GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Rasmussen Arkansas General Election Poll, conducted July 17th, 2008
- John McCain 47%
- Barack Obama 37%
With Leaners:
- John McCain 52%
- Barack Obama 39%
Favorability
- John McCain 59% / 39% (+20)
- Barack Obama 45% / 53% (-8)
This telephone survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports on July 17, 2008. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Good for Arkansas! Fortunately, this state is staying Red!
July 17th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Shouldn’t have to worry about Arkansas.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I wonder what it’d be like with Clinton running?
July 17th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Look’s like McCain already got the hillbilly vote - Huckleberry adds nothing to the ticket.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Yes, AR is one of those states where Mrs. Clinton would do better than Mr. Obama. We can still beat Mrs. Clinton in AR and it is certain doubtful that Mrs. Clinton could win AR or any states in the area with Mr. Huckabee on the ticket.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Clinton would win Arkansas. In AR polls while she was still in the race she was winning there by a wide margin. It’s good Obama won the nomination, Clinton would be tougher. She’d probably be leading in Ohio and Florida too, but losing in western states. My guess is if it was McCain versus Clinton, Florida would be ground central and whoever won that would win the election.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
It is a double edge sword EricB. I actually think it might be better for us if Mrs. Clinton has won, yes she is stronger in AR, OH, FL and PA, but we could still beat her in Ohio and maybe put CT a little bit in play. As a result of Mr. Obama winning, we are now losing WA, OR, MN, IA and NM and in trouble in many other western states. Very very few Western states would be in the Dems pocket if Mr. Clinton would have been the nominee. Virginia and NC would also be totally safe.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
#5 and #6 - irrelevant. Clinton lost. This poll merely shows that Huckabee is also irrelevant as a potential running mate - McCain can carry the Huckster’s home state without him.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Yes, Mr. McCain can carry AR without him, but Mr. Huckabee could help out in other states. The only person who appears to be totally irrelevant right now is you JamesB with your arrogant attitude.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Ohio Joe-Did you really expect to be ahead in WA or OR even if Mrs.Clinton was the Democratic nominee?
July 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
On a side note, do you see that all three major anchors are going on Obama’s trip to the Middle East and Europe.
The NYT is reporting that last month Obama received 114 minutes to McCain 48 minutes, on these major networks evening news casts.
I wonder what the polls would look like if the coverage was fair? I bet you McCain would be ahead.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Where in the world does Huckabee help? All a Huckabee pick would do is defend Red turf.McCain will win the south regardless of who he picks and yes that includes Romney. I think southerners have seen that Romney is a genuine family man and is sincere on the life issue.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
On #12. Huck could maybe help in Iowa.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Sean, We at least would remain very competitive against Mrs. Clinton in OR and WA, many polls showed us either slightly ahead or in the margin. Having those states purple is a lot better than being blown out.
I realize that ensure that MO and Virginia stay Red may not be a huge help, but Mr. Huckabee would put Iowa back in play and he could actually help in Ohio in a close race.
To be sure, any Republican can keep the South against Mr. Obama (Mrs. Clinton could have been a slightly different story,) but Mr. Romney would not do as well. South Carolina illustrated that. Mr. Romney could put us in a slight risk of losing Virgina, but he’d keep every other state Red.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Ohio Joe-It doesn’t matter if Mr. Romney would have won each southern state by 1 or by 20(I tend to think that Romney would fair quite well with his message of 3 legged conservatism).But regardless the EV goes to the winner of the state regardless of the margin.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
If your talking about the SC primary Romney probably would have run away with SC had some other things gone right for him.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Would might have happended had Clinton won is irrelevent. What might have happened in the GOP Primary is also irrelevent.
the situation is McCain vs Obama, and this poll suggests that Arkansas’ electoral votes are red, and Huckabee & Clinton as VP won’t change that.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I am not arguing against the EC system. I realize that a win is a win, but sometimes if you try to only win by one point, you can lose by one point. I realize that Mr. Romney will allow us to hang on to most Southern states, but when you ask where does Mr. Huckabee help, the same could be asked of Mr. Romney. While Mr. Romney does not do any outright damage in any state (although he most likely hurts a little in a least three swing states) he does not add must geographically, Yes he helps in the smaller states CO, NV and NH, but he may not even be the deciding factor in those states anymore than in Central Eastern states.
With regard to being three legged, to an extent we are all three legged. You might be able to argue that Mr. Romney’s legs are more balanced, nevertheless, he has one leg longer than the other two and his long leg is my shortest leg in terms of priorities, but I’ll vote for him nevertheless should he make the 2008 ticket. Convincing others (who are actually missing a leg) won’t so easy, but to paraphrase Mr. Limbaugh, that’s not my job.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
JayPe:
While it is true that the VPs won’t change AR, VPs could make a difference elsewhere. At the same time, a 10 point lead is a little interesting for AR, while the opposing party’s candidate came from there, it did not vote GOP on the Presidential level in the 90s so it is good news no matter how you slice and this could be a good sign for the country as a whole.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Ohio you forgot about Michigan which holds 15 key Electoral votes.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
If no one thinks Romney will do damage in the south (particulary NC), Ohio, VA and otherevangelical strongholds, then let’s hope McCain picks him — and we will see if you are right or wrong. I strong believe Romney will have a depressing effect. I’m not suggesting no one will vote for McCain/Romney, but all Obama needs in those states (especially VA, NC, OH) is a little bit of edge — and Romney is going to deliver.
As someone above states, Huckabee at least makes Iowa a contest; and in Colorado the marriage amendment is on the ballot so, once again, it will be the evangelicals who might make up the difference.
Frankly, I don’t want a Huckabee pick (and I am sure it is now squarely between Romney and Pawlenty). McCain cannot win with either one. Probably couldnt’ win with Huckabee either, but he would make it closer. Frankly, this election isn’t worth the squandor.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:49 am
No I did not forget about Michigan because while, Mr. Romney might help a little, as things stand now, we can not win Michigan at least against Mr. Obama (perhaps it would be different against Mrs. Clinton,) but we are 8 points back. If we were a few points back, this would be in the margin of error. With respect, at this point we have a much better chance of losing Virginia and the like and winning in PA and the like under the current scenario than winning in Michigan.
Due in part to a large number of undecided voters nation wide and Michigan’s unpredictability, I admit that at the end of the day, it is in the realm of possibility to win Michigan while losing other key states. However, unless, it is very close, a win in Michigan would not likely be because of Mr. Romney. I simply believe that while he could get us votes in Michigan, his effect would be limited and the race is not nearly close enough in that state right now.
While unpredictability can make things possible, frankly from a strategic point of view, I question the wisdom of trying to win a state (Michigan) than has not gone GOP in years and there is no guarantee right now that we have a real shot and put possibly up to three other swings states at a slight risk (two of which have more than 17 points.) I hope that we get a nation wide swing and we bring several states to the Red column, with Michigan being one of them, but focusing on Michigan to this degree is far too risky. They are in part a swing state because of their unpredictably, thus if we are going to focus on swing states, we need to focus on states that are less likely to back-fire.
Many Romney fans have stated on this post that under the scenario that we are in, this or that is not relevant. With respect relevance is a two way street. I realize that at this point Mr. Romney is probably (nothing is for sure) going to be our VP and we are going to have to live with that. If the powers that be are basing their decision on Michigan, I just hope that they have better polling data than the rest of us. Since Mr. Romney is getting his act together recently, maybe he is the guy to help give us victory whether that 270 points ends up including Michigan or not. All power to him if that is the case, but I am still not convinced of such strategy.