 |
 | |||||
From the second coming of Grover Cleveland in 1892 through the Johnson landslide of 1964, Arkansas has been a Democratic cornerstone, literally. In fact, for every Presidential Election from 1892 until 1956, Arkansas gave the Democratic candidate for President no less than 55% of the vote! Little wonder that when the Natural state would produce a major presidential candidate, it would be a Democrat. And that native Arkansan, Governor Bill Clinton, brought his home state back decisively into the Democratic fold in both his White House bids. In Clinton's bid against an incumbent President Bush in 1992 and in 1996 running for re-election as President, he won with over 53% of vote each time. But Clinton's runs were a sort of anomaly. Looking back to the Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace contest, one can easily see that 1968 was a watershed in Arkansas' political status. Although Alabama Governor George Wallace, in his third party run, won Arkansas's 6 electoral votes that year, the Republicans would go on to win 4 of the next 5 presidential elections, and the state of Arkansas as well. The 2000 Presidential Election saw Arkansas swing back to the GOP after the two Clinton wins. This came about even though President Clinton remained extremely popular in his home state and his Vice President, Al Gore, was from neighboring Tennessee. A quick assumption would be that two Southern candidates would keep Arkansas in Democratic column on Election Night. But most of the Arkansas voters considered Texas Governor George W. Bush a Southerner as well, and he won a whopping 51% of the vote in 2000. This was 5% less than his father's total of 56% in 1988. Yet in comparing the two Bush wins, it is imperative to note the differences in the victory margins: George H. W. Bush's winning percentage was 14% over Democrat Michael Dukakis, whereas the younger Bush's margin of victory was by only 5%. That doesn't lend itself too much in revealing the direction Arkansas' electorate will go this year. But if Vice President Gore's loss of Arkansas was thought to have been preventable, a closer look shows that it wasn't really that surprising. And you'll see why. Who wins Arkansas on November 2nd could have major implications in an election that is purportedly going to be as close as the 2000 contest. Current predictions demonstrate that Arkansas hasn't been all that easily pegged, even though recently it has been marked as leaning GOP. However, it is my contention that Arkansas will go to the Republicans on Election Night 2004, and there are 3 clear reasons why that will happen. The first and most obvious of the reasons is the candidate's affiliation with the area. President Bush claims Arkansas's neighbor, Texas, as his home state. He's a Southerner. The Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, on the other hand, has no geographic ties to the area. The selection of Kerry's vice presidential running mate, Senator John Edwards, a Southerner, was supposed to help Senator Kerry make crucial inroads into Southern constituencies. However, Edwards is from the eastern end of the South: North Carolina. And Edwards' place on the Democratic ticket has had little if no effect on swaying the voters of his home state according to months of past polling. So his effect on Arkansas is truly marginal at best. The second reason is Arkansas' own geographic tie to a certain neighboring state. Since the watershed election of 1968, as Missouri goes so goes Arkansas--or vice versa. Apparently, the Ozark Mountains aren't the only things that Bellwether Missouri and Arkansas share. Their tilt in the national electoral contest is strikingly similar, too, with Arkansas being more decisive than Missouri. An example is George H. W. Bush's 1988 wins: in Arkansas 56%, while in Missouri only 51%. This all brings us to the third reason: percentage trending. In this case it's that margin of victory by the Republicans in 2000. As I mentioned, Arkansas and Missouri march in tandem. Although George W. Bush's margin over Al Gore in Arkansas was by only 5%, interestingly, the GOP's 2000 margin of victory in Missouri was by even less: 3.3% percent! Missouri, it would seem would be less resolute, yet most pollsters and pundits have put Missouri out of reach for the Democratic ticket this year, as Senator Kerry hasn't had a lead in the polling of that state since the end of May. And with the Democrats pulling advertising dollars out of Missouri, this means less media bleed over into Arkansas. And, essentially, no chance of winning either for the Democratic ticket. Candidate home affiliation, geography, and voting trends: all three very good reasons why Arkansas' 6 electoral votes will belong to President Bush on Election Night 2004. Perhaps if Senator Kerry had selected General Wesley Clark of Arkansas as his running mate, the all-but-certainty of Arkansas' decision might have been considerably different. Just ask President Clinton.
| ||||||
 |  |
 |
 | |
|
feel free to send them to email@presidentelect.org.
original content and graphics unless otherwise noted | ||
 |  |