I’m going to piggyback on Aron’s thread here, because I couldn’t help but notice the desperation response in the comments in response to the suggestion that Mike Huckabee is the frontrunner for 2012:
Numbers aren’t everything
They seem to be when a poll shows Romney leading. When it comes to campaigns we talk about little more than numbers. When those numbers come in on a PAC fundraising report, numbers are everything. However, a poll shows Romney trailing and “numbers aren’t everything.” But, let’s continue on:
Numbers aren’t everything, and even in terms of numbers you’re only talking a 5-point differential, despite Fox’s best efforts to make it larger. What will prove decisive in the end will be electability, organization, and resources. Advantage: Mitt.
Resources=money=numbers, which isn’t everything.
However, examining the three “Advantage: Mitt” areas, we’re left with something to be desired.
As to electability, for six solid unbroken months, Huckabee comes closer to beating Obama in the Public Policy Polling trial heats. While one must take these type of polls with a grain of salt, when looking at real world polls, there’s no significant edge for Romney, and even a slight edge for Huckabee.
Against trial heat after trial heat that fails to show a Romney edge against Obama, Romney supporters offer as evidence, their own unbiased evaluations of the American electorate.
As for organization, he had the best organization in the country in 2008. He had the support of the political establishment and folks like David Keene and Jay Sekulow, and the biggest number of endorsements from Republican members of Congress. It bought him wins in Caucus States that other campaigns ignored in order to win big prizes, as well as winning a state he saved from the depths of PR humiliation, the one he governed, and the one where his father governed.
As for money, he outspent Huckabee 8:1 and they ended up essentially tied. I’d be surprised if Romney ends up outspending Huckabee more than 3:1.
A five point edge, two years before the first state votes doesn’t mean a whole lot in that generic sense. But, we’ve seen Huckabee and we’ve seen Romney before. Huckabee went from an asterisk in the polls to in the thick of it. Romney had a chance, he had the organization, he had Bob Jones III in South Carolina. He blew a big lead in Iowa. he finished 4th after pouring millions into South Carolina. As former Governor of Massachusetts, he lost New Hampshire.
I appreciate Romney’s skills in the world of business and in rescuing the Olympics, and in having a good family, but does Romney have what it takes to win against Huckabee? No, he’s not a good politician. He won’t capture McCain’s Independent to come out and vote for him. Whatever he really is, he comes off as a phony.
I hear people talk about America’s need to have a businessman in office. Yet, America has never realized that need. Not when Wendell Wilkie ran, not when Steve Forbes ran, not when Ross Perot ran, or when Morry Taylor ran.
This is even more true today than it has been in years past with the poor reputation of Corporate America.
What we see right now are the battlefield generals putting their troops in place, and preparing for battle. On one side, we have Mitt Romney, who like General John Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga frittered away advantage after advantage. Romney-er-Burgoyne has surrounded himself when the same ineffective and incompetent folks who helped him to defeat last time. On the other hand, you have Huckabee who like a Washington or Stonewall Jackson has shown an ability to succeed with limited resources and to take tactical advantages. The forces are evenly matched on the battlefield or even slightly in Washington-Jackson-Huckabee’s favor. Who do you expect to win?
Numbers aren’t everything, particularly right now. However, when Romney supporters are remidning us of that, it shows how fragile the whole Romney campaign is. Romney needs a wide advantage on the field of battle, because even a mediocre general can win. If Romney begins with a strong enough advantage, a 20 point lead, for instance, then he can simply avoid losing too much support as Huckabee will be playing catch-up. However, Romney starting out even makes him play a game, he has no ability to win.
Romney’s best chance to win is for Huckabee to not run, because in a Huckabee-Romney race, the actual intangibles of a political campaign favor Huckabee.
And the hopes of a Sarah Palin or Tim Pawlenty surging and chipping away at Huckabee is thin gruel at best. The Rasmussen survey showed a 5 point lead for Huckabee with Palin and Pawlenty in, and a 5 point lead with Palin and Pawlenty out, meaning that these candidates votes split about even from Huckabee and Romney. In addition, the survey showed Romney with far fewer people who had a “Very Favorable” opinion of him than Huckabee (42-34%), suggesting that Romney’s support is softer and therefore more likely to give up voters to a Pawlenty or Palin.
There’s one mystery to this poll is the high unfavorables for Tim Pawlenty and low poll numbers. The reason Pawlenty has such high unfavorable and the most people not wanting him to be a nominee is that most Republicans across the nation have no idea who in blazes Tim Pawlenty is. Republicans are conservative by nature, and the idea of nominating someone you’ve never heard of, and don’t know who they are is absolutely a non-starter.
Pawlenty’s never having run before is a handicap that will be hard to overcome. How hard remains to be seen. Despite the “Next in Line” formula being garbage, the fact is that unlike Democrats, Republicans are not in the habit of handing their nomination to those who haven’t run for national office or had a national reputation.
On the bright side, New Hampshire could put him on the map as a national figure to be reckoned with provided he stays in the race that long.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
When you’re replying to a comment, it would make sense to post a comment, not a front page post.
Furthermore, all of these points have been brought up in the past, probably by you specifically, as well as by others. Shame on you for stooping so low to aim yet another Bash at Romney.
You say, “No, he’s (Romney’s) not a good politician.” I agree that Romney is not as good a politician as Huckabee is. What Romney is better at is being a leader, in families, business, and yes, government. I would rather have a great leader than a great politician (though admittedly, there is some crossover in the position of POTUS) as President of the United States.
Right now we have a pretty great politician as President of the United States.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
It’s hard to take you seriously Adam because you called Romney ‘the man with no core’ when you feared he would be chosen for VP. We know you, and we’ve seen the way you twist yourself into pretzels in your arguments against Romney. This one is no different.
You can spin it every which way from Sunday, but at the end of the day I’d rather be in Romney’s shoes, than Huck’s – and for that matter, Palin’s too.
Huck will never be anything more than a regional candidate, and that won’t get him the nomination. I believe Palin has a better shot than Huck, despite the polls. If she ever gets up to speed, you can kiss Huck goodbye.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Romney doesn’t have a campaign yet, Adam. But, no one believes his organization or support is fragile. That’s absurd. There’s been a gazillion articles about Romney’s organization and the loyalty he enjoys with former supporters. His fundraising numbers make that clear, as well.
I’m glad Romney is not leading by 20 points! A lot of good that did for Rudy. Romney is sitting pretty right now. He’s the slow and steady and smart guy. He doesn’t shoot from the hip like the others. He is methodical and smart. Only a fool would underestimate him.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
The numbers that matter are states and delegates. Romney’s advantages come from the fact that he can win the caucuses during the primaries. Romney has an advantage in the caucuses, but he needs help in the primaries. He won only 3 primaries during 08; Massachusetts, Michigan, and Utah, all of which are considered his ‘home states’. He has the organization, to win the caucuses, but he needs help winnning the primaries.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Wow Adam, really showing your colors here. I can pretty much write you off as even trying to be objective at this point. I think Romney could win a lot of the McCain voters. It’s so early I think it’s crazy you are already making a prediction that he won’t win independents, I will remember this in two years if Romney decides to run.
You said “He comes off as a phony”, but a lot of people don’t think so. This is the typical ad hominem attack used against him and I think it’s disingenuous. It would be like me saying Huckabee is a liar with poor ethical tendencies…
October 17th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
“. . . the actual intangibles of a political campaign favor Huckabee.”
This is a pretty sweeping statement to throw out there without a scintilla of supporting evidence.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I don’t remember who, but someone posted this a long time ago at race and I saved it. It bears repeating:
Romney won 11 states and came in either 1st or 2nd in 22 of the 29 states he competed in. He won over 30% of the vote in 19 of those states.
Huckabee placed 3rd or 4th in 21 states. He got 15% or less of the vote 23 times. He got 10% or LESS in 12 states. Huckabee is mostly a regional candidate WITH A VERY HARD GLASS CEILING whose only hope for victory is in a heavily congested field. Huckabee was only able to beat Romney by 3 points in MO and 2 points in GA and had to conspirem with McCain to narrowly beat Romney’s 47% in WV.
Another FACT from the exit polls: Romney usually won the conservative vote with McCain winning the more moderate vote. Who do you really think those moderate GOP voters are going to vote for in a Romney/Huckabee contest?
October 17th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I’m curious about how Huckabee’s TV show will affect his running. How will he handle that? He’d have to renounce the show before running right? And what would be the likely timing of such renunciation? As late as possible? I also wonder about the effects of his TV show on his current popularity.
October 17th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
#7:
But the fact is, that it isn’t going to be just a Romney/Huckabee contest. At least Pawlenty is going to run, Palin’s toying with the idea, and a bunch of others are dipping their toes in the water.
And yes, Romney came in 2nd in a bunch of places, but he still didn’t win. Romney has a ceiling as well. Before Super Tuesday, Romney couldn’t complete the sale and rally conservatives to him as the anti-McCain candidate. That is where the problem is; Romney didn’t complete the sale.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“Romney didn’t complete the sale.”
Yep.
Neither did Huckabee… Your point is?
October 17th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
#10:
The point is this; no one has a lock on the nomination, or even the distinction of “front-runner”. To say one candidate is inevitable or the other can’t win the nomination is just stupid and mindless cheerleading, instead of actual analysis.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
#11
I wholeheartedly agree with you. No one has a lock on this and it will be a lot of fun to see who wins it.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I disagree. Romney has an absolute lock on the nomination barring some highly unusual incident. Such an incident could be:
1. the meteoric rise of a relatively unknown candidate (e.g. Eric Cantor, or some other “3-legged-stool” candidate)
2. a “super-gaffe” that he is unable to recover from (e.g. his Dad’s brainwashing comment)
3. Mitt’s death
October 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
#13:
A candidate only polling 24% of the vote doesn’t have a lock on anything. Remember, Hillary was the ‘inevitable’ Democratic nominee. For a while Rudy or Fred were the ‘inevitable’ nominees on our side.
Nothing is inevitable in politics.
October 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Adam Graham = Huckabee’s #1 homer
October 17th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Neither candidate could beat McCain in the 2008 primaries, the Republicans Republicans love to hate.
I think that shows each of them have a ceiling problem.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I don’t think that Huckabee has a ceiling problem as many of his new supporters are just getting to know him. Many people who watch his show write in to tell Huckabee that they are sorry they did not get to know him in the primaries and are encouraging him to run in 2012.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
I groan at the thought of Huckabee as President. He is SO divisive for a so-called Christian. He is the one Republican candidate I absolutely cannot vote for.
I strongly believe he will fail to win over the Independent vote, or rather, take advantage of Obama’s weakness there. He will do fine with conservative Christians, as should Romney, but Romney once WAS an Independent, and can win them over in much the way Huckabee can win over pastors.
Huckabee’s chief weakness in is economics, where he is clueless. As Governor of Arkansas, he was a spendocrat. He can’t claim to be a fiscal conservative, only a social conservative. Romney, on the other hand, has proven his ability to fix bankrupt states (Massachusetts), make bankrupt Olympics profitable (Salt Lake 2002), and fix companies (Staples, Sports Authority.) It used to be that a President could merely guide monetary policy, but by 2012 it will take an economic heart surgeon to resurrect this country and manage the deficit.
To give you an idea, it took over 200 years to grow the deficit to Bush levels. In four years, Obama and the Democrats will triple it, essentially putting us 400 years further in debt.
It is not enough to vote for a values guy or girl. We need a specialist. Mitt Romney is the only one who can and will fix the boat that Obama is working so hard to scuttle.
It is going to take a conservative-independent coalition to take down Obama. Some strategists say we need to choose a Centrist, but it is much more practical to pick someone who knows how to reach out to the Center while still standing for something, as Romney will.
One onlooker has noted that Huckabee is already “fully exposed” right now, while Romney is still working quietly under the radar. I look forward to seeing what Romney’s numbers look like when he returns to full campaign mode.
Praying for Mitt = praying for America!
October 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Yeah, Adam, I really like Mike’s new uniforms, because this isn’t any more significant than picture day. We haven’t even started practices yet.
So, how desperate are you to waste an entire page trying to defend gas. But if you don’t anything more important to do, knock yourself out.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I think Romney is a spectacularly weak primary candidate and modestly strong general election candidate. Still, this analysis seems absolutely silly to me. Romney is not “a bad politician”. Romney is an uneven politician. Awful in places, stunning in others. He can give an interview with every last textbook plus: charisma, competence, engagement, light humor, etc. And then the next day he can look, as you see, phony. I don’t know which Romney will show up more often in 2012, but the better version could beat Huckabee one on one.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Count me in as one of the ‘unfavorables’ for Huckabee.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I’m sorry, but Huckabee doesn’t limit his ” cluelessness” to economics. There are a veritable plethora of areas in which his nuanced knowledge gap becomes almost a subset of Obama’s showbase academics. Adam is confused. Huckabee is not Stonewall Jackson, he is George McClellan, convinced of the rectitude of his own insights and convinced almost everyone else is wrong, a classic case of a guy who reads his own tea leaves daily and smiles often in the mirror.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
… Huckabee also does not pay his bills.
It seems his (failed) campaign last year still owes Chuck Norris come coin. Like 23 K worth of coin.
Ooops.
http://gawker.com/5382590/mike-huckabee-owes-chuck-norris-23570-for-his-endorsement
October 17th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
20. the phony is the one who has the TV show and can’t get past his own press.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
23. I can’t say I’m surprised.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Adam,
RIGHT ON. I’m trying to warm up to romney, but honestly….you just summarized everything that should be said about the romney-huckabee feud. IF YOU HAVE TO BE THIS SCARED OF A GUY FROM ARKANSAS…IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR CAMPAIGN STRATEGY. Romney could’ve won last time, but he didn’t. I don’t know if he just got bad advice, or if as a campaigner he just plain SUCKS, but he gave it away. He turned people off, while huckabee turned people on(no pun intended). Romney had ALL THE RESOURCES IN THE WORLD, and still couldn’t get it done. Time to move on. I think that people are responding to Huckabee, and honestly if Huck would’ve been chosen as vp instead of palin, it would have been a lot closer. Huck WOULD have turned out the base, and is honestly seen as a smart individual(although in a homely down to earth way). He isn’t a genius be any means, but he is a great debater. He won most of the debates, and showed why debates matter in a primary. Had he been able to solidify his support a little earlier it probably would’ve been different. Not to mention, he should’ve skipped New Hampshire and Michigan, and spent his time in South Carolina. He would’ve won, and that would’ve carried more momentum into later primaries. But he didn’t have that many resources. Mitt needs a new perspective if he is going to win.
Better than 50% Huck doesn’t run unless Obama is VERY unpopular. Better than 50% odds Romney doesn’t run if Huck is leading by more than 5 in the national polls come the end of 2010. Better than 90% that Palin doesn’t run. In my eyes, it will probably end up either between Huck and Pawlenty or Romney and Pawlenty. I don’t think both Romney and Huck are going to run again. One or the other.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Uh, waterseeds? I’m not scared of a twit from Arkansas. Not in the least. What I’m scared about is stupid people voteing on the bases on personality, and not on accomplishments.
I will NEVER NEVER NEVER vote for huckles the clown. NEVER.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Adam:
You know what happened in Iowa and New Hampshire that caused Romney to lose in those states. Something about the Gentleman Pastor Huckabee and organizing Churches and floating Crosses at Christmas and robocalls on snowy evenings, and something about the only Christian candidate, and deals with other candidates. Basically cutting Romney of at the knees…..but that’s all history now, yes, it was dirty politics but it was politics, and it’s a game…But you shouldn’t disregard or rewrite the history when it comes to what happened.
The great thing about Campaigns is that their history is pretty well documented…numbers and states won and percentages and such.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Wateredseeds;
I worry about politicians who come off as homey down to earth sort of guys….
October 17th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
#28:
Your statement is a slanderous attack on the good people who came to Iowa, volunteered for Huckabee, and honestly worked to win the election. Romney’s camp has been complaining about anti-Mormonism since at least April 2006!
Rumor and innuendo is your stock and trade, and it’s not very becoming.
October 17th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Romney has to blame someone for his string of losing, so the best Mitt could do is to blame ‘bigots’, Romney cuts Romney at the knees because Romney is dishonest. It is either ‘bigots’ or ‘terrorist’ why Mitt has lost, or why he steps out of races. (naw, it was losing Super Tuesday)
Romney is a sore loser, even his brother said as much in a Boston Globe article a few years back. Has to suck for Romney, he is not taking the top of the polls, and shows on any ticket Romney comes up a loser.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
31 – Yeah really. I can’t count the number of times Romney has moaned and complained about being treated unfairly. Wait…I can’t count it because it hasn’t happened.
Huckabee, on the other hand, actually wrote the book on the subject. He called it “Doing the Right Thing” which I guess means whining.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Adam: #30
I did not in any way mean for this to sound slanderous, and I’m sorry that it sounded like that. I don’t think those people in Iowa who voted for Huckabee did anything other than vote for the guy who they thought was the best one to be president…… But Huckabee along with McCain did play rough and tumble politics in Iowa, and Romney took the brunt of it. But I am not saying anything slanderous about Huckabee’s supporters anywhere.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
# 8
I’m curious about the effect of his TV show too. I just can’t really see that it helps him but a number of the seniors I know watch it every week and claim to think more highly of Huckabee than ever. To me though, I think less of him because of it. The show is lame featuring a bunch of washed-up musicians, dim-witted interviews and his corny humor. It does nothing to make Huckabee appear to be a President-in-waiting. If he is trying to use the show as a vehicle to launch another run at the Oval Office, he needs to have more in-depth, serious interviews with economic and military leaders. In short he needs to be more like John King or Chris Wallace and less like Oprah.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
#33:
It seems as if you’re alleging that people sacrified thousands of dollars in income to go to Iowa for no other reason than to “stick it to the Mormon.”
#32:
That’s another dishonest mischaracterization. Addressing Romney was about 1% of the book. Do I need to repost the chapter review?
October 17th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Romney’s Obama-style health care plan is what’s killing him.
Plus, his support of the bail-outs and his strong ties to Wall Street.
Why vote for Obama-lite?
October 17th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I’m not blind to the fact that Mittens needs to improve his standing among women to beat his opponents Huck and Barry. That said he has all he ingrediants like his Hollywood good looks and easy bedside manner.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
35 – Romney wasn’t the only “faux-con” he complained about. I’d say your characterization of my characterization was dishonest, so there
October 17th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
30, 35. I see your head is still in the sand. How’s that working out for you?
October 17th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Ha, remember when Huck said that if prominent religious leaders did not endorse him it would have a chilling effect? Yeah, he’s the “Christian Leader” all right.
Adam, I wouldn’t bring up Huck’s petty whine-fest anymore if I were you.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
40 – at least he’s got a sense of humor about his seemingly endless chapter-by-chapter review, threatening to punish me by reposting it.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
#37
“bedside manner”
LOL – did you really go THERE???
October 17th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
#35;
Adam:
I don’t know what your talking about…I never said anything about Huckabee’s supporters and volunteers who donated their time to him…. I’m talking about the dirty tricks his campaign manager, Chip Saltsman played in Iowa…
Where did you get the idea I was talking about his volunteers and supporters? I never even implied that.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I wonder if Huckabee would asks Chip Saltsman to be his campaign manager again…
October 17th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
#43:
You’re implying that their hard work was not what this campaign, just people hating Mormons. That is slander on the good work they did to overcome almost insurmountable odds. It’s a slander on the people of Iowa, saying that at least 9% of Caucus goers and probably more were simply anti-Mormon hate mongers. If Romney lost because of anti-Mormon bigotry, than you have to indict at least 9% of Iowa Caucus goers as blindly hateful people who didn’t see the obvious greatness of Mitt because of their hateful anti-mormonism.
October 17th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Here’s the deal…huck and mitt aren’t perfect. But they both had morons running their campaigns. The proof is in the pudding. You lose to McCain? Seriously? McCain? The guy was decapitated because of the illegal immigration thing and yet, he comes storming back. Now sorry, but i don’t think that there is anything dirty about being honest. A lot of people aren’t comfortable with a mormon candidate. I’m not one of them, but it sure makes for an effective strategy. Romney should have skipped Iowa anyways. If he had focused on New Hampshire instead…except that he won the straw poll and that made it seem like he should’ve won Iowa, which hurt him in the end.
Look, a lot of people are uncomfortable with Mitt because of abortion. No matter what you say to them, or even what he says to them….he won’t earn their trust. I don’t trust him on it. Same with gun control. He SUPPORTS GUN CONTROL. “Oh i’m a hunter”…says mitt romney. Good for you, but guns aren’t about hunting. READ THE FRICKEN CONSTITUTION.
You want to know why Mitt is falling? The answer is, he’s NOT. He’s staying right where he is, just not gaining any ground…which right now is probably what’s best for him. Huckabee is gaining ground because Palin is losing ground. It has little to do with his show…that’s just what is happening. But at some point this thing is all gonna come to a head…and we need all hands on deck. So if Mitt or Huck becomes the nominee, i hope everyone around here has enough sense to know that either of them would be MILES better than Obama is now.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Ann Coulter stated last year that the person the Dems were attacking the most was obviously the person who should be the nominee. The person being attacked by the MSM WAS ROMNEY! Huck on the other hand was hardly ever criticized by the MSM because they saw huck “AS AN EASY KILL”! And huck would be an even easier kill next time around due to his vile “joke” about obama being fearful because someone pointed a gun at him. Get a clue huck supporters…huck is DONE, DONE, DONE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Mike_Huckabee
Perception from liberals and Democrats
On December 11, 2007 the Drudge Report found out that the highest levels of the Democratic Party told their officials to avoid any criticism of 2008 Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, until he would secure the nomination. One Democrat said “He’ll easily be their McGovern, an easy kill.” The last time the Democratic National Committee criticized Huckabee was on March 2nd, 2007.[55]
So hey huck supporters….do you not think the voters in Iowa will take this into consideration?! They will be looking for a VIABLE candidate to get the nomination otherwise obama = 4 MORE!!!!
October 17th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
#43, 44 lkv Says:
“I’m talking about the dirty tricks his campaign manager, Chip Saltsman played in Iowa…”
and
“I wonder if Huckabee would asks Chip Saltsman to be his campaign manager again…”
That would be a PERFECT match up for huck.
1. huck’s joke about obama fearing assassination.
2. saltsman’s “Barack the Magic Negro” CD. Whoo hoo…what a team they would be!
October 17th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
What is everything is that Mike Huckabee cannot win the Presidency.
What’s more is that those of you who don’t realize this blantantly obvious fact won’t get to find out the hard way because Friar Huck won’t win the GOP nomination because he was never more than a regional candidate to begin with in 2008, he’s not a going to be handled with kid gloves by the press, nor will the rest of the field brush him off again, presuming his nonconservative record will speak louder than his unidimensional conservative claim of being a pro-life crusader longer and harder than the rest of us.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
#48:
That team beat your man Mitt in the Iowa caucuses and helped derail his attempt to win the nomination.
Romney supporters, for your own sake stop underestimating Huckabee or his appeal. It won’t do you all any good to dismiss the guy, who according to Rasmussen, is WINNING the nomination right now. Underestimating Huckabee was a big mistake Romney made last time. If you want to win, don’t do it again.
October 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
#50,
The next election will be a whole new ballgame and huck already has 2 MAJOR strikes against him. He AND his campaign manager have both attacked the president in a very hateful and personal manner. I can just hear the Dem chants of “huck the redneck racist”! Buh-bye huck!
October 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Whilst I don’t think Huck can beat Obama (even at say 40%) it’s time that the Rombots move on from Iowa.
FACE FACTS HUCK WON EASILY AND WON FAIR AND SQUARE.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
#51:
If we nominated Martin Luther King Jr, he’d be called a racist by the Dems. No matter who we pick, if they so much as sneeze at Obama the wrong way, they will be called racist. That charge is already getting old, and there is a fatigue growing in the country about it. People are getting sick and tired of being called racists just because they oppose Obama. Calling a Presidential candidate racist is just going to exacerbate that fatigue.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I find it interesting that everyone that supports Huckabee only can talk about his humor and his down home charm. No one can come up with any actual qualifications to back him up as a candidate. Romney had the goods on knowledge and experience and hopefully this time around the country will be ready for a President and not a rocd star who can give a preachy speech. Romney in 2012! Please!
October 17th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
rock star
October 17th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
#43: Adam:
Yes I was implying that there was bigotry…which there was. If you google it you will see that there was. It’s out there, it’s been written about, and now it’s on google for all to see what was going on at that time. Some of it was coming from Huckabee’s campaign, and some of it was coming from other places.
I’m not even a Mormon, I’m a Roman Catholic, so I can only speak for my family because almost all of my family members are LDS. Some aren’t political at all, but I know what they were saying about the election and what they were feeling and I saw how it hurt them, and it wasn’t in their head, they knew where it was coming from. Some of it was coming from the Evangelical online publications who spread hate and bigotry and passed on through the blogs, and even though Romney won the majority of the Evangelical vote outside of Iowa, there were some that bought into the Mormons are not Christian lie, and Huckabee and his campaign manager used it to their advantage, Saltsman even admitted they took advantage of it. But I’m not saying it came from or started from Huckabee supporters…
October 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Mike Huckabee as George Washington?! Really?!!!
October 17th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
#46, Waterseeds,
“Look, a lot of people are uncomfortable with Mitt because of abortion. No matter what you say to them, or even what he says to them….he won’t earn their trust. I don’t trust him on it.”
Here’s why I trust Romney on abortion:
He is a Mormon and as best I can tell, a pretty devout one. Everything about him and his life, including his religion, tells me that he would believe in the concept of protecting the un-born. To believe otherwise would be inconsistent with who he is. When he ran for Governor of Massachusetts, he said he personally didn’t favor abortion but as Governor, he would protect a woman’s right to choose. Had he not made that pledge, he wouldn’t have even stood a chance of getting elected in Massachusetts and I would imagine that in his mind it wasn’t going to really matter. Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision, a governor has little ability to restrict or enact laws regarding abortion. However, the issue did arise and here is what he said on Meet the Press about the choice he was forced to make:
“I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn’t be involved and let people make their own decision. That all made a lot of sense to me. Then I became governor and the theoretical became reality. A bill came to my desk which related to the preservation of life. I recognized that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human lift. And I didn’t hide from that change of heart. I recognize it’s a change. Every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.”
I don’t worry about Romney on abortion because I think his position is consistent with his values. I believe he simply moderated his position to run in hyper-liberal Massachusetts but he has always personally been opposed to it and I would trust him to continue to be opposed in the future.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Romney should only spend the minimum amount of time and money campaigning in Iowa..It’s not like they don’t know him there.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
#53,
What huck said about obama being fearful after “someone pointed a gun at him” was outrageous and childish, unpresidential and vile. It goes waaaay beyond basic banter about someone being racist. Go ahead and try to minimize this; it’s your right to be delusional and to keep your head in the sand if you insist. Here is just a small taste of what huck would be up against…and why the voters in Iowa will pass him over.
Mike Huckabee: Minister and Street Thug
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-yourgrau/mike-huckabee-minister-an_b_102193.html
“So Mike Huckabee makes a wisecrack at the NRA convention about Obama frantically trying to get away from a gun being pointed at him.
This is what passes for a Christian man of peace today in this charming country we find ourselves in. Spy magazine ran a marvelous caption years ago, I recall, under a picture of Kissinger: “Henry Kissinger, Socialite and War Criminal.” Now we have Mike Huckabee: Christian Minister and Street Thug.
Huckabee should not just apologize, he should be forced to turn in his collar.
But alas as someone else pointed out, Christians are often the ones who don’t seem hip that theirs is supposedly a religion of peace.”
October 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
#53,
You can watch huck say it as well…
http://www.tmz.com/2008/05/17/huckabee-jokes-about-obama-assassination/
or just Google: huckabee obama gun…YOU WILL GET OVER A MILLION HITS!!!
October 17th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
50 Regional candidate. Nothing more, nothing less.
October 17th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Nate G. has some good insight of what REALLY went on in Iowa. I hope he will soon post on his personal experience there.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
#62:
When has Iowa been considered a Southern state? How about Kansas? How about Oklahoma or Missouri, both of which Huckabee came in a strong second. Dismissing Huckabee as a regional candidate again illustrates my point; because you Romney folks don’t like Huckabee, you consider him nothing more than an annoyance, but that annoyance could cost Romney the nomination, like he helped do last time.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
IRV. If you go to Article6blog.com, you will see a lot on this bigtor subject. Gov Huckabee was always refered to Gov Huckabee, former gov of Arkansas. Mitt Romeny was always refered to as Mitt Romney, a Mormon. Now, I hope in the next electon, either we read Mike Huckabe, Southern Baptist and Mitt Romney, Mormom, or we just read Gov. Huckabee and Gov Romeny.
Dickie Morris, Huckles’ buddy once said that Romney had a ‘mormon’ problem. Frankly, I think it was Morris and others with the mormon problem, not Romney.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Huckles is nothing more than a regional candidate.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
31. If we don’t pull up or best A team, we’ll lose. Huckles is c squad all way round.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I agree that the press almost always mentioned Romney’s religion in any profile while ignoring the subject for McCain, Guiliani, and the others. I remember early in the primary season watching video profiles of each Republican candidate prepared by one of the major networks and in Romney’s profile, the word Mormon was stated eight times in a video that lasted maybe two minutes.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Mike’s Book “doing the right thing” the title look good but did the Author did the right thing? the answer is not,he was a religion discrimination, a political leader must not discrimination any race,any religion,any sex and other.He actually is not a national leader,is not a political leader,he is a religion leader or a church leader or an evangelical leader, his T.V show doesn’t improved his leadership,just show his musician leader. Mike must campaign for a church leader,is not campaign for the presidency,this country need some one who experience in the economy comes to save America for America at this time,America is not need a musician come to lead a night club yet.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
After all this time, it’s just laughable that Adam Graham and others try to deny reality. In Iowa, anti-Mormonism played a role, period. Everyone knows it, lkv was right – it has been written about extensively, and only the fools for Huck won’t acknowledge it.
Adam, it would do wonders for your credibility if you would simply acknowledge the truth.
October 17th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Thanks Knickers for the #23 gawker.com post. Interesting. A whole year and a half after the primary ended and huck STILL owes Chuck Norris money?! With the income from his Foxnews show, one would think huckie would be on top of all his bills…
October 17th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
I’m sorry I missed this thread, particularly since it was a post I made on another thread that got Adam ticked off enough to initiate it.
My points were; 1)electability, 2)organization, 3)resources.
Mitt is more electable because he comes across as more presidential, and this is proven by the polling that shows him doing better among Independents and Democrats than Huck.
That Mitt will, once again, have a superior organization to Huckabee is even tacitly admitted by Adam (and others). That he had it last time is evidenced by his string of wins in caucus states, as well as his strong showing in primary states in every region of the country. Next time, it won’t be put together from scratch: He will start out with it intact.
As for resources, NOBODY can fundraise like Mitt…..in part because Mitt’s base is far more affluent than Huck’s, as attested by the internals of every poll that’s gauged income statistics.
So, there ARE more significant factors involved in assessing front-runner status than a five-point, head-to-head, poll taken well over 2 years before the first primary.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:11 am
#65
A lot of that flip flop stuff started from Dick Morris.
#70
And the thing is Romney never complained…He’s certainly a bigger man then they are.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Martha,
Your comment in #7 was based on one of my comments way back when, although I no longer totally agree with it. I now take Huckabee more seriously than I used to, although my assessment of Mitt’s performance last time hasn’t changed. Huckabee has grown his support base beyond where it was at the end of last year, which I find rather unnerving. I felt the same sensation when Obama was catching on.
October 18th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Jed,
Your comment in #18 is one of the best I’ve read on this site, and I’ve been following it for 2 1/2 years.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:42 am
Dave, I’m glad to know who I got it from! I think these polls about Huck are just really suspect. I can’t imagine Huck gaining widespread support for 2012. There is just too much opposition to him with all kinds of voters – fiscal cons, defense cons, moderates, sane people, etc. But then again, the Republican party is not called the stupid party for nothing.
BTW – I agree with you on Jed’s comment. He’s precisely right.
October 18th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Let’s get it straight about Iowa. I live in Iowa. I received two pieces of mail focusing on Huckabee. Both from Romney. Both trash. It was Romney who ran a “negative” campaign in Iowa and lost, big.
Romney, the week before South Carolina was still bragging to liberal reporters about being for “gay rights”. He is a phony and every gunowner knows it. He went hunting twice before campaigning for president. Lots of people were deceived and thought that being a “life-time member of the NRA” meant you had belonged to it all your life, not that you paid up membership for the future.
Romneycare has the same nonsense in it that Obamacare does: penalties for not having insurance yourself, and mandates (unmet) to see that every one is covered.
Romney is the original bailer-outer. He proposed $50 in bailout for Michigan car makers right before the Michigan primaries and before even Bush proposed a bailout of banks and carmakers.
October 18th, 2009 at 2:05 am
#.77 So because you live in Iowa you are the expert on Romney? I love how people can “set the record straight” because they are from a particular state.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:28 am
“fiscal cons, defense cons, moderates, sane people”
Remember Martha, that’s the same crowd that generally rejected Romney as well in favor of Rudy-McCain
I really do disagree with Adam though, and it is because Romney actually has run very good campaigns in times past despite his ill-advised ‘08 strategy. His ‘08 campaign was pure conservative talking points. He’s gotta backseat all that and just let those inclinations naturally guide his message and policy proposals rather than run around advertising them everywhere. It makes him look like a flip-flopper who’s trying to prove something when he’s really not much different from anyone else in that regard.
He’s also got to be much firmer on foreign policy than he previously was. It’ll go miles towards establishing him as a solid leader.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Huck did better than I expected when one on one against J/Mac.
He has the potential to be more than just a regional candidate.
October 18th, 2009 at 5:26 am
I don’t underestimate Mr.Huckabee. He promotes ‘Huck’ fan clubs, He has the ‘Mike Huckabee’ show, he created ‘Huck’ PAC, he has the ‘Huckabee’ report, He created his Huck’s Heroes’, I recently heard him mention stupid criminals on his ‘Huck’s’ master criminals list, He has ‘Huck’s’ army, He has had graphs showing support as ‘Huck’ nation. Perhaps there is a Huck-a-mania and maybe the ultimate qualification for president is Obama-mania or Huck-a-mania….Is anyone else getting tired of politics.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Romney theory: Money=resources=buying party off.
Yes, any observer with the slightest IQ realizes Romney is placing this close business friends from Bain, as well as his close political supporters in maneuvering them into various political officers. Just as any observer knows, Romney is jet setting across the nation, plugging one candidate after another in the Republican Party, in hopes to seize controlling reigns. However, someone buying off our democratic system seems at the very least a desperate act of a power hunger man, and at the most, appears it is a danger to the American democratic system.
October 18th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Ok, I just couldn’t let this go…
60 and 61, you’re quoting the HuffPo and TMZ…seriously?
a faux-news gov’t controlled sham of a “newspaper”? do you know what the words “LIBERAL” and “BIAS” mean?
and an…entertainment news organization…
lots of intelligent political thought right there.
seriously, who give two seconds of thought to “racist” remarks?
is politics not about electing a candidate who can A) lead and govern effectively and B) win an election?
let go of the liberal labels…
October 18th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Adam, you seem to ignore that early polling isn’t everything. Forget numbers, this far out the polls are wrong, sometimes even very wrong. Remember Hillary was in front, Giuliani was in front, even Thompson was in front before he even declared. I tell you the front is not the place a candidate wants to be this early. Poor Huckabee. Rasmussen has sealed his fate with this poll. No the best place to be is 2,3,4, even 5 this far out. I don’t think Romney cares one bit about this bit of news. His supporters do only because of our continual cheerleading for the man we hope will be president someday and work his turnaround magic on a desparate nation.
October 18th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I think that all commenters that have come across as “matter-of-fact” attacks on the other candidate are just plain kidding themselves. “huck is a stooge”, “huck is vendictive”, “romney is power hungry”, “romney is opportunistic”.
The only way the republicans can win 2012 will be if there is at least one crisis and most likely we will need two crisis’. (i.e. economy & foreign policy).
We need to unite and nominate not only the candidate that we think can win but also the candidate that can resolve the crisis’. If we nominate the candidate based on who we like or who we think can win, but can’t resolve the crisis’, then we are no better off than the Democrats who nominated Obama.
October 18th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
81.
I guess those stories from Arkansas about Huck naming every possible public place after himself are true.
I read somewhere that when you call certain public organizations, you get responses like this “The Mike Huckabee Center for blah, blah, blah.”
October 18th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
WTF!!! did you just compare Huckabee to General Washington?
October 19th, 2009 at 12:51 am
#82:
bpb:
You have got to be a Palin fanatic….you guys are beginning to sound all alike. Over the top generalizations, you write whatever enters your pea brains, and your ALWAYS trashing Romney.
In over 2 years of following politics online, Iv’e never read such mean spirited trash written about any other candidate. Why don’t you try debating the issues.
October 19th, 2009 at 5:01 am
Mitt, the flip flopper, the fake. Home town boy of ..of ..Michigan, er Utah..Massachusetts, New Hampshire and now, maybe, California. Life long hunter. Never. Romney/Obama care debacle. He was against Reagan until he was for Reagan. Maybe.
Good hair though.
Huck? Nope. Done. Fork.
October 19th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
My thoughts here are:
1. Huckabee has at least 2 more years to stick his foot in his mouth on that TV show of his. He has a history of foot-munching so the possibility is great.
2. Even if these early polls have any relation to reality, Mitt is only 4 points behind the self-agrandizing Huckabee. How many races have been won by the competitor who stays just behind the front-runner until the home stretch and then wins going away. Huckabee is on TV everyday talking, talking, talking. People maybe find themselves Huckabee-weary by 2012 and ready to see him exit the stage.
3. Mitt Romney may very well benefit from the sympathy support that will inevitably turn in his favor if Huckabee keeps taking personal cheap-shots at Romney and his religion.
4. These openly biased articles say more about the author than anything useful about how the 2012 election may be shaping up.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:19 am
90-remind me of the cheap shots he took again…I can’t recall any.
although i do agree with your fourth point. i think we just differ on the authors.