Romney in Bigger Trouble Than I Thought

Marc Ambinder notes that Mitt Romney's Huckabee problem is bigger than a casual glance at the polls would suggest:

First, savvy consultants look at two numbers to project whether, if a particular election were held today, their candidate would win. One is the head to head -- and Mitt Romney still leads, narrowly, in Iowa polls. The second is intensity -- and here, Mike Huckabee's surge breaks over the walls that the Romney Iowa organization has spent so many months carefully building. Every consultant would rather be behind by five points in the head to head match ups and ahead by double digits in terms of the level of intensity.

Meanwhile, Rich Lowry notes others noting the Huckabee-Rudy nexus: "These pieces in Time and the New York Sun point out something that's been increasingly evident over the last few days: how nicely Rudy and Huck's strategies mesh."

In retrospect, it all sort of makes you wonder why social conservatives didn't just get behind Huckabee in the first place, rather than blessing Romney's preposterous conversion to religious right values and trying to drag Fred Thompson into the race. Sure, Huckabee's not well-liked by the economic hard-right, but cultural conservatives' objections to Giuliani didn't stop his backers from pushing him on the party. If Huckabee had just a modicum of money and institutional support, I think he'd be a formidable contender, but he's got neither.

Comments

If Huckabee has little to no organization in Iowa, are his supporters gonna show up to caucus? I don't know if Romney should be worried yet.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 27, 2007 5:26 PM

It's perfect. Huckabee deals Romney a staggering blow in Iowa, Giuliani surges into the gap by winning New Hampshire, and names Huckabee his running mate. The two compensate for a lot of each other's weaknesses.

Posted by Ryan | November 27, 2007 5:29 PM

"Sure, Huckabee's not well-liked by the economic hard-right, but cultural conservatives' objections to Giuliani didn't stop his backers from pushing him on the party."

But Matt, my dear, surely an observer as sophisticated as you must realize that it is the "economic hard-right" that is driving this train? They are the engine of the Republican party. They will cheerfully support the Christian right when they think it is in their interest, but never otherwise.

Which is the main difference between the Christian right and the economic right. The Christian right will always march in lockstep with the economic right, without a thought.

But the economic right supports the Christian right only when they think it is in their self-interest.

Which means most of the time, but not always.

Posted by Kathy G. | November 27, 2007 5:30 PM

Which raises the point I feel compelled to make again: when, not if, but when, the Club for Growth detonates Huckabees candidacy, doesn't that just take us back to square one?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 27, 2007 5:34 PM

If Huckabee wins outright in Iowa, he's going to be able to raise an awful lot of money in a hell of a hurry, don't you think?

Posted by Boots Day | November 27, 2007 5:48 PM

Huckabee lacks resources and organization because he is not a viable candidate, not the other way around. Like it or not, the system rewards people who start a year before the primaries to build a ground organization and a money-raising structure. Mitt did that and Huckabee didn't. He didn't because he couldn't. He's a weak candidate on every issue except social issues, and if Iowa will vote for him just because he touts his evangelical roots, shame on them.

Posted by Mike | November 27, 2007 5:50 PM

Boots Day: Unfortunately for Huck, NH is only 3 or 4 days after IA and then SC quickly follows. Huckabee needs to start convincing Republicans that he will win IA and hope the money and the free publicity starts now. Otherwise, the Romneybot and Rudy will bury him in Florida, NJ, NV and other larger states with high cost media.

Posted by HS | November 27, 2007 5:51 PM

> But Matt, my dear, surely an observer as
> sophisticated as you must realize that it
> is the "economic hard-right" that is driving
> this train? They are the engine of the
> Republican party. They will cheerfully
> support the Christian right when they
> think it is in their interest, but
> never otherwise.

The managers/controllers of the Republican Party can select a candidate, package him, and present him to the public to collect the votes. E.g. George W. Bush. But they can't simply make votes appear (large numbers of votes anyway) or run that process in reverse. Once the voters start moving in mass the managers are out of the drivers seat.

Of course that assumes that the managers have any desire to win in 2008, which I doubt.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 27, 2007 6:11 PM

Gotta agree with Kathy G. The GOP is a Money Party, with a little bit of God Party garnish, not the other way around. Jackson, Grant and Franklin will always speak louder than Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

I suppose that's one form of secularism.

Posted by sweaty guy | November 27, 2007 6:16 PM

This article reminds me of a song from the Musical "Wicked".

POPULAR---"When I see depressing creatures with unprepossessing features, I remind them on their own---behalf to think of celebrated heads of state---or specially great communicators....Did they have brains or knowledge? Don't make me laugh? They were popular---Please! It's all about popular! It's not-- about aptitude,---it's the way you've viewed, so it's very shrewd to be very very popular like me!"

Huckabee may not be winning on merit, but he is POPULAR....it's all about POPULAR!

Posted by Kay | November 27, 2007 6:16 PM

Huckabee is totally unacceptable to the financial communtiny, which by the way has nothing to do with the far right. The Wall Street lead financial world seeks a fully wired in government partner. That is how they made trillions of dollars for themselves as they sold out America and now they need a bailout. Clinton was their partner. Bush was not as good a one until he finally let Paulson in, giving the Treasury back to Goldman Sachs, to who it rightly belongs.

Huckabee is a loose cannon to them. He cannot be allowed to be president and he won't become president. Hillary Rudy or Mitt will work out for them just fine. Well as fine as possible down the dangerous road ahead. The worst problems will come before the next president but the work outs will take years and someone like Huckabee who might go all populist on them is unacceptable.

Posted by rapier | November 27, 2007 6:26 PM

Huckabee is running a brilliant campaign...for vice president.

Both Romney and Giuliani have to be salivating over the prospect of adding this dude to their tickets. Both R&G are suffering from attacks from the "Religious Right" or perhaps more aptly named, the "Baptists Who Don't Trust Anyone."

If you're Romney, the BWDTA would be mollified because at least the VP side of the ticket believes that the earth is only 6500 years old. That, and Huckabee can play bass.

If you're Giuliani, adding Huckabee would be a no brainer way to remind the BWDTA that even God fearing folk sometimes have names that end with a vowel. My only question: Huckabee has a heart, Giuliani has a brain...who gets to play Dorothy?

There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place.....

Posted by William Argyle | November 27, 2007 6:29 PM

I think William makes very good points. In many ways, Huck is the ideal VP candidate. With vulnerabilities showing in KY, NC, MO, AR, and VA, Huck would help sew a lot of that back up. From Huck's perspective, it also sets him up nicely for 2012, where the only options are going to be Huck, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, and Jeb.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 27, 2007 6:48 PM

"Huckabee lacks resources and organization because he is not a viable candidate, not the other way around."

Yup.

-----

I continue to be baffled by the folks who see the GOP race as a Romney/Giulinai race.

Posted by Petey | November 27, 2007 6:50 PM

Given the prospects for election, I'm not sure that the #2 position on the 08 Republican ticket is particularly desirable . . .

. . . for someone who would like to be president one day, anyway.

Posted by southpaw | November 27, 2007 7:25 PM

I really don't think a Rudy/Huckabee ticket is going to sell with evangelicals. I think you are dreaming to think that social conservatives are going to run to the polls to vote for Rudy Guliani just because Mike Huckabee is the VP candidate. Once the real race begins next year, people are only going to be watching the two Presidential candidates. The VP is really just fluff. Besides, how socially conservative can Huckabee be if he runs alongside a pro-choice, pro-gay president?

On another note, Huckabee is going to quickly run out of cash and steam as soon as Iowa is over. That's the only state that he has any campaign at all in and once he loses New Hampshire, SC, and Michigan he will be all but forgotten.

Giving Huckabee a go is only giving Rudy Guliani a get-out-of-jail-free card in the early states so he can win the nomination later.

I believe that Mitt Romney is the best option to beat Hillary. He is running a campaign that is very socially conservative, but yet appeals much more to moderates because of his strength in blue states. He has the money and ground power to win. He's the best of both worlds, Rudy and Mike that is.

Posted by Casey | November 27, 2007 7:27 PM

Fearless prediction: McCain ain't dead yet and will get a second look. He's the Republican equivalent to Kerry O4--barely acceptable to just about all the constituencies but loved by none of them. He'll be a "consensus conservative." His emergence will make the Republican primary season an absolute mess (Rudy and Romney have the econ conservatives, Huck the social cons, Paul the libertarians). It really could be a brokered convention.

Posted by danimal | November 27, 2007 7:39 PM

William Argyle - If you're Romney, the BWDTA would be mollified because at least the VP side of the ticket believes that the earth is only 6500 years old. That, and Huckabee can play bass.

And he is a likeable religious fanatic. Some one who is not too far around the bend like the Phelpes Family, who pardons Keith Richards for a speeding ticket..

Downsides? Plenty.

He is an Open Borders believer who called people racist for questioning why illegals got in-state tuition and expanded welfare services under Huckabee when Huckabee rejected reciprocal in-state tuition credits for Arkansan students and neighbor states who could not get the major they sought in Arkansas, but could in Alabama, Missouri, etc. And the reverse.

While his inspirational weight loss is a plus, his Nanny State tendencies shown as Governor are anathema to Republicans - his solution to try and double the tax on any vice he disapproved of even more anthema.

Huckabee was also a notorious overall taxer, and was not well-regarded by Republicans or Democrats in state for his fiscal management. In my personal opinion, his bucking the cancerous Club for Greed (Growth) is a good thing, the bad thing is those fatcats are actually right about him seeking vast new entitlements through taxes.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 27, 2007 7:43 PM

Question is, though, does Huckabee want to be anyone's VP?

Posted by Quietus | November 27, 2007 8:21 PM

Too many actors in the campaign and thus we lose to the Democrates because we field the wrong GOP candidate. Sad that the GOP has such bigorty...it will take them down.

Posted by Susie | November 27, 2007 8:46 PM

Too many actors in the campaign and thus we lose to the Democrates because we field the wrong GOP candidate. Sad that the GOP has such bigorty...it will take them down.

Posted by Susie | November 27, 2007 8:46 PM

"He is an Open Borders believer..."

Gotta go with the lunatic fringe on this one. Racism always trumps religious fanaticism.

Plus, I'm not sure that I can take 4 yrs of a P or VP whose last name sounds like a Jodie Foster monologue from the movie "Nell"...

Posted by Rihilism | November 27, 2007 9:10 PM

"Question is, though, does Huckabee want to be anyone's VP?"

Surely, he's the youngest candidate in the pack. A VP slot gives him a sure shot for the big one in 2016.

Posted by AC | November 28, 2007 3:58 AM

To be blunt: From what I've been reading across the internet...Most of the Evangelical/Christian Right are NOT voting for Huckabee and they are NOT voting against Romney; what they are is anti-mormon and Romney being Mormon is at the right place in the wrong time. The Evangelical/Christian movement is voting against the Mormons. Romney has the skills the intellegence, the vision, the wisdom and experience to be a great President. As a United States President Romney would do much good for this nation, but the Christian Right, out of fear and a long and nutured tradition, cannot bring themselves to see the strengths of the man. Romney has become pro-life, that would be hearld if he were not a Mormon. Reagan was praised for his change of heart and mind in becoming pro-life. Even the Democrates are fighting Romney because they see the great potential he has for bringing about productive and healthy change. Romeny is the candidate they don't want to go up against. Romney is just one of those unique and outstanding leaders that don't come along very often. Sort of like a Halley's Comet that you might only get to see once in your life time. I hope this nation doesn't miss out of this opportunity to have such a prepared leader.

Posted by Kay | November 28, 2007 9:47 AM

Sorry for all the spelling errors in the last post. I was should have previewed.

Posted by Kay | November 28, 2007 9:51 AM

"Even the Democrates are fighting Romney because they see the great potential he has for bringing about productive and healthy change."

Really?

"Romeny is the candidate they don't want to go up against."

Are you sure?

"Romney is just one of those unique and outstanding leaders that don't come along very often. Sort of like a Halley's Comet that you might only get to see once in your life time. I hope this nation doesn't miss out of this opportunity to have such a prepared leader."

I assume your analogy refers to his tendency to off-gas when things get too warm...

Posted by Rihilism | November 28, 2007 1:17 PM

Well said Kay.

It really is hard to imagine a Republican candidate better prepared to lead the country at this time.

My grandpa had a framed picture of Ronald Reagan in the family room. I think it was because Reagan exuded an inspirational love for being an American and it was that love that motivated him to seek political office.

Romney is the only candidate who exudes this same uplifting vision for America, and the choices he has made in his personal as well as professional life are exemplary. As a result he has a very strong and happy family and a very strong record of professional successes. Those who have worked closely with him have only good things to say.

This simply does not apply to any of the other candidates. Which of them have shown the intelligence and consistency in making good choices? While Rudy's brass-knuckles approach allowed him to get things done in NYC, it isn't a style that will get him very far in Washington.

Our greatest presidents have been those whose combination of vision for America, raw intelligence and character strengths propelled them through trials and to a legacy of progress for the country.

I hope we are not such religious bigots that we rob ourselves a chance to have someone of Mitt's talents to work on the issues we will face at home and abroad from 2008 - 2012.

Posted by Taylor | November 28, 2007 1:56 PM

If I were to vote Republican, I would vote for Ron Paul in a heart beat. He is the only one that stands out of the crowd, and for good reasons. He should consider himself an Independent, for reasons to include his independent thinking, and the support that he has from individuals and not Corporations.

Posted by Sheldon | November 29, 2007 12:50 AM