McCain wins Missouri

That also makes Obama the first Democrat to win without Missouri.

270toWin.com

Dear Friends :

Thanks again for excellent website with such great information during the past elections. I hope you continue informing. There is a lot of talk about 2012 now.

What the November 4 Exit Polls and other previous studies indicate :

The most astonishing result is YOUTH.

It seems that American Youth have been evolving towards being less Religious, less Affiliated to Religions, less church going. More tolerant of Racial and Sexual Diversity. And more sympathetic and suited to vote for the Democrats. This evolution may be due to Technology.

Youth and millennials in particular are becoming more diverse and multiracial.

American Youth was different to the rest of the World for being very conservative and Reagan Friendly and Republican friendly. But something has triggered a different evolution.

Perhaps the notion of being part of a big “Empire” like the Rome of Augustus, an Empire with little foreign troubles and winning in the international struggles against the enemies was the cause of such Reagan to Bush period of Youth Conservatism. That was a world of economic and military security until September 11.

And now History is turning or the pendulum swings in the contrary direction.

So, Youth is the hot spot of this Great Historical Change.

http://milenials.blogspot.com/

http://raciality.blogspot.com/

Vicente Duque

…it realli no surprise because McCain was winning there about 30 days b4 the election & then it started getting close but…McCain couldnt close the deal on many states this election sooo…he shouldve been more on the issue of can we realli trust Obama and is he too liberal?…I think he couldve won alot of other states like even Iowa (and if he didnt give up on Michigan?) but we all knew Obama wouldnt win Georgia, North Dakota, montana, and even 1 nebraska vote sooo…

Its pretty clear now that this couldve been a close election…but u always have a money issue that McCain had…Obama had sooo much money 4 his campaign that it was a realli big blow out at the end…

I mean u saw McCain winning 4-5 months ago on the electoral map by a big number & then you get closer to the election day and u c Obama win by sooo much…

270toWin: Independent of the analysis, it is worth mentioning that the closeness of the 2000 and 2004 races in the Electoral College is an anomaly — if you look back at the historical maps, most elections have tended to break significantly for one candidate or the other, even where the popular vote might have been close.

I thought this Election would be close like John Kerry and George W. Bush…I thought McCain would come close or win Florida, Nevada, maybe colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, maybe even Iowa if he got lucky, he wouldnt even have to win Pennsylvania if he got all of those swing states including Indiana, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and maybe even Michigan (again if he hadnt given up on Michigan) sooo yes it was in my mind a lucky streak for Mr. Obama in that sense!

Historically, Missouri, Nevada, and Ohio have played a role in electing presidents since Nev. joined the union in 1864 — eight years after the Republicans’ first election, in 1856, which they dealt in a loss. (In 1864, Abraham Lincoln won all three in his re-election. We have never seen a winner prevail while losing all three.)

Prior to a 2008 president-elect Barack Obama, of the past four winning Democrats — John Kennedy (1960), Lyndon Johnson (1964), Jimmy Carter (1976), and Bill Clinton (1992, 1996) — half of them won all three (Johnson, Clinton), while the other two went two-for-three (Kennedy lost Ohio; Carter failed to carry Nev.).

Though a 2008 GOP John McCain prevailed in Mo. with less than one full percentage point. — reportedly between 3,500 to 4,000 votes — Obama could, from what I understand, ask for a recount of Mo. But given what’s going in with financial crises, and his electoral vote was well over 300, plus with the probability McCain’s vote count would not vanish … there would be no wise purpose.

There is something positive here: While having already mentioned that no winning candidate has ever prevailed while losing all three leading bellwethers of Mo., Nev., and Ohio … it is true that every winning Democrat, prior, to Obama in 2008 had carried Mo. … and, as been well-documented, it is true that no Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio … so maybe we’re seeing some different go on here with some bellwethers status.

I am getting the feeling we are now entering a period in presidential elections in which bellwethers or historical ties — which also play like superstitions — finally come to an end. In the past, no Democrat had ever won without Texas. Election 1992 saw an end to that with a mitigating factor: Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush, unseated by Clinton, and third-party candidate Ross Perot both hailed from the Lone Star State. In 1996, Kansas’s Bob Dole — with New York’s Jack Kemp his running made — made it official. And West Virginia has moved to the GOP. In the past, and ever since W.Va. entered the union in 1863, this state had backed every winning Democrat (minus Woodrow Wilson’s uncommon 1916 re-election, in which he won without carrying his home state of New Jersey) — and plenty of losing Democrats (over the last 30 years, Carter’s failed 1980 re-election bid, and it was one of ten states that backed Michael Dukakis in 1988).

For the Democrats to prevail without Mo. … perhaps the next winning Republican will manage without Ohio. It would be nice because no contender wants to think that his fate rides with the will of just one state. As if that one state — yes, a part of the party’s domain — is an election kingmaker. With “270 to win,” it’s not Mo. or Ohio — or Nev. — it’s the math: 270 needed to win.

You’re right, 9.

Good observation.

Looks like the Republicans remain reliant on Ohio in order to win presidential elections.

That may change.