Huckabee Marches On

He's surging in Iowa. It seems to me that the ultimate beneficiary of this is probably John McCain. If Huckabee can beat Romney -- or even come close -- I think it exposes Romney as weak and fatally flawed. Similarly, Fred Thompson seems to have already demonstrated an inability to put together a viable presidential campaign. That leaves Giuliani.

But I think it also leaves orthodox, McCain-hating conservatives a chance to reconsider whether they really think McCain's heterodoxies are worse than Giuliani's. And I don't think they are. Meanwhile, McCain would have a lot of Rudy-esque benefits as a general election candidate but without nearly as much in the way of a track record of scandal and much and bizarre crazy outbursts (though he has some of these too). In particular, for years now he's been the rational, "respectable," face of lunatic schemes of global American military domination. Ramesh Ponnuru's probably the smartest totally orthodox conservative out there and that's how he sees it and I think more will join him if Huckabee succeeds in bursting the Romney Bubble.

Comments

Red-state social conservatives won't accept McCain because of his positions on immigration, embryonic stem cell research and the Federal Marriage Amendment. They'd rather go with the uber-authoritarian Giuliani, despite his so-called moderate social stances and personal baggage. And if Huckabee continues to crank up his campaign, well, they may have finally found their guy. Or if a more "name" politician like Giuliani or McCain gets the nod, they'll opt for a third-party candidate or stay home.

Ponnuru may be a a "totally orthodox conservative" but he doesn't really understand the strange ways the Southern evangelical mind works.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | November 21, 2007 8:58 AM

Well, this would test that theory that the litmus test for the GOP these days is torture.

Posted by Sam | November 21, 2007 9:24 AM

You've got it exactly backwards. This poll is terrible for McCain. In the graph he doesn't even appear. I checked Pollster.com and he's running at 7% overall. In Iowa you have to get 15% to reach the threshold; otherwise, your caucusers have to go with their second choices. Given McCain's long-term slide and his lack of money, a failure to get 15% in Iowa will end his campaign

Posted by Jose Padilla | November 21, 2007 9:33 AM

You ignore the possibility of Huckabee actually
benefitting by winning, or doing unexpectedly well
in Iowa.

Posted by catclub | November 21, 2007 9:46 AM

Yeah, the ultimate beneficiary of Huckabee winning Iowa is.... Huckbaee.

Posted by Ron | November 21, 2007 9:52 AM

JP, you've got it wrong. Huckabee will take out Romney, which allows space for a McCain rise in NH. He's already running second there.

Posted by Clark | November 21, 2007 10:05 AM

Yeah, if Huckabee's hypothetical Iowa win allows McCain to pick up a hypothetical NH win, the ultimate winner is Huckabee. Who does this scenario help is South Carolina? You really think it's McCain?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | November 21, 2007 10:39 AM

Yeah, Huckabee coming on is truly scary. I've never been that worried about either Giuliani (as a candidate, that is--as a human being and potential president he worries me tremendously) or Romney. But way back about a year ago I picked Romney or Huckabee to win the Republican nomination, and Huckabee has always been the one I thought would be the strongest Republican general candidate.

Posted by Antid Oto | November 21, 2007 11:23 AM

Its funny how Hillary Clinton's carpetbagger status leaves her singularly incapable of going after either Guliani or Huckabee on political corruption issues. She's a New York senator, so going after corrupt NY Republicans leaves her vulnerable to counterpunches against every corrupt NY Democrat. And her husband was governor of Arkansas, so every hit against Huckabee's record in the same gig, leaves her open to conservatives rehashing every Whitewater related Arkansas allegation-- the most notorious being the one and only period in her life she played the commodities market, she made a $100,000 profit.

If that was legit, she had a gift she should have stuck with. Commodities is tough business to make a profit in (the vast majority of new traders crash and burn); who walks away from the craps table forever when the the first time they play they make a killing?

Posted by beowulf | November 21, 2007 11:36 AM

who walks away from the craps table forever when the the first time they play they make a killing?

Actually, me.

Maybe the third horse bet I made in my life, I won an off-the-wall trifecta where I had just picked numbers and didn't look at the odds. I took my money and figured if I took my lump of cash and never played again, I'd be able to say I was up on the track and never went back.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 21, 2007 11:41 AM

"Red-state social conservatives won't accept McCain because of his positions on immigration, embryonic stem cell research and the Federal Marriage Amendment. They'd rather go with the uber-authoritarian Giuliani, despite his so-called moderate social stances and personal baggage."

Maybe they would go with Giuliani just to piss liberals off? How better than with going with the incestuous Jack Bauer/Torquemeda-wannabe than with the war hero who was tortured and knows what it's like?

Posted by Reality Man | November 21, 2007 11:46 AM

In Iowa, the cross-tabs are more meaningful than in any primary state. In particular, it is important to know which candidate is the second choice of caucus goers and which candidate(s) a caucus goer will not support under any circumstance.

Remember, in any caucus location, any candidate that does not garner 15% of the vote in the room gets nothing. That candidates supporters must then choose among the remaining candidates. At this point, caucusgoers whose candidate did not get 15% ordinarily move to their second favorite candidate (unless that candidate also did not get 15%).

Posted by Ephus | November 21, 2007 12:12 PM

The commenters above are correct. If Huckabee takes Iowa, the primary beneficiary will be Huckabee. His only real weakness as a GOP primary candidate in socially conservative states is the perception that he can't actually win the nomination. An Iowa win will make him a serious contender to actually win the nomination.

I think that a Huckabee win will set up an interesting dynamic where he carries most of the Bible Belt, but Guiliani carries most of the delegate-rich Blue States and wins the nomination.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 21, 2007 12:14 PM

Huckabee does however have the disadvantage of very limited funds. It makes it hard for him to respond effectively if someone decides to go negative on him (Thompson is already trying to hit him). Of course, it's also possible that he'll get a big lump of cash if he wins Iowa. But you're talking about someone who has raised something like $4 million YTD - I think at some point he has to improve on that, or it will kill his campaign.

Posted by bbartlog | November 21, 2007 12:24 PM

Yes, Aaron, I think McCain will do well in SC if he wins NH. His primary problem in 2000 was running against Bush and Rove AND attacking social conservatives. He doesn't have either of those problems this time around.

Huckabee won't have enough money to compete more than 3 weeks after IA unless he does well in NH, which I don't think he will.

Posted by Clark | November 21, 2007 12:41 PM

It's the illegal immigration, stupid. McCain and Huckabee are on the wrong side of the issue, so they're going nowhere.

Posted by Fred | November 21, 2007 1:05 PM

Fred, what, did you suddenly forget about gay marriage or something? How come this isn't that important to republican voters anymore?

Posted by Tyro | November 21, 2007 1:20 PM

Ramesh Ponnuru's probably the smartest totally orthodox conservative out there

Sort of like being the thinnest kid at fat camp, or the smartest guy at the special olympics.

Posted by drjimcooper | November 21, 2007 1:28 PM

the posters who argue that huckabee will ultimately benefit from his success are absolutely correct. the tendency to dismiss his chances are a case of typical beltway myopia that morphs into the conventional wisdom of the day.
one commentator writes that huckabee cannot win and that idea echoes all across the land.
jeez...what throws pundits off is the fact that we are seeing a nomination process that typically happens on the democratic side and the equilibrium of most beltway folks is thrown off.
huckabee is like jimmy carter or bill clinton, a guy who comes from the outside and wins it by virtue of the fact that he's the best horse in the race.
that year.
sure huckabee has a few warts - as far as conservatives are concerned - but they are not so bad that a bit of lighting and make-up couldn't cover them up.
i saw a movie with robert redford in it this morning. it was amazing. with lighting and camera angles they totally obscured the fact that the guy has a wretched complexion, with god knows what going on in his face.
once republicans pick huck they'll do the same for huckabee; cover up those warts with tons of make-up and lighting and camera angles. and like a smitten lover, once one has chosen one's prince, you tend not to look too closely at little details like a few unattractive warts.

Posted by frankie d | November 21, 2007 3:39 PM

You don't think that it benefits, I don't know, Huckabee? He seems to be the candidate with the strongest conservative credentials and absence of fatal flaws (not to mention genuine personal charisma)-- his perceived unelectability is his biggest electoral weakness. Winning Iowa negates that.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | November 21, 2007 5:31 PM

Uh, if Huckabee wins Iowa he's the Nom. Huckabee could skip NH and win handily. Plus, he's done all of this without any cash. And now the money is about to start flowing. Sorry to say, but the worst case scenario is looking more and more likely--Huckabee v. Clinton. We'll be watching Florida and Ohio again, and doesn't look good in either place.

Posted by MSB | November 21, 2007 6:23 PM

But I think it also leaves orthodox, McCain-hating conservatives a chance to reconsider whether they really think McCain's heterodoxies are worse than Giuliani's

No, the hatred of McCain is visceral and it's been reinforced for 7 years now.

Giuliani, on the other hand has been portrayed as a hero who single handedly saved us from the 5th columnists. You actually have to remind Republicans that he's been married 3 times. (And of course, he isn't really pro-choice).

If Huckabee wins Iowa it helps Huckabee. If he can't parlay it into victories in other states we go back to the status quo.

Posted by Jinchi | November 21, 2007 6:42 PM

You've got it exactly backwards. This poll is terrible for McCain. In the graph he doesn't even appear. I checked Pollster.com and he's running at 7% overall. In Iowa you have to get 15% to reach the threshold; otherwise, your caucusers have to go with their second choices. Given McCain's long-term slide and his lack of money, a failure to get 15% in Iowa will end his campaign
Posted by Jose Padilla

Jose is right about McCain. He goes to no votes if he is under 15%.

As for Huckabee, the Bible Belt always throws up their champion, who never wins. Huckabee is DOA in Northern America as Pat Robertson and Falwell were. His downfall is saying "Please, more taxes" and his Open Borders stances like college subsidies for illegal and his tendency to dismiss the concerns of illegal mass invasion as "bigotry".

Posted by Chris Ford | November 21, 2007 7:49 PM

McCain benefits no more than does any corpse something nice happens to.

Huckabee benefits most, but still hasn't enough big money behind him to win.

Romney, however, will be hurt going into NH and get less momentum going up against Giuliani in all the states he's behind in.

So the real beneficiary of a Huckabee victory will be Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by Sports commentator | November 21, 2007 9:38 PM

To the victor go the spoils

It seems to me that if Huckabee can do what McCain cannot, knock out Romney, then Huckabee, not McCain, would be the beneficiary.

Sure, the God wing of their party probably dislikes McCain less than Giuliani. But their dislike of Huckabee is even less, a possitive like, in fact.

Perhaps the Mammon wing of the party might have some reason to prefer McCain to Huckabee based on their policy preferences. But McCain has pissed off Mammon as well as God, what with his campaign reform heresy. Do the two candidates differ enough on the issues Mammon cares about to make him adamant in supporting McCain over Huckabee?

Of course, both wings flap best for anyone with the Republican label who can win. By knocking Romney out where McCain can't, Huckabee would show that he is the stronger horse, to quote Osama, at least within the party. Do we know how Huckabee might do in the general against Dems, as compared to McCain's performance? I'm not sure anyone has done that polling yet, but I am sure that it would be meaningless until and unless Huckabee gets his name recogntion up at least in the same ball-park as those of McCain and the Dems being polled. Winning Iowa would do that, and we would get Huckabee vs the Dems polls, and then we'll know. And if Huckabee does not do clearly and horribly worse than McCain, I don't see the Republican-in-the-street siding with the supposed moderate who doesn't represent their values as well as Huckabee, and can't even deliver the better pull with swing voters his moderation ought to give him. Even if McCain does better than Huckabee in such polling right after a Huckabee Iowa victory, if McCain isn't also beating at least one Dem front-runner in national polling by that time, the Reps might still be willing to gamble on the Presidential race newbie who might come up with hidden talents, over a politician who has already shown them everything he's got, and that's not enought to beat the Dems.

I would definitely not count Huckabee out on the basis of some judgment that we don't need to wait on that general election polling because his religious extremism makes him inherently less appealing to the general electorate. So called "values voting" is almost certainly not the unstoppable juggernaut on offense that some pretend it to be, but it really is easy in this country to defend even the weirdest (Christian!) religious belief from the charge of extremism. We tend to see fidelity to extreme beliefs as a sort of integrity, which we imagine to be the whole point of religion. Some of us tend to think the same way about political ideology, which explains a lot about why American politics and American religion are both so screwed up.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | November 22, 2007 1:25 AM