Democrats have 5-1 edge in congressional delegation

[Tweed]

Why did this state go Bush? I find it so interesting that this state is Democratic statewide, but then it goes for Bush. What do you guys see as the disconnect?

[aquart]

1. Try fraud.

[elperromagico]

7. Even the exit polls from the afternoon of 2 November

had Kerry losing AR by seven points.

[pleiku52cab]

2. what state?

[Tweed]

3. This is the Arkansas Forum

[Hippo_Tron]

4. Arkansas will be the first or second southern state that we win again

I want to say that Florida will be the first, but Florida never trends one way or the other, it's always really close, even if we did have a southerner on the ticket. If the dems nomintae Wes Clark or Mark Warner, Arkansas is almost a sure bet.

[holboz]

5. Good Question!!

I think most of the state IS Democratic. The Repug strongholds appear to be Benton County (very solid Repug as it's Wal-Mart country...loads of wealth in the NW corner of the state) and the counties surrounding Pulaski County (Little Rock). Those counties have seen a lot of "white flight" from LR over the past decade.

As far as the success of Bush statewide, I think the Repugs just ran a successful smear and scare campaign in this state. The Repug party mailed out fliers saying John Kerry planned to ban the Bible (!) and placed recorded phone messages that started out with, "Do you support gay marriage in Arkansas? Then vote John Kerry for president!".

I'm by no means a political expert but I'm willing to speculate as much as the next guy. I think a lot of people voted for a straight Repug ticket when it was available. In the NW corner there were lots of Repugs running for local offices without a democratic opponent so it's not unreasonable to think that in the traditionally democratic parts of Arkansas that there were Democratic candidates running unopposed.

I read an editorial today by Doug Thompson of the Arkansas News Bureau that was quite interesting. He said Rep. governor Mike Huckabee might retire next year so Lt. Gov. Win Rockefeller can run as an incumbent in the next election. He also discussed the surprising showing Jim Holt made in his senate race against Blanche Lincoln. Here is part of it:

Too many people refused to take Sen. Jim Holt seriously. Holt, a Christian from Springdale, received 44% of the vote in his race against U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln. Holt recently confirmed that he is considering a run for governor or lieutenant governor in 2006, or possibly another U.S. Senate try in 2008.

"I've heard Republicans lament that they would have run a 'real' candidate if they'd only known Lincoln was so weak. I've heard Democrats say this election was some sorty of protest vote against Lincoln.

"All this implies Holt's showing was stronger than it ought to be, or that Lincoln's was weaker, or both. Neither view is true nor fair.

"Jim Holt did well for three reasons. First, Holt has an outstanding, fully mobilized grassroots organization that extends into every county in Arkansas. No other state GOP politican except Huckabee and Rockefeller have anything close. Asa Hutchinson could put one together very quickly, but that's about it.

"Republican primaries are still small affairs. Holt's dedicated base weighs very heavily. Skeptics can point to the losing U.S. Senate primary of Holt's friend and political partner, Jim Bob Duggar. However, Duggar was running against a Republican incumbent in a life-and-death struggle against Democrat Mark Pryor. Duggar's run was perceived by many in the GOP primary voters as a break in the ranks at a critical time.

"Breaking ranks won't be a problem in the next governor's race - unless the term limited Huckabee makes Rockefeller the incumbent. Maybe not even then, if the voters don't like having the governor choose his successor.

"Holt founded the soundest strategy ever invented. That was the second reason for his success. He found a simple, powerful, issue - gay marriage this time - and he pounded it like a blacksmith making a Bowie knife.

"The assumption that he won't find an issue in the next election is a very bad one. Chances are, Holt won't find an issue nearly as effective as gay marriage in a Republican primary. However, he won't need one nearly so effective. See reason number one.

"The third reason is for Holt's success is that Lincoln didn't hit back. Going negative when you're 30 points ahead in the polls would have made Lincoln look like she was kicking a puppy.

"Holt supporters believe that Lincoln didn't need to go negative because state news outlets' treatment of Holt ranged from dismissive to hostile. Holt himself said the media is mostly socialists, some communists, and quite a few atheists - a remark that will haunt him the rest of his political life. The next time he accuses anybody of anything the reply will probably be, "Am I an atheist and communist, too?"

"If Holt and his supporters think they were badly treated in this campaign, wait until he's accurately percevied as a real threat by an opponent who can also swing a hammer.

"I'll never underestimate Holt again. I've never before had to interview somebody who received 44% of the votedays after I wrote a news story citing poll figures that he was only getting 30% support and 50% name recognition.

"That's an experience I won't forget."

[elperromagico]

6. Quite simply put, an Arkansas Democrat is not the same

as a Massachusetts Democrat. I hate to put it in such harsh terms; I consider myself to be closer to an MA Dem than an AR Dem. That's probably true of most AR Dems posting on this board.

But the state is moderate, and a moderate Dem - or a Rep who's managed to con enough people into believing that he's a moderate - will win in most cases.

A liberal Dem - and Kerry was regarded as one here, whether he is one or not - is a lot less likely to win.