arkansas

[Ebowed]

How does how Arkansas voted in 1968 prove that it is NOT racist?

Nixon beat Humphrey by less than 1%.

[Franzl]

ben, what makes you think it's not racism?

I do think there's a little bit of racism involved, but no more than 1-2%.  I think a lot of it has to do with an overall trend rightward amongst Arkansans, the fact that Obama is pretty liberal, spent no money or time on the state, and that there was nobody to contradict the lies that were spread without Obama.

lolz

[Democratic Hawk]

Democrats as a % of the Arkansas electorate was down to 36% (from 41% in 2004)

Dave

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How does how Arkansas voted in 1968 prove that it is NOT racist?

Nixon beat Humphrey by less than 1%.

But neither one won the state. Who did was my point.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

According to constine, this is ony the result of a rightward trend:

[HAnnA MArin County]

The fact that Hillary did not receive the nomination is the main reason why Arkansas swung so Republican. Any coincidence that the state that gave Hillary her largest margin of victory in the primaries was also the state that swung the most away from the man who defeated her for the title? That's really all what it boils down to. You can call them sore losers or whatever you want, but it was a strongly-willed vote of respect, I think, for the Clintons. Someone on here said what Obama said about the Clintons during the course of the primary was not forgotten here; that's true (i.e. the media, which has been in Obama's pocket since the Iowa Caucus, calling Hillary 'the Al Sharpton of white people' and trashing her at every opportunity, calling Bill a racist and saying that Chelsea was being 'pimped out,' yeah, these kinds of comments might not settle too well in the state where the Clinton name is revered).

The racism claims are difficult to prove. People on here trashing Arkansas as the most racist state in the nation, those are weak arguments. However, taking their point into consideration, the Ku Klux Klan is headquartered in Harrison, Arkansas. But if you look at the exit polls, Louisiana and Alabama were the states where Obama did worse among white voters than Kerry did. You're going to find racism wherever you go, anywhere from the Deep South to places as progressive as New York City. Yes, Arkansas is located in the Deep South and we all know the racial history surrounding this area of the country, but Arkansas is surprisingly one of the most Democratic states in the South - Democrats control everything in Arkansas: both U.S. Senate seats, three out of the state's four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Governor's Mansion, all elected executive statewide offices and supermajorities in the state legislature. At the same time, the Arkansas Democratic Party is considerably more conservative than the mainstream party, especially on social issues, which makes the state more amendable to voting for Republicans at the national level. While Obama and Hillary held similar positions on the social issues (both pro-choice and pro-gay rights), Hillary has roots in the state whereas Obama doesn't. McCain had ties to the South, and the fact that Obama totally wrote off the state both in the primary and the general election was really a slap in the face to them. I could understand if he didn't go to states like Utah, Idaho and Wyoming here Democrats get clobbered every election, but Arkansas is not a GOP bastion like those states.

So to put this in perspective, Arkansas gave a strong vote of support to their candidate who was smeared and trashed by the media and the Obama campaign as this most awful and polarizing bitch all because she dared to run against the first viable African American candidate only to see their candidate concede a tough battle but because they really and strongly wanted someone else, Obama chose to ignore them - no advertisements, no campaign offices, nothing. How do you expect these people to feel? Vote for the man who defeated their candidate and ignored their presence, or vote for his challenger? They obviously opted for the latter.

[DariusNJ]

The fact that Hillary did not receive the nomination is the main reason why Arkansas swung so Republican. Any coincidence that the state that gave Hillary her largest margin of victory in the primaries was also the state that swung the most away from the man who defeated her for the title? That's really all what it boils down to. You can call them sore losers or whatever you want, but it was a strongly-willed vote of respect, I think, for the Clintons. Someone on here said what Obama said about the Clintons during the course of the primary was not forgotten here; that's true (i.e. the media, which has been in Obama's pocket since the Iowa Caucus, calling Hillary 'the Al Sharpton of white people' and trashing her at every opportunity, calling Bill a racist and saying that Chelsea was being 'pimped out,' yeah, these kinds of comments might not settle too well in the state where the Clinton name is revered).

Yes, that definitely had a factor. But I don't think that is the main reason for Arkansas' swing to the Republicans. Let's go back to the primaries. Obama got 26% of the vote in Arkansas. He also got 26% in West Virginia, but in the general election, WV voted the same way it did in 2004.(Kerry lost 56-43, Obama lost 56-43) It did not swing away 10 percent from Obama. In Kentucky, Obama got 29%, in Oklahoma, he got 31%. Yes, Obama was a bad fit for these states, but again, Obama got Kerry's 2004 percentage in both these states. Only in Arkansas did he get worse than his 2004 percentage, and he ended up doing 10 percent worse.

The racism claims are difficult to prove. People on here trashing Arkansas as the most racist state in the nation, those are weak arguments. However, taking their point into consideration, the Ku Klux Klan is headquartered in Harrison, Arkansas. But if you look at the exit polls, Louisiana and Alabama were the states where Obama did worse among white voters than Kerry did. You're going to find racism wherever you go, anywhere from the Deep South to places as progressive as New York City.

I could understand if he didn't go to states like Utah, Idaho and Wyoming here Democrats get clobbered every election, but Arkansas is not a GOP bastion like those states.

2008 election Arkansas whites: McCain 68, Obama 30
2004 election Arkansas whites: Bush 63, Kerry 36

That's a big swing away, although you are right that Alabama and Lousiana swung away more.

Arkansas is by no means a GOP bastion, but like many states in the Appalachian\Ozark region, they only vote for the Democrats if a moderate, preferably southern democrat is running. Obama was a black liberal from Chicago, he wasn't going to win the state anyway, so I don't see any reason to compete there, unless he was trying to improve his percentage.

So to put this in perspective, Arkansas gave a strong vote of support to their candidate who was smeared and trashed by the media and the Obama campaign as this most awful and polarizing bitch all because she dared to run against the first viable African American candidate only to see their candidate concede a tough battle but because they really and strongly wanted someone else, Obama chose to ignore them - no advertisements, no campaign offices, nothing. How do you expect these people to feel? Vote for the man who defeated their candidate and ignored their presence, or vote for his challenger? They obviously opted for the latter.

I agree that Obama would have done better than 39% had he campaigned there, because the election showed that the "Obama is a muslim terrorist" rumours impacted Obama a lot in places that he did not visit.

You're right that some voters would have been angry at Obama, but did you expect that the state would swing away 10 percent from Obama in an election where the country moved 10 percent towards the Democrat? Especially when Obama got similar beatings in other states, and none of those other states moved away from Obama as Arkansas did.

I think race played  a large role. Call me crazy, but I think there was somewhat of a Bradley effect in Arkansas. Look at the RCP poll averages for the state of Arkansas.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ar/arkansas_mccain_vs_obama-592.html

The three polls show McCain leading by 7, 10, and 11 respectively. Then, on Election Day, he ends up winning by 20. I'm not a big Bradley Effect believer, but I think it played a role in Arkansas. Arkansas has never elected a black candidate to statewide office, so they may have been uneasy about voting for Barack. Just my thoughts.

[DS0816]

Prior to Election 2008, Arkansas was always in the winning Democrats' column. Same with Missouri.

In fact, prior to Election 2008, three states had always carried for a winning Democrat or Republican. And with the election of 2008 now a part of the past, just one state may seem like a jinx: No Republican has won the White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

In Election 2008, Mo. swung 7.1 of its 7.2 (for George W. Bush) toward the Democrats and Barack Obama — so there was that attempt to turn the Show Me State blue.

Ark. doubled its GOP support. Yet it would've carried for Hillary Clinton, had she been her party's 2008 nominee. Louisiana, which had agreed with Ark. on all previous ten elections (1968-2004), might've carried for Hillary (more of a challenge but it did re-elect Sen. Mary Landrieu!), and it too traveled further north for the Republicans (and John McCain).

With West Virginia in this equation, I figure it's the background of the people. It was a bad year to be a Republican, yet Ark., La., Tennessee, and West Virginia — all of which carried for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter — would've carried for Hillary (who also would have won Kentucky!) but said no to Barack Obama for one reason: He wasn't their kind of candidate. That's not acknowleging nor denying the 44th president's race; but it's a matter of not being willing to vote Democratic if the candidate isn't from that region. In Election 2008, they defaulted to the GOP!

[Dan the Roman]

Prior to Election 2008, Arkansas was always in the winning Democrats' column. Same with Missouri.

In fact, prior to Election 2008, three states had always carried for a winning Democrat or Republican. And with the election of 2008 now a part of the past, just one state may seem like a jinx: No Republican has won the White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

In Election 2008, Mo. swung 7.1 of its 7.2 (for George W. Bush) toward the Democrats and Barack Obama — so there was that attempt to turn the Show Me State blue.

Ark. doubled its GOP support. Yet it would've carried for Hillary Clinton, had she been her party's 2008 nominee. Louisiana, which had agreed with Ark. on all previous ten elections (1968-2004), might've carried for Hillary (more of a challenge but it did re-elect Sen. Mary Landrieu!), and it too traveled further north for the Republicans (and John McCain).

With West Virginia in this equation, I figure it's the background of the people. It was a bad year to be a Republican, yet Ark., La., Tennessee, and West Virginia — all of which carried for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter — would've carried for Hillary (who also would have won Kentucky!) but said no to Barack Obama for one reason: He wasn't their kind of candidate. That's not acknowleging nor denying the 44th president's race; but it's a matter of not being willing to vote Democratic if the candidate isn't from that region. In Election 2008, they defaulted to the GOP!

To be fair, 2008 was still an exceptionally bad year to be a Republican if one's name were not John McCain. Straight-ticket voting in state races+ landslide for Manchin= destruction of WV GOP.

[Nym90]

If Obama had done as well with whites in Alabama or Mississippi as he did with whites in Arkansas, he would've won those states. At least many whites in Arkansas were willing to vote for the party of the blacks for many years as long as they nominated white candidates; that makes them less racist than those who refused to vote for the party of the blacks long ago.

[Badger]

Prior to Election 2008, Arkansas was always in the winning Democrats' column. Same with Missouri.

In fact, prior to Election 2008, three states had always carried for a winning Democrat or Republican. And with the election of 2008 now a part of the past, just one state may seem like a jinx: No Republican has won the White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

In Election 2008, Mo. swung 7.1 of its 7.2 (for George W. Bush) toward the Democrats and Barack Obama — so there was that attempt to turn the Show Me State blue.

Ark. doubled its GOP support. Yet it would've carried for Hillary Clinton, had she been her party's 2008 nominee. Louisiana, which had agreed with Ark. on all previous ten elections (1968-2004), might've carried for Hillary (more of a challenge but it did re-elect Sen. Mary Landrieu!), and it too traveled further north for the Republicans (and John McCain).

With West Virginia in this equation, I figure it's the background of the people. It was a bad year to be a Republican, yet Ark., La., Tennessee, and West Virginia — all of which carried for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter — would've carried for Hillary (who also would have won Kentucky!) but said no to Barack Obama for one reason: He wasn't their kind of candidate. That's not acknowleging nor denying the 44th president's race; but it's a matter of not being willing to vote Democratic if the candidate isn't from that region. In Election 2008, they defaulted to the GOP!

To be fair, 2008 was still an exceptionally bad year to be a Republican if one's name were not John McCain.

Or Shelly Moore Capito.

[phk]

My theory more or less is that this GOP swing is more a correction than anything. It was voting too Democratic (starting from 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004) and now the vote has been corrected. The Clinton's "residual" Democraticness of these states has run out.

[Dan the Roman]

Prior to Election 2008, Arkansas was always in the winning Democrats' column. Same with Missouri.

In fact, prior to Election 2008, three states had always carried for a winning Democrat or Republican. And with the election of 2008 now a part of the past, just one state may seem like a jinx: No Republican has won the White House without carrying the state of Ohio.

In Election 2008, Mo. swung 7.1 of its 7.2 (for George W. Bush) toward the Democrats and Barack Obama — so there was that attempt to turn the Show Me State blue.

Ark. doubled its GOP support. Yet it would've carried for Hillary Clinton, had she been her party's 2008 nominee. Louisiana, which had agreed with Ark. on all previous ten elections (1968-2004), might've carried for Hillary (more of a challenge but it did re-elect Sen. Mary Landrieu!), and it too traveled further north for the Republicans (and John McCain).

With West Virginia in this equation, I figure it's the background of the people. It was a bad year to be a Republican, yet Ark., La., Tennessee, and West Virginia — all of which carried for Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter — would've carried for Hillary (who also would have won Kentucky!) but said no to Barack Obama for one reason: He wasn't their kind of candidate. That's not acknowleging nor denying the 44th president's race; but it's a matter of not being willing to vote Democratic if the candidate isn't from that region. In Election 2008, they defaulted to the GOP!

To be fair, 2008 was still an exceptionally bad year to be a Republican if one's name were not John McCain.

Or Shelly Moore Capito.

Yeah, federal offices did not have the straight ticket option. I think what is missed in the discussion of McCain's victory, is that the real crushing in WV in 2008 was done by Joe Manchin.

[HAnnA MArin County]

My theory more or less is that this GOP swing is more a correction than anything. It was voting too Democratic (starting from 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004) and now the vote has been corrected. The Clinton's "residual" Democraticness of these states has run out.

That's a good point and I agree somewhat. Arkansas is surprisingly really Democratic for a state situated in the South and in the Bible Belt, and although Democrats there tend to be pretty conservative, I do think that maybe perhaps 2008 was the year in which the tide turned a bit. Like everyone has said, had Hillary been the nominee, she would have won Arkansas, but instead the party nominated her opponent who happened to be a big city liberal African American from Chicago, all factors which I'm sure totally threw the Arkansas electorate into a frenzy. They saw the Clintons torn and trashed throughout the primary and constantly labeled by the media as racists. I think Arkansas will hold a fond love for the Clintons but I do think they are moving past them.

Keep in mind though that Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country, only behind West Virginia and Mississippi. Voters in Arkansas and West Virginia tend to vote with their pocketbooks more than with their Bibles, though, and that's probably why Democrats do so well at the local and state levels in these two states but when the party nominates these "limousine/latte liberals" intellectual-type big-city "elitists," that usually doesn't play so well in those parts of the country. My guess is simply that, setting the Hillary factor aside, a lot of Arkansas voters just didn't identify with Obama, and they were probably a little hocked off that he didn't even come to the state once nor did he advertise there or set up any campaign offices but yet he did advertise in Arizona, his opponent's home state? I'm sure this may have angered Arkansas too.

Arkansas's days of being a swing state may be coming to an end, though. Democrats have built a newer more progressive coalition made up of wealthy white professionals/latte liberals/yuppies whatever you want to call them, and the youth vote is much more liberal than the general population and Obama's election has built a new electoral map for Democrats. I don't think Democrats will have to feel the need to nominate Southern moderate WASPs to carry the Outer South states that were once winnable for them (Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia). Arkansas will probably stay heavily Democratic at the local and state levels but will probably turn into a reliable red state at the presidential election unless Democrats nominate another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton type of candidate. I don't think it's so much a "correction," but rather a rejection of the mainstream Democratic Party's leftward trend and this new coalition of voters who most people in Arkansas probably see as uppity individuals who aren't "one of them."

[hcallega]

Damn, I always hated uppity individuals.

My bet is the next time ARK votes Democrat will be in 2016. No particular candidate, just a guess that the Dems will nominate either a southerner, westerner, or hispanic (though a hispanic wouldn't win there). Just a guess.

[Sasquatch]

Well what I've gathered the NW part of the state voted about the same in 08 as it did in 04. It was the rest of the state that bottomed out for Obama. I'm sure if Obama would have made a few stops he would have improved his total by at least 2%.

[Hash]

Well what I've gathered the NW part of the state voted about the same in 08 as it did in 04. It was the rest of the state that bottomed out for Obama. I'm sure if Obama would have made a few stops he would have improved his total by at least 2%.

Yeah, the swing wasn't bad in the Ozarks and a few counties swung to Obama there.

And Pulaski County (Little Rock) also swung to him, going with the demographic and sociological trend of the election nationwide.

[DariusNJ]

Well what I've gathered the NW part of the state voted about the same in 08 as it did in 04. It was the rest of the state that bottomed out for Obama. I'm sure if Obama would have made a few stops he would have improved his total by at least 2%.

Yeah, he did okay relative to Kerry in some northwest counties, the counties along the Mississippi River, and Pulaski county.

He got shellacked everywhere else though.

[minionofmidas]

My theory more or less is that this GOP swing is more a correction than anything. It was voting too Democratic (starting from 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004) and now the vote has been corrected. The Clinton's "residual" Democraticness of these states has run out.

True, of course. Same thing happened in Tennessee, though in 04 more than 08. Though I find it quite curious that Arkansas held up this well in 04 - it made no sense really. In NE Arkansas, Kerry actually won a couple of rural lilywhite counties in the immediate vicinity of the Black Belt. That's the *only* place in the US where that was still possible in 2004.

[War on Want]

My theory more or less is that this GOP swing is more a correction than anything. It was voting too Democratic (starting from 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004) and now the vote has been corrected. The Clinton's "residual" Democraticness of these states has run out.

True, of course. Same thing happened in Tennessee, though in 04 more than 08. Though I find it quite curious that Arkansas held up this well in 04 - it made no sense really. In NE Arkansas, Kerry actually won a couple of rural lilywhite counties in the immediate vicinity of the Black Belt. That's the *only* place in the US where that was still possible in 2004.

It is kind of interesting how Democratic some of these white counties are compared to the rest of the south, even using 2008 figures. Most of these counties are 10-20% black, but still gave Obama percentages from 30-45 percent.

[DariusNJ]

If Democrats nominated a Southern Democrat versus the current Republican Party, they would be almost unbeatable.

In a 50\50 election, the southern Dem would carry New England, some Atlantic states, the Midwest, and states like WV, AR, KY, GA, FL.