2016 Missouri Presidential GE - Trump 48%, Clinton 39%

[Doingto]

Depressing http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_MO_81215.pdf

[LannyDeVaney]

1. When is the last time Missouri went blue in the GE? Been a while I believe ...

road to the WH does NOT go through Mizzou.

[loyalsister]

6. Bill Clinton's second election

Since then the state government has moved right. Went for Bush in 2000, the GA flipped to the GOP in '02 and the state has descended further into RW territory since.

[Agschmid]

12. Actually it was Blue in 1992, before that 1976.

http://www.270towin.com/states/Missouri

[xmas74]

40. It was also blue in 1996.

That was my first presidential election. I missed 1992 by a little over a month.

2008 was a statistical tie. McCain won by less than 4000 votes overall and there was some controversy about the polling centers in St Louis. I believe the actual percentage was less than 0.01%.

[Agschmid]

43. Wow, that's close.

And that's why every vote, in every state matters when it comes to the GE.

[xmas74]

54. Some of the polls that day actually showed Missouri going blue

by the slimmest of margins. There were problems that day, especially in St Louis, with a lack of polling sites. Voters waited in line for several hours to vote and I'm sure some left before ever voting. In 2012 there wasn't much devoted to Missouri for the presidential election. Nationals chose not to focus on us and I understand-spend the money where the biggest punch will happen. The big focus in Missouri in 2012 was on reelecting Claire McCaskill over the idiot Todd Akin.

The poll for 2016 is just too soon. Nothing is happening here yet but it sounds like there will be an effort put into Missouri. There has been some local talk about grassroots work for Bernie. I've received emails from groups that plan on making targeted moves with Hillary's campaign. The primary season can change everything.

[loyalsister]

47. It was known as a bell weather state for a long time

MO's popular vote matched the rest of the country until 2000 when it went for Bush. It has been nothing but downhill since.

[Agschmid]

51. Hopefully it's not a bellwether this year!

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. And this surprises you how?

[HassleCat]

3. Strange but true

It is astonishing that people in the bible belt would consider voting for somebody like Trump, but their hatred for Clinton has no limits.

[Rex]

4. So HRC has 39% in a red state? A state that has gone for the GOP 4 times in a row?

I bet you expected people to be mad and sad...however your results are encouraging for HRC! Thanks for posting, I had no idea she was polling so strong in a red red state!

[RussBLib]

8. hahaha

good one

[Rex]

9. Thanks, I guess it is depressing that she is not polling 40%...but I can take 39%

in a red state just this one time! If the OP googlers she is polling at 38% in another red state...I dunno I might need lifeline.

[former9thward]

17. Obama got 49.3% in 2008 in Missouri.

Governor Nixon is a Democrat. Not such a red state as you portray.

[Rex]

21. The state went GOP the last 4 election cycles, but don't let that bother

your concern.

[former9thward]

23. And it elected Democratic governors

But don't let bother your concern.

[Rex]

33. Since we are not talking about governors I sure won't. Why can't you stay on topic?

This is about the presidential election, does it bother you that the state went 4 times for the GOP? Facts...they bother and concern people. Maybe you might be one of those people.

[former9thward]

46. It went twice for Clinton.

But you said "nailed it" to a poster who said the state has gone Republican for 40 years. On topic enough for you?

[xmas74]

29. I live here.

2008 was actually considered a statistical draw for quite a while. Our governor, Jay Nixon, is a Dem. Our Secretary of State, Jason Kander, is a Dem. Our Attorney General, Chris Koster, was a Republican when he was the Cass County Prosecutor but became a Dem when he ran for AG-and took a number of moderate Repubs with him for the vote. He is running for governor in 2016 and is projected to win. We also have a few congresspersons that are Dems and one of our two senators is a Dem.

Most of the comments I hear about Trump might be a bit of cheering on but no one that is a real Republican really seems to want the man. I've heard Huckabee from the conservatives, Paul from the younger ones and Bush from the rest.

It's a strange state and you never know what will happen. I heard a recent local poll asking if anyone but Trump won the nom compared to either Clinton or Sanders that the Dem would actually win, with the biggest boosts coming from KC, St Louis and Columbia. I live in Warrensburg and I know we are planning a big push on the local university campus to get the kids registered and out to vote. (Personally, I think we'd get more students voting if the polls were closer to campus but that's neither here nor there.)

[Rex]

35. HRC polling at 39% in a red state concerns and bothers some people here.

Too bad for them right?

[xmas74]

38. Honestly,

it's not even a big deal in Missouri right now. The only signs I've even seen around have been for Rand Paul and thank goodness those are few and far between.

December. When December comes along I'll start posting about what signs I see out here. Right now it's just not that big of a deal. The media makes it a much bigger deal than it actually is.

[ericson00]

61. Sanders does no better. And many non-politico types don't know he's a socialist.

that socialist dog don't hunt in the south, not that it does in the north, west, or east tho either.

We cannot afford to lose middle of the road voters. That seems to have happened over the last few years. Sanders would exacerbate this. I don't wanna see us squander a stream of victories the way 1980s Republicans did, and since 1992 can barely in a GE because they're too right-wing.

[John Poet]

65. Many non-politico types don't realize that THEY are socialists.

Do they support:

Social Security?
Medicare?
Medicaid?
Food Stamps?

Socialist programs all.

[ericson00]

66. stop living in denial. Americans by and large do not and will ever label themselves "socialists"

if you think they do, you're off in loony land.

[John Poet]

68. Didn't say they did. I said they ARE.

[John Poet]

69. If Sanders would lose them, so would Hillary--

their voting records are near identical.

[ericson00]

70. Hillary is not, and does not call herself a socialist.

This delusion on your part is sad.

[John Poet]

71. She should try it-- it might help her popularity

which is going DOWN.
Because of the "socialist" candidate, and what this "death by a thousand email-paper cuts" is doing to her.

[John Poet]

72. What's really sad is your apparent need to be insulting

because someone's opinion is different from yours. But whatever.

[Logical]

55. You have trouble reading??? Obama got 49%, read again! Nt

[whatthehey]

58. why go back TWO elections? And why ignore the undecideds causing an 87% split not 98%?

[whatthehey]

44. and 44 in 2012, And real elections don't have undecideds like polls, with these adding only to 87

D and R split 98%+ of the last vote. HRC (or Sanders) would pick up at least 4-5 of the undecided tranche too. The only way 3rd party takes anything close to 13% that's missing from the poll split is if it's Trump doing it. All this poll says is that the D-R split in MO has changed hardly at all from 2012 regardless of who the standardbearer is.

I'll take a repeat of 2012 POTUS results by party.

[Doingto]

49. 39% against the biggest clown in the Republican Party

Whoever claims to have expected a Trump lead this big in Missouri is simply trying to make himself feel better.
Romney and McCain were clueless about every topic, but they didn't call Mexicans rapists and told women they were bleeding from their parts.
To state that it is understandable that a clown such as Trump is leading Hillary is like I said, self-therapy.

[leftynyc]

5. A republican winning a red state

Where is the news?

[Xipe Totec]

7. 39% in Missouri? The Repugs must be crapping their pants. nt

[former9thward]

18. Obama got 49.3% in 2008 in Missouri.

He only lost by 2500 votes.

[Xipe Totec]

19. And we're more than a year away from the election. Early days yet. nt

[former9thward]

24. Oh, I agree.

This early polling is mindless. I expect to see polling for 2020 any day now.

[phleshdef]

25. Yet Romney won it by 9 points in 2012, little inconvenient for you to admit that one though right?

[former9thward]

27. You mean the year Governor Nixon was re-elected?

That Republican, oops, he a Democratic governor! A little inconvenient for you to admit that one right?

[phleshdef]

30. No, not at all. Conservadems can make it there on a local level.

But Presidential candidates from the Democratic party historically have not faired well there for the past 40 years. Thats the point that you are trying to hide from.

[Rex]

37. Nailed it. nt

nt

[xmas74]

39. Clinton won both terms in Missouri

and Obama's first term was considered a statistical tie. McCain won by less than 4,000 votes and considering the complaints coming out of KC and St Louis about the long lines and lack of places to vote that seems pretty damn good. (I remember it well. I worked at the polls in my area and we heard lots of stories. There were hinky attempts even in our smaller town parking lot that had to be checked out.)

There wasn't as much of a push in Missouri in 2012. National seemed to have dropped us and our state Dems used all of our resources for Claire to beat Todd Akin. (That was a thing of beauty! Even Republicans crossed lines after his comments.) They knew they could win without Missouri and chose not to focus on it, which is understandable. Even the national line seemed to be all about us putting our best efforts into Claire beating Todd.

No one around here is really talking about the elections yet. From those who have I've heard interest in both Hillary and Bernie and smiles and jokes about Trump. Trump will not make it out of the caucus in Missouri so he's not really a concern. Huckabee tends to poll well amongst conservatives around here , I've heard some interest about Bush and even some about Walker.

As I said to another poster, wait until December. In December I will post what signs I see in people's yards. Heck, I'll take pics as proof, if something really catches my eye. I'll start counting bumper stickers then but until that time I'm not too worried. It's just too soon and we'll burn ourselves out with the worrying.

[xmas74]

31. My state, which also has a Dem SOS

(very young and a rising star in the party), a Dem AG who is running for governor and projected to win, a couple of Dem congresspersons and a well-known Dem senator.

2008 was for quite some time considered a statistical tie but it doesn't get mentioned as often. I know that, at least in my county (home of a large university in Missouri) the Dem party scaled down operations and I heard they did it across the state. The biggest focus in Missouri for us wasn't for Obama to win. We poured most of our money into Claire's campaign against that pos Todd Akin.

[pstokely]

62. it was one of the closer uncontested states

nt

[LanternWaste]

10. Welcome back!

Welcome back!

[Agschmid]

13. Yup.

[Amishman]

11. I heard today that water is also wet

There could be a lot of states in play next year depending on who runs... but Missouri is not one of them.

[Mass]

14. Totally meaningless poll at this point.

and a strict reflexion of media in a state that is at best a swing state. Clinton has a lot of bad media. Trump a lot of fawning media (even when they look negative). Missouri sees a lot of change. I would not lose too much time on this poll.

But this does not mean that we should not think about this series of polls and what they mean. May be a vision that involves the entire country and not separate parts of the country, would be a good point to start with.

In particular, as a woman, I am not looking for a grandmother to run the country (or a grandfather for the matter). I am looking to somebody presenting a forward vision for my sons, my husband, and myself. If a woman presents this vision, all the better, but I will not support a woman for the sake of supporting a woman.

[whatthehey]

15. So...exactly same R +9 as 2012 then

That's a good sign if we extrapolate 2012 replication.

[stevenleser]

16. I'm guessing Utah and Wyoming are similar. Not unexpected. nt

[Doingto]

48. Utah and Wyoming are not MIssouri

They are ridiculously conservative states.

[stevenleser]

50. Any state that has only gone Dem once since 1976 is pretty conservative too. nt

[Doingto]

57. False: Bill Clinton won Missouri twice

When was the last time a Democrat won in Utah or Wyoming?

[stevenleser]

59. My apologies. Twice. Since 1980. My point still stands with respect to the OP. nt

[Arugula Latte]

20. Missouri went off the rails several cycles ago.

Scary -- the Christian loons have too much power there.

[xmas74]

22. Why depressing?

Trump will not get the Republican party bid-they won't let it happen. This is great news. Trump does not get the bid and maybe chooses to run third party instead. If it happens he splits the vote in Missouri and the Dem nominee wins.

Hell, Trump won't even win the state during the run-offs. Missouri Dems have a primary while the Missouri Republicans have a caucus. You must be a member of the Missouri Republican Party or have an official member vouch for you in order to attend and cast. The fans of Trump might not get into the caucus, compared to others.

(Source: I live in Missouri and I pay attention. The party liners have all talked about Bush and Huckabee around here.)

[KamaAina]

28. Third party? So Missouri doesn't have a "sore loser law"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027067940

[xmas74]

36. We do have one.

But that doesn't stop write ins or even someone as big of an asshole as Trump throwing shade against everyone in sight.


Still, the poll above is worried about him beating Clinton in the GE. The fact still remains that he won't win the Missouri caucus. They might agree with him and might enjoy his antics but they won't pick him in the caucus.

[KamaAina]

26. Just out of curiosity, how's Bernie doing against The Combover?

[KamaAina]

32. Just as well, it turns out

We found on our Iowa poll that Clinton and Bernie Sanders weren't faring that different from each other in general election match ups against the Republicans and that trend presents itself in Missouri as well. Sanders does worse than Clinton against Bush, trailing 47/34. But his 15 point deficit against Rubio (48/33) is the same as Clinton's, his 9 point deficit against Trump (48/39) is the same as Clinton's, and he actually does a tick better than Clinton against Walker trailing by 12 points compared to her 13 at 46/34. On average Sanders only does a point worse than Clinton in the comparable match ups.

[questionseverything]

34. he does about the same as clinton with every opponent but bush

against bush he does worse//

one thing about this poll...it questions 440 repubs and 352 dems...so how could the repub not win this poll?

the one thing that does stick out is hillarys 59% unfavorable but again since more r's are asked there is no surprise there

[xmas74]

41. And that's the thing.

Repubs tend to be part of the polls more. Maybe they take more time to answer questions or, as has been noted in the past, are more likely to own landlines. Most pollsters call landlines, which leaves out an entire generation that own mostly cell phones.

Computer polls don't work either unless you can allow one voter per person. Even on DU we are an example of that. Think about how many times there have been threads about "DU this poll". Repubs do the same thing.

Besides, it's just too early.

[questionseverything]

42. this one was 80% landlines 20% net

agree about the one person one vote problem

[xmas74]

53. The landlines have proven to be a problem.

It keeps out an entire group of people. Landlines tend to trend older, while the young have left them behind.

I have a landline and get calls like this. The only reason why I have a landline is because I work from home. I also have a cell phone, am registered for everything with my cell but have yet to have even one call on my cell. My landline, otoh, I find myself receiving polling calls an average of once a month.

[pstokely]

64. it's also largely white

probably oversamples rural whites

[davidn3600]

45. There are more Republicans than Democrats in Missouri

It's very unlikely the Democrats are going to win Missouri. It is a reliably red state.

[questionseverything]

56. i tried to find registration stats by party at their sos site

could you share the link?

[Tommy2Tone]

52. BFD

She is losing in Texas as well. Who cares about Missouri.

[ericson00]

60. This is sad. Missouri not only voted Clinton twice, but Obama and Dukakis came very close

thats right, Michael Dukakis only lost the state to Bush Sr. by less than 3 points in 1988 (47.8-51.8) and like people said, it as a statistical tie in 2008. Its no surprise it went for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 by a lot.

I think one of the huge problems with Obama is that while he got high black turnout in the south, he clearly may have further alienated southern whites from the Democratic Party. I don't think its entirely his skin color; his stances on the Middle East don't play too well down there. The whites are somewhat religious too in the South.

Its also why Trump won't be as weak as people think he'll be. Clearly, this guy is to be taken seriously.

[WI_DEM]

63. Not surprising

Sorry, but Missouri has turned more red over the years. Trump's side show would do well there as it would in states like West Virginia and maybe even Kentucky.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. This Is Flavor Of The Week Stuff

Trump's all over the news, the undecideds are reacting to the name. It's a poll apropos of nothing.