Where is Missouri?

Missouri has been a bellwether state in national politics since St. Louis had the World's Fair (minus 1956). I will leave the complex reasons behind this to the Missouri historians, but I think it can be summed up with a brief look at its demographics and geography. St. Louis is largely a midwest city with strong ties to manufacturing and the unions, and who also has a largely segregated population. As for the remainder of the state, they can be grossly stereotyped as either having Great Plains or the Southern tendencies, and are more like their neighboring states than they are similar to St. Louis.

It would be so much easier figure out where Missouri is going this election if Missouri had just two groups of voters. For example, Illinois has Chicago and everywhere else, and in most elections, Chicago wins. In Kansas, it is the opposite, with the rural areas typically beating Topeka and Wichita. But Missouri? The southern and great plains groups typically go republican while St. Louis (and Kansas City to be fair) goes democrat.

The Bootheel:
The southeastern United States has been a republican stronghold for years. The past two democrat Presidents were both from the south, and largely won because of key "upsets" in the south. But even Al Gore couldn't pull off Tennessee. The south has become even more firmly republican over the past 8 years and has done so largely on the backs of the Neocon movement in the Republican party. It is an odd combination of very conservative moral values and big government to benefit those already in power. But after 8 years of Neocon gluttony, the house of cards is collapsing quickly. Barack Obama is attempting to re-draw the Southeastern map with McCain struggling in Southeastern states such as Virginia and North Carolina. Will that translate into Obama doing better in Southeast Missouri?

Simply put, No. Obama's problem in southeast Missouri is that it is nothing like Virginia or North Carolina. The South is reinforcing its two distinct regions: Coastal South and Deep South. Coastal South is fast growing, largely educated, and distinctly cosmopolitan. Deep south is, well, lets just say they fit the same stereotypes that they've had for the past 30 years and are still largely controlled by values voters. Then add race into the mix. In North Carolina and Virginia, quality education has largely resulted in equality and a recession of racial problems. Even Georgia seems more progressive than Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kentucky. I hate to say this, but Obama cannot win Southeast Missouri because of race and faith.

The Missouri Plains:
The second republican stronghold in Missouri is in the north. These voters are a different brand of republicans: still social conservatives, but more in favor of small government. And after 8 years of Bush and his neocons, they had enough and were ready to bail. In Iowa, they jumped ship very quickly and appear to have swung into the D column. The remainder of the Great Plains States have trickled back to the republicans largely because John McCain is their small government maverick.

They are against the war, and against Washington, but they feel they can improve things more by keeping their guys in power. To Northern Missouri, Barack Obama is more change than they want.

But I still have not answered the central question: Where does all of this leave Missouri on November 4th? The answer revolves strictly around turnout. If Palin's star continues to fade, then I would lower turnout expectations in Southeast MO. If McCain continues to show incompetency concerning the economy, then I would lower turnout expectations in Northern MO. And if Obama's stock continues to rise over the next 35 days? St. Louis and Kansas City will bring the election home.

Winning Missouri has always been key to presidential candidates, but not because the entire state is a bellwether. It is a bellwether because the balance of turnout on election day results in a winner than reflects a region of our country larger than any one state.