| Is Missouri really a swing state anymore? Has it even been a swing state in recent history? In reporting the result of his latest poll Rasmussen calls Missouri a "classic swing state in Presidential Elections that almost always awards its Electoral College Votes to the candidate who wins the White House." While there is no denying the fact that Missouri has given its EVs to the eventual President in 23 of the 25 Presidential elections in the 20th century, and both elections in the 21st century, I don't believe that Missouri is the harbinger that pundits make it out to be, nor has it been for more than two decades. Having lived in Missouri for the past four years, and for 9 of the past 12 years, this feels like a Republican state that occasionally gives a state-wide victory to a Democrat. Essentially, we are a Republican state that will sometimes casts a protest vote against the Republicans, not necessarily for the Democrats.
The last time Missouri gave 50+% to a Democrat was 1976 when Carter got 51.1% to Ford's 47.5%. Since then the Dem take is 44.4% (1980), 40.0% (1984), 47.9% (1988), 44.1% (1992), 47.5% (1996), 47.1% (2000), 46.1% (2004). Sure, Clinton carried Missouri in 1992 and 1996, but would he have done so without Perot? The numbers from 1988, 2000 and 2004 don't seem to support the notion that Clinton would have won Missouri without Perot. The numbers reveal what I feel in my gut as a resident of this state - that we are a lean Republican state and that the general ceiling for a Democratic Presidential candidate here is about 47%. Lets look at the Dem. take in the elections of 1980 - 2004 for Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana below and see which one looks most like a swing state.
1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Iowa: 38.6%, 45.9%, 54.7%, 43.3%, 50.3%, 48.5%, 49.2%
Missouri: 44.4%, 40.0%, 47.9%, 44.1%, 47.5%, 47.1%, 46.1%
Arkansas: 47.5%, 38.3%, 42.2%, 53.2%, 53.7%, 45.9%, 44.6%
Louisiana: 45.8%, 38.2%, 44.1%, 45.6%, 52.0%, 44.9%, 42.2%
On average Missouri gives 45.3% of its vote to the Dem. candidate with a standard deviation of 2.8% for all seven elections since 1980. If you take away 1992 and 1996 and only count elections when there were two major candidates, Missouri's numbers don't really change, the average is 45.1% and the standard deviation is 3.1%.
Iowa has the highest support for Dem. candidates, but also has by far the most variability in supporting the Dem. candidate. For all seven elections the average is 47.2% and the standard deviation of 5.2%. Taking away 1992 and 1996, the numbers stay about the same - 47.4% average and standard deviation of 5.9%.
Unlike Missouri and Iowa, Arkansas' numbers differ greatly when you exclude the Clinton elections (for obvious reasons). For all seven elections Arkansas' average support for the Dem. candidate is 46.5% and the standard deviation is 5.6%. Take away 1992 and 1996 and the average is 43.7% while the standard deviation of 3.6%.
Louisiana is more like Missouri and Iowa in that their average and standard deviation numbers are not greatly affected by the Clinton elections. For all seven elections Louisiana's average support for the Dem. candidate is 44.7% and the standard deviation is 4.2%. Take away 1992 and 1996 and the average is 43.0% while the standard deviation of 3.0%.
Of these four states, Iowa has voted for the loser twice (1988 and 2000) in the past seven elections. The other three states have all voted for the winner in all seven elections. Only one of these states has given the winner a 50+% majority in all seven election, and it is NOT Missouri, it is Arkansas. While it is easy to dismiss the last point since Arkansas is the only state of the four to give its popular form governor over 50% in 1992 and 1996, it is still worth noting that for the other five elections Arkansas and Louisiana resemble Missouri to about the same extent in average support of Dem. candidates and standard deviation - Arkansas is a little closer in average and Louisiana is a little closer in standard deviation. Excluding 1992 and 1996, Iowa differs from Missouri most in average support of Dem. candidates and standard deviation.
If you insist on looking at all seven elections since 1980 the state that most resembles Missouri is Louisiana in terms of average support of Dem. candidates and standard deviation. The state that least resembles Missouri over the past seven elections in average support of Dem. candidates is Iowa, however in terms of standard deviation it is Arkansas (by a small amount over Iowa) due to the Clinton elections.
So, the way I see it there are two ways to interpret this data: (1) Iowa is not a swing state, since it resembles Missouri the least in terms of supporting Dem. candidates, while Arkansas and Louisiana, which resemble Missouri quite a bit in their support of Dem. candidates and certainly much more so than Iowa, are swing states; (2) Missouri, which closely resembles Arkansas and Louisiana in its support of Dem. candidates, is a relatively reliable red state, while Iowa is a genuine swing state.
It is obvious that I prefer interpretation (2). While there is no disputing the fact that Missouri has voted for the winner in the past 7 Presidential elections (and 25 of the last 27), I think it is overly simplistic to say my home state is a swing state, let alone a "classic swing state" as Rasmussen puts it. The fact is that over the past seven elections the nation has elected a Republican 5 times and, as a Republican state, we too voted for the Republican. When the right split its vote in 1992 and 1996 with the candidacy of Perot, like many other Republican states we gave our EVs to the Dem. candidate via a plurality victory, not a majority victory. As far as states that voted Republican in 2004 that I think are more likely to go Democratic this year than Missouri, I think the list is quite long: New Mexico, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, Alaska and North Carolina for sure. I think all eleven of these states will give a higher percentage of their vote to Obama than will Missouri. In fact, even though the current polling says otherwise, I think Mississippi and Georgia have a better chance of being in the Obama column than Missouri. At least they have large black populations that could come out in droves and put Obama over the top should the white voters remain under enthused by McCain. Missouri lacks this Obama constituency. We are basically a southern state without a large black population. This last point is too often missed by mainstream pundits: we are NOT a traditional Midwestern swing state like Iowa or Wisconsin or Ohio - we are a relatively reliable southern Republican state like Arkansas when it comes to Presidential elections. Sure, like Arkansas we will send moderate/conservative Dems. to Washington as Representatives and Senators (Skelton, McCaskill), we will even put a Dem. in the Governor's mansion, but we won't give our EVs to the Dems. in Presidential elections. So the next time you see a pundit or pollster claim Missouri is a swing state, just ignore it. The next few decades are going to see numerous Democratic administrations, and I am certain that in more cases than not these Democratic administrations will have won without the support of the Show-Me state. |
