Could Hillary have won Arkansas and West Virginia in 2008?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:28:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Could Hillary have won Arkansas and West Virginia in 2008?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Could Hillary have won Arkansas and West Virginia in 2008?  (Read 3708 times)
Fuzzybigfoot
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,211
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 17, 2015, 05:25:27 PM »

If she won the nomination and advanced to the general, I mean. 
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 17, 2015, 05:27:00 PM »
« Edited: May 17, 2015, 05:30:57 PM by Hydera »

Polls show that Hillary was leading in Arkansas once and slightly behind in West Virginia. But most likely it would of went republican if the election was held in the summer of 2008. if she was the candidate then the financial crisis might of pushed it back to tossup but there's an underlying feeling that it probably would of been won by the GOP either way.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 17, 2015, 05:34:49 PM »

She certainly could have. Would she have? Maybe, particularly after the financial crisis.
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 17, 2015, 05:48:12 PM »

If she ran as a great of a campaign as Obama did in 2008 yes she could have. She could have possibly won several states in the south like Bill did especially after the crash.

If the economy stayed healthy then who knows. It would have been a barn-burner beteween her and McCain.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,392
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2015, 05:49:00 PM »

Probably Arkansas, and possibly West Virginia.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,963


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2015, 09:06:42 PM »

Assuming the circumstances were otherwise the same (the economic crisis and Bush's ratings in the cellar), Hillary probably could have won Arkansas.  Bill would have made it a point to campaign heavily there, and the Democrats were much stronger in 2008 (with a Democratic governor, two senators, and state legislature) than they are today.  Perhaps no state has gone down as fast for the Democrats as Arkansas in the last seven years.

West Virginia would have been tougher.  Hillary would probably done a little better than Gore did in 2000 but I would still have to give the state to the Republicans.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2015, 09:11:56 PM »

Perhaps no state has gone down as fast for the Democrats as Arkansas in the last seven years.

If there is a political science PhD candidate out there struggling to find a thesis topic, I think an anatomy of the shockingly rapid and abrupt collapse of the Democratic Party in Arkansas between 2010 and 2014 would be a very interesting topic.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2015, 09:29:20 PM »

They would've been A LOT closer, but she certainly wouldn't have won them.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,500
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2015, 09:55:56 PM »

WV was one of the few states where McCain outperformed Bush. Hillary would have come closer, but she wouldn't have won it. Same goes for AR.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2015, 10:42:26 PM »

Hillary got more primary votes in WV than Obama got in the general there.  I think she would have carried both.  Barely.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,096
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2015, 11:44:01 AM »

If she won the nomination and advanced to the general, I mean. 

She was favored to.

Arkansas carried for a 2004 George W. Bush by 9.76 percentage points.

West Virginia was just over 13 percentage points.

Hillary Clinton would've had higher numbers than nominee and winner Barack Obama, in the general election, with whites, women, and men nationwide. How many more percentage points? I'm thinking at least 50 percent higher. So, take that 7.26, by which President Obama won the popular vote, and increase it to at least 10.89. That's a minimum. And that would've been a national shift of 13.35 percentage points. In theory, that would've been mathematically enough to flip both states.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,096
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 18, 2015, 11:46:09 AM »

Perhaps no state has gone down as fast for the Democrats as Arkansas in the last seven years.

If there is a political science PhD candidate out there struggling to find a thesis topic, I think an anatomy of the shockingly rapid and abrupt collapse of the Democratic Party in Arkansas between 2010 and 2014 would be a very interesting topic.

I think the state comports with its historical performance. In other words, Arkansas is one of the ten worst states historically in having carried for presidential winners. In a way, it wasn't surprising it went in the opposite direction of the country on the 2004/2008 national shift.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,096
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 18, 2015, 11:50:37 AM »
« Edited: May 18, 2015, 11:53:16 AM by DS0816 »

WV was one of the few states where McCain outperformed Bush. Hillary would have come closer, but she wouldn't have won it. Same goes for AR.

That's not accurate.

You can't just take Barack Obama's numbers, nationally and state by state, and figure, "Well, what's good for Barack Obama is good enough for Hillary Clinton; and, of course, no need to think more deeply on this topic."

Instead of Barack Obama, it would have been Hillary Clinton as the 2008 Democratic nominee. So, you have to consider how she would have performed nationally with the demographic groups which include male-vs.-female (Obama won over males nationally with 49 percent; he carried females nationally with 56 percent), the voting-age groups (Would Hillary have seen seniors shift from R+5, from 2004, to R+8, from 2008, had she rather than Obama been her party's nominee?), and race.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,995
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2015, 12:23:58 PM »

I believe she would have won both, with WV actually being a more comfortable win.
Logged
HAnnA MArin County
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,037
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2015, 01:03:42 PM »

Yes. Kentucky would have been much closer, too. She also would have won Missouri.
Logged
Thunderbird is the word
Zen Lunatic
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,021


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2015, 01:22:42 PM »

WV was one of the few states where McCain outperformed Bush. Hillary would have come closer, but she wouldn't have won it. Same goes for AR.

That's not accurate.

You can't just take Barack Obama's numbers, nationally and state by state, and figure, "Well, what's good for Barack Obama is good enough for Hillary Clinton; and, of course, no need to think more deeply on this topic."

Instead of Barack Obama, it would have been Hillary Clinton as the 2008 Democratic nominee. So, you have to consider how she would have performed nationally with the demographic groups which include male-vs.-female (Obama won over males nationally with 49 percent; he carried females nationally with 56 percent), the voting-age groups (Would Hillary have seen seniors shift from R+5, from 2004, to R+8, from 2008, had she rather than Obama been her party's nominee?), and race.

I also think that with Hillary as the nominee you might have seen lower youth voter turnout, not sure what effect that would have nationally.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2015, 03:08:39 PM »

McCain would've won both, albeit narrowly in the case of Arkansas. West Virginia wasn't coming home.

Clinton would have comfortably carried Missouri, though. Not sure if she would've kept Indiana, though, I doubt the Clinton campaign would've put in the effort in Indiana.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,562
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2015, 04:14:23 PM »

I'm quite confident that she would've won both, along with Missouri, but lost Indiana. KY and NC are question marks in my head; she would've done much better in the first and a little worse in the second, but I don't know if it would've been enough to swing the result.

The more salient question might be whether Clinton can be competitive there in 2016, and I think the answer to that is "no longer".
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,392
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2015, 05:27:58 PM »

My guess of what would have happened...



Hillary Clinton: 355 EVs
John McCain: 183 EVs

National Popular Vote: Hillary +6%
Arkansas: Hillary +4%
Missouri: Hillary +2%
West Virginia: McCain +3%
Kentucky: McCain +7%
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,096
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2015, 01:42:50 PM »

I'm quite confident that she would've won both, along with Missouri, but lost Indiana. KY and NC are question marks in my head; she would've done much better in the first and a little worse in the second, but I don't know if it would've been enough to swing the result.

The more salient question might be whether Clinton can be competitive there in 2016, and I think the answer to that is "no longer".

No, meaning you're right, because the states Arkansas and West Virginia won't go Democratic unless the party is winning by at least 15 percentage points nationwide with a likely landslide of carrying 80 percent of available states. That would include campaign strategy to include both states in shaping the map for that winning candidate. In theory the winning Democrat would probably carry those states at least 12 percentage points less than the national margin. (It might be that they'd be bare wins.)
Logged
Stranger in a strange land
strangeland
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2015, 01:53:57 PM »

Yes, but not by much.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2015, 01:55:41 PM »

I'm quite confident that she would've won both, along with Missouri, but lost Indiana. KY and NC are question marks in my head; she would've done much better in the first and a little worse in the second, but I don't know if it would've been enough to swing the result.

The more salient question might be whether Clinton can be competitive there in 2016, and I think the answer to that is "no longer".

No, meaning you're right, because the states Arkansas and West Virginia won't go Democratic unless the party is winning by at least 15 percentage points nationwide with a likely landslide of carrying 80 percent of available states. That would include campaign strategy to include both states in shaping the map for that winning candidate. In theory the winning Democrat would probably carry those states at least 12 percentage points less than the national margin. (It might be that they'd be bare wins.)

Just look at how different AR and WV would have likely been in 2008 compared to how they'll likely vote in 2016 if Clinton ran in either year.  A lot can change in a decade, and you can't project 2014's politics onto how AR and WV relate to the Democratic Party too far into the future.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,096
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2015, 02:38:57 PM »
« Edited: May 19, 2015, 02:43:10 PM by DS0816 »

I'm quite confident that she would've won both, along with Missouri, but lost Indiana. KY and NC are question marks in my head; she would've done much better in the first and a little worse in the second, but I don't know if it would've been enough to swing the result.

The more salient question might be whether Clinton can be competitive there in 2016, and I think the answer to that is "no longer".

No, meaning you're right, because the states Arkansas and West Virginia won't go Democratic unless the party is winning by at least 15 percentage points nationwide with a likely landslide of carrying 80 percent of available states. That would include campaign strategy to include both states in shaping the map for that winning candidate. In theory the winning Democrat would probably carry those states at least 12 percentage points less than the national margin. (It might be that they'd be bare wins.)

Just look at how different AR and WV would have likely been in 2008 compared to how they'll likely vote in 2016 if Clinton ran in either year.  A lot can change in a decade, and you can't project 2014's politics onto how AR and WV relate to the Democratic Party too far into the future.

Had Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, been the Democratic presidential nominee of 2008, what I'm saying is that campaign and the shaping of the map would not have been exactly the same. I think you know this. But, it needs to be mentioned.

When I mention the Old Confederacy states (and Arkansas is one of them), they have a terrible history, with where they rank, in having carried for presidential winners.

The average percentage of states carried, between the thus far 57 presidential elections (1789 to 2012), is between 69 and 70 percent. North Carolina and Virginia are on par with each other and the average (which by today's standard is a presidential winner having carried 34/35 states). Florida, bolstered by the fact it has been carried in 20 of the last 22 cycles (dating back to 1928), ranks among the Top 20. Tennessee, also bolstered by having carried for 22 of 24 winners (between 1912 to 2004), is a little lower than Florida.

The rest of the eleven Old Confederacy states rate historically approximately 60 percent or worse (in the 50s percentile range). Alabama has the worst record of all states. It is No. 50! Mississippi is next to last. And Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas rank with Alabama and Mississippi between Nos. 41 to 50. They are among the ten worst historically.

It wouldn't surprise me, given we've moved into a realigning presidential period for the Democrats (on the House side there is realignment for the Republicans), to see Arkansas go in the opposite direction of the country. (Between the Republicans' winning maps of 1860 to the 1980s, Arkansas backed a lot of hell of a lot of losing Democrats!) And, by some perhaps form of kinship, border south West Virginia is going in that direction as well. It's telling that those two states had more Republican-level support over the last two presidential cycles, 2008 and 2012, won decisively by the Democratic Party (and Barack Obama), than all those Old Confederacy states with the exception of Alabama. (And, between 2008 and 2012, Alabama averaged R+21.88 to Arkansas at R+21.77. West Virginia was at R+19.89, above the nine remaining Old Confederacy states and No. 4-ranked Louisiana and its two-cycle average of R+17.91.)
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 11 queries.