WHAS11/Courier-Journal: Clinton ties with Paul in Kentucky

[pbrower2a]

The Clinton-but-not-Obama states may remain that.

I would of course rather see other matchups; I cannot ensure that Rand Paul is the best possible nominee for the GOP in Kentucky. One can no longer assume that a politician being from a certain state gives him a huge advantage in a Presidential election.

Barack Obama lost the state 60-37 in 2012. Mondale lost the state 60-39 in 1984. McGovern lost the state 63-34. One does not lose a state by 20% or more unless one is a horrible match for the state. Comparing Obama to McGovern or Mondale, the two Democrats who lost in 49-state blowouts might seem ludicrous when one considers that Obama won about as middling a victory as any President ever got in 2012, but such says much about Barack Obama, at least in the part of the country that decisively rejected him. He was the Democratic equivalent of Ronald Reagan in the part that he won, but the equivalent of George McGovern or Walter Mondale where he lost.

In subsequent elections to 1972 and 1984 -- Jimmy Carter won Kentucky by 7%. Dukakis still lost Kentucky by 2% more than the national average, but Bill Clinton won the state in 1992 and 1996. Carter and Clinton were about as good cultural matches for Kentucky as McGovern, Mondale, and Obama were horrible matches for Kentucky.

Some national polls have shown Hillary Clinton projecting to win by 10% or so -- but most of the statewide polls have been in states that Barack Obama won by huge margins in 2008. Obama maxed those states out; Hillary Clinton is not gaining in those states. She must be gaining elsewhere -- maybe a little in close states of 2008 and 2012. She's not going to gtet all of her gain in Ohio or Virgina. The PPP poll in Arizona shows a huge Democratic gain there that coincides with weak approvals for just about every elected Republican. The Bluegrass poll shows only one matchup. That may not be enough to project Kentucky as a state to be decided by a razor-thin margin.

Hillary Clinton already has the electoral machine of Barack Obama on her side. But she does not have the cultural baggage of Obama. She is not the new George Mondale or Walter McGovern in the Mountain and Deep South as was Barack Obama.  

[pbrower2a]

If these numbers are true, I don't see why Clinton wouldn't spend some money in Kentucky as well as pencil in a few campaign stops after the primary.

Maybe she should spend money in every state. Isn't that what the 50-state strategy is all about?

The Republicans have had a 50-state strategy forever. The Democrats need to bring back theirs that they had in the late 2000s.

In an open-seat election one widens the map if one can, as Clinton did in 1992, Dubya did in 2000, and Obama did in 2008. Neither Bill Clinton nor Dubya could have won without doing so. Obama was never certain of victory in 2008 until mid-September, and he may have seen the economic meltdown as the cause of his win... so why was he campaigning in Indiana in 2008 unless he was uncertain of winning? An incumbent may have good cause to not campaign in states that he barely won or lost in the previous campaign -- Senate seats in Indiana and Missouri were worth more to President Obama than were 21 electoral votes that he could afford to lose by not campaigning.

[pbrower2a]

This poll and the PPP poll of Arizona , but Hillary Clinton doing better on the whole (but not better than Obama in 2008 in states that he won by Reagan-like margins) suggests:

1. that Hillary Clinton is less polarizing,at least on personal identity
2. that the Obama coalition is intact where it is strong, but that Obama has maxed out in states like New York and California)
3. that the Clinton gains are strongest in places that Obama could not reach.

One state in extensive detail (Arizona), and really fragmentary evidence on another (Kentucky).

Barack Obama got absolutely crushed in five states that  Bill Clinton won twice (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia). In 2012 he lost Kentucky by margins that one associates with "Walter McGovern" and "George Mondale" -- get it? -- in 49-state losses.

[pbrower2a]

LMAO people taking this seriously. Remember the period from late 2013 to the summer of 2014 when Grimes was pretty much leading or tying McConnell? That's pretty much this. Kentucky will be easily Republican by election day. I literally laughed out loud when I saw a tie in eastern Kentucky. That area is at least 65% Republican every time and getting more Republican.

We shall see. 2014 was a wave year for Republicans.  It's a long time until Election 2016 (17 and a half months). But --

1. Kentucky has a popular Democratic governor. The state is not a sure thing in statewide races.

2. Obamacare is popular in Kentucky even if it had to be rebranded. Any Republican who threatens to take it away could be in deep trouble with the Kentucky electorate in 2016. 

3. The matchup is between Hillary Clinton and a US Senator representing Kentucky. Rand Paul was elected in Kentucky, so unless he is a catastrophic failure as a Senator as Rick Santorum was in Pennsylvania in 2006, he likely has some advantage as a Favorite Son. 

4. Barack Obama was a horrible match for Kentucky. He lost Kentucky in much the same manner as McGovern in 1972 and Mondale in 1984. But McGovern and Mondale were poor matches for America as a whole, as shown by them losing 49 states. The difference? Obama was an excellent match for more than half of America. He was basically a liberal version of Ronald Reagan where he won and George McGovern or Walter Mondale where he lost. 

Note well -- that Jimmy Carter followed the huge loss of George McGovern with a clear win of Kentucky in 1976; eight years after Mondale lost Kentucky, Bill Clinton won the state.  States can make huge swings in short times.

5. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama. She is not as polarizing as a personality.

6. She does not need to win Kentucky. If she is even close in Kentucky, then she is picking up voters who rejected Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 while losing little of the Obama supporters.

...OK. So what isn't said here?

1. What any Republican other than Rand Paul does against her. If Bush, Huckabee, Rubio, or Walker does better, then such may show that Rand Paul is a poor match for Kentucky.

2. So far she has only 45% support. How do we know that 45% is not her ceiling? If it is her ceiling, then she loses 54-45 or so.

3. If someone other than Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination,  then this poll is useless.

4. Unlike PPP, Quinnipiac, or even Survey USA, the Bluegrass poll applies only to Kentucky. We have little to check it against.   

     

[pbrower2a]

Here's an old poll from August 2014 -- from PPP:

Q6 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Jeb
Bush, who would you vote for?
Hillary Clinton.................................................. 43%
Jeb Bush......................................................... 48%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

Q7 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Chris
Christie, who would you vote for?
Hillary Clinton.................................................. 44%
Chris Christie .................................................. 41%
Not sure .......................................................... 15%

Q8 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Ted
Cruz, who would you vote for?
Hillary Clinton.................................................. 46%
Ted Cruz ......................................................... 41%
Not sure .......................................................... 13%

Q9 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Mike
Huckabee, who would you vote for?
Hillary Clinton.................................................. 44%
Mike Huckabee ............................................... 47%
Not sure .......................................................... 9%

Q10 If the candidates for President next time were
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rand
Paul, who would you vote for?
Hillary Clinton.................................................. 43%
Rand Paul ....................................................... 49%
Not sure .......................................................... 8%

....

Q26 In the last presidential election, did you vote for
Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Barack Obama................................................ 40%
Mitt Romney.................................................... 52%
Someone else / Don't remember .................... 8%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/08/rand-paul-continues-to-be-popular-in-home-state-of-kentucky.html#more

I do not show these polls in my map of polling results; I include no polls from before the election of November 2014. I would not make much of the difference between this poll and the Bluegrass Poll.  I can make no conclusions of how any other Republicans would do.

[pbrower2a]

Hillary won't win Kentucky, but its going to be much closer than it has been.

She is more likely to win Indiana than Kentucky.

The eight electoral votes of Kentucky are all going to go to the Republican nominee whether Hillary Clinton loses the state by  400K votes  (as did Obama in 2012) or four votes.  

Scott Walker would be a terrible match for Kentucky.

Let's wait on that until we see a binary matchup between Clinton and Walker in Kentucky. I don't deal in 'probably' contrary to prior behavior unless I see evidence. I was slow to believe that Barack Obama would win Virginia in 2008 until several polls indicated something other than "Virginia goes for the Republican nominee except in blowouts like 1964."  

[pbrower2a]

Hmm. I'll believe it when I see it.

Somebody will surely poll Kentucky involving several match-ups in addition to Clinton vs. Paul.

Three possible explanations are available:

1. Rand Paul is unusually weak in support in Kentucky and vulnerable even in a re-election bid.

2. Kentucky is returning to competitiveness because the Democratic Presidential nominee is not as poor a fit for Kentucky as was George Mondale or Walter McGovern.

3. This poll is a ludicrous outlier.

Anyone can interpret a poll as one wants.