Would Arkansas vote for Democrats in 2008?

[gogmagog]

From Rasmussen reports today:

Clinton leads all Republican challengers in Arkansas by huge double digit margins. The closest GOP hopeful is Rudy Giuliani, but he trails Clinton by eighteen percentage points, 55% to 37%. Clinton leads Fred Thompson by nineteen points (55% to 36%), John McCain by 23 points (56% to 33%), and Mitt Romney by 32 points (60% to 32%).

What do you think?

[Jaggerjack]

Maybe (though I personally think, "No")

[wdecker1]

Yes, the Clintons are still popular there.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I fully expect Hillary to win Arkansas in 2008.  Arkansas is a much more Democratic state than people think, it's the bluest state in the South.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes. There's no reason it wouldn't, especially against Giuliani.

[Tender Branson]

I already thought that she could win it about half a year ago. If more polls in the future support this I can´t see why it shouldn´t vote for Clinton ...

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Yes, I strongly believe that Hillary can and will carry Arkansas.

Even with Huckabee as the GOP VP nominee.

[Person Man]

I fully expect Hillary to win Arkansas in 2008.  Arkansas is a much more Democratic state than people think, it's the bluest state in the South.

Can't be bluer than Florida or Virginia. Clinton will Sweep VA,MO,OH,CO,NM,NV,IA before Arkansas. Even if she is more popular in AR than those other places where she gets beat bad or ties right now. The GOP will spend so much time on the defensive, that those first tier states will go unmanned.

[AkSaber]

It could, but I don't think it will.

[poughies]

One thing people always forget is that state parties DO make a difference in national elections. They provide the organization..... so in a close race I suspect that Clinton would do better in Arkansas than in Missouri....

[Verily]

Yes, I strongly believe that Hillary can and will carry Arkansas.

Even with Huckabee as the GOP VP nominee.

I agree. At this point, I think she'd win Arkansas before any other state in the South.

[M]

I tend to think yes, even before FL and VA- because Bill will campaign there heavily (unlike Gore, Hillary knows how to use him effectively).

[Person Man]

One thing people always forget is that state parties DO make a difference in national elections. They provide the organization..... so in a close race I suspect that Clinton would do better in Arkansas than in Missouri....

Yeah, Missouri is much is a red state, even if the GOP has to fight for every vote above 48%.
In Arkansas, the GOP will have to fight for every vote above 45% in 2008.

[jokerman]

Also remember that Pryor may face only token opposition and thus could win his race by a landslide, helping the Presidential candidate.

[Person Man]

Hmmm...I still don't know how we are going to win the conservative south and lose the independent west. Seems like overreach to me.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The south isn't conservative its populist. As the GOP becomes more populist expect it to increase its hold on dixie.

[Person Man]

What is conservative, then? Indiana and Utah then, lol.
Then again, Nashville is solidly conservative.  There's a bunch of fundy hicks make 80 a year there.


and what do you mean by "populist"?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Social Conservative/economic statist

[Lief 🗽]

The Deep South is conservative: we'll probably never win it. However, the outer South (Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee) is fairly populist/center-left economically. If Democrats stress those issues, instead of wedge issues, then it's easy to win the outer south. Realistically, the west can get us a total of about 30 electoral votes. The outer South can be up to 60.

[Hatman 🍁]

Yes, easily

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Socialism fails and the GOP are becoming national socialists do we REALLY need a second socialist party in the dems?

[Lief 🗽]

The Republican party isn't socialist, at all. They are a pro-corporation, pro-big business, pro-military spending party.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The GOP is a corporate-socialist party in the model of the NSDAP and fascist parties but more moderate.

[RJ]

Arkansas, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are what I call the old border region. They're  socially conservative and appear to be Republican mainstays along with the rest of the South, however I think there's more of a Democratic base their than people realize. Let's not forget since 1900 all of these states haved turned Democrat more times than Republican. Even Dukakis carried one of these states!

I'd go so far as to say if Clinton carries one of these states she may win them all.

[tarheel-leftist85]

The Deep South is conservative: we'll probably never win it. However, the outer South (Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee) is fairly populist/center-left economically. If Democrats stress those issues, instead of wedge issues, then it's easy to win the outer south. Realistically, the west can get us a total of about 30 electoral votes. The outer South can be up to 60.

Atl least someone realizes this.  Leftists can and will win the Peripheral South so long as they tout their *P*opulist (not George Wallace *p*opulist) credentials.  The Interior West is an electoral mirage--there is simply too stong of a strain of militant libertarianism for it to ever be reliably supportive of true leftist Democratic candidates.  Even with the influx of Hispanics to the region, I think we may see widespread disfranchisement similar to what we'll probably see in the Deep South with African-Americans (IIRC, aren't some of the highest totals of voting rights greivances in in Georgia and Arizona?).  When it comes to Northeast and Midwest states, we may see a similar, yet milder, situation in, particularly, New Jersey and Michigan.