1) Who is going to hit Huck?
"Richelieu" over at the Weekly Standard predicts a 3rd party avalanche being dropped on him in Iowa, where his poll numbers are soaring. Richelieu makes his argument in somewhat hyperbolic terms though the crux of his point is correct: the GOP establishment isn't fond of candidates like Huckabee (who they view as something akin to an affable version of Ellen Craswell).
Why the angst with Huckabee? Beyond our own discussion of the schism within the GOP, the latest poll out of Iowa - a respected survey done for the Des Moines Register by reputable Iowa pollster Ann Selzer - tells the tale:
The Register's new scientific poll shows Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, leading Romney 38 percent to 22 percent among those who consider themselves born-again Christians. In October, Romney edged Huckabee 23 percent to 18 percent among people in that group, which accounts for one-half of all likely caucus participants.Similarly, Huckabee holds a 2-to-1 lead over Romney among those who say it is more important for a presidential candidate to be socially conservative than fiscally conservative.
That last line probably hastens the attacks ads already being conjured up in the dungeons of the Club for Growth. Moreover, for the first time one can actually see a plausible path to the nomination for Huckabee, even if it's still not probable. That hope exists thanks in no small part to John McCain and Rudy Giuliani staying mired in the mid-teens in New Hampshire, even after they've both been running TV ads there for weeks. There is something increasingly stagnant about not only McCain's campaign, but perhaps Giuliani's as well.
Thus, the 3rd party hit on Huckabee is coming. The only question, is when, from whom, and how?
2) What's up with Rudy?
As alluded to above, Rudy Giuliani has been on TV with heavy ad buys in New Hampshire for two weeks and his numbers aren't moving. The common refrain from Romney skeptics prior to other candidates going on the airwaves is that Romney's leads would drop once he didn't have that medium to himself. Well, McCain has been on the air longer than Giuliani (plus Ron Paul is advertising too), yet Romney's lead in New Hampshire isn't being threatened by either gentleman. Note also that Huckabee has been soaring in Iowa and increasingly in South Carolina too thanks to McCain circa 2000-like media coverage, not TV ads.
New Hampshire was supposed to be Giuliani's best chance at a decent early showing to get him through to South Carolina, Florida, and beyond. Now, it's not so clear. In fact, blog posts here and here recently broached the idea that Giuliani might fade a lot quicker than expected. I don't agree entirely with all the arguments presented in those posts, but I can't dismiss them as entirely improbable at this point either. That fact alone speaks volumes.
3) Mitt gives "the Speech" on Thursday
Talk about a campaign event that is going to suck the oxygen out of the news cycle. Plus, no pressure or anything.
4) Is Obama dethroning Hillary?
Barack Obama's campaign has the 'mo. Hillary Clinton's doesn't. He now leads in Iowa and her lead in New Hampshire is shrinking. Her campaign is founded on being the inevitable juggernaut. If that perception goes by the wayside, the scales could tip very quickly to Obama, the "agent of change."
Keep an eye on more potential signs that the shift might be happening. If nothing else, the Democratic contest is becoming way more competitive than could have been reasonably predicted a few weeks back.
UPDATE: title and last section fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 02, 2007 09:26 PM | Email ThisMaybe Hillary isn't inevitable. Maybe Obama isn't either. Or any other Democrat Socialist.
The Republicans have a lot of weaknesses, but at least they are not socialists. The right candidate can actually win the Presidency.
Congress, meanwhile, will probably continue to sink into the outhouse basement for the foreseeable future. Their only light is above them.
Posted by: Dick on December 2, 2007 10:09 PMHuckabee is just as scary as anyone running on the Democrat ticket, maybe even worse. The last thing we need is another big government Republican that thinks the bible is the solution to all our problems.
Posted by: John Galt on December 2, 2007 10:22 PMThe Bible DOES tell us the solution to all our problems. However, the candidate I want needs to see that the Bible doesn't support the government being the solution to our problems. The solution it outlines is one of individual responsibility and individual decisions.
No amount of big government compassion, conservative or otherwise, will ever be the solution. And since government's solution is always amoral in its delivery, all it has ever done and will ever do in the name of compassion will only make the problems worse.
Posted by: DAG on December 2, 2007 11:47 PMThe Giuliani campaign is about representation. The idea that the states with the most population like California, Texas and New York, should choose the candidate.
Iowa and New Hampshire are about the most unrepresentative states in the Union.
I would love to see two candidates from each party win in NH and IA and then get trounced all the way through the rest of the election.
Maybe rationality and fairness will come back.
Bloomberg is more likely to run for governor of NY. He has better chances there.
Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that he has no intention of running as a Libertarian or as an independent if he loses the Republican nomination. That makes sense. He has tried it before, back in '88. He saw how futile it is, given the bias that our system has built in to it against third party candidates. The hurdles the D's and R's have put in place make it not really viable if you want to win.
It makes much more sense for Ron Paul to run for re-election to his TX congressional seat. And, indeed, he has already filed for this race, as the election laws allow him to do.
Many of Ron Paul's supporters will beg and plead with him to run as a Libertarian. I'd love to see that as well! But I doubt he will run that way. I'll bet quite a few will write him in in November if he does not get the nomination for Prez. But he will not run as an L or I. Don't lose sleep over it.
But if he doesn't get the nomination, the passion and money and enthusiasm of his supporters will be lost to the Republican Party. This will be a greater loss to the GOP than will the loss of Giuliani, McCain, Romney or Huckabee would be.
He's raised $10.5 million this (4th) quarter, and it is only 2/3 over. This is more than any other R candidate did in the entire 3rd quarter. He has won most of the local, Republican straw polls. I think he has won the debates. And as Eric points out above, he is advertising in NH.
I think that Tancredo and Thompson will withdraw from the race soon, probably after NH and IA primaries. But I think Ron Paul will stay in the race right up to the nominating convention. I think he will be asked to speak.
I do not think he would accept the VP spot. Not unless the Prez. candidate wanted to bring the troops home quickly.
It is going to be a very interesting race!
By the way, Obama is a lot less bad than Hillary is. I would love to see him get the D nomination. I've heard that he tells blacks they need self-reliance, to get off the couch! Sounds like the latter Malcolm X to me. Gravel would have been even better, but I doubt that will happen.
And it is so comforting to know that I will almost certainly have a fallback position: the partisan Libertarian Prez. candidate, whoever that turns out to be. I would be happy to vote Libertarian if Ron Paul does not get the Republican vote.
A clever Republican might want to send some money to the Greens for ballott access, or to send some money to a pro-gay marriage, anti-Iraq and drug war libertarian candidate. Either of these would draw votes from D's. A Libertarian running as a fiscal conservative might cost the R's a percentage point or so in some key electoral college states. I'd say that the L's will get on about 48 state ballotts again this year. Maybe the Greens will get on 30. In a close race, this could be the difference...
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 3, 2007 01:03 AMIf you would get past your cartoon image of her you would see that she is a mainstream left of center candidate.
She might give some lip service to trade issues but she is going to govern like Bill, the guy Alan Greenspan praised...
Posted by: B on December 3, 2007 07:07 AMI think Ron Paul is a very interesting candidate but I don't want to read six paragraphs about the same RP facts 15 times in every thread we have about the PUSA race.
Romney put out a flyer on immigration, which contrasted his view with his campaign's interpretation of Guiliani and Huckabee. This would have been a flyer between him and Guilani a month ago. Why I say his campaign's view is because they take a term like Amnesty and basically state the others are for it, even if the record states otherwise. It is a campaign lie. For example, Huckabee has repeatedly stated he isn't for Amnesty, yet Romney keeps stating he is. Romney takes one fact (the granting of in-school tuitition breaks to children educated within Arkansas schools, per federal law) and makes it his case for Amnesty. It doesn't meet the definition, yet Romney's campaign just goes with it. It is just as pathetic as Hillary's campaign trying to make a paper the Barack wrote in Kindergarten (which most all Kindergarteners write) on how he wants to be President one day and somehow this is evil in Hillary's campaign corps eyes.
Huckabee is also getting hit in Iowa by Thompson, although Thompson's attack sounds like plain old anger and doesn't make him anymore likable. Therefore, I am not sure how in Thompson's case tearing down your opponent is supposed to strengthen your campaign. Thompson needs to overcome the "lazy" campaigner issue first and foremost. He is probably the least to benefit from going negative. Going negative makes him appear grumpy, which just builds on the stigma he needs to overcome.
I am not sure why people are afraid of a real race. I for one would welcome the change. For one thing, it might mean that Washington state may have some say in the outcome, instead of everything being wrapped up on Super Tuesday, like the front runners want happen.
One wish I do have is that in Michigan, on the Democratic side, that "Uncommitted" wins over Hillary. That would be a great slap in the face.
Posted by: tc on December 3, 2007 10:46 AMFor the first time in the history of SP, I agree with Cato.
Posted by: cliff on December 3, 2007 01:38 PMAnd seeing tc comments above, it sure seems the Democrats and MSM want Huckabee as compared to one of the other front-runners.
Posted by: swatter on December 3, 2007 02:14 PMAs for Huckabee, his ballon is heading for a POP! because it's all hot air and nothing else. He's broke, has a big-government record, is a preacher screecher, and America already had one President who was a Governor From Hope Arkansas, and we really don't want another one (or the previous one's wife, either!).
If there is all this support for McCain, Guliani, Thompson, Huckabee, and Romney, then where is it? All I ever see is signs for Dr. Paul everywhere.
Posted by: Tannim on December 3, 2007 02:28 PMBy the latest polls (see Rassmussmen), 32.5% identify with Republican, 37.4% with Democrats, and 30.2% with Other (bulk of which is most likely independent, since minority parties typically only get 1-4% of the general election vote). Therefore, being an independent, is just a "normal" as being a Republican or Democrat.
On the Republican side, I have stated that my preference is McCain or Huckabee. Guiliani's mistriss episode make's him unacceptable, no matter who he goes against (even Hillary). Romney is too flip-floppy for me, plus I do have issues with his Mormonism (let's see if he can clear any of this up on Thursday). Thompson is too dang boring, plus I view him as not really wanting it.
On the Democratic side, I like Obama (age/generational differentiator, plus his faith), with Edwards as second choice. I would take almost anyone, outside of Kuchinich over Hillary (character issues).
I don't know which way I will go (Democrat or Republican) when the caucuses/primary come around. Most likely, it will depend on where the races are. I did attend the Democratic caucus four years ago, because GW had no competition, but was for Edwards there (not Kerry). Eight years ago, I liked McCain. I voted for Dole (yes) in '96. So, I am back and forth. Frankly, unless it was Huckabee versus Obama (which would be the hardest choice for me to decide), I would lean towards Huckabee for all other match-ups (even against Edwards). If McCain was top, he would be my choice, except for Obama. Guiliani, forget about it. If Rudy is against Hillary, I would probably vote for third party. Romney versus Hillary, I would go Romney. Anybody other than Huckabee versus Obama, I would definately go Obama. There you have my poll data point.
Posted by: tc on December 3, 2007 03:49 PMFirst, I was pleased at John McCain's attack, which he clearly had planned. Not because that sort of stream-of-consciousness nonsense about Hitler and WWII -- when the neocons openly want what they call WW IV! Are we to forget that the first war crime charged at Nuremberg was waging aggressive war?
I mean this: mainstream politicians NEVER attack an opponent they think is far behind. The McCain campaign, we've heard, is worried sick about New Hampshire, and they thought a slam at me would help. Ha! Of course, it only strengthened our forces.
Then, after the debate, Rudy Giuliani walked up to me and said, "Oooh, you sure have a LOT of supporters." It's only the beginning, I told him.
Indeed, he could have told that by the crowd outside after the debate. Mitt Romney had a few people, but no one else did. We, on the other hand, had about 500 enthusiastic revolutionaries, plus a boat, a trolley, and two planes towing lighted signs. As I looked out at the crowd, I thought: the establishment has no idea of what they are facing. We have an army of freedom, prosperity, and peace. As the LA Times political blog noted the other day, the British also thought they had no problem with the Americans--until Yorktown.
But we have an astoundingly short time before the first contests. The Iowa caucuses are on January 3, the New Hampshire primary is on January 8, and Nevada and South Carolina are both on January 19. We have only 30 days to stake our claim to the nomination, and to the new America that restores the ideals of the founders, and leads the world through free enterprise, a sound dollar, the rule of law, and peaceful example. Not through inflation and bombs.
Help me surprise the neocons and all the establishment with our success. Help me build the foundation for the America we all want. Send your most generous contribution: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate. The military-industrial complex, the biased media, the big banks, the Fed, the waterboarders, and the IRS don't like what we're doing. But every good American is applauding us, and daring to hope for a better future.
Please, help me give it to them, to us, to all Americans to come. Keep this revolution growing and winning: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate.
Sincerely,
Ron Paul
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 3, 2007 09:09 PMI am she.
1.You said:
"WVH @#10 is a moron who has no idea what he's talking about; he just regurgitates neocon talking points about Dr. Paul that were debunked months ago. If he's so racist then go ask his patients about it, if you can find any that think so..."
Now, Dr. Joseph Mengle's German patients just loved him as well.
Now, regarding the neocon talking points, do you have any response to the points in this article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
2. Do you consider every republican presidential candidate other than Strom Thurmond, David Duke and George Wallace a neocon?
3. If republican presidential candiates of the present and past except Thurmond, Duke, and Wallace were neocons, would you have supported any past republican presidential candidates and if Paul doesn't win the nomination, will you support the republican nominee?
4. If past and present republican presidential candiates are not neocons, other than Thurman, Duke, and Wallace, have any of these non-neo-cons either:
a. Received support from Nazis, Aryan Nation types, and the KKK?
b. Received donations from Nazis, Aryan Nation types and the KKK which they kept and refused to return?
c. Failed to disavow support from Nazis, Aryan Nation types and the KKK?
So, from your knowledge of present and past republican candidates, what are your answers?
Posted by: WVH on December 3, 2007 11:34 PM"If Rudy is against Hillary, I would probably vote for third party"
Agreed. I'll probably just stay home...or maybe you and me can go get a beer and say goodbye to our country.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on December 4, 2007 01:58 PM