Romney leading by only 1% in Missouri (SurveyUSA)

[Marzupialis]

SurveyUSA calls it an "insignificant advantage": Conducted August 12 among

Likely Voter sample.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ee08561c-b5c6-45c1-b62b-be0abddcfb85

[mucifer]

1. probably before the ryan bump nt

[bigdarryl]

3. There is no BUMP

[democrattotheend]

14. There might be a bump, but it will probably be short-lived

Don't candidates usually get an initial bump when they announce their VP? Whether it lasts depends what people think of Ryan and his policies.

It's interesting, though. When I watched Ryan's speech I was trying to be objective, to try to assess what people would think of him. I thought he came across pretty well and there wasn't much to hate about him personally, even if I hate his policies. But my dad came in and after two minutes said "I don't like the guy already." Granted, my dad would never have voted for Romney, but he's usually the type to give people a chance, so I was surprised to hear him say that so quickly.

[progressivebydesign]

5. have you missed the stories today? People do NOT like the Ryan pick at all.

The polls are showing a wide majority of people do not agree with Ryan as VP, AND a huge majority of seniors hate Ryan's plan.

I have no doubt, now, that the GOP/RNC manufactured those crowds this weekend.

Hell, Romney paid to FLY people in for the NAACP speech, so he'd look popular. I have no doubt he's doing the same thing for the rallies with Ryan.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. This shouldn't be surprising re: manufactured crowds. Robme is also buying Twitter

accounts and Facebook replies. Nothing shocks me about these people.

But about the audience this weekend: notice that when Paul Ryan was making these remarks about Obama "making the economy worse," very few people clapped or reacted. In fact, while Robme made a decent pitch for his VP, I didn't get the feeling that the crowd cared too much for Ryan.

[WI_DEM]

2. Interesting taken yesterday in the midst of all the publicity about Ryan

[SmittynMo]

4. He won't win in Missouri

I'm getting the word out as fast as I can.

[LongTomH]

15. I'm working on the Obama campaign too, here in KC!

[Floyd_Gondolli]

6. I live next door

Take away St. Louis and Missouri is as batshit crazy as my state (Oklahoma). The key though as always is running up the totals in St. Louis. It's possible but seems like a tough climb. But then again, Obama only lost Mo. by a few thousand votes in 2008.

[Robbins]

7. Well

Don't forget about Kansas City.It Is other place with a lot of Democrats.

Besides that you are correct.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

12. KC

I've been to KC a lot more than St. Louis and my impression of it is that it's way more conservative than St. Louis, especially the burbs. But I guess I could be wrong on that not living there and not understanding completely the nuances of the electorate.

[Robbins]

13. Kansas City

Parts of It are more conservative but parts of It are very Democratic.The burbs are very conservative but the urban part Is very
Democratic.One of missouri's 2 relable Democratic congressional seats are In Kansas city area.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. Metropolitan Kansas City, MO is also relatively sane or was when I lived there back

in the 80s.

Wait until MO farmers learn that Ryan engaged in insider trading in 2008 (a breaking story this morning). That should soften up the rural areas and depress Repig turnout.

[davidpdx]

18. Yes it was darn close in 2008

Thankfully we had enough EV in other states, but it would have always been nice to have had Missouri on board. Maybe we can flip it this time.

[Proles]

9. When was the last time a Democrat President won Missouri?

I'd assume it'd be a remarkable achievement.

[WI_DEM]

10. Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter in '76, Lyndon Johnson, JFK, Adlai Stevenson in '56...

FDR, Truman both won...

It was pretty close between Dems and GOP in 1968, 1980, 1988 (even Dukakis came close), 2000, 2004 & 2008.

Actually for years Missouri was considered a swing state in presidential elections and the winner of the election usually always won Missouri, so it wasn't so remarkable for a dem to win it.

[Proles]

16. Interesting. So I guess this perception of it being more of a red state is a recent thing. nt

[fujiyama]

19. It went 53-46 in '04.

In '00 it was was a three point margin (50-47). Clinton won it both times, but it has been trending away ever since (with the exception of the very close margin in '08 - less than 5,000 votes).

Many have considered it a bellwether state, but it's been trending rightward for some time now. And we saw last time that you don't necessarily need to win MO. I get the impression evangelicals and the religious right have made major strides there and have a lot of influence. Rove capitalized on those groups greatly in '04.Talk radio is big out there (Rush Limbaugh is from MO after all). Guns were rumored to be a big reason Gore lost it. Much of the state reminds me of southern Ohio and southern Indiana, which are also culturally very southern in many aspects.

But the 1 point lead is still a good sign. There is an outside possibility that the state is in play (about the same likelihood as Romney winning PA), and it's very unlikely it will play the deciding factor.

[CobaltBlue]

17. Missouri then and now

In 2008, Barack Obama became the first Democrat elected to the presidency of the United States without having carried the state of Missouri. (Also applicable in the case of Arkansas.)

John McCain won Mo. by a little over 3,900 raw votes and a bare margin of R+0.13.

For President Obama and Mo., he'd have to shift about 2,000 votes from 2008 R to 2012 D in order to flip Mo.

What's happened with Mo. is that its bellwether status has taken a nosedive. In 2008, Obama nationally carried females with 56% of their support while Mo. females were 50%. (This was one of three McCain-Republican-held states, 2004/2008, in which Obama won over the female vote. Gender gap shows that Republicans win men before women; Democrats carry women before men.) When it came to Mo. males, they were statistically representative of the national outcome: Obama received 49% support nationally from males and Mo. males gave him 48%. Had the females been lots closer in Mo. relative to the national outcome, the Show Me State would not have disrupted its bellwether status by having the second occurrence of getting it "wrong" after 1904. (That other election: 1956, when Dwight Eisenhower won re-election but lost Mo. to his two-time losing rival Adlai Stevenson.)

I believe this year's election has the potential to yield same-party victories, with President and U.S. Senate, in some to-watch-for states: Ohio. Florida. Virginia. Nevada. New Mexico. Wisconsin. Montana. And, yes, Missouri. (Many of the experts are figuring that Claire McCaskill, the Democratic pickup who unseated in 2006 her GOP predecessor Jim Talent, is as unpopular in this state as a case of measles. We'll find out if Mo., which could never have been a long-established bellwether without also being a politically moderate state, is going to vote out McCaskill for her tea-party-like challenger Todd Akin.)

If the bellwether days are truly gone for Missouri, it's because the state is a relatively strong Republican tilt for this era … just as the state had one favoring the Democrats when the GOP was the Party of Lincoln. (Meaning this: Numerous Republicans won the presidency, during the second half of the 1800s, while Mo. was in the column for losing Democrats. Which results from a change in the electorate of this particular state.)