
2016: 57.84% for Republicans, 42.16% for Democrats.

[SingingAnalyst]

It is beyond gone for them in presidential races, but the right Democrat (one who is perceived as an outsider or moderate or populist or whatever) could easily win a Senate or gubernatorial race there. Missouri politics is quite awful, honestly. It is easily my least favorite "red" state.

What makes it different for a national candidate, if they'd vote for the exact same person on a local level? Trust?

I think it is the level of responsibility, as well as the difference between someone being 1 of 50 (a governor) or 1 of 100 (a Senator) and being the one and only (a President). Tennesseeans voted for Al Gore for Senator, when he was 1 of 100--balanced by Senators of the other party as well as those that differed regionally and ideologically. But when it came time to vote to make Al Gore the chief decision maker of the land, Tennesseeans (by 51%-47%) said No.

Also, for some reason, I trust local Democrats much more readily than Democrats from elsewhere, more so than for Republicans. I don't think my reaction is atypical. It is well-known that the South mostly elected Democrats to the House and Senate well into the 1990s, long after it had swung to the GOP at the Presidential level. Similarly for Macomb County: the GOP didn't even have a presence to speak of at the county level until well into the 1980s, Congressmen Dennis Hertel and David Bonior regularly trounced their GOP opponents (the GOP didn't even bother putting up a challenger to Hertel in 1982). Still, Macomb voted 2-1 Reagan in '84 and nearly 2-1 Nixon in '72.

[PoliticalShelter]

It's possible that MO de,s could have a revival during an unpopular trump presidency. However long term trends point to a bleak future for the MO dems, probably as a less screwed version of the Arkansa democrats.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

McCaskill does.

[Skill and Chance]

Nope, he's just a Democratic version of Scott Brown who would have sneaked through on his charisma and some moderate views on the right issues in a more favorable environment

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

McCaskill does.

Locally, MO votes for Democrats.  However, as a Veep Presidential candidate, he can help carry MO.  Otherwise, Dems have 266 electors v. GOP 235, with either Iowa, Virginia or Ohio will get them the WH.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

McCaskill does.

Locally, MO votes for Democrats.  However, as a Veep Presidential candidate, he can help carry MO.  Otherwise, Dems have 266 electors v. GOP 235, with either Iowa, Virginia or Ohio will get them the WH.

On the local level, they are slightly less hostile to democrats, but not entirely. The GOP have a supermajority trifecta in the state, also holding all statewide offices except the state auditor, (who was appointed by Jay Nixon, and mot even elected), and their class 1 Senate seat held by McCaskill. Yes, some margins are closer, and the occasional democrat emerges victorious, but make no mistake, these days Missouri overall is a ruby red state. Also, if it's not too much trouble to ask, I would like to see your map that you are basing your projections on, since I don't feel too confident about having 266 electors when we had dozens less last year. We can't take anything for granted, especially when we've already seen them taken away from us. In reality, we have about 203 base electors that we can count on basically no matter what which are HI, OR, WA, CA, NM, VA, IL, DC, MD, DE, RI, MA, CT, NY, VT, 3 of Maine's 4, and NJ.

[hopper]

McCaskill does.

Locally, MO votes for Democrats.  However, as a Veep Presidential candidate, he can help carry MO.  Otherwise, Dems have 266 electors v. GOP 235, with either Iowa, Virginia or Ohio will get them the WH.

On the local level, they are slightly less hostile to democrats, but not entirely. The GOP have a supermajority trifecta in the state, also holding all statewide offices except the state auditor, (who was appointed by Jay Nixon, and mot even elected), and their class 1 Senate seat held by McCaskill. Yes, some margins are closer, and the occasional democrat emerges victorious, but make no mistake, these days Missouri overall is a ruby red state. Also, if it's not too much trouble to ask, I would like to see your map that you are basing your projections on, since I don't feel too confident about having 266 electors when we had dozens less last year. We can't take anything for granted, especially when we've already seen them taken away from us. In reality, we have about 203 base electors that we can count on basically no matter what which are HI, OR, WA, CA, NM, VA, IL, DC, MD, DE, RI, MA, CT, NY, VT, 3 of Maine's 4, and NJ.

This is the first time(2017) since the 1985-1992 period that Republicans hold 5 out of 6 state offices in MO. They did hold 3 out of 6 state offices from the 2005-2009 period though.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is exactly what Cory Booker needs is a Afghanistani Vet to reach out to military families. Dems don't need MO, NC or even FL.  But, they can reach out to the white working class in PA and Iowa and FL, that Clinton failed to win over as she failed to win the presidency

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

A Democratic win in MO in a presidential election is still very unlikely. However, much like WV and MT, Democrats often do well in statewide races, for whatever reason, compared to other states with similar PVIs in presidential races.

[RINO Tom]

This is exactly what Cory Booker needs is a Afghanistani Vet to reach out to military families. Dems don't need MO, NC or even FL.  But, they can reach out to the white working class in PA and Iowa and FL, that Clinton failed to win over as she failed to win the presidency

What role will you play on the ticket with Cory Booker and Ben Jealous?

[PragmaticPopulist]

I'd say that yes, Kander did prove MO isn't lost for Dems. Kander just couldn't overcome Trump's doubled-from-2012 margin. MO has a lot of swing voters who have begun to consistently vote GOP for president, but are willing to vote DEM for most statewide offices.

[Virginiá]

I'd say that yes, Kander did prove MO isn't lost for Dems. Kander just couldn't overcome Trump's doubled-from-2012 margin. MO has a lot of swing voters who have begun to consistently vote GOP for president, but are willing to vote DEM for most statewide offices.

I'd say so. Sometimes, there is a limit to how much a downballot candidate can outrun the top of the ticket, even in states that have a track record of splitting their tickets. I really think if Clinton had only lost MO by 2012 margins, Kander and maybe even Koster would have won.

[NOVA Green]

McCaskill does.

This is the correct answer....

I voted NO (Sane answer), because have any of y'all actually looked at that atrocious map from '16?

Ok--- Give the guy a break he was running into heavy headwinds against the Trump Train that rolled through the State in '16.... Still he failed to win a single rural county despite his military record and being able to assemble an AR-15 blindfolded in a few brief seconds.

Sure, he has a potentially long and successful career in MO politics, and who know might well win a US Senate run in 2022.

He hasn't proved anything, other than that a Democrat can come relatively close to winning a Federal Election solely on the backs of suburban voters in SLO and KC, and doing a bit better than many other Dems in rural parts of the State.

Kander hasn't yet *proved* anything, other than that he can win a statewide (Non-Federal) office in MO.

Proof is in the pudding, and so far it hasn't been delivered.