Poll: Hillary Beats McCain In Arkansas
A new poll from the University of Central Arkansas shows that Hillary Clinton would have a far better shot than Barack Obama at carrying this red state:
Clinton (D) 51%, McCain (R) 36%
McCain (R) 43%, Obama (D) 27%
Arkansas has six electoral votes — not many, but potentially enough to make the difference in a very close race. President Bush carried the state twice, but it's also where Bill Clinton was governor and Hillary the first lady for 12 years.
Advertisement
Comments (55)
Shocking news!
March 13, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tip my hat to her b/c I do believe she has a better shot here. No question about it.
That said, Obama does better in VA, CO, IA, NV, and MO.
March 13, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Had Gore won either AR or his own home state of TN, he would have been the President and we would have not had to suffered for seven plus years with 300 plus days left. In some sense, I don't feel bad for Gore. If he could not win his own home state, something got to be totally wrong with him. Remember, Bill won TN twice comfortably.
I am not sure I agree with you on MO or NV. Obama barely edged out Hillary in MO with the two sharing the delegates equally. In fact, the way how Hillary comfortably won TN, OK, and AR suggest to me Hillary will have an easier time in the general election because those rural white Hillary votes are very likely lost to McCain if Obama is on top of the ticket.
Don't forget, with all union support, Hillary still won the popular vote of NV. It is a state with a large Latino population. I can assure you Hillary will have an easier time to rally support there. With Obama as VP candidate, all states you listed are doable! Obama will never win AR, market my words!!!
March 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
which only speaks to the idea that there is no rational comparison between inter-party primary polling and general election polling. anyone pushing any similarity between the 2 is either an idiot who doesn't understand the electoral process or deliberately being disingenuous.
March 13, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, but is that really main-page news? SurveyUSA said the same thing last week.
Seems like you are just trying to put good news about Hillary on the front page to counter all of the bad publicity she has generated as of late.
March 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They know better than anyone that Hillary is really a Republican, only more ruthless and more friendly to Wal-Mart.
March 13, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would have been newsworthy if she were not from Arkansas. This would have been even more newsworthy if McCain were beating her there.
March 13, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's just me, but...
51+36 (the Clinton/McCain match-up) = 87, leaving 13% Undecided
43+27 (the McCain/Obama match-up) = 70, leaving 30% Undecided
So, while Obama has some serious work to do in Arkansas, it's not necessarily a slam-dunk for John W McCain
March 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And . . . . . . I bet a lunch to anyone that if she winds up being the nominee, she loses arkansas to mccain. Any takers?
March 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on that bet (see below).
March 13, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'll take your bet.
March 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not surprising, you're on.
March 13, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm surprised actually, but it is her home state, so I guess they are still liked there. Too bad she isn't from Texas or a red state with some electoral votes, then it might be significant.
But it isn't.
March 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have found the sheer number of home states this election cycle to be incredible. Obama has Hawaii and Illinois. Clinton has New York, Arkansas, Illinois and Pennsylvania. That's ten percent of the country.
March 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd venture that his numbers in AR will go up once Hillary is out of the picture, and he is only running against McCain.
March 13, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This must come as a great shock to Geraldine Ferraro, since she is convinced that Senator Obama's skin color gives him such an unfair advantage against the White Wife of A White President from Arkansas.
What the hell is going on with the people of Arkansas, Geraldine? Do they not realize that Senator Obama is Black, or is it the Devil making them do it, Geraldine~
March 13, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd certainly hope so! She was first lady of that state for what, a decade?
March 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. I don't believe these numbers will hold up. What I expect to see is the gender equivalent of the Bradley effect. And perhaps, if Clinton is the nominee, it will hence be known as the Clinton effect: voters say to pollsters that they'll vote for Clinton, but once they get in the polling booth, they'll back away. Particularly voters in conservative places like Arkansas. I don't care that Arkansas is her home state. These numbers aren't going to hold.
March 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
your obama-bias is showing...
hillary is a much stronger candidate than obama partisans like to admit. you're entitled...
but what were all those republicans doing voting for Hillary in MS? (i know, i know... they are so afraid of running against obama...) ever think that there are some republican women who might vote for hillary? you probably haven't considered that, but there was some polling last yr that showed that possibly 10 to 15 pct of republican women would consider voting for her...
sorry, it doesn't play well with the obama coronation movement on TPM...
March 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I admit to Obama bias, if by that it's meant that I support him, but my comment is not an instance of "Obama bias", it's a comment on the reality of polling. The Bradley effect perhaps should be renamed the "Harold Ford" effect, to place it in a more recent context.
Clinton is going to face something of that.
And no, I don't anticipate 10-15% of Republican women crossing over to vote for Hillary. You're demonstrating, not bias, but some serious wishful thinking with that statement.
But hey, you're entitled to it.
March 13, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
harold ford was never leading in the polls in TN. the polls accurately reflected the margin that he would eventually lose by. that doesn't mean that ford's race didn't hurt him in his senate race, just that there was no bradley effect of the polls showing one thing and the results being different.
as for my wishful thinking... i didn't say that 10 to 15 pct of republican women would cross over to vote for hillary. i said that there were polls showing that as many as that number of republican women would consider voting for hillary. if she were to get 2 or 3 pct of republican women to cross over, it could make a big difference in the outcome of various swing states.
considering how unpopular the republicans are right now and the historic nature of hillary's candidacy (for women), i do think it's possible. i understand that obama partisans wouldn't want to admit that hillary's candidacy holds this kind of appeal, but it's there...
March 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's not exactly correct about Ford vs Corker. Ford was up in a couple of polls, and the polls close to election day showed a predicted a significantly tighter race than the eventual results.
The 2006 Tennessee race
And yeah, maybe Republican women will "consider" voting for Hillary. When they get in the voting booth, they'll vote for St. John (Straight Talkin' Maverick) McCain. You can make book on that.
But no worries: you can just dismiss my comments as partisan.
March 13, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're kidding, right? the link that you gave me says that the avg of the last 5 polls was corker by 4 pct and the last 10 polls showed corker by 5 pct... the final result in TN was corker by 3 pct! how is that the bradley effect?
as for the other issue, you're just makin' stuff up with your obama bias. have fun!
March 13, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. Didn't you say earlier that:
Why yes you did!
Look at ALL of them--And whoops. Harold was leading in a few. But you're right about using the Bradley effect in this case. I overstated it.
As for the making other stuff up? Yes indeed! Speculating that Republican women won't cross over for Hillary (no matter how much you hope that might happen) is just that: speculating. If you want to say that speculating is "making stuff up", be my guest. Just make sure you make it clear that you're "making stuff up" as well, when you're, uh, speculating.
March 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
i'll say it again: harold ford was never leading in the polls (note: polls... meaning the overall race, not some isolated outlier)...
as for my speculation, it is based on polling that was done last yr and the fact that Hillary was able to get significant republican support in her senate races in NY.
i'm not suggesting some massive republican wave for Hillary, but i'm not just pulling it out of my ass (as you suggest)...
March 13, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Harold Ford was never leading in the polls."
Except for the ones that he did lead in.
But whatever.
March 13, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this supposed to be news?
We are all suffering from pollster diarrhea.
March 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm breathlessly waiting what polls have to say about Hillary's chances against McCain in New York? Since we all know that McCain would trounce Obama there since he wasn't able to win against the incumbent Senator.
The path to the White House now run through Little Rock (until the general, when Huckabee starts campaigning there for McCain. It would almost be worth her getting the nom just to see the Huck vs. Bill epic surrogate battle down there for Arkansas' 6 EL's.
March 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can win her home state? That's better than Geraldine Ferraro did in 84.
March 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Endorsements in Pennsylvania
Gov. Ed Rendell (Jan. 23, 2008)
Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll (Sept. 5, 2007)
Treasurer Robin L. Wiessmann (Sept. 4, 2007)
12 Pennsylvania state legislators (announced Aug. 22, 2007).
State Sen. Raphael J. Musto, Luzerne County
State Rep. Thomas W. Blackwell, IV, Philadelphia County
State Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone, Berks County
State Rep. Peter J. Daley, Fayette and Washington Counties
State Rep. Frank Dermody, Allegheny County
State Rep. Dan Frankel, Allegheny County
State Rep. John T. Galloway, Bucks County
State Rep. William F. Keller, Philadelphia County
State Rep. Kathy Manderino, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties
State Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith, Chester County
State Rep. Edward P. Wojnaroski, Sr., Cambria County
State Rep. John T. Yudichak, Luzerne County
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (announced Dec. 11, 2007 when Nutter was still Mayor-elect)
Erie Mayor Joseph E. Sinnott (announced Feb. 27, 2008)
former Philadelphia Congressman Reverend William H. Gray III (Sept. 25, 2007, announced as a national co-chair)
Look for more endorsements to come her way as we get closer to pennsylvania.
March 13, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Endorsements have been so helpful in this election.
Didn't she have tons of endorsements in Washington?
Didn't he have tons of endorsements in Massachussetts?
My own Senator endorsed Clinton. Didn't affect how I voted.
Endorsements (unless they come with lots and lots of $) mean nothing.
March 13, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot congressman sestak. Oh, that's right sestak was an admiral that clinton promoted in the 90's.
But congressman murphy, an iraq war vet and a "lowly" captain in the 82 airborne division, endorsed obama.
Hmmmm. Interesting.
March 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was one of those worthless small red states which don't matter?
March 13, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
This just in to the department of redundancy department . . .
Professor Captain Obvious has released the results of another controversial poll:
99.9% of Americans say breathing oxygen is the preferred way to continue a healthy blood flow and extend the life cycle.
How about a poll with a surprising result?
March 13, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone really think Hillary has a realistic chance to be the Nominee, much less the President?
March 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that depends on what your definition of realistic is.
I would say that she would blow up the party to become the nominee. Is there a shot that she could pull that off? Possibly, but pelosi's comments have given me some hope that she might be stopped.
On president? Not in a million years. She has a snowball's chance in hell. After all the destruction to the dem party that she caused, no way.
By the way, the longer the clintons continue with their tactics in this campaign, I would say the less likely that obama beats mccain. It really is disgusting. I really think that she is playing for 2012 at this point, more than anything else. If she can't get the presidency, no dem can have it.
By the way, as a firewall, any ideas on who might be her challenger in 2012. I want a back-up to start the ABC campaign for 2012.
March 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
well put! that is, of course, if you are a hillary-hating obama partisan. this kind of hate speech doesn't help your candidate, but maybe you'd rather see the party blow up than to have your candidate lose?
March 13, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. By the way, where is there any hate speech in the post? Also, Obama's not trashing clinton and trying to ruin her shot in the general election.
By the way, any ideas on 2012? I want to start working on my firewall.
March 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definition of hate speech: any reference to the reality of the pledged delegate count, the popular voted, and anything that the Clinton campaign has done so far.
March 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If she can't get the presidency, no dem can have it."
that quote is kinda hateful... not to mention that you call her campaign tactics "disguting."
there are plenty of things that i don't like about the obama campaign tactics, but i don't think it does any of us good to "flame" about it.
as for 2012, i hope that we are voting to re-elect whichever dem gets elected in 2008.
March 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but is this somehow unexpected? Betcha Barack blows Hillary away against McCain (and in general) in Illinois too. From now on can we focus on the stuff that, you know, raises interesting questions or opportunities for discussion and analysis?
March 13, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
IL is a blue state, like CA or NY... any dem should carry. what makes AR interesting is that it is a red state that could determine the outcome of a general election if a dem wins. i understand why obama partisans want to write this off as nothing... the same reason why hillary partisans don't like to discuss the advantage that obama might have in VA. both states (VA and AR) are worthy of discussion. as are the 4 big swing states from 2000 and 2004: FL, OH, PA, MI (but i understand why obama supporters don't want to discuss those either!)
March 13, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHOCK AND AWE!!! This is NEWS?
March 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody spent money on this poll? This is news? Hey, I bet McCain has a significant lead in Arizona.
Something tells me Obama may do pretty well in Illinois as well.
March 13, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK,this is hilarious.
"I would say that she would blow up the party to become the nominee."
"After all the destruction to the dem party that she caused, no way."
"It really is disgusting."
Followed by:
"where is there any hate speech in the post?"
Man, you guys spend so much time wallowing in Hillary hate that you think it's actually normal political discourse. What are you going to do with all of the hate after the election? And how are you going to handle the general election, when McCain campaigns against Obama? Because as we all know, anyone who dares to campaign against him is a Rovian slime merchant. Do you think you'll coddle him all the way to the White House?
And CT Hussein Voter, you're a hoot. A story gets published about a poll that seems to be scientifically done, and you boldly proclaim that the results will be just the opposite, based on nothing but what you puilled out of your ass. Then you accuse others of "wishful thinking"? Amazing.
March 13, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think that is hate speech? That's hillarious. And I guess you don't think hate speech entails racist comments, right?
March 13, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why thanks!
Really got under your skin, huh?
Oops. I guess that's "hateful", isn't it?
Seriously. Thinking that Republican women will cross over to vote for Hillary instead of St. John Straight Talkin' Maverick McCain isn't just wishful thinking. It's downright delusional. I should have been clearer.
March 13, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, my gosh, that is such hateful speech. SHAME ON YOU CT Hussein Voter!!!
March 13, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
:)
March 13, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a poll from a tiny two-bit school (a school that is undoubtedly funded in part by large donations from FOBs) in a state where Clinton cozied up to the #1 employers (Wal-Mart and Tyson Chicken) while she was First Lady from 1978-1992.
I think the appropriate response to the poll is "BFD."
March 13, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it was a class project for the undergrad statistics class.
March 13, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now now now. Don't be dissing those undergrad stats classes...what are you anyway? An Obamabot? Why do you hate undergrad stats classes? Why?
March 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got me. I was trying to come up with a funny response and I can't.
March 13, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn.
Much ado about nothing, mostly. Go back and look at the results from the Arkansas primary, which pretty much show the same thing...Hillary won by a large margin. Not surprising at all considering her profile in the state. Obama has not campaigned here...he may have made one or two appearances, but didn't do mailings, etc. leading up to the primary. And then there was the rumor floating around in the black community that "Obama is a Muslim and if he's elected, no one will be allowed to eat pork." (I wish I was making this up, but a woman actually said this to me.)
Bottom line: Hillary has a hometurf advantage here that played out in the primary and I have no doubt that the poll is accurate. But what it really indicates is that Hillary could win the state with a minimal effort. It doesn't indicate that Obama could not win it with a more significant effort. I believe that he could if he replicated in Arkansas the kind of organization he set up in other states, and this is what I expect he will do if/when he wins the nomination. The black vote in Arkansas went mostly to Hillary (and again there are reasons for that - her husband's long alliance with black church leaders and black community leaders) in the primary...but I can well assure you they won't be voting for McCain in November if Hillary is not the Democratic nominee. That's about a third of the vote here.
March 13, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok folks lets get real here Bill Clinton also won Arkansas and Hillary beat Obama bad there. Someone said his numbers would go up if she isnt in the race wrong...Both Gore and Kerry lost Arkansas. You ASSUME her supporters will back Obama......Not Likely. By the way Ca with Obama as the nominee would put Ca into play since it is a Majority minority state as well. Hispanics in large numbers arent inclined to vote for Obama and they make up over 40% of the voters in Ca and especially in LA county where Obama would have to carry to make up all the blood red area in the rest of the state.
March 14, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink