Mike Huckabee's continued presence in the Presidential race is quixotic at best, though certainly his right. The delegate math just simply doesn't add up. Karl Rove pointed out on Fox News last night that Huckabee would need to win over 80% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination (Mitt Romney would have had to have won over 60%). Not going to happen.
Moreover, a number of supporters of Huckabee and Romney have in recent weeks promulgated the notion that their man would be beating John McCain in a mano a mano race. Now maybe if such a pairing had occurred a couple weeks ago that's possible, though there are reasons to be skeptical of that argument.
Read Michael Barone's op-ed on the race in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Here's the key passage:
Mr. McCain's talk-show critics call for the Huckabee and Romney constituencies to unite. But that's mixing oil and water. Mr. Romney was winning about 10% in south Georgia counties while Mr. Huckabee was winning not much more in upscale Buckhead and Sandy Spring. Mr. McCain was competitive on both kinds of turf.
Anti-McCain activists are right to say Huckabee and Romney are splitting the conservative vote. But that's a lazy, surface-level reading of the exit polls. A deeper look at the results confirms Barone's argument.
Examine the county map results in the states where Huckabee, McCain, and Romney were bunched most closely of any of the primary contests: Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee. Even while finishing 3rd, Romney ran well and often won in and around populations centers with growing suburbs and exurbs such as Atlanta, Nashville, and Kansas City. Conversely Huckabee lost badly in those same counties yet cleaned house in rural areas, where Romney often fared poorly. And McCain had more distributed support, consistently running first or second in every county, melding his unique coalition of moderates, national security conservatives, and as Patrick Ruffini has described it: older belligerent men.
Both Romney and Huckabee supporters can make the claim that their candidate would have benefited from a clearer field at an earlier date. That's possible given the dramatic change it would offer to the overall race dynamic. It's not clear, however, that such a shift would have stopped McCain, even if the stark differences between Huckabee and Romney's bases of support could be bridged.
McCain's nomination victory will go down as a unique instance of a candidate cobbling together a coalition that included only modest pieces of his party's base to secure his party's nomination. More on that in a later post.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 08, 2008 07:58 AM | Email ThisHugh Hewitt says it is because of the three Ms- Mormons, money and Michigan.
However, the MSM will be going after McCain on his lack of economic prowess (hey, he does have a copy of Greenspan's book) and his admitted lack of prowess. Hello VP Romney.
Eric, I would also really like to know how many Pete Jacksons voted for McCain. I haven't heard anybody quantify those numbers yet, or even if it could be quantified. I also figure those votes will be going Democrat in the general.
Posted by: swatter on February 8, 2008 08:04 AMIf Obama is the nominee then Obama could beat McCain in a couple southern red states, hence McCain will need a southern conservative to hold his own. Otherwise it would be better to pick one from Ohio or PA.
Obviously there will be pressure put on by the conservatives to pick a candidate of their choosing, but he's going to have to be more strategic with it this time. I figure he should be offering olive branches to the right by way of cabinet positions this time.
Posted by: Doug on February 8, 2008 08:32 AMI would argue that if Huck and Romney want to play dirty, that in fact McCain won't be the nominee.
Posted by: Doug on February 8, 2008 08:36 AMNo, it couldn't.
Posted by: pudge on February 8, 2008 08:47 AMYou're right...Ron Paul is going to get a small percentage also; Romney may even get a few more. That being said, I think Doug's point is that Ed Rollins' strategy is not to win the magic number of delegates; it is to stop McCain from reaching it. We'll see what happens.
Posted by: Lynnwood Evangelical on February 8, 2008 09:57 AMToo bad he doesn't have the class of Romney and withdraw.
Posted by: John425 on February 8, 2008 11:17 AM.
Posted by: Doug on February 8, 2008 02:35 PMHuh. People are insulted by something that never happened? Interesting.
When it's all said and done you will find that no time in history has a candidate gotten such a huge amount (and percentage) of money from people of one denomination.
Where do you get this information? Are you making it up, or do you have actual data behind it?
We shouldn't be electing or supporting people in this country based on religion
We aren't, of course. In the 2001 census, 1.4 percent of the population was GOP. And Romney is getting many times that in votes.
But then again, a couple of days ago you accused Dobson of being anti-Baptist (even though his son is an ordained Baptist minister), so this isn't the first time you've injected religious motivation where none belonged.
When the dust has settled down, take a look at where Romney has done best. I got the info from Captain Ed or Jim Geraghty. It is very surprising but should show Romney where he needs to do better. That is, if he wants to go through the abuse again.
And please don't twist around my statements. Okay?
Posted by: swatter on February 8, 2008 04:41 PMYour statement: "many Mormons are thinking they have been insulted."
I was more than happy to turn that back on you because that statement is nearing bigotry - not on your part but like I have been saying all along, if a religious group (in this case Mormons) are insulted because their man is out, well religious affiliation should never have anything to do with it yet your statement implies that it does.
Pudge: "But then again, a couple of days ago you accused Dobson of being anti-Baptist (even though his son is an ordained Baptist minister), so this isn't the first time you've injected religious motivation where none belonged."
If you remember, I only said that maybe that had something to do with it, I didn't say that he did, we were trying to figure out why his orgainization was seemingly backing Romney. Of course his statement of endorsement of Huckabee showed clearly that he could never have endorsed Romney with the same compliments.
And I 100% stand by my comments on the funding of Romney's campaign and research will be done. My question to you is that if the Mormon population is 1.4% of the total, then what would the statistically significant number to persuade you?
Let's say for President Bush in 2004, Mormons comprised 3% of his fundraising even though they are 1.4% of the population - (a greater percent being more than likely because they had the same values). Would you consider it statisticly significant if say the 1.4% of the population financially supported Romney to the tune of 15% of his funds, how about 25%, or even 50% of his money?
Posted by: Doug on February 9, 2008 08:59 AMFine, you didn't actually accuse him; you unreasonably offered it as a possibility. Not much better.
And I 100% stand by my comments on the funding of Romney's campaign and research will be done
Um. Usually research is done BEFORE making assertions of fact.
Posted by: pudge on February 9, 2008 10:15 AMPudge: Um. Usually research is done BEFORE making assertions of fact.
I have done just enough resource to support bringing my HYPOTHESIS (see above). And no, the completed research is usually done after the hyposthesis.
Posted by: Doug on February 9, 2008 10:34 AMYou made an assertion. You said, "When it's all said and done you will find that no time in history has a candidate gotten such a huge amount (and percentage) of money from people of one denomination." You did not say "I think you will find," or "I hpothesize you will find."
Posted by: pudge on February 10, 2008 10:51 PM