One aspect of the now eager talk in some circles of having Mike Huckabee run for VP on a ticket with John McCain perplexes me. The logic apparently goes that Huckabee secures McCain's right flank with social conservatives, Evangelicals, and the South.
That's a respectable idea as far as it goes. But isn't the GOP already in trouble if its nominee for President has problems with social conservatives, Evangelicals, and the South?
Social conservatives and/or Evangelicals are obviously a core element of the base the Republican Party has come to rely on in the modern era. If they are seriously in doubt for a general election does that not indicate a larger problem? And if any state in the South - besides perhaps increasingly purple Virginia - is in play in 2008 then the race is already over in all probability.
Based on past Presidential elections, the areas where the GOP ticket needs strength are in swing states across the Southwest (Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico) and the Midwest (Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio...and perhaps Minnesota and Michigan too). Based on Mike Huckabee's documented weaknesses winning support with non-Evangelicals outside the South, it's profoundly unclear how Huckabee really helps the prospective ticket.
Of course, all this excludes the problems Huckabee poses with other core elements of the conservative base. National security conservatives generally think him a naif, though would likely be calmed by McCain at the top of the ticket. Economic conservatives, however, already have serious complaints with McCain. Huckabee will expand rather than minimize those grievances.
Yet, even if those issue questions weren't at play, what true benefit does Huckabee bring to the ticket in areas where the GOP needs it most?
Posted by Eric Earling at February 06, 2008 10:32 PM | Email ThisCan anyone find me one person who dislikes McCain JUST BECAUSE of his positions on social conservative issues? Even Dobson pointed out other just as many issues that don't have to do with social conservatism, as do.
Social conservatives do have problems with McCain, but most of them who have the most problems with McCain also have problems with Huckabee, for the reasons you pointed out.
Also, McCain does not have serious South problems, if it is him vs. Hillary, unless she gets a running mate who is strong in the South. He is strong in the South, just not AS strong as Huckabee.
Assuming he wins the nomination, McCain has to pick a strong across-the-board conservative as his running mate. That is why it won't be Huckabee.
Posted by: pudge on February 6, 2008 10:45 PMI generally agree, that's part of the reason I'm a bit miffed at the logic of those putting forward the Huck as VP idea.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 6, 2008 10:51 PMI think it has to do with quite a few folks out there who simply don't like the fact that their guy, Romney, can't win any of the states that matter. He proved money can't help him. He proved in IA and NH that when people REALLY get to know him, they don't like him. He showed yesterday that he can't win in Florida or the South: both areas. the Pubs are going to need to carry if they're to win the election. So that's that.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The only states the Pubs need to win are the states that GW won. That means they need to win the South--and Huckabee has shown he can do that even with Romney in the race--and they need to win Florida and Ohio. Ohio may be the test for Romney; if he can't win that one, he's out.
I'm supporting Huck until he drops out--and I encourage Romeny folks to continue supporting him until he drops out--but I believe Huckabee can communicate better than any other candidate on either side. When people hear him speak, they believe him; this is his strength in the South and mid-west and he should be able to rally the rest of the socialites in other states where McCain is weak.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on February 6, 2008 11:03 PMAs it is, I truly believe it's only the immigration problem that would turn off some of the conservatives for McCain. Yes, he has other issues, but if he was on their side on immigration they would be voting for him. I'm wondering if McCain is going to try to fix that issue with words before the general election or with a strategic placement of an individual at say Homeland Security.
If you are following the delegate race you will note that if you only count wins (in the manner of electoral college votes) in red states Huckabee and McCain are close (mainly because of McCain's win in Florida) and Romney is far behind. If Obama is the Dems nominee, then Huckabee on the ticket would be necessary or the South could be lost. I would prefer a fellow like Newt, but still a Huckabee would work in that case.
If Hillary is the nominee (likely Obama would be offered the VP slot), then a Huckabee doesn't make any sense. More than likely he should be looking to Pennsylvania or Ohio for an option.
I don't see any reason at all for McCain to pick an across the board conservative, Lord knows the only two that would appease would be a Tancredo or a Hunter. He probably should rather some time in March or April come out and announce a couple 'ideas' on who he'd like in cabinet positions. Those could be as conservative as can be and that might allay any fears on voting for him.
As for the VP slot, Huckabee would be a good choice if Obama is the nominee, but so would an equally good southern speaker like Newt. I don't see him being there if Clinton is the nominee though.
Posted by: Doug on February 6, 2008 11:10 PMI'd have to say that, yes, if you don't understand why so many Republicans, including evangelicals, dislike McCain, then you are from another planet. :-) Read James Dobson's statement if you like.
The problems with Huckabee are different, but of a similar nature: many of us dislike many things about him; personally, I can't stomach his big-government approach to government.
I think it has to do with quite a few folks out there who simply don't like the fact that their guy, Romney, can't win any of the states that matter.
Nah. It's mostly the other way around, ESPECIALLY in regard to McCain: many people are supporting Romney because they dislike McCain. And it's similar with Huckabee: he is not seen as a viable option either.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Good, because I feel like you are, too. :-)
I believe Huckabee can communicate better than any other candidate on either side
Perhaps; unfortunately, he often communicates things I vehemently disagree with.
Posted by: pudge on February 6, 2008 11:26 PM:-) Ha Ha. Or I'm just tired. In case you didn't get the reference, it's from Zoolander.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on February 6, 2008 11:32 PMNewt, man, I'd love to see him back in a leadership role in DC, but he hasn't been saying nice things about McCain the last couple weeks so maybe that won't happen. Then again, the 'global warming' stuff of Newt's may endear him to McCain.
Posted by: Doug on February 6, 2008 11:38 PMHe needs someone to balance him, not mirror him. Huckabee brings nothing that McCain doesn't. He needs to leave Huckabee BEEhind. Huckster is his mirror image; he needs a complement not a re-Mac. As Robert Novak remarked Huckabee is an evangelical, not a conservative (which is one reason he is unlikely to be picked as McCain's running mate).
Imagine if he chooses Ken Blackwell or Michael Steele or Sarah Palin... all staunch conservatives with governing experience and all "minorities".
That would salve nervous conservatives AND poke a big stick in the eye of the pandering party.
I would have suggested Rick Santorum too, but... he's too hated, too white, too male.... as is Newt. Ugly but true.
With McCain, it is crucial that the VP be ready to step into the presidency. With the other candidates, political needs can be met, but McCain needs are different.
And the push poll by Huckabee, as you know, was sponsored and approved by McCain. Keeps your guy clean, it seems.
Therefore, the Huckster is a non-starter. He shut the door with the global warming mandate he found in the Bible. And his recent campaigning has sealed the door.
What has been interesting on all the post-mortems is that there seems to be an anti-Mormon vote. No one has quantified it, but people have been noticing the trend.
Doug, the race is over so cut the Macubee spin on Romney and Taxachusetts. If you want the vote of
a lot of voters you and your candidate should try to reconcile.
Both are known quantities to "talk show conservatives" thanks to the 2006 Senate electons and McCain needs to kiss and make up to them (if that's even possible). Both are, as far as I know, rock-ribbed conservatives, well spoken, young, come for outside the Beltway and are in the political wilderness having lost their Senate bids.
Other than Rick Santorum, who won't be in the same room as McCain let alone his running mate, I can't think someone else that would fit that bill.
Duffman: I heard somewhere, forgive me I can't remember where, of Lieberman being a potential Secretary of State pick. I know we're a long way from that but it's an intriguing idea.
First Sound Politics post \o/
Posted by: Jim Klein on February 7, 2008 07:19 AMDoes any reasonable republican want this guy anywhere near the ticket?
Posted by: Bill Anderson on February 7, 2008 07:24 AMA McCain/Huckabee ticket would guarantee a landslide Democratic victory.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 7, 2008 07:55 AMReasons against Huckabee:
1. Not liked by fiscal conservatives (period).
2. Not liked by small government end of Republican Party.
3. Weak foriegn experience.
4. Would he be ready to take over from day one if something happened to McCain?
OBTW, I have noticed that some want to promote young Republican governors as a VP choice. They might be fine if talking to a Right-wing radio crowd, but I guarantee you that the rest of the country would have no idea who they were. Other than here, I have never heard any of them mentioned in the MSM. This is a big problem. To the rest of the country they could end up looking like a Dan Quayle, plus they would not have gone through any national vetting process that could blow up. It is a big risk, just to please a portion of the Republican audience.
Just my take on the issue.
Posted by: tc on February 7, 2008 07:57 AMTC, your comments in arguments for Huck. When Dobson or Pat Robertson endorse a politician, I make a mental block to vote NO WAY for that politician. Your comments - reasons against Huck, Roger. Wilco. Ditto.
Posted by: Clusiana on February 7, 2008 08:17 AMHuckabee wasn't stating his personal beliefs. He was stating his political beliefs, specifically, he said "I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ."
Your suggestion of Clinton/Obama's personal beliefs isn't relevant (nor those of any other candidate -- Romney said it best "Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."
Huckabee said the opposite....taking this nation back for Christ. Again Romney's words ring better: ""We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion."
In summary...would any reasonable republican want this guy in the VP role? Or the presidential role?
Posted by: Bill Anderson on February 7, 2008 08:18 AMDuncan Hunter? You heard it here, folks. Bill Anderson thinks Duncan Hunter is not a reasonable Republican.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on February 7, 2008 08:56 AMThe fact is Huckabee was a very good governor and the metrosexual Republicans in the blue states have to realize that it's the Southern State's republicans that have their heads screwed on straight for the most part, after all it's them that win the elections for us.
Posted by: Doug on February 7, 2008 08:58 AM