arkansas

[Stranger in a strange land]

It was also one of the few states where Obama set up no organization at all and never visited once, not even in the primary.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Because Arkansas is a racist state. End of story.

More or less.....yeah..

but it's not quite that simple....racism may be the underlying reason, but people there tend to be much more likely to believe false rumors....like Obama being a muslim...or not understanding what "socialism" really is. And considering Obama never visited the state, people didn't challenge the rumors. People living in states in which Obama spent a little time....whether in person or in advertizing....weren't as prone to manipulation.

Of course....it's also likely that people were just looking for a reason to oppose him....in Arkansas quite likely due to race.

low education levels are the key factor here. A lot of people I know parroted the "Obama is a socialist" line, but when I asked them "why is he a socialist?" or "If Obama's economic policies are socialist, then how is Alaska's shared ownership of resources not socialist?" They would usually be stumped and unable to respond except with screaming and cursing.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Because Arkansas is a racist state. End of story.

Obama probably didn't do all that much better with whites in your own state than in Arkansas (not really had a proper look at county data yet, so can't be entirely sure) and it's certain that he did worse if you ignore the area around Durham and places like that generally.

not true: Obama overperformed Kerry almost everywhere in North Carolina, even in heavily white rural counties (if only slightly), the types of areas that trended heavily against him in Arkansas.

and THIS:





is explicable mainly by the fact that Obama spent a crapload of money in North Carolina and almost none in Arkansas.

[Stranger in a strange land]

well, it seems the coalfield counties swung harder against Obama than other parts of Appalachia did, indicating that the swing against him in that region may not have been entirely due to race.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Yea, Al's on the right track. Arkansas whites are no more or less racist than whites in other similar parts of the south.

If Obama had spent a crap load of money in Arkansas like he did in North Carolina and Virginia and to some extent Georgia he probably could've done a lot better. He chose not to, and thus did not do well there.

The Clintons being from there also probably cost him a 1-2% personal vote.

Hmm no. What you and Al are not looking at is how the white voters in NC and AR vote in elections. Lets take 2004 vs 2008..


AR: 2004: 63-36 vs. 2008: 68-30.

Then look at NC.

NC: 2004: 73-27 vs.  2008: 64-35

Like Meeker said, that ignores some very important pieces of information.  As I've said, it is important to remember that Obama basically lived in places like VA, NC, OH, etc., while he barely ever visited AR.  It makes a huge difference.

Obama did that because them states were polling close to start with, AR was never close. If obama ran ads and went to AR he may( and that is a big MAY) have kept McCain MOV to 10%.

So then why aren't you calling Utah racist?  Because Obama didn't really do anything there, and got crushed.  Your argument makes no sense to me.

UT trended left, unlike AR which trended strongly to the right. Also Democrat always get killed in UT. AR is a democratic friendly state.

yeah, Utah trended hard left in fact, despite the fact that Obama spent basically no money there and hadn't since the primary. The trend seen in Utah was comparable to that seen elsewhere in the Mountain West, except curiously Wyoming.

Also, unlike Arkansas , Utah doesn't have much of a history of racial tension. Little Rock Crisis anybody?