Taking Huckabee Seriously

Now that we're seeing national polls featuring Mike Huckabee surging all the way into second place, it's worth saying that I predicted a Huckabee win in the GOP primary months and months ago at an American Prospect editorial meeting and then stupidly failed to write it down. But other people were there, and I expect them to speak up and back up my story.

All of which is to say that at this point I do think we need to start seriously considering the possibility that winning Iowa would not only collapse the Romney campaign but actually turn Huckabee into a real contender.

Comments

Matt doesn't lie. I recall this well, he even pounded the table to make the point.

Posted by Mark Goldberg | December 5, 2007 1:05 AM

I feel like you've made this prediction several times on this very blog. At least that's what I told colleagues yesterday in talking about your eery prescience. Now I'm wondering if I was the one who was prescient. I think I'm starting to scare myself.

Posted by anmik | December 5, 2007 1:10 AM

Seeing this happen scares me silly. I think Romney could beat Guiliani, but Mike Huckabee can't unless Guiliani has a Howard Dean moment.

The thought of Guiliani being the Republican nominee scares me. A lot. Without Huckabee, Romney probably sweeps the early states and stands a good chance at beating Guliani. The coastal states will never go for Huckabee. Nuh-uh. No way.

A Guliani vs. Hilary Clinton election in 2008 brings my 100-to-1 scenario for America's catastrophic self-destruction down to.. maybe 3-to-1 odds.

I think Huckabee is a good guy, actually, and like him better than most Repub candidates as a liberal, but someone needs to come up with some really damaging info on him fast. He's too nice to win a Republican nomination.

Posted by glasnost | December 5, 2007 1:11 AM

See how steady that Guliani bar is? By the time Huckabee kills off enough of the other guys to have a clear shot at Guli, it'll be far too late. A cannibal fight for second place is letting the Guli coast to victory. SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING! Panic attack!

Posted by glasnost | December 5, 2007 1:13 AM

Interesting that Romney and Huck are basically at the same point, but that their (upward sloping) paths are so different.

I can't help but notice McCain's crash is spectacular and sad - the political equivalent of being hit "going downtown" and running into a nest of SA-2s with no Wild Weasels in sight.

And Matt, if Huck beats Mayor 9/11, I will buy you a bottle of Pol Roger. Seriously, one bottle of Winston Churchill's champagne to celebrate the defeat of Winston Churchill's least worthy admirer is not a bad deal. (Please God, let Giuliani lose!)

Posted by Greg | December 5, 2007 1:30 AM

not dirt, but i do like the tackiness of this story.

Posted by here | December 5, 2007 2:22 AM

Of course, you say this on the very day that Huckabee admits he never heard of the Iran NIE in an interview with reporters.

Posted by dday | December 5, 2007 2:22 AM

I don't think Giuliani having a Howard Dean moment is outside of the realm of possibility at this point. He's got a self-destructive streak for sure. In fact, out of all the GOP candidates he'd be the most likely to crash and burn if he got the nomination, I think. That's not certain, but there's enought stuff in his record to make me think this. I'm kinda stunned he made it so far, and if the religious right unites around Huck it's all over.

I have to say that I just love the idea of an Obama vs. Huckabee race. That would have the possibility of being a positive campaign, and wouldn't that be a refreshing change of pace?

Posted by Lev | December 5, 2007 2:27 AM

I think he's going to get bounced out of the primaries for his pro-immigrant nods, which will kill him in Iowa before the first votes are cast. I don't know where his supporters will go ... back to Thompson? Giuliani? Romney? Uncommitted?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | December 5, 2007 2:49 AM

Huckabee's surge is unsustainable and will not win him Iowa. By examining how quickly Huckabee has shot up into a tie for first place with Romney one has to understand that such a dramatic move in such a short time, especially with a month to go, will result in Huckabee falling back to in statistically terms is know as reversion to the mean. I expect Huckabee to place second, but a distant second (more than 5 points) behind Romney in Iowa.

Posted by garfad | December 5, 2007 2:50 AM

As a resident of Southern California, I like the nice touch on the Huckabee housewarming story of the home being worth "half a million dollars." That'd be below median here.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 5, 2007 3:10 AM

garfad writes: "By examining how quickly Huckabee has shot up into a tie for first place with Romney one has to understand that such a dramatic move in such a short time, especially with a month to go, will result in Huckabee falling back to in statistically terms is know as reversion to the mean."
--------------
Reversion (or regression) to the mean doesn't work like that. The concept only applies in situations where divergence from the mean occurs through random chance.

Huckabee's recent gains are obviously not the result of pure chance, but rather a result of changing voter opinions and preferences; so, least in terms of pure statistical probability, there's absolutely no reason to expect his level of support to decline in the future.

Posted by N | December 5, 2007 3:59 AM

It's not scientific, but my impression is the more people get to know Rudy and Romney the less they like them, while the reverse is true with Huck. If the Repubs were smart enough to nominate a McCain/Huckabee ticket, I think they'd go all the way. Otherwise it's probably Hillary and the O-bomber. In any case, the worst possible scenario is a Rudy Presidency, which will likely make us nostalgic for Bush.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 5, 2007 5:03 AM

N you may not like it, but in terms of political history, garfad is more accurate. Remember the old saw about candidates suddenly going on a meteoric rise as unknowns, then peaking, then collapsing as the air leaks out? "Peaked too early"?

Actually, you don't have to remember. Just look at Fred Thompson's rapid rise and fall down to more realistic numbers given his performance and appeal. And Mayor 9/11's big puff up and fall back to a little lower than where he was before the summer.

Then on the Dem side, we had Hillary, one of America's top 100 lawyers and past co-President ---rise to the point of inevitability. Then people began asking why this lady, that so many men and women of all pollitical persuasions dislike, who failed her DC Bar Exam and never litigated a major case, who refuses to provide documentation of her key decisions and contributions as "Co-President" ...why exactly IS she inevitable? Or does the Empress have no clothes? Hence her plummeting numbers.

(Few things have been funnier than a First Lady of unknown or unverified "executive accomplishments" under a philandering husband and an upstart young Senator of no past leadership accusing each other of "lacking the proven ability to be President")

Indeed, the lack of verified executive leadership is so bad on the Dem side that the Party leaders may have to visit the Goracle and tell him to lose weight by the Convention - just in case. This is a very weak Dem field, and you might see a Draft Warner, Draft Napolitano, Draft Bayh, Draft Bloomberg, Draft Clooney, Draft anyone of the few military flag officers willing to associate themselves with the Democrats.

With Huckabee, you have a high tax, ardent illegal alien advocate who is "authentic", but is another evangelical "compassionate conservative" like Dubya. And Pastor Mike is a creationist. So far the media has avoided any look at Huckabee and pumped him up good as flavor of the month, just like "inevitable Hillary" was October's flavor. I don't see Pastor Mike doing much better than Pat Robertson did when he went outside the Religious Right bastion states.

And when you think about it, the Religious Right has nowhere to go but with Republicans so the Republicans don't need to go with a Zealot, and Rudy and Mitt being seen as conservative and supporting 90% or more of what the Religious Right wants but are nevertheless rejected by Southern Bapitists and Fundies may actually help them in other regions of the country that are adamently opposed to theocracy after the Teri Schiavo Fiasco.

I expect the polls to swing about alot because neither Party has someone that is both likable and credible as a President.
The Republicans, unlike the Democrats, do have 5 candidates with true executive experience or who have led men in combat, or both.

Immigration, past betrayals of Republicans, being yesterday's candidate has killed one military guy, McCain.
Duncan Hunter, a true war hero by deed rather than by suffering, and a leader in the House, just never caught on.
Hate Rudy or not, what he and Bratton did in NYC was a great feat of executive leadership turning around a city. BUt he has scandals and is NYC - which the media loves but a good part of the rest of the country cringes when they watch a Giuliani, a Schumer, a Spitzer.
Huckabee did lead Arkansas. Not as well as Bill Clinton, but he does have executive leadership experience.
Romney is the most impressive, but he is plasticky....and time is running out for him to show the American people he has likability, is authentic, and has a good vision for the future.

The funniest thing on the Republican side is their best candidate - a fine speaker, in solid with the Religious Right, with a Mexican wife, excels in natural disaster crises, and a tremdously popular governor from the most important swing state, with appeal outside his region - can't run.
Because he has the only wrong last name in the world and family ties that disqualify him - Bush.
Irony, meet Jeb Bush, your latest and greatest victim.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 5, 2007 5:29 AM

Chris Ford: "N you may not like it, but in terms of political history, garfad is more accurate. Remember the old saw about candidates suddenly going on a meteoric rise as unknowns, then peaking, then collapsing as the air leaks out? "Peaked too early"?
---------------------
I'm not making a claim one way or the other on Huckabee's chances. There may be political reasons to expect him to decline - perhaps his stances on immigration and torture will prove unpalatable to the GOP primary electorate once he becomes better known.

Garfad is definitely wrong in citing "regression to the mean" as a reason to expect a Huckabee decline. That concept is not appropriate; in terms of pure statistical probability, there's no reason to expect a reversal of the recent trend.

Posted by N | December 5, 2007 6:07 AM

The interesting thing about your chart is that it shows Huckabee surging at the expense of Thompson and McCain, not Rudy or Romney.

Posted by Jinchi | December 5, 2007 8:24 AM

Immigration, past betrayals of Republicans, being yesterday's candidate has killed one military guy, McCain.

A new poll now has McCain in second place in New Hampshire. McCain's in a lot better shape than he was a few weeks ago. I think he's far from the favorite he may have been a year ago, but with the Romney candidacy facing questions, and Giuliani looking like damaged goods, I think any "stop Huck" forces out there might be giving McCain a second look. I certainly wouldn't count him out.

Posted by Jasper | December 5, 2007 8:30 AM

I dunno, I think Huckabee letting out a convicted rapist who then goes on to rape and kill is enough to doom his candidacy.

And Sex on the City should be the one that gets Giuliani.

And multiple choice Mitt is still too Mormon for the Republican primary electorate.

And McCain is yesterday's news.

And Thompson is too somnolent to win.

And Paul is against the Iraq war.

But obviously *somebody* has to win the R primary. Who?

Posted by Doug | December 5, 2007 8:31 AM

On March 5, Yglesias wrote:

I can't say that I really know anything about Mike Huckabee. It strikes me, though, that he's the kind of person I would expect to see win a Republican nomination

On August 31, Yglesias wrote:
A long, long, long ways back I took a look at the Republican field and decided that Mike Huckabee was going to win

But then, on October 18, Matt said
There was a time when I was firmly convinced that Mike Huckabee was going to be the Republican Party's nominee in 2008. Now I think that looks very unlikely

Posted by Ikram | December 5, 2007 8:34 AM

So Matt's was the first pundit to pick Hucklabee to win. And the first to turn against Huckabee and predict he would lose.

Yglesias: Having every opnion under the sun before anyone else.

Posted by Ikram | December 5, 2007 8:36 AM

The Huckster has been given a pass by the MSM. Soon people will be introduced to his "Dear Wayne" letter.
In addition when Huckabeen gets a little pressure he turns into a real prick. Expect a meltdown within weeks.

Posted by Ken | December 5, 2007 9:03 AM

He's too nice to win a Republican nomination.

You mean like that genial, folksy guy everyone wanted to have a beer with back in 2000, who turned out to be a thin-skinned vindictive shit? Guess what: he's back. Just ask the Arkansas Times.

I dunno, I think Huckabee letting out a convicted rapist who then goes on to rape and kill is enough to doom his candidacy.

You seem like a decent guy, Doug, so I hate to break this to you, but it would be enough to doom his candidacy only if it got lots of airtime and couldn't be waved away with the sort of false witness Huckabee has already engaged in on the subject. And since he's not a Democratic candidate, he has nothing to fear from Horton to the Nth Power.

Posted by mds | December 5, 2007 9:08 AM

The notion that a Romney loss in Iowa would be fatal is greatly overstated. As the attached Washington Post article notes, Romney is still far ahead in New Hampshire. A win in New Hampshire would make the MSM forget about Iowa in a hurry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120402036.html?sub=AR

Posted by SLC | December 5, 2007 9:28 AM

The interesting thing about your chart is that it shows Huckabee surging at the expense of Thompson and McCain, not Rudy or Romney.

Another interesting thing about it is that it doesn't show Huckabee in second place but tied for fourth.

Oh, and N is clearly right about "reversion to the mean." Anyone who wants a basic stat primer can find one here. Very useful.

Posted by Antid Oto | December 5, 2007 9:45 AM

Re: I can't help but notice McCain's crash is spectacular and sad...

Spectacular, yes, but sad? Did you forget that he's a Republican? Its spectacular and it makes me feel glad.

As for Matt's predictions about Huckabee, quoted by Ikram: They look good to me. It was sort of conventional wisdom, even a year ago, that Huckabee was a guy to watch. After he failed to raise any money, it was natural for Matt to change his opinion. The recent surprise has been how much better he is in the debates than the other guys. Josh Marshall said he was the only real pro out there.

Posted by Jim W | December 5, 2007 9:48 AM

Another interesting thing about it is that it doesn't show Huckabee in second place but tied for fourth.

Presumably this is because these are weighted averages of recent polls, so you get the benefit of noise reduction at the cost of a time lag. If you squint and look at the most recent single poll, you'll see Huck in 2nd place.

Posted by Jim W | December 5, 2007 9:53 AM

I predicted a Huckabee win in the GOP primary months and months ago

Uh, two weeks ago you said: "It seems to me that the ultimate beneficiary of [Huckabee's surge] is probably John McCain." I suppose if Huckabee becomes a serious competitor, but McCain wins the nomination, McCain would be the ultimate beneficiary. But it sounds like you are touting your prediction that Huckabee would win outright. So I guess you get to be prescient either way.

In other words, what Ikram said.

Posted by ibid | December 5, 2007 10:44 AM

I dunno, I think Huckabee letting out a convicted rapist who then goes on to rape and kill is enough to doom his candidacy.

It depends. Is the convicted rapist black?

Posted by Jim W | December 5, 2007 10:57 AM

Per Ken's comment, I'm already designing a "Huckabee/DuMond '08" satirical bumper sticker.

Could do a whole slew of these. How about "Giuliani/Placa" or "2008 Romney/2005 Romney" or "Elect Gramps Thompson and let his trophy wife run the country"?

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 5, 2007 11:00 AM

Spectacular, yes, but sad? Did you forget that he's a Republican? Its spectacular and it makes me feel glad.

Republicans are still American citizens for the most part, and it does sadden me, at least, that the only stridently anti-torture candidate on the GOP side doesn't appear to have a chance to set the agenda, much less fight for the nomination.

Posted by Persia | December 5, 2007 11:27 AM

Clarity is a good thing. Its better that we know what kind of people make up the Republican base.

Posted by Jim W | December 5, 2007 11:35 AM

mds, I play one in the blogosphere.

The Waas story in the Huffington Post is a good place to start in the media food chain. Add some blog chatter and a bit more pressure from Huckabee's competitors (R or D) and it might start to go somewhere.

The story really is crushing.

(ps, mds, you don't hate to break it to me; you really like breaking it to me. but that's ok.)

Posted by Doug | December 5, 2007 11:49 AM

(ps, mds, you don't hate to break it to me; you really like breaking it to me. but that's ok.)

Aaaargh, found out. Anyway, I hope Doug is right, and the Dumond thing has legs.

Posted by mds | December 5, 2007 11:57 AM

I don't think Giuliani having a Howard Dean moment is outside of the realm of possibility at this point.

Exactly how many indicted friends and advisers does it take to add up to one Dean scream?

Posted by Jinchi | December 5, 2007 12:22 PM

Ah, Jinchi, but how many indicted friends and advisers does our current fearless leader have?

Posted by Greg | December 5, 2007 1:49 PM