I can't get away from the conclusion that Mike Huckabee is going to be the Republican nominee. I know, he's come from nowhere; he's cornpone; he's a governor from a small, inconsequential state that has produced a bunch of nobodies; he lacks Mitt's money and organization, and Rudy's name recognition and admiration. Yup. I know all that.
But look …
- Republicans are going to want someone who genuinely agrees with them on core issues: abortion, God, gays, and guns. Sure, they'll accept a "convert" telling them what they want to hear (Mitt), or perhaps stomach someone they feel is acceptable to mainstream America (Rudy-?), but Huckabee speaks to them where they are.
- He's charming and personable. Do not underestimate this. You can say the goofiest, wrongest stuff imaginable and get away with it if you're charming doing it. Huck's got the goods.
- Huck has been steadily gaining in the polls. He's close in Iowa; the question is whether the wack-ass circus of the Iowa caucuses makes the polling irrelevant. I don't know enough of the history to know.
- Are Huckabee's supposed unorthodoxies with regard to taxation somehow more toxic to GOP voters than Mitt's pandering or Rudy's defiance? (Or Rudy's pandering, for that matter?) To quote Bob's furniture: I doubt it!
- Romney is a Fraud. He will say anything to get elected. Voters will eventually sniff that out, if they haven't already. The best conservatives can hope for from Romney is that he's so beholden to their power that he becomes their Poodle-In-Chief, a domesticated long-haired breed that likes to beg and play fetch. Nice … but doesn't exactly capture the imagination.
- With Giuliani, if it ain't one thing it's another. If it isn't Kerik, it's the public-expense alleycatting, or the megalomania, or whatever. If GOP folks don't get cold feet for this guy before January, they'll most certainly have buyer's remorse later. He will implode. It's a matter of time. Maybe it's right now.
- McCain survived his money crunch and is running ads, but he thinks immigrants are human beings, or something. I don't see him reheating the souffle of his previous popularity with GOP voters.
The one reason that I keep hearing as to why Huckabee's got no chance is that … well … he's got no chance. I don't believe that any more. Not after the poll surge and the money surge. And he keeps getting nice notices for his debate performances.
And it concerns me because I think I know how to beat Romney or Giuliani. They're like negative images of each other: Rudy's a loose cannon with some accomplishments and some heterodox views; Mitt's a robot with few accomplishments and newly-adopted, slavishly orthodox stances. I will give GOP primary voters some credit: I think they know this, and don't particularly relish the choice.
Candidates who project optimism and good humor are always formidable in national elections. People didn't agree with Reagan's ideas, but they voted for him anyway. Same with Clinton and Bush II, I'm sure. I have little doubt that Deval Patrick swayed many, many votes by power of personality alone.
Besides his charm, Huckabee also knows how to inoculate himself from some of the bad image of the Republican Party: for instance, he's said the GOP needs to stop being the "party of plutocrats". I don't know if GOP voters even recognize it, but I think we'll find that class-based populism is a strong current in this year's election, if it isn't already. And I wouldn't put too much stock in the Club For Growth's opposition to him; they've had their day, and have rarely been more than a nuisance when it comes to actual elections.
On the other hand, this is not a propitious historical moment for Huckabee, or any Republican. There's no particular reason why this guy should be President: I don't know what particular or unique experience he brings to bear on Iraq, health care, immigration, and so forth. But like some contrived reality TV show, the election season can yield strange results. You don't always see why the last person standing was the most deserving … he just stuck around longer than anyone else.
Charley, your first paragraph describes Bill Clinton in 1991………….so I agree Huckabee has a big chance!
<
p>I would just reword the part where you state that Huckabee comes from a state that has “…produced a bunch of nobodies” – a former President of the United States a current U.S. Senator who is the front runner for the Democratic Nomination aren’t exactly nobodies!
I agree that Huckabee is pretty formidable as a candidate and a personality. Most importantly, he’s apparently peaking at the right moment (but keep in mind, at this stage in 2004 Dean was still climbing), but I would offer a couple counter-arguments:
<
p>
<
p>The frustrating thing about the GOP race is that each candidate has what would ordinarily be a fatal flaw in the Republican primary: Giuliani’s a social liberal, Romney’s a Mormon, McCain is anti-torture and pro-immigration, and Thompson is lacking in personality. While this would seem to indicate that a second-tier candidate should rise to the top due to the vacuum, it doesn’t mean that one will.
<
p>I think Huck has a good chance in Iowa (though whether he can weather the caucus system that tests organizations is a good question), but I still favor Romney to win the nomination. Politicians pander for one reason: it works.
He already has in Iowa. Look at that beautiful exponential curve of his. I swear, if I were running a campaign, that would be the line I’d want.
<
p>As for New Hampshire, you may be right that NH doesn’t necessarily go for the Bible conservative, but I’m not sure. Take a look at where Bill Clinton was strongest in 1992. He seemed to do all right.
<
p>Assuming Huckabee wins Iowa, which will bump him up in New Hampshire anyway, he’ll probably wind up taking South Carolina, where Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain are all trending downward. It’s really a race between Romney and Huckabee there. If Huckabee does well in Iowa, he can use that momentum to come strongly in second in NH and then take South Carolina. In 2000, that was basically it for Bush. Check it out: Bush won Iowa over Forbes (southerner v. businessman, eh?), then lost NH to McCain. Oh well, after taking SC Bush took everything else but Arizona, Michigan, and some New England states. If Huckabee’s smart, and I’m guessing he is, he’ll be going for the same tactic. Win in Iowa, do respectable in NH, step it up for SC, then ride the wave home.
Regarding the plutocrats line, I think Republican voters are quite OK with a candidate who says something that seems to attack a core consitutiency, as long as he doesn’t actually mean it.
<
p>
<
p>Answer for a Democratic candidate speaking against Dem power base: not going to get too far.
<
p>Answer for a Republican candidate speaking against R. power base: Not an issue. The Republican power base is what it is, and they care about one thing: having an R president. The back-room echelon knows the candidate will say whatever to get elected. They don’t even care whether the candidate means it. This does not matter. They will still have the power, and a Republican candidate will not interfere even as President.
<
p>Not so for the religious right. You have to talk their talk, publicly, all the time.
<
p>That is why it is much more do-able to have an anti-corporate interests Republican candidate, than one who is anti-religious interests, even though the corporate interests are, if anything, more powerful than the religious right.
Huckabee is going to win Iowa. By beating Romney’s gajillions of dollars and months of organization in that state, he instantly becomes a superstar, and Romney takes a huge hit. Maybe it’s enough to hand NH to Giuliani; maybe not. But regardless, Romney is permanently damaged goods, and if he wins NH, it’s the only primary he wins — Giuliani easily takes MI, NV, and FL, and Huckabee takes SC. Media goes insane over a two-man race, and McCain and the rest of the pack fade quickly. Then it’s a race to the finish between Giuliani and Huckabee. My guess: Giuliani pulls it out based on vastly superior money and establishment support — there just isn’t time in the frontloaded primary schedule for Huckabee to get up enough of a head of steam to win enough states on Super-Duper Tuesday.
<
p>Giuliani/Huckabee? Maybe.
I have a feeling that you’ll be linking back to this post in a few months when this plays out đŸ˜‰
<
p>Now that he’s basically conceded Iowa, Giuliani is rooting for Huckabee to win, for sure. It would hurt Rudy’s strongest competitor, and give Rudy a chance to make the media narrative Huck vs. Rudy. If Giuliani gets that, he likely wins for the reasons you cite. And it would certainly make a lot of sense for Rudy to pick Huckabee to shore up his problems with social conservatives.
<
p>That said, I prefer facing Giuliani in general election more than the other legit frontrunners. I don’t think he’s all that bright/knowledgeable (he would get crushed in debates against Clinton, Obama, or whoever really), and he has so much baggage that it will drag him down big time. I guess we’ll see.
I dunno there. What’s your reasoning? As I see it, MI is Myth’s home state, and he’s spent time campaigning there. I know his campaign kick-off in Detroit was a laff fest for us, but people there will remember that he paid homage. Has Giuliani even set foot in the state? Also, people of both parties still remember Myth’s father with great affection. People will be weighing the “catalytic dago” versus the “Moron Tab & Apple” factors. MI is a heavily protestant state. My guess is that on average they would prefer an upright-looking (thought a bit greasy) LDSer to a clearly sleazy catholic who wags his dick at his own church. Unless the timing of the MI primary is such that Myth is already out of the picture, I’m guessing Myth wins the Mit.*
<
p>*I strongly despise these terms, but have heard them used in abundance, and know that that mode of thought is sadly too common in MI, a hater state.
<
p>**If Huckabee is still in the running by the time of the MI primary, forget all this crap above. It’ll be Huckabee. He fits the MI repub bill perfectly. And I can see him getting lots of cross-over votes from the more sincere (aka not necessarily fundy nut) dem christians.
shows Giuliani with a small but consistent lead in MI. If/when Romney loses Iowa, that margin will widen, because Romney is seen as damaged goods, plus at that point no one’s going to campaign in MI. It’s not important enough, and I think they broke the rules for the Republican side as well as the Democratic, so candidates maybe aren’t supposed to campaign there at all (not sure about that for the GOP).
I agree, and I’ve wondered for a while why Huckabee hasn’t caught on more given the other Republican candidates.
<
p>But what about money? No doubt part of his problem is that he hasn’t been considered top-tier to this point, but maybe he just has a real blind spot when it comes to raising funds (after all, Thompson was considered “top-tier” for a while, and he has proven a terrible fundraiser).
<
p>The other issue is that it’s pretty clear (well, IMO) that the it’s the business types (not Club for Growth, but the actual business base) that control the Republican Party, and the social conservatives less so. Time will tell whether a Republican candidate who arises from the social conservative part of the Republican Party (as opposed to just pandering on the side) can win, because it hasn’t happened yet.
I’ve been talking with friends for the last several weeks about this very thing, and you basically summed up everything I’ve been saying. I’m getting the completely same vibe.
<
p>I’m a diehard progressive who has worked hard for progressive causes for several years now. I read “left-wing” blogs, I live in Massachusetts, I’m a young voter who believe in science and I’ve been against the war from the beginning. And when I hear Huckabee I keep thinking how much sense he makes. He’s the one candidate on the Republican side where I get beyond disagreeing with him. I vehemently disagree, but I think his side and mine can have a real debate — it’s a tougher debate to win, but it’s a better one. When Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, et. al. make the same basic points, I think they’re just total blow hards who aren’t “reality based.” Let me put it another way. When I’m talking to my friends about Romney, I’m basically shooting down 10 second talking points. When I’m talking to those same friends about Huckabee, I feel like I have to be much more substantive to show why he’s wrong on the issues.
<
p>He’s also been talking some economic populism. Now, imagine Clinton gets the nomination and she’s playing the cautious moderate triangulation, and he’s the one talking about poverty and the working poor from a religious point of view. That’s some potent stuff.
I know I didn’t hold that position when we chatted in person at the campaign training seminar, but the most recent Iowa poll has totally changed my mind LOL. Romney’s going to be is dead in the water – and if the Republican nom becomes a Huckabee/Guliani battle, Guliani’s going to have some tough problems. I’m not positive Huckabee could beat him, but it’s at least reasonably possible and potentially very likely.
<
p>A Huckabee vs. Hillary race scares the hell out of me, as a Democrat. I know I talk about how much I hate when people talk about voting based on electability, but I really do think Obama’s persona and reputation, as well as Edward’s populism would have a much better shot, versus whatever it is that Hillary pretends to be. Then again, I think the two of them are duds as well.
<
p>(I can only hope this election doesn’t become another version of Kerry’s presidential election, where he was so inept that pretty much everyone else had to bail him out so he’d at least have a chance… is it too much to ask for a good candidate, with good people surrounding them, who won’t be triangulated or unnecessarily obfuscate?)
if nominee huckabee is running on any kind of down-home, kitchen table issues that regular people can relate to, while hitting hillary as a value-less washington politician at the same time, watch for hill to do a kerryesque hummuna hummuna abandonment of the core principles of the democratic party. it’s going to be triangulation ad nauseam.
<
p>if you’re a liberal like i, i suspect that we’re going to watch the republicans once again turn us into freaks, and once again watch the nominee of our preferred party do nothing to defend us. let alone champion our values and ideas. it’s going to be painful.
<
p>i’m afraid that a huckabee-clinton race will be eerily, heartbreakingly a re-run of 2004. straight talking plain folk vs. stand for nothing elitist. .. sigh ..
<
p>
Not by a long shot.
I am not saying Hillary will be the nominee. Anything could happen.
But John Kerry is the undisputed Hamlet of Democratic politics. Clinton is not. If anything, she is Lady MacBeth. Big difference.
If you want Kerry-esque “humina humina”, you can expect more of it with Edwards or Obama, who, by virtue of being farther left, have farther to retreat in the general.
Clinton doesn’t have to retreat to the center because…SHE’S ALREADY THERE.
<
p>Of any of the Dem candidates, Hillary will show the least change from the primary to the general.
<
p>I am surprised we haven’t seen the term “JFK liberal” tossed around withd respect to Hillary: Liberal at core, but 99% practical. Able to talk to the liberal lions, but not of their kind…at least, left long ago to travel different roads.
<
p>In case you couldn’t tell, I like that flavor best of any Dem brand.
<
p>Of course, JFK gave us Bay of Pigs and “military advisors” in Vietnam. But I have high hopes for Clinton.
is that parody?
…but so cleverly disguised that only you guessed. Nice job.
I still think that Guliani has to be the favorite at this point, but Huckabee’s a solid bet too and certainly has the big ‘mo. Furthermore, Guliani’s campaign is floundering in most of the early states and while he thinks he can overcome that, I think he’s the only one with those thoughts. He underestimates the propensity Americans have to bandwagon.
<
p>That said, the only thing I know for sure is that Huckabee’s rise is the end for Romney – why vote for a fraud and a snake like Romney when you can vote for the real deal? While there’s something that’s always seemed sqeamish to me about Romney – mainly that lies and dishonesty ooze out of the very pores of his skin – Huckabee delivers his message in a way that people actually like.
<
p>However, that doesn’t mean Guliani won’t smear the guy into oblivion, or that Romney won’t go after Huckabee so hard that they both go down in flames. All I know is that these Republicans will go a long way to keep Huckabee from winning – which is good, because Huckabee actually would frighten me, especially against Hillary.
Certainly I think Huckabee will win IA, so much so I am literally putting my money on it (gotta love futures markets its educational gambling!).
<
p>If he wins by a a point or two Romney still has NH in the bag, support won’t shift to Huckabee in that more libertarian state and I doubt Romney supporters would go to Rudy or McCain that late in the game though a surprise McCain surge is not entirely unlikely.
<
p>If, however, Huckabee wins by a comfortable margin like 3-5 pts then I see Romney severely damaged, possibly to the point where much like Dean in 2004, NH support erodes and unites behind someone else. Id say supporters of Romney would split towards McCain and Rudy, considering McCain is in second place now it might be enough to propel him to the top, or those mainstream conservatives (more economic than religious) that like Romney the CEO might gravitate toward the CEO Mayor of Rudy. Either way Romneys NH lead is threatened if Huckabee wins by that much.
<
p>Moving past that date, Huckabee then surges in SC where social conservatives and defecting Romney supporters will be out in droves, especially after the SS Romney is sunk for good. And after that look for him and Rudy to split the Feb 5th states. Rudy has more money and will win big delegate moderate states like NJ, NY, and CA but Huckabee will likely carry everywhere else giving him a plurality of delegates going into the convention. Also if McCain wins NH then he splits the Rockefeller states with Rudy giving Huckabee the advantage.
<
p>If Huckabee wins look for him to go to either McCain (similar stances on immigration, need for foreign policy experience, nod to independents), Romney (if Romney has enough delegates to matter, if not dont expect this) or a non primary candidate (typical short list considerations, maybe Charlie Crist, maybe Ahnuld, more likely a conservative from a big swing state).
<
p>Huckabee vs Clinton itll be closer than ppl think since hes likable and she aint and a lot of voters vote on “character” over substance. If its Huckabee vs any other Dem look for it to be Dem since this is a Dem year by any other standard and a change election.
A president we can address as “Pastor Mike”.
<
p>In the least, it’s more honest.
Look for a resurgence of John McCain after Iowa goes for Huckabee. McCain is certainly more palatable to the establishment types who really run the party and would be our greatest threat in the general election drawing lots of independents.
People are very fickle and will quickly forget their loathing of the “maverick” from AZ. He’s their best ticket to the WH.
Heck, it was always going to be Huckabee or McCain.
<
p>With Mitt for veep.
I honestly don’t see it. What would he bring to anyone’s ticket besides the ongoing religious discomforts and history of greasy flipfloppery? Will he have a penny of his own money left over to keep loaning to the campaign after the primaries? I don’t think he can keep footing his own bill without the momentum of being the prez candidate.
Mythter Romney would bring to any ticket his good looks, his managerial mythology, and the Mormon money machine. As for greasy flipfloppery, if that mattered he’d be gone by now.
<
p>Do you recall when Reagan brought his veep pick onto the dias in 1979? GHW Bush blushed and grinned and refused to take questions about his new embrace of “voodo economics.”
<
p>The humiliating public renunciation of principles for power is a ritual of veephood. Romney, that efficient guy, just got his out of the way early.
Isn’t that what this thread is all about? Barring something shocking, Huckabee will only gain in Iowa – which will be voting very soon. Romney’s spent so much time and effort in there, that his campaign will probably be sunk when that happens. He’ll have no ‘mo and will be lucky to take New Hampshire, which is far less important than they’d like to believe. In other words, stick a fork in him. No way in hell Mitt is picked as Veep.
Huckabee is a naturally likable guy, and his success or failure is largely contingent upon the tenor of the press coverage. Richard Wolff essentially admits that Bush was treated with kid gloves in 2000 – that because he was personally charming, the press was less critical.
<
p>If the press give Huckabee the same scrutiny as the other candidates, his chances aren’t so great. If they fall for another “aw shucks” southerner, he’ll probably be our next president…
<
p>…although I find it impossible to imagine a time when the words “President Huckabee” will fail to arouse a giggle. It may as well be “Commander Dandelion” or “Prime Minister Tinypants”.
Looking at Bowers’ useful tables at Open Left, we learn that Huckabee is far behind in the money race.
<
p>Cash on hand:
Giuliani$11.4 million
Romney$9.2 million
Huckabee$0.6 million
Thompson and Paul both have more on hand than Huckabee.
<
p>Finally, adding the numbers up, we learn that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards each have more cash on hand than Romney and Giuliani put together. Clinton has almost as much cash on hand as all the Republicans put together!
caveat, but Huckabee’s certainly raised money recently. I think this will hurt him less in the primary than it will in the general. So much in a primary race can be altered by momentum, since it’s only 1 or a few states at a time. One of the reasons why we have the primary system set up the way we do is because it would be so much more expensive to run a truly national primary, robbing any chance of a low-tier candidate rising up with less funding.