Back to web version
Democratic split will dog Obama in Missouri
By E. THOMAS McCLANAHANThe Kansas City Star
Can he win in November? That may come down to whether he can win in Missouri.
Missouri is one of the nation’s leading bellwether states; it has picked the winner in every presidential contest since 1900 with the exception of 1956, when state voters went for Adlai Stevenson rather than President Eisenhower.
For Obama, taking Missouri will be tough, but not impossible.
The deep divisions that have appeared in the Democratic electorate in the Obama-Clinton battle were apparent in Missouri in February, when the state’s primary was conducted. Obama won by a single percentage point.
The question is whether the white, working-class Missouri Democrats who voted for Clinton will turn out for Obama in November. George Connor, acting head of the Political Science Department at Missouri State University, has his doubts.
“I don’t think everybody in outstate Missouri who voted for Clinton is automatically going to vote for Obama,” he said. “That will make it harder for him to carry the state.”
For Missouri Democrats, the key to victory in a statewide race is running up big totals in Kansas City and St. Louis, while diluting Republican margins in outstate counties. Thanks to the evenly balanced character of the state, decisive wins for either party are rare.
In 2002, former Republican Sen. Jim Talent beat incumbent Sen. Jean Carnahan, a Democrat. Margin of victory: a mere 21,000 votes.
Four years later, Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, unseated Talent in another squeaker. Margin of victory: 48,000 votes out of 2.1 million cast.
McCaskill won big in the cities but she was also able to claim the sort of rural background that seems beyond Obama’s reach, given his East Coast persona.
McCaskill was born in Rolla, in central Missouri. She grew up in small towns. She announced her candidacy at a feed mill that once employed her father. And on Election Day, thanks to the emphasis her campaign put on rural Missouri, she carried 11 counties she lost in an earlier, unsuccessful race for governor.
By contrast, Connor noted, “Obama can’t be folksy.” But that doesn’t mean his candidacy should be written off in Missouri.
“He’s got a hell of a stump speech, he’s got charisma and appeal,” Connor said. “He could generate some fire among voters who have never participated. This is why I think he stands a chance. It’s not just that he’s African American. It’s not just the racial thing, but the fact that he has been able to energize new voters and bring people into the process.”
Key areas to watch: Suburbs like Kirkwood in the eastern part of the state or Belton in the Kansas City area, home to large numbers of white, culturally conservative “lunchpail” Democrats. If Obama is to win, he will have to turn out those voters.
Yet during the primaries those are the voters Obama has had difficulty attracting. If that pattern holds in November, Obama is unlikely to win Missouri.
Could he lose here and still win the presidency? It’s possible. One Republican consultant points out that Missouri’s bellwether status isn’t quite what it used to be.
The state has been trending steadily Republican for more than two decades, meaning Republican presidential margins have been greater in Missouri than for the nation as a whole. (The Star’s Steve Kraske also touches on this subject in his column on Page B3.)
In 2004 George W. Bush carried Missouri by 7.2 percent. But nationally, his winning margin was 2.5 percent. Twenty-four years earlier, Ronald Reagan’s Missouri margin over Jimmy Carter was nearly 3 points below his national margin.
Despite this shift, the state still has significant predictive value, thanks to its balanced mix of urban and rural, North and South. Bottom line: Obama is facing a much more challenging fall campaign than the polls currently suggest.