Morning After

It's one of those days where you wake up and check the papers just to make sure you remembered everything right from the day before. I'm not sure the scale of Mike Huckabee's victory over Mitt Romney properly sank in yesterday. He didn't just sneak by the establishment's boy; he really thumped him. His path to the nomination still looks bleak, since it's hard to imagine anyone prevailing against the sort of headwinds and lack of institutional support he's facing. But then again, what happened yesterday once looked very unlikely. More realistically, even if Huckabee does ultimately do the plausible thing and lose, the fact that he did so well in Iowa has to make you believe that he can turn in a strong performance in primaries held in his native South.

That's not enough to put him over the top, but it would still leave him as a force in the race. Thus far, I don't think we've really seen any of Huckabee's rivals react to his candidacy by trying on any real level to coopt his message. But given the power of that message to reach the Republican base despite a lack of funding and despite the opposition of most of the Republican media machine, it seems like the smart thing to do is to try to steal something from the guy.

Comments

I still find the Huckabee thing very underwhelming. He'll get thumped in New Hampshire, and we'll all be talking about the 900lb GOP gorilla called John McCain.

Posted by Jasper | January 4, 2008 8:25 AM

"it seems like the smart thing to do is to try to steal something from the guy."

While I agree with the basic thought process here, there's nothing he has that can be stolen.

You can't suddenly become a Baptist preacher. You can't suddenly become witty on camera. You can't suddenly learn to play guitar.

His strengths are non-transferable.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 8:28 AM

Sure they are - McCain names him as his VP.

Posted by Noah Millman | January 4, 2008 8:42 AM

Do you really think there has been a paucity of pandering to the theocons so far?

Posted by yoyo | January 4, 2008 8:49 AM

Take it from a Southerner-in-exile: the entire South will go for Huckabee and only Huckabee, This leaves the rest of the country to McCain. And after a period of primary tension McCain will be forced to accept Huck as his VP and resurrect the old Reagan coalition that all the pundits have pronounced doorknob-dead.

McCain-Huckabee: it's the only viable ticket for the GOP to win. And it's a formidable ticket to boot.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 4, 2008 8:55 AM

He'll get thumped in New Hampshire, and we'll all be talking about the 900lb GOP gorilla called John McCain.
Posted by Jasper

That would be John McCain, the 30-year DC Insider, with 3 cancer surgeries behind him and who, if elected, would beat the oldest ever elected, Reagan, by 3 years??? While unlike Reagan, looking worse and in being in worse health than the average 70+ tear-old?

The "formidable McCain" who is hated by half Republicans as untrustworthy, erratic, given to rages, and treacherous to fellow Republicans?

That 800 lb gorilla?

Who has milked being captured by the enemy and suffering 40 years ago - as the reason he has the absolute moral authority to deserve the Senate and be President? Pro-illegal amnesty, Gang of 14 John? The one Republican beloved by his "good friend" Democrats in the Senate and by the media?

*******************
When I see Romney, I'm like Ed Rollins. I'd like to shoot him in the groin and kick his teeth in. For not running as a competent highly intelligent man who made a living as a change agent in an election where voters on both sides want change and terrible problems with America fixed. No, Romney or his advisors decided to run him positioned as the man who loves Sweet Baby Jesus more than anyone, a lifelong hunter and gun lover, and as the "establishment candidate" upbraiding others who dared criticize Bush.

I weep for what could have been. The real Romney running to "turnaround" America's great problems, not the "values guy" talking no fixes but saying Bush is great, the country is great, the economy is great, and all we need is a little more religion and optimism.

I also want to kick out the teeth of Fred Thompson's wife and shoot her in the groin for not insisting on Fred drink 3 double expressos every morning, get a B-12 shot and 2 cans of Red Bull in the afternoon, and work 12 hours a day campaigning or no sex with Jeri.
When I see Thompson rising out of his torpor and showing flashes of true campaign greatness, like his impressive remarks after Bhutto's assassination, the best by far of all the candidates, like with Romney - I weep for what could have been.

And if only Duncan Hunter had been a governor.

And if only Jeb Bush's last name wasn't Bush.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 4, 2008 8:58 AM

I am deeply confused about why we're supposed to assume that McCain can win moving forward. The man came in fourth in Iowa, and it's not exactly a deeply Southern state. He may win New Hampshire, but he'll probably lose South Carolina. And why is he such a lock over Romney?

Posted by MDtoMN | January 4, 2008 8:59 AM

What message is there to coopt? Huckabee won because of evangelical tribalism.

Posted by phil | January 4, 2008 9:01 AM

I think you've got it backwards, Matt - the Huckster's win in Iowa should be much more replicable than St. John's likely win in NH.

In New Hampshire, McCain will be able to tap into an unusually secular Republican demographic, plus he'll be able to cop a decent share of NH's large group of independents - although it'll be a 3-way tug of war for them with Obama and Ron Paul.

As I understand it, there are a limited number of states where independents can vote in party primaries. (Luckily for McCain, one of them is Michigan, which (a) is next up after NH, and (b) only kinda sorta has a Democratic primary on the same day.)

But getting back to Huck, I don't see that Iowa's all that much more evangelical than most states. It's not Bible Belt, and the evangelical minority is an intraparty majority, or close to it, in most places. I'd say that, excepting the Mountain West and Pacific Coast states, plus New England, New York, and New Jersey, there are plenty of the same kinds of voters who voted for Huck last night.

I see Huck doing well in the South (of course) and border states, the Midwest, the Great Plains states, and even Maryland and Pennsylvania. The 'stop Huckabee' movement, whether Mitt or McCain is at its head, will do well in the Pacific and Mountain West states, New York, New Jersey, and the six New England states.

I'd bet on Huck to win.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 4, 2008 9:01 AM

Indubitably. As near as I can tell, John McCain's primary asset at this point is Jo-mentum. Ron Paul is in good shape, Huckabee is good shape, Thompson has been pronounced dead, and come back to life St. McCain finished fourth and has become the New Neocon candidate, and from what I can tell, as likely to do as well as the Old Neocon candidate.

(Romney is has to finish first or he's done.)

max
['Do political journalists even come from this planet?']

Posted by max | January 4, 2008 9:07 AM

The combination of the phrase "the morning after" and that picture is really creeping me out.

Posted by Freddie | January 4, 2008 9:08 AM

"I see Huck doing well in the South ... I'd bet on Huck to win."

Their establishment has two good shots at stopping Huck in the South - SC and FL.

If Huck wins SC and FL, then he'll have a shot at actually winning this thing. But I'd bet against him winning SC and FL.

There was no GOP machinery to oppose Huck in IA. There is machinery in SC and FL.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 9:08 AM

If McCain wins he'll pick a different huckleberry for his running mate - Lindsey Graham.

Posted by BlindJoeDeath | January 4, 2008 9:11 AM

So I'm torn. I can't tell whether there's really a case to be made for McCain, and that's why so many people are suddenly arguing that his candidacy is all but inevitable, or whether the media posturing over McCain has simply seeped into the blogosphere unchecked. I don't know why people aren't arguing that Fred Thompson isn't the inevitable frontrunner-shit, he got to third place sitting on his couch. If he stood up a bit, took a walk around the block, he could clinch the nomination. If we just discount Romney (it's a pleasure to know how expensive second place was for him), then it's a race between three candidates with about 20 bucks between them. I'd say that makes it a pretty unpredictable slog.

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 9:13 AM

I know that yard signs are a better measurement of intensity of support than breadth of support, but based on my recent travels through South Carolina Ron Paul has quite a following in the first confederate state.

Posted by BlindJoeDeath | January 4, 2008 9:25 AM

After hearing a Ron Paul supporter on my college campus rattle on about the business elite conspiracy to collapse the American economy by destroying the credibility of the US dollar (an assertion that is wrong in so many ways), I was kind of hoping Iowa would be the end of the good doctor. That would be asking too much though, wouldn't it?

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 9:31 AM

McCain's path to victory is:

- Win NH by a decisive margin.
- Win Michigan (where he won last time, and independents can vote GOP as in NH, and the Democrats are not contesting).
- Thompson drops out and endorses McCain.
- South Carolina either goes Huck first, McCain second, or the other way around, depending on how much Thompson's endorsement moves his voters.

At this point, Romney has won nothing of consequence, and the only winners are McCain and Huckabee. In that context, the candidates go into Florida, which Giuliani absolutely must win. And the GOP establishment, no longer having Romney as a viable option, must choose between three candidates: Huckabee, McCain, and Giuliani. Among these choices, McCain is the least painful - and also the strongest in the general election. McCain becomes the clear leader in the national polls and money starts pouring in.

At worst, Florida is something of a wash, with no clear victor; at best, McCain wins outright. Then, on super-duper-Tuesday, Huck wins Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma; Giuliani wins New York and New Jersey, and nothing else; and McCain wins Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Utah. And that's it: Rudy is out, Huck is a regional phenomenon, McCain gets the nomination and picks Huckabee as his VP.

What could screw this up?

- Romney could stage a surprising comeback in New Hampshire, as independents shift to Obama and Paul, and McCain is unable to consolidate GOP support.
- Romney could lose NH, but win Michigan; now everybody looks like a one-state wonder. McCain's momentum is slowed, and Rudy gets a second look.
- McCain wins NH and MI on the strength of independents, but fails to get a plurality of GOP voters in either state (just like 2000); this leads Thompson to stay in, and run hard in SC, ultimately placing (to Huckabee). Once again, there's no front-runner, and Rudy gets a second look.
- Huckabee wins Michigan, and the talking heads begin seriously to debate whether this is a sign of the End Times.
- Romney drops out after badly losing New Hampshire - and endorses Giuliani, hoping for a VP nod from Rudy (Giuliani hasn't gotten into a negative-ad war with Romney yet). The endorsement pulls Rudy up to second place in South Carolina (behind Huckabee), and now we have a Giuliani-Huckabee contest, which Rudy wins.

I'm not sure whether anyone's speculated on scenario #5, but I think it's something McCain should really worry about.

Posted by Noah Millman | January 4, 2008 9:37 AM

I just really hope McCain doesn't win, just to piss off Chris Matthews and everyone else who wants to have his baby.

Posted by Freddie | January 4, 2008 9:41 AM

Huck is now the favorite. Sure, McCain will win NH, but then what? Do you think McCain will have more luck with the evangelicals in SC against a populist pastor than he did against an aristocrat who had only recently kicked his cocaine and alcohol habits?

Huck will also win Florida. The Florida GOP is nearly indistinguishable from the rest of the deep South. They don't call the panhandle the "Redneck Riviera" for nothing. That's one of the few pockets of the country that still supports Bush.

McCain may play better nationally, but I think Huck's momentum will be unstoppable by Feb. 5th.

Posted by Doug | January 4, 2008 9:43 AM

From a strategic standpoint, I was hoping Romney would win. But, I have to say, its nice seeing him get beat by Huckabee.

I hope Huckabee wins the nomination, and I think he has a good chance. He comes across very well. His speech last night was great. If, in the unlikely chance that the Republican nominee should win the election, I'd rather it was Huckabee than any of the others. I used to think that way about Romney, but he's too much of a phony, and its scary the lengths he would go to placate the rabid neocon wing.

I think Huckabee's personal qualities could be enough to overcome his problems (the main problem, it seems to me, is the Dumond story).

Posted by Jim W | January 4, 2008 9:54 AM

Lack of institutional support

I would think that the biggest take home lesson from Iowa is precisely that Huckabee did this without much institutional support. If this lack didn't cripple him in Iowa, why would it do so elsewhere? And, given the starkly "momentum" driven nature of the nomination process, why would anyone think that the money and institutional support spigots won't be opening up wide for Huckabee now that he's thumped the previous front-runner?

Posted by Glen Tomkins | January 4, 2008 9:55 AM

I'd also agree that Huckabee is much stronger than the Republican Establishment hopes or wishes.

One thing that surprised me was how well he bore up under the withering assault of Romney's TV spots in Iowa. That tends to show that his Christian base is more immune to paid media attacks than I'd expected.

Since Evangelicals are such a large fraction of the Republican primary vote, especially in the South, and the non-Christian Republican vote will be split at least three or four different ways for the next month, Huckabee's strategic situation is very strong.

I'd thought his lack of money to defend against TV attacks might be fatal, but I'd now have to reassess that. And Huckabee's also a much natural candidate than any of the others, plus he was the economic populism card against all those DC/CEO type East Coast insiders.

I'd still give him well under a 50-50 chance to take the nomination, but a better one than any of the others.

Posted by RKU | January 4, 2008 10:00 AM

I lived in SC for five years. Huck's a perfect fit for that state. I can't see McCain, Giuliani, or a wounded Mittster beating him there, though McCain will sweep the Citadel alums. Unless there's a huge and sudden groundswell for Gramps Thompson there, Huck will win SC.

I wouldn't go so far as Doug re Florida, but my in-laws live there, so I've spent a LOT of time in Florida over the past two decades. Much of the state is every bit as much of a Southern state as Georgia is, and Huck will do well in that Florida. To beat him there, someone's going to have to do awfully well amongst the retirement communities.

Contra Noah Millman, Tennessee is Huck's turf, not McCain's. And Romney, not McCain, will win Utah (whether he's conceded or not). And if Huck could win Iowa, why can't he win Illinois or Minnesota? Are the Republicans in the latter two states that much different from those in Iowa? I don't buy it.

Like RKU suggested, unless the 'stop Huck' people can coalesce around a single candidate before Super Tuesday, Huck's going to be in a very strong position.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 4, 2008 10:43 AM

I guess you could say that the Christian base is immune to inputs from external reality?

Posted by Zephyrus | January 4, 2008 10:46 AM

"I lived in SC for five years. Huck's a perfect fit for that state ... Huck will do well in that Florida."

Again, the thing about SC and FL is that they have very strong institutional Republican parties there.

Trying to figure out how a candidate will run in primaries in SC and FL without factoring in the party machine is like trying to imagine how a Democrat would run in a primary in NJ without factoring in the party machine.

The institutions of the GOP will have an excellent opportunity to stop Huck in either SC or FL. I'm not saying it's 100% sure that they'll succeed, but I wouldn't bet against them.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 10:47 AM

"I guess you could say that the Christian base is immune to inputs from external reality?"

My understanding is that they have an open line with the Creator Himself. Who needs reality, when you can get input from reality's Architect?

Posted by gerontion | January 4, 2008 10:51 AM

I would, Petey. I expect the party establishment will find the Huckster's supporters are more in control of the voter networks by which you'd spread nasty email rumors than they are.

Plus, all this stuff has Been Done before, and unless they can come up with something really creative, it'll seem like the same old same old.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 4, 2008 11:00 AM

Well, I've barely ever spent any time in SC or FL, but I'd tend agree with low-tech cyclist rather than Petey.

I think the grassroots Christian activist base may be sufficiently internally-connected and independent of its official DC leadership that it would effectively resist any elite/money/media assault. I probably wouldn't have said that before Iowa's surprising results.

Anyway, these sorts of controlled political/sociological experiments are pretty rare, and since I kind of like Huckabee, I'll be following them with some interest.

Posted by RKU | January 4, 2008 11:15 AM

The analysis that sees McCain as inevitable really doesn't factor in the deep reserve of hatred and mistrust he's built up among Republicans.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 4, 2008 11:19 AM

Thought one: How large is the "super delegate" count at the Republican Convention? In a three or four-way race that sees Huckabee winning a majority/large plurality of available delegates, is the super delegate count large enough to swing things back to an establishment candidate?

Thought two: If Huckabee does come out of a front-loaded, mega-primary dominated season with the nomination and loses in the fall, will there finally be support from the Republicans for spreading out and rationalizing the primary process? The current set-up was supposed to favor establishment candidates with deep pockets--Romney and Giuliani. But the rise of Huckabee and the plausibility of his path to the nomination would seem to make "fixing" the process a priority before 2012.

Posted by jlw | January 4, 2008 11:20 AM

"Again, the thing about SC and FL is that they have very strong institutional Republican parties there."

They are also the first two states where winning means something. If you win Iowa, NH, SC or Nevada by a moderate margin in a multiparty field, you get very few delagates more than the other guys. Most of the delegates from SC go to the winner before there is any proportional distribution. Many of those from Florida are dealt out that way too. This is likely to be a long enough race that delegate counting will be more important than showboat votes for the first time in a long time.

I don't think anyone will beat Huckabee in SC, but Rudy will have to treat Florida as a test. He'll need those 36 delegates that go to the winner if he wants to appear viable going into 2/5. He will pull out all the stops, portraying himself as the only one who can stop Huckabee. By then, Romney will be painted as incapable of beating Huckabee except in states bordering Massachussets, states where his father was Governor, or states with a lot of Mormons.

I think it might work. I think it would bitterly divide Republicans, with Rudy's backers getting the majority of the Delegates, with a minority of the votes. All in all a tasty bit of ironic schadenfreud

Posted by Njorl | January 4, 2008 11:25 AM

We live in an era of weak parties. Carter, Reagan and Clinton weren't the biggest darlings of their parties heads when they ended up grabbing the nomination. I think this shows how in our media landscape, politically active people will judge for themselves where to go to find people of their own ideological streak. The party's aren't powerless, but they aren't all Chicagos under the Daley family. I remember laughing when the Daily Show made fun of some guy on FoxNews who said that although Huckabee was polling at around 2% (this was around March, I think), he was going to be a formidable candidate. With the internet and church networks in place today, when a former evangelical Southern preacher has a real shot at getting the nomination, the word is going to get around to people in his demographic, which is now the primary base of today's Republican Party.

With that said, one big factor from Republican Party elite in Florida that could prove significant is who they will decide will likely be the most anti-Castro. Has Mel Martinez endorsed anyone yet?

Posted by Reality Man | January 4, 2008 11:32 AM

"I think the grassroots Christian activist base may be sufficiently internally-connected and independent of its official DC leadership that it would effectively resist any elite/money/media assault. I probably wouldn't have said that before Iowa's surprising results."

It's not DC they're going to have to battle with, it's the state parties.

For example, in FL, they'll have to battle with Charlie Crist and Jeb Bush. I'd bet on the machine in that battle.

Again, I'm not saying I have 100% confidence in this. Huck's got skills. But it's more than 40 years since the GOP machine got overrun for the nomination.

Unless the national GOP establishment decides to make peace with Huck rather than fight with him, which seems unlikely to me, I think they'll be able to derail him in one of the two Southern states. It may be ugly, but they probably only have to beat him once to take him down.

And Iowa was easier for Huck precisely because Iowa doesn't have a strong GOP machine.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 11:46 AM

Sure they are - McCain names him as his VP.

I'll echo Noah Millman. I thought Matt would conclude this post by saying that Huckabee looks better and better as a VP candidate--not as a target for theft. And I've long thought, given his finances and organization, that VP is actually what Huck is running for.

Giuliani and McCain need some help with southern voters and social conservatives, and Thompson (still possible!) could use a good campaigner.

Posted by southpaw | January 4, 2008 11:53 AM

"And I've long thought, given his finances and organization, that VP is actually what Huck is running for."

Huck is running to be famous. He's already succeeded. He's a made man for life now. VP would be icing on the cake.

I don't think he's a good VP fit for McCain though. Given the age issue, it'd make folks have to really consider him being President, which would present general election problems. "Do no harm" is the first VP selection rule, and Huck would violate that for McCain.

Posted by Petey | January 4, 2008 12:01 PM

'Thought one: How large is the "super delegate" count at the Republican Convention? In a three or four-way race that sees Huckabee winning a majority/l'

Only 3 from each state, and I think a couple states make theirs pledge, out of about 2400 total. Not all could necessarily be counted on to be part of an anti-Huckabee plot, though.

More likely, an institutional backlash would take the form of nationally raised third party money going into states that are winner-take-all (NY NJ CN) or have large winner-take-all blocks (SC FL).

Posted by Njorl | January 4, 2008 12:33 PM