Beet
Atlas Star
Posts: 28,904
|
 |
« on: June 08, 2004, 01:41:39 PM » |
|
George Bush was lucky to win Arkansas last time. Can he struggle home this year?
DICK CHENEY was in Arkansas this week, amid a perfect patriotic setting—red, white and blue balloons and nine American flags. He spent 20 minutes with Republican fund-raisers bashing John Kerry and touting the sort of American values—patriotism, family and security—that resonate almost as strongly here as fried fish and Friday night football. George Bush has already been to Arkansas three times this year. Lynne Cheney and Laura Bush have also made several visits on the White House's behalf.
Why pay so much attention to a small state that Mr Bush won fairly comfortably last time by 51-46%? Because, as both sides admit, Al Gore should have won it last time. Because this is a state with a bumptious citizenry that loves a rowdy political year. And because this is Clinton country—with all the complications that brings.
Arkansas is the most Democratic state in the South. Mr Bush can count on the Republican governor, Mike Huckabee, but Democrats hold most of the congressional offices, statewide offices and legislative seats. Mr Bush has a stronghold in conservative northern Arkansas (a Democratic congressman hasn't won the seat there since 1966), but the rest of the state could tilt in favour of Mr Kerry.
For the locals, the presidential race is the only one on the ballot with fire. Senator Blanche Lincoln, a Democrat, is considered a shoo-in even by Republicans. The congressional races look likely to be a repeat of 2002: three Democrats and one Republican. By contrast, Messrs Bush and Kerry are neck-and-neck in the polls.
Neither party is in any great shape. The Republicans have been hurt (both morally and financially) by a corruption scandal last year. The lieutenant-governor, Win Rockefeller, is trying to rebuild the party, but many of the footsoldiers are still furious with the higher-ups.
The Democrats have now, at last, built up a voter database. But they are still split between those who went up to Washington to work for Bill Clinton, and those who stayed behind. There is also the problem of Wesley Clark, one of Mr Kerry's erstwhile opponents for the Democratic nomination and now one of his potential running-mates. The general, who is based in Little Rock, has quite a following—and his people insist that he would get an important position in a Kerry White House. But other local Democrats think Mr Clark should have worked his way up the Democratic totem pole, as others have had to.
With such division in both parties, the campaigns may have to build their own organisation. Here Mr Bush has a clear advantage: he already has a team of staffers on the ground and a campaign headquarters. By contrast, Mr Kerry has yet to choose a state co-ordinator—and that choice reintroduces the tricky subject of Bill Clinton.
In 2000, Mr Gore came to the state and conspicuously failed to mention his boss. Mr Kerry, never a particular buddy of Mr Clinton's in Washington, is making friendlier noises: he touted the former president as one of the best Democratic presidents in history at a local fund-raiser, and he made a point of visiting Doe's Steak House, a popular dive for the Clintonistas in 1992.
As for the “Friends of Bill” who have returned to Arkansas, they seem unsure what to do. For some, the choice is tactical: should they work for Mr Kerry at a local level or pitch in on national issues? For others, there is a more fundamental question of how hard they should work for Mr Kerry at all. If he wins the election, then Hillary Clinton cannot inherit the mantle of Democratic presidential candidate (and, quite possibly, the presidency) in 2008. But in the best Clintonista tradition, they want to be involved. As one of them explains, whoever Mr Kerry picks to lead his Arkansas operation should have clear knowledge of “how this hierarchy works and be willing to honour it”.
It is not just a matter of money and connections. Mr Clinton's blessing will be crucial if Mr Kerry is to lure out his core supporters—blacks, who make up 12.5% of the electorate. Mr Huckabee has actually been rather successful at wooing the black vote; but Mr Bush is deeply unpopular with blacks, not least because of the Iraq war. Arkansas has a lot of National Guard troops on duty there—and a disproportionate share of its contingent is drawn from minorities. Local blacks all seem to know somebody who has been killed or wounded in Iraq.
Mr Bush's core supporters—white conservatives—have also been shaken by the war; but they look more solid. Arkansas's Bible belt is firmly behind the president (this is not a state where Mr Kerry would be advised to talk too much about gay marriage). And the president also seems to have sewn up the Wal-Mart vote. Mr Cheney has visited the state's (and the nation's) biggest employer at its headquarters in Bentonville. Meanwhile, Mr Kerry has lambasted the discount chain over the weak health insurance it offers workers at its non-unionised stores.
For many southern whites, culture will be key. If Mr Gore had tried harder, he could have won the state. After all, he could at least claim to be a southerner. Mr Kerry has some things going for him (notably his military record) but he is a Yankee. Why should Arkansans trust a haughty Bostonian learning his way around the Razorback landscape over a Texan who speaks their language? The state hasn't voted for a northerner since Kennedy. That must favour Mr Bush.
--another state where culture is a negative for Kerry. Seems to be the case in every battleground state! A recent poll shows that Americans are heavily intolerant towards athiests- 44% say they would never vote for one under any circumstances whatsoever. Far higher than the percentage who say they would never vote for any major religious group.
|
