Good Sign for McCain? (Missouri bellwether)

Wikipedia

[wrhssaxensemble]

The Missouri bellwether is a political phenomenon that notes that the state of Missouri has voted for the winner in every U.S. Presidential election beginning in 1904 except in 1956. Missouri is also considered a bellwether of U.S. views on hot-button social issues such as stem cell research,[1] school vouchers,[2] and same-sex marriage.[3][4] Some economists also consider the state a bellwether for economic trends such as consumer confidence and unemployment.[5]

[edit] Political history Between 1960 and 2004, Missouri's popular vote was within about one and a half percent of the national popular vote margin. The lone exception was the Dwight Eisenhower landslide of 1956, when the state gave a 4,000-vote plurality — two-tenths of one percent — to neighboring Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson. Missouri's 96% accuracy in voting with the national consensus includes the "too close to call" elections of 1948, 1960, 1976, and 2000.(Allthough in 2000, Missouri indicated only the winner of the electoral vote, not the popular vote.) In recent election years, a Presidential debate has always been held at Washington University in St. Louis or the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

In 2006, Missouri's bellwether status gained renewed attention because of the 2006 Senate race between incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent and Democratic State Auditor Claire McCaskill, which was considered vital to which party controls Congress.[6][7] Additionally, Missouri had a ballot measure, Missouri Amendment Two, regarding stem cell research that drew national attention as an indicator of mainstream sentiment towards this controversial issue.[8] On Election Day 2006, both McCaskill and Amendment 2 narrowly received majority support among Missouri voters. McCaskill's victory as well as the victory of Sherrod Brown over Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio and Jim Webb's defeat of Senator George Allen in Virginia were key to Democrats regaining power in the U.S. Senate.[9]

[edit] Possible causes The cause of Missouri's bellwether status is most often cited as its location and demographics. The Chicago Tribune calls Missouri the "bellwether state that almost exactly mirrors the demographic, economic and political makeup of the nation."[10] A microcosm of the country's current political make up, Missouri has its two Blue "coasts" of St. Louis and Kansas City with Red middle and southern areas.

Since 1980 the mean center of U.S. population of the United States (which has been moving steadily westward) is in Missouri (currently in Phelps County). Missouri is in the center of the country, distant from the coast and the national borders. It shares a border with three Southern states, three Plains states, and two Midwestern states.

Missouri has a mixture of urban, suburban and rural populations. In the state's two urban areas, St. Louis considers itself the furthest west of the eastern cities while Kansas City considers itself the furthest east of the western cities.

Missouri was a border state in the American Civil War. After the state legislature voted to secede, it was represented by competing factions in both the Confederate and Union governments. Missourians fought on both sides of the conflict, and the state was the site of repeated military clashes throughout the war.

[edit] Continued bellwether status? Whether Missouri will continue to be a bellwether remains to be seen. One of the more important national phenomena that has not had the same impact in Missouri as in the rest of the country is the influx of immigrants, particularly Latinos. Analysts and journalists in recent times have pointed to states like Ohio[11], New Mexico[12], Pennsylvania[13], and California[14] as more accurate political and cultural bellwethers. As for Missouri, Slate columnist Chris Suellentrop has said that the state "isn't so much a bellwether as it is a weathervane: It doesn't swing the country, the country swings it..." and that Missouri is a better indicator of whether a trend is mainstream than of what the next new trend will be.[15]

[duckman]

Thanks for the history update! DM

[wrhssaxensemble]

Yeah but they don’t seem to understand the idea of amendments... I guess it is “above their paygrade”

Instead they make up whatever they wish it would say and then say thats the law because of “progress” and the fact it is a “living” document

[fluffdaddy]

Actually, TR ran against a nonentity named Alton Parker, a NY judge and a wealthy octogenarian VP running mate who picked up about 1/3 of the tab for the Dem campaign. It was a rout. Missouri was with the loser because it was still in 19th Century post-Civil War solid south mode and it always went with the Dem. By 1908 when Taft ran against Bryant (for whom third time was definitely not the charm) Missouri had begun to become the statistical mirror of the nation that it is today.

[wrhssaxensemble]

Thanks for the correction... been a while since I looked at that stuff so I was just going by my somewhat shoddy memory...

hmmm

Interesting how TR ran against a non-entity with an older VP then and how McCain runs against a non-entity with an older VP now

[wrhssaxensemble]

Surprised about Quinnipiac... their polls are usually pretty left-leaning in my experience (which is funny since I go here and it is one of the most apathetic schools around)

The Franklin and Marshall/Hearst poll,fascinating... any idea of their accuracy? seems counter to a lot of the polls the media is throwing at us....

looks like McCain pulled in a lot more independents since june than Obama

[wrhssaxensemble]

Wow and this part is particularly fascinating:

Concerned if McCain Elected President
Yes
16% - GOP
72% -Dems
47% -Independents
Concerned if Obama Elected President
Yes
82% -GOP
39% -Dems
60% -Independents

I thought the 47% was bad until I sawa that 60%...... so assuming all three are equal in number, which they obviously aren’t though that means that an average of 45% while Obama’s is 60.333%...

[moose2004]

The difference is the methodology employed, F + M uses 41% dems, 35% Repubs and 21% Indes. This poll was formerly known as the “Keystone Poll.”

[Salamander]

Hmmmm.....Foxnews must be lurking here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2090344/posts

[do I get paid for this?]....:))

[wrhssaxensemble]

Well then it is still:

Concerned if McCain Elected President
Yes
16% - GOP
72% -Dems
47% -Independents

.16 (.35) + .72 (.41) + .47 (.21)= .056 +.2952 +.0987= .4499= rounding up, about 45% are concerned about McCain becoming president

Concerned if Obama Elected President
Yes
82% -GOP
39% -Dems
60% -Independents

.35 (.82) + .41 (.39) + .21(.6) = .287 + .1599 + .126= .5729= rounding down, 57% concerned about Obama becoming president

I think the 12+% gap is still pretty significant

[moose2004]

Interesting.

[SunkenCiv]

Five weeks, five days to go...

Obama moving into electoral lead
Politico | 9/24/08 | Mike Allen
Posted on 09/24/2008 11:16:42 PM PDT by Luke21
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2089975/posts

[Scutter]

I hope you are right. Still, I wonder what percentage of the voting public actually watches the debates...

[wrhssaxensemble]

I think generally it is pretty low... but in this election, with the way the economy is, the war on terror still going on, judges becoming an increasingly important issue (this part probably mostly just appeals to the public who are in the legal profession though sadly), etc. they will pay a lot more attention.

in an odd way I expect more people to watch the VP debate than the first presidential in this one... people want to see what Sarah Palin is made of and what historical “facts” Biden makes up or groups (miners etc.) he insults.

[Canedawg]

Bellwether bookmark