Arkansas polling

[Tommy Duncan]

2000 Election: Bush won by 5.5

Bush 50.9
Gore 45.4
Nader 1.4


online.wsj.com/public/res...print.html (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-0907print.html)

Bush 47.6
Kerry 45.9
Nader 0.6

[Joe Chalupa]

Come on Bill, I know you are hurting but get the message out to the people of Arizona to vote for Kerry.

[Tommy Duncan]

www.economist.com/researc...id=1527355 (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=2705855&subjectid=1527355)

Swing states

Clinton country

May 27th 2004
The Economist

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.

http://www.economist.com/images/20040529/CUS981.gif

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.

http://www.economist.com/images/20040529/CUS979.gif

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.

[Nbadan]

Arkansas is too close to call...

http://www.electoral-vote.com/states/arkansas.png