AR-Polling Company, Inc: Clinton leads Christie by 2 and Paul by 3

[Mr. Morden]

Polling Company, Inc. poll of Arkansas:

http://freebeacon.com/tom-cotton-in-dead-heat-with-mark-pryor-for-arkansas-senate/

Hillary Clinton (D) 44%
Chris Christie (R) 42%

Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
Rand Paul (R) 45%

[Tender Branson]

Yeah, ARK is in play with Hillary ...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

[Flake]

*adds 6 more electoral votes for the democrats*

[LiberalJunkie]

If she leads Christie she leads all.

[barfbag]

*adds 6 more electoral votes for the democrats*

So there's no need for Arkansas which is a solid Republican state to even vote in the next election because of a poll three years in advance showing a Democrat who has yet to enter the race being up 44-42? We should all assume Arkansas will vote the opposite way it usually does? I hope you're joking.

[pbrower2a]

*adds 6 more electoral votes for the democrats*

So there's no need for Arkansas which is a solid Republican state to even vote in the next election because of a poll three years in advance showing a Democrat who has yet to enter the race being up 44-42? We should all assume Arkansas will vote the opposite way it usually does? I hope you're joking.

Arkansas has not always voted as it has since 2004 in Presidential elections. If I see any pattern it is that Arkansas gives very poor results for people seen as city-slicker Yankees like Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama.   

If Arkansas is at all close for the Democratic nominee then the Republican nominee is in deep trouble. The six electoral votes might not be enough to swing a close election, but...

1. Republicans have not won a Presidential election without Arkansas since 1968 and with a Democrat winning the state since 1956.

2. Although Arkansas is no big prize (Iowa is as big) it is demographically similar to some states (Tennessee, Georgia) with far more electoral votes. Republicans would have to compensate for Tennessee with such a state as Minnesota or Wisconsin...  or Georgia with a state as large as Michigan or Pennsylvania.

3. Democrats have won the Presidency without Arkansas only twice in a very long time -- 2008 and 2012.

4. Down-ballot elections will be affected. A victory by Hillary Clinton could easily demonstrate some huge erosion of Republican support from Southern working-class white people. Such could flip the House if the Republicans have a bare majority in the House in 2016.

[barfbag]

*adds 6 more electoral votes for the democrats*

So there's no need for Arkansas which is a solid Republican state to even vote in the next election because of a poll three years in advance showing a Democrat who has yet to enter the race being up 44-42? We should all assume Arkansas will vote the opposite way it usually does? I hope you're joking.

Arkansas has not always voted as it has since 2004 in Presidential elections. If I see any pattern it is that Arkansas gives very poor results for people seen as city-slicker Yankees like Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama.   

If Arkansas is at all close for the Democratic nominee then the Republican nominee is in deep trouble. The six electoral votes might not be enough to swing a close election, but...

1. Republicans have not won a Presidential election without Arkansas since 1968 and with a Democrat winning the state since 1956.

2. Although Arkansas is no big prize (Iowa is as big) it is demographically similar to some states (Tennessee, Georgia) with far more electoral votes. Republicans would have to compensate for Tennessee with such a state as Minnesota or Wisconsin...  or Georgia with a state as large as Michigan or Pennsylvania.

3. Democrats have won the Presidency without Arkansas only twice in a very long time -- 2008 and 2012.

4. Down-ballot elections will be affected. A victory by Hillary Clinton could easily demonstrate some huge erosion of Republican support from Southern working-class white people. Such could flip the House if the Republicans have a bare majority in the House in 2016.

A victory for Hillary Clinton in Arkansas would demonstrate that she has a home state advantage there. I see what else you're saying but the parties are nothing like they were when Arkansas was voting Democrat. Bill Clinton was from there so we can't use either of the 90's elections in an attempt to find where the state has gone. What we do have is the four most recent elections which aren't good news for the left in Arkansas.

My biggest point is that we shouldn't be calling an election for Democrats in a state they just got 36% in over a poll taken more than three years before an election.

[pbrower2a]

This is what one gets if one concedes to Republicans every state electoral vote they have never lost after 1988 and Democrats every electoral vote that they have not lost after 1988 except Pennsylvania (close to the national average in 2012) and Wisconsin (bare Kerry win in 2004, and Wisconsin voted much like Iowa, which Kerry barely lost).

That is a 192-101 advantage for Democrats, which is significant but far from decisive.  

Recognizing that New Mexico is no longer a swing state, I find that if Arkansas can swing toward Hillary Clinton so do some other states -- notably Missouri, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Those states (in pale green) have 51 electoral votes and with New Mexico the Republican disadvantage rises potentially  to 268-101.  

That is as bad as the situation that Republicans have found themselves in in every Presidential election since 2000: they must sweep the board to win. If the Republicans must defend any of the Clinton-but-not-Obama states they will have a tough time grabbing states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania... or even winning such true swing states in recent years as Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.   

[pbrower2a]

*adds 6 more electoral votes for the democrats*

So there's no need for Arkansas which is a solid Republican state to even vote in the next election because of a poll three years in advance showing a Democrat who has yet to enter the race being up 44-42? We should all assume Arkansas will vote the opposite way it usually does? I hope you're joking.

Arkansas has not always voted as it has since 2004 in Presidential elections. If I see any pattern it is that Arkansas gives very poor results for people seen as city-slicker Yankees like Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama.   

If Arkansas is at all close for the Democratic nominee then the Republican nominee is in deep trouble. The six electoral votes might not be enough to swing a close election, but...

1. Republicans have not won a Presidential election without Arkansas since 1968 and with a Democrat winning the state since 1956.

2. Although Arkansas is no big prize (Iowa is as big) it is demographically similar to some states (Tennessee, Georgia) with far more electoral votes. Republicans would have to compensate for Tennessee with such a state as Minnesota or Wisconsin...  or Georgia with a state as large as Michigan or Pennsylvania.

3. Democrats have won the Presidency without Arkansas only twice in a very long time -- 2008 and 2012.

4. Down-ballot elections will be affected. A victory by Hillary Clinton could easily demonstrate some huge erosion of Republican support from Southern working-class white people. Such could flip the House if the Republicans have a bare majority in the House in 2016.

A victory for Hillary Clinton in Arkansas would demonstrate that she has a home state advantage there. I see what else you're saying but the parties are nothing like they were when Arkansas was voting Democrat. Bill Clinton was from there so we can't use either of the 90's elections in an attempt to find where the state has gone. What we do have is the four most recent elections which aren't good news for the left in Arkansas.

My biggest point is that we shouldn't be calling an election for Democrats in a state they just got 36% in over a poll taken more than three years before an election.

As you can see in the map above, I'm calling no states except those that have never voted for a Democrat since 1988... and except for New Mexico, no state that has voted even once for the Republican nominee for President since 1988. In return for recognizing New Mexico as a sure thing for the Democratic nominee I 'yield' Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as 'iffy' because Wisconsin was nearly a win for Dubya in 2004 and Pennsylvania was close to the national average in its voting in 2012.

[pbrower2a]

*adds 6 more electoral votes for the democrats*

So there's no need for Arkansas which is a solid Republican state to even vote in the next election because of a poll three years in advance showing a Democrat who has yet to enter the race being up 44-42? We should all assume Arkansas will vote the opposite way it usually does? I hope you're joking.

Arkansas has not always voted as it has since 2004 in Presidential elections. If I see any pattern it is that Arkansas gives very poor results for people seen as city-slicker Yankees like Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, and Obama.   

If Arkansas is at all close for the Democratic nominee then the Republican nominee is in deep trouble. The six electoral votes might not be enough to swing a close election, but...

1. Republicans have not won a Presidential election without Arkansas since 1968 and with a Democrat winning the state since 1956.

2. Although Arkansas is no big prize (Iowa is as big) it is demographically similar to some states (Tennessee, Georgia) with far more electoral votes. Republicans would have to compensate for Tennessee with such a state as Minnesota or Wisconsin...  or Georgia with a state as large as Michigan or Pennsylvania.

3. Democrats have won the Presidency without Arkansas only twice in a very long time -- 2008 and 2012.

4. Down-ballot elections will be affected. A victory by Hillary Clinton could easily demonstrate some huge erosion of Republican support from Southern working-class white people. Such could flip the House if the Republicans have a bare majority in the House in 2016.

A victory for Hillary Clinton in Arkansas would demonstrate that she has a home state advantage there. I see what else you're saying but the parties are nothing like they were when Arkansas was voting Democrat. Bill Clinton was from there so we can't use either of the 90's elections in an attempt to find where the state has gone. What we do have is the four most recent elections which aren't good news for the left in Arkansas.

My biggest point is that we shouldn't be calling an election for Democrats in a state they just got 36% in over a poll taken more than three years before an election.

As you can see in the map above, I'm calling no states except those that have never voted for a Democrat since 1988... and except for New Mexico, no state that has voted even once for the Republican nominee for President since 1988. In return for recognizing New Mexico as a sure thing for the Democratic nominee I 'yield' Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as 'iffy' because Wisconsin was nearly a win for Dubya in 2004 and Pennsylvania was close to the national average in its voting in 2012.

If I were a real hack, I would have told you that Hillary Clinton makes

TEXAS

vulnerable:

[Brittain33]

If she leads Christie she leads all.

Christie's a particularly awful Republican candidate for Arkansas, I would think?

[Torie]

But there is no reason not to believe that Hillary is running stronger nationally than in Arkansas, so Arkansas probably even with Hillary has a positive GOP PVI of some substantial size. So Arkansas won't be deciding the election in other words, is my thinking.

[Tender Branson]

But there is no reason not to believe that Hillary is running stronger nationally than in Arkansas, so Arkansas probably even with Hillary has a positive GOP PVI of some substantial size. So Arkansas won't be deciding the election in other words, is my thinking.

Not substantial.

If we take the latest national polls, Clinton leads Christie by 2-6 points.

In AR, she leads him by 2 points.

Which means AR is only slightly more Republican than the nation, heck it's even within the MoE !



Compare this to the 30-point difference when Obama was the candidate ...

[Torie]

OK.

[Eraserhead]

She's not going to win here.

[barfbag]

I still wouldn't call any states just yet.

[pbrower2a]

I still wouldn't call any states just yet.

I'm calling DC and the Third Congressional District of Nebraska now. I'm also calling Wyoming, and not for camping reservations at Yellowstone. Basically if the advantage as a percentage  is more than number of the months before the election and the margin is greater than five, one has between a 95% and 100% chance of a win.

I can say this -- if Hillary Clinton is the nominee for President then several states that President Obama lost badly are under contest for the Republicans with no obvious compensation elsewhere. I'd like to see polling for some other states -- like Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia that have some demographic similarities to Arkansas.

[barfbag]

I still wouldn't call any states just yet.

I'm calling DC and the Third Congressional District of Nebraska now. I'm also calling Wyoming, and not for camping reservations at Yellowstone. Basically if the advantage as a percentage  is more than number of the months before the election and the margin is greater than five, one has between a 95% and 100% chance of a win.

I can say this -- if Hillary Clinton is the nominee for President then several states that President Obama lost badly are under contest for the Republicans with no obvious compensation elsewhere. I'd like to see polling for some other states -- like Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia that have some demographic similarities to Arkansas.

I'll call Wyoming too. If a state has been within 20 points in the last 4 elections, then I'm not calling it.

[Tender Branson]

Basically what PPP has today ...

[pbrower2a]

Arkansas is again potential trouble for the GOP.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Funny looking back on this now.