Our state's GOP caucus results exemplified the mixed results John McCain and Mike Huckabee found across the country yesterday.
McCain won a narrow and exceedingly modestly victory in the Evergreen State and scored a strong 2nd place finish to Huckabee in Louisiana, a deep South state holding a low-turnout primary. Of course, he also got crushed in Kansas. National and local journalists have expressed surprise that the presumed Republican nominee didn't receive a warmer embrace. They shouldn't be so perplexed.
Beyond the recent, high profile news coverage of conservative concern with McCain, a simple look at previous primary contests reveals much. Prior to this weekend ten states* had held GOP caucuses or conventions - where conservative activists hold more influence than broader primaries. In those contests McCain finished 4th three times, 3rd three times, and 2nd four times. Moreover, his second place showings ranged from 13% to 41% behind the first place finisher. That compares starkly to McCain's success in winning twelve of the nineteen states holding traditional primaries before this weekend.
Thus, his less than impressive showings this weekend should be little surprise, even as he remains heavily favored in Tuesday's Potomac primary in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC.
Huckabee's performance over the weekend likewise had its downside. The Kansas win was impressive, though hardly stunning given McCain's weakness in caucuses and Huckabee's natural affinity with a conservative, rural state in the heartland. His performance in Washington and even Louisiana was less noteworthy.
Given the widespread reporting of the near finality in the GOP race following Mitt Romney's decision this week, turnout in remaining Republican contests is going to be naturally lower than if the race were still in play. Such an environment favors Huckabee given the proven eagerness of his supporters to turnout. Thus, allowing McCain to eke out his first caucus win and only topping him by a mere percentage point in a core Southern state does not bode well for Huckabee in the two-man race he and his supporters claim exists.
If he can't beat a modestly performing McCain in a caucus state with Romney on the sidelines and if he can only narrowly beat McCain in deep South then it's tough to see how Huckabee can even grab good headlines in less fertile primaries to come. After Tuesday's Potomac primary come primaries in Wisconsin and Washington on the 19th, followed by Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont all holding primaries on March 4th. Under that schedule, it could well get somewhat ugly for Huckabee.
*I'm excluding Louisiana from this grouping since their complex, Byzantine system of allocating delegates through multi-staged caucuses and a primary makes Washington's own hybrid system look simple.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 10, 2008 02:09 PM | Email ThisI'd say that the limited government folks stand to gain influence within the Republican Party as a result. This is just what the GOP needs.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 10, 2008 02:38 PMNow if you remember the debacle that was the Louisiana caucuses which were the first step in deciding who the delegates were, the "Pro-Family/Pro-Life" slate "won." The state GOP claimed McCain won the most delegates, but the Paul campaign claims they did.
Also, previous to Romney's dropping out, Paul has hit second or third in preference polls in all the caucus states but Iowa.
If his organization is as good as this site is suggesting, he may be doing a lot better than the media is reporting. If the numbers of Paul delegates/Paul voters in the preference polls in other states are equivalent to what's happening here, and if Paul picks up a good portion of uncommitted or Romney delegates (which the CPAC reporting suggests could be possible), Bruce could be more correct than he thinks.
Posted by: telestai on February 10, 2008 04:15 PMJust as it does not matter that Gore got more popular vote than Bush in 2000, it does not matter if more people went into the caucus with McCain as their preference. What matters is how many delegates left the caucus for him. My hunch is Paul left with the most.
Posted by: Lysander on February 10, 2008 05:50 PMI'm with Don on this one. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. I've been the contributor speaking to the Presidential race the most in recent months at Sound Politics. It doesn't take a genius to realize my pro-Romney, anti-McCain leanings. Moreover, when Stefan has weighted in (briefly) in the last couple weeks on the topic he's been very anti-McCain too.
Posted by: Eric Earling on February 10, 2008 06:24 PMAs I recall, it was the Dhimmicrats that wanted every vote counted improperly. Fatal Pends, provisional ballots from unregistered voters, ballots found in back rooms with no chain of custody, a ballot marked "Chris Rossi" is obviously a vote for Queen Christine. Yeah, all those ballots were counted properly.
In Florida in 2000 it was the Surrendercrats that wanted to read tea leaves and chicken etrails to divine "voter intent" from every pregnant, dimpled, and hanging chad.
Thanks for the reminder, Unkl Witz. Surrendercrats want every illegal vote counted.
No matter, glad to hear you're on board with the investigation of this tragic usurpation of votes in the R's caucus.
Let's get Shark involved and publishing those tedious spreadsheets pinpointing the obvious voter fraud.
You'll also want to get your attorneys cranking out the memos outlining your causes of action against.... ooops,
Hold everything.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 10, 2008 08:25 PMOn the GOP side, nobody one anying.
Posted by: Dave on February 10, 2008 09:00 PM