Win-Win

Dana Goldstein thinks this new Republican Majority for Choice ad airing in New Hampshire and Iowa and presumably aimed at boosting Rudy Giuliani's fortunes is "backfiring and mostly benefiting" Mike Huckabee:

Huckabee quite possibly will benefit from the ad, but the underlying dynamic is that Huckabee is in many ways Rudy Giuliani's best friend in this race. As Ramesh Ponnuru says:

I have always thought that Giuliani could not win a two-man primary. I no longer believe that. He could beat Huckabee even in a two-man race. He can root for Huckabee to take out all his stronger competitors.

Right. Obviously, best-case for Giuliani would be to win Iowa. But that hasn't looked realistic for a long time. A Huckabee win is probably his next best option.

Comments

"Right. Obviously, best-case for Giuliani would be to win Iowa. But that hasn't looked realistic for a long time. A Huckabee win is probably his next best option."

The wisdom of Ramesh's comment goes far beyond just Iowa.

Huckabee can theoretically take out McCain in NH and Thompson in SC too.

A strong Huck candidacy absorbs all the folks who can't support a pro-life, pro-gun control, ethnic Catholic and prevents them from coalescing around someone who could actually beat Giuliani in a two-man race.

More broadly, if you want to understand the GOP contest, stop focusing so much on Romney and Iowa. That's a sideshow.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 6:13 PM

I'll admit that I haven't been paying too much attention to the GOP primaries - specifically to the various candidates' cash situations - but I don't see why Huckabee himself can't get the nomination (the basic premise you seem to be operating under). Given that I think Huckabee is probably as strong or stronger a general election candidate than Giuliani, it's somewhat distressing that no many Dems seem to be taking for granted the notion that he won't be around in the general.

Posted by Christmas | November 29, 2007 6:21 PM

"I don't see why Huckabee himself can't get the nomination"

The Party establishment - which centers around the money cons - veto him.

If the WSJ hates you, you're going to have serious trouble winning the GOP nomination.

Assuming Huckabee manages to survive long enough to be part of a two man race, the Not Huckabee candidate will be a strong favorite.

This is the whole point of Ramesh's comment - only having Huckabee as the Not Giuliani candidate would allow Giuliani to win.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 6:31 PM

Assuming Huckabee manages to survive long enough to be part of a two man race, the Not Huckabee candidate will be a strong favorite.

It's possible, though, for the social conservatives of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to create a monster that the business conservatives of the WSJ cannot put down. If Giuliani gets so wounded that it's not close in the first big contests, there is a plausible scenario where Huckabee's momentum overwhelms Rudy and forces him out.

Posted by southpaw | November 29, 2007 6:44 PM

"It's possible, though, for the social conservatives of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to create a monster that the business conservatives of the WSJ cannot put down."

Certainly possible, but pretty damn unlikely.

The GOP has never even come close to nominating a candidate that the money cons are overtly hostile to.

If I'm running Team Giuliani, I'd far prefer to have a one-on-one in February with Huck than with Romney, McCain, or Thompson.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 6:53 PM

If Huckabee manages to win the first three states, that goes a long way toward telling me that the Party Establishment ain't what it used to be.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | November 29, 2007 6:57 PM

This is like a two-cushion bank shot - pro Giuliani ads hurt Rudy but help Huckabee enough to strengthen Huckabee to the point where he can destroy the Rudy's main opponents.

I appreciate Ramesh and Matthew and everyone else trying to discern what's going on here, but a 5-way race is too difficult for me to grasp. I think Southpaw's scenario (Huckabee wins enough to become the Not-Rudy and then his momentum takes him right on past Rudy) is just as plausible as the Ponnuru-Petey scenario (Huckabee wins enough to become the Not-Rudy but then Rudy beats Huckabee), given that the step before that would likely be Rudy-Romney-Huckabee, in which case Romney and Rudy would be beating each other up.

Posted by Al | November 29, 2007 6:57 PM

The Party establishment - which centers around the money cons - veto him.

The Democratic party establishment hates John Edwards, but he's still neck-and-neck-and-neck with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, and he's still got a very good shot at the nomination. It may be that the GOP party machinery is so tight and so disciplined that a Huckabee insurgency is certainly doomed to failure while the Dem/Clinton machine is lax enough to allow Edwards a shot at the nomination, but I'm not really seeing it.

Posted by Christmas | November 29, 2007 7:02 PM

"a 5-way race is too difficult for me to grasp"

Of course.

But these things generally work their way down to 2-way races before it's over.

You need to both figure out who is going to do well early, but you also need to figure out who is weak or strong in the 2-way race that invariably develops.

For example, in '04, I was a Dean skeptic not because I foresaw him pooching IA and NH, but because I didn't think he could win a 2-way race.

(It's also worth noting that the newfangled structure of having a majority of delegates handed out on a single day could mean that a 2-way race never develops on the GOP side, in which case we're in uncharted territory.)

-----

"is just as plausible as the Ponnuru-Petey scenario (Huckabee wins enough to become the Not-Rudy but then Rudy beats Huckabee)"

FWIW, this is not my forecast. I'm just agreeing with Ramesh that IF Huck becomes the Not Giuliani, that's Giuliani's easiest path to the nomination by far.

I continue to think that McCain or Thompson is most likely to end up with the prize.

The '08 GOP race looks to me like an odd replay of the '04 Dem race with McCain and Thompson in the Kerry and Edwards roles.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 7:12 PM

"The Democratic party establishment hates John Edwards, but he's still neck-and-neck-and-neck with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, and he's still got a very good shot at the nomination. It may be that the GOP party machinery is so tight and so disciplined that a Huckabee insurgency is certainly doomed to failure while the Dem/Clinton machine is lax enough to allow Edwards a shot at the nomination, but I'm not really seeing it."

Different kinda situation.

The Dem race is interesting in that all three top candidates are broadly "acceptable to the Party". While Clinton utterly dominates the Beltway careerists, who certainly will fight for her, there aren't major groupings in the Party willing to veto her opponents.

The Huckabee situation resembles the '88 Gephardt situation. Gephardt was running an out-and-out protectionist campaign in '88, and major groupings of the Dem Party were willing to veto him based solely on that point. After Gephardt won Iowa, stopping Gephardt became the organizing principle of the Party establishment. They weren't fighting for their favorite candidate, they were fighting against Gephardt.

No one in the '08 Dem race is going to provoke anything like that- the Clinton Beltway folks want to nominate her, not stop anyone else - but Huckabee could provoke such an establishment veto situation on the GOP side.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 7:22 PM

well part of the reason huckabee would be better in the general than the rest of the field is he's not totally insane.

Posted by yoyo | November 29, 2007 8:03 PM

It isn't bad enough we have the Republicans in the White House. We also have Petey in this comments thread.

Posted by Kyle | November 29, 2007 8:12 PM

I think the latest revelations about Guiliani's corrupt use of NYC security in order to make sure that he kept getting laid is about to cause his candidacy to implode.

Posted by Rich | November 29, 2007 8:27 PM

well part of the reason huckabee would be better in the general than the rest of the field is he's not totally insane.

Sure he is. More war in Iraq? Check. 30% national sales tax? Check. Huckabee's nuts, he's just better at hiding it.

Posted by Christmas | November 29, 2007 8:31 PM

> It's possible, though, for the social
> conservatives of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South
> Carolina to create a monster that the business
> conservatives of the WSJ cannot put down.

Yup. And the Democrats in general are taking the possibility of a Huckabee candidacy way, way too lightly. Matt Stoller over at OpenLeft has written a few good pieces but other than that nothing.

There is also the question as to whether the managers of the Republican Party actually want to win in 2008.

Sure, the moneycons and the princes of the Radical Right _can_ lead the party. But they can't force people to the polls and they can't manufacture enough votes to steal and entire primary season. If Huckabee gets rolling they will _not_ be able to stop him.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 29, 2007 8:34 PM

"I think the latest revelations about Guiliani's corrupt use of NYC security in order to make sure that he kept getting laid is about to cause his candidacy to implode."

Dunno if that's the most likely scenario, but this is definitely a moment of extreme peril for Team Giuliani. To some degree, I think it's going to matter a lot whether or not any of his rivals latch onto this. I don't think the press alone can bring him down on this, but the press plus his GOP opponents could keep this alive for weeks. It'll be interesting to see whether or not Team Willard starts hammering him on this.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 8:59 PM

Let me get this straight. The Republicans really want to nominate a totalitarian megalomaniac who:

Located his command bunker in the World Trade Center complex after the 1993 attack for his convenience against expert advice.

Couldn't get the police and firemen compatible radios so hundreds of them died needlessly.

Has cashed in on his alleged Sept. 11 heroism in the millions.

Preaches law and order but ranted (profanely) in front a racist City Hall rally of drunk white cops during his predecessor's admimistration.

Presided over a reign of police terror for black New Yorkers that will ensure unprecedented black turnout in 2008.

Paraded openly with his mistress Judy Nathan (after dumping mistress and employee Christyne Lategano)while married, fraudently used city funds for his trysts and informed his wife of their divorce by televised news conference.

Does lucrative business with the Qatari royal family, which harbored Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.

Has a pedophile priest and an indicted Mafia-linked thug as best buddies.

Please, do it!

Posted by Eric | November 29, 2007 9:01 PM

For example, in '04, I was a Dean skeptic not because I foresaw him pooching IA and NH, but because I didn't think he could win a 2-way race.

But there never was a real 2-man race in '04. Kerry emerged from Iowa and, Edwards' protestations notwithstanding, basically rode that to victory. How many primaries did he lose after that?

Posted by right | November 29, 2007 9:13 PM

It's funny how things begin to crystallize as we get closer the the new year, and that which wasn't apparent a couple of weeks ago now seems pretty clear.

I'd still say formally it's a four man race in the GOP (anybody seriously want to include Ron Paul or Fred Thompson and call it a five man race? Didn't think so). Anything's still possible at this juncture, and in my heart of hearts I still think McCain could begin to rise in the polls and make things interesting in New Hampshire (but not in Iowa). Still, the most likely scenario in my view is that Mitt Romney is the nominee. I doubt the polls are wrong in Iowa, and Huckabee's very likely headed to a victory there. But by the time it occurs, expectations for him will have long since been elevated to the point where it won't be quite the momentum-gainer it would be if the Iowa caucuses were held tomorrow. Moreover, I don't see Minister Huck prevailing amongst all them flinty, live free or die New Hampshirites. Heck, half the people who will vote in the New Hampshire primary probably once lived in Massachusetts. And I guess it now looks to me like Rudy's really in trouble. Big numbers nationally, sure. But it's hard to see how he maintains credibility all the way to the Rudy friendly states, if he has disappointing finishes in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It looks like the conventional wisdom -- a social moderate just can't win the Republican nomination -- is still true, because that's what's killing him in Iowa. Moreover, I foresee Rudy's negatives rising over the next four weeks.

Once it becomes a two man race, it's hard to see Huck beating the very rich, very disciplined, perfect-haired ex Massachusetts governor. Americans might prefer to have a cup of coffee or attend a ball game with the Will Rodger-like Huckabee, but discipline, money, organization, and staying on message will get more votes.

Posted by Jasper | November 29, 2007 9:16 PM

If Huckabee wins IA, NH and SC, I don't think the WSJ editorial page can save Giuliani on Feb 5.

There are plenty of Republicans who want to win. And there's enough reason to think Huckabee is a stronger general election candidate that Huckabee can both argue he's more electable and more conservative on social issues.

What's Giuliani gonna counter with? Promising to kill more Arabs than Huckabee?

Huckabee/Hagel would be a ticket that would be tough for the Dems to beat.

Posted by Carl Nyberg | November 29, 2007 9:26 PM

"It's funny how things begin to crystallize as we get closer the the new year, and that which wasn't apparent a couple of weeks ago now seems pretty clear."

Beware the false clarity of five weeks out. At this point in '04, the false clarity of this moment was that it was a Dean-Clark race. At this point in '00, the false clarity of this moment was that Bradley was on the rise and that McCain had no shot in NH.

A huge amount of movement happens in the two weeks before IA.

"I'd still say formally it's a four man race in the GOP (anybody seriously want to include Ron Paul or Fred Thompson and call it a five man race? Didn't think so)"

I think Thompson is still very much in it. I think he's considerably more likely to win the nomination than Huckabee. In fact, I think we have a four and a half man race in the GOP, with Huckabee being the half.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 9:36 PM

"But there never was a real 2-man race in '04. Kerry emerged from Iowa and, Edwards' protestations notwithstanding, basically rode that to victory."

Agreed.

But when the Party establishment choice wins IA and NH, the thing is always basically over. If HRC wins IA and NH this year, February 5th will likewise be very boring.

But when a candidate that a party has trouble coalescing around has early victories, then you usually find that opposition rallies around some other single candidate.

In '04, everyone was figuring that Dean would win IA and NH, and that capturing the Not Dean slot was going to end up being quite valuable in future contests, given the trouble everyone assumed Dean would have getting above 50% in a 2-way race.

Posted by Petey | November 29, 2007 9:46 PM

If Huckabee wins SC, how does the "establishment" stop him from winning the nomination? By bribing his delegates to the convention to vote for Giuliani?

Posted by termites! | November 29, 2007 9:48 PM

I'm sure it's been said before, but why do the "money cons" hate Huckabee?

Posted by eriks | November 29, 2007 9:59 PM

I think Thompson is still very much in it.

Yup. While Giuliani may be the German army, Thompson is the Russian winter.

it's hard to see Huck beating the very rich, very disciplined, perfect-haired ex Massachusetts governor.

You serious? I'll grant you his bankroll and superhuman hair. But the man can't put together a smooth answer on anything. Just last night, seriously twisted answers on black on black crime, the confederate flag, gays in the military. He is not confidence inspiring. (And in real terms, the confederate flag answer probably will cost him 12 points in South Carolina when it gets packaged into a negative spot.)

And I hold that any man who appeals to K-Lo as much as Romney does cannot win the presidency.

Posted by southpaw | November 29, 2007 10:01 PM