Talk Elections

SUSA poll of Kentucky:

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Day2_MAYPOLL_.pdf

Paul 48%
Clinton 44%

men: Paul +17
women: Clinton +8
age 18-34: tie
age 35-49: Paul +9
age 50-64: Clinton +1
age 65+: Paul +6
education:
high school or less: Clinton +2
some college: Paul +6
4 years college degree or more: Paul +6

Those are ... great numbers for Hillary in KY.

Considering Paul is from KY and is highly popular there.

With this result, it's likely that Clinton would actually lead Christie, Ryan and Cruz there.

Maybe the Southern candidates Huckabee and Bush are ahead, but you never know ...

It also means that CO is 1 point more pro-Paul than KY right now ...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=191461.0

In 2012, CO was 28 points more Democratic than KY ... :P

It looks like Paul has a home state disadvantage. Those who know him the best like him the least.

His approvals are high in the state, so that's wrong.

Maybe they still don't like the idea of him as President.

Maybe, but more likely I think the case is that Obama was absolutely wrong for Kentucky, and having someone else on the Dem side is sort of a shock.

That's actually really close, especially considering the fact that Rand Paul lives in Kentucky. It would be interesting to see how the other 2016 GOP contenders fare in Kentucky.

Hahaha. No.

He is not "highly popular" here.

Nope, PPP last polled KY (in January) - and found Paul leading Clinton by 6:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=184307.0

Interesting. Clinton might be competitive here against a corrupt Northeastern loudmouth or a swarthy Cuban immigrant-lover.

Why is Rand Paul even still a contender after his plagiarism scandal?

If a Democrat had been caught in a scandal like that, they wouldn't even have a chance of being reelected to the Senate.

If Hillary makes nice with the tobacco industry, then KY could truly be a tossup.

If Paul only leads by 4, then she's probably tied with or leading against the other GOPers.

Republicans apparently can get away with more. It's a long story. Authoritarian right-wingers (which clearly excludes the pure libertarians... and the old-fashioned liberal Republicans who have largely begun to vote Democratic) generally have so little optimism about human goodness that they expect the worst of human nature -- and their politicians usually deliver the worst.

Democrats have been willing to sacrifice their politicians when they misbehave. Anthony Weiner. Pete Filson.  Kwame Kilpatrick. (I called him "Krookpatrick"). Lest we forget, the memorable William "Cold Cash" Jefferson.

You'd be quite a fool to think states like West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc. are going to behave from now on like they did when Obama was on the ticket ... All three of those states have way more registered Democrats than Republicans, and all three still consistently elect Democrats on the local level.  Against a Republican voters in those states might see as liberal (Christie) or vs. a weak Republican candidate (Cruz), Hillary would have a great shot to win all three.

There are five distinct Clinton-but-not-Obama states that Bill Clinton won twice and Barack Obama got clobbered in -- twice: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Also of interest will be Georgia and Missouri.


state         Kerry loss  '04    Obama loss '08
         

AR              54-44                       59-39           
KY              59-40                       57-41
LA              57-42                       59-40
TN              57-43                       57-42
WV             56-43                       56-43                 

GA              58-41                       52-47
MO             53-46                       49-49

If you can see a pattern -- tell me what it is. I'd like to know.

They could become Vice President.

Yes he is, even among many Democrats.

No he is not.

And New Hampshire is only 2 points behind.

You won't win this argument. Bandit believes that Bush only won KY in 2004 because of voter fraud.

Okay, now I know.

by the way, Bandit, do you live in the Louisville area, because you may very well be someone I know.

I live in Bellevue.

Nevermind, I don't think I've ever been there.

No one seems to be talking about Paul winning 29% of black voters...

The high support for Rand Paul among black voters is probably due to the small sample size another poll had McConnell winning 25% of black voters which is extremely unlikely.

2000 would be needed to see a pattern, IMO.  Those are traditionally Democrat-friendly states, some of which still prefer Democrats locally and/or for the Senate, but they're simply not going to vote for a liberal from Massachusetts (and also a lousy candidate) or a Black liberal from Illinois.

state       Gore loss                 Kerry loss              Obama loss
                     '00                          '04                           '08

AR              51-46                       54-44                       59-39            
KY              57-41                       59-40                       57-41
LA              53-45                       57-42                       59-40
TN              51-48                       57-43                       57-42
WV             52-46                       56-43                       56-43                  

GA              55-43                       58-41                       52-47
MO             50-47                       53-46                       49-49


Bill Clinton won every one of these states (but Georgia only once); neither Kerry nor Obama ever did (although Obama came close to winning Missouri in 2008)

Despite winning by landslide margins in the Far West and Northeastern Quadrant of the US, Barack Obama lost the Louisiana-West Virginia arc almost as badly as Walter Mondale did in 1984. That could reflect a 'poor match for political culture' more than anything else. Kerry was a horrible match for those states, too.

Georgia and Missouri may now be more similar to each other politically than any two other states even if their histories are very different. (Greater KC +St L within Missouri = Greater ATL within otherwise arch-conservative states?) I can hardly predict how they go in 2016, except that they probably go together.

Now let's look at two states that Bill Clinton never won -- VA and NC:

state       Gore loss                 Kerry loss              Obama WIN
                     '00                          '04                           '08

VA             52-44                     54-45                         53-46            
NC            56-43                     56-43                          50-49

The (white) swing vote between 1996 and 2000 in the South  can vote for a Southern Democrat attuned to and connected to Southern political culture, but not for a d@mnyankee Northerner. Gore may have been from Tennessee, but he forgot his Southern political roots. Barack Obama ended up with the non-swing Democratic vote in the Mountain and Deep South (unions and blacks). Gore and Kerry still did well enough in the Northeast,  Midwest, and Far West to come close (Florida would have won the election for either) but did badly elsewhere.

Northern Democrats readily vote for a Southern moderate against a right-wing Republican. 

Virginia isn't really Southern anymore.  Since 1948 it had voted for only one Democratic nominee for President before Barack Obama (LBJ in his 60-40 blowout). 2008 may have seemed a fluke with Virginia, but 2012 showed otherwise.  The state is becoming almost Northern in its demographics.  Early polls show Hillary Clinton with unambiguous leads in Virginia and North Carolina.