That is, beside the wide margin of his loss in Texas and John McCain surpassing the magic delegate number of 1,191: he once again couldn't muster substantial support outside Evangelicals and rural areas.
The Ohio and Texas exit polls tell the tale.
In the Buckeye state, Evangelicals made up 45% of the voters. Mike Huckabee beat McCain 49% - 43% within that group. Yet among non-Evangelicals comprising 55% of those casting ballots, McCain shellacked Huckabee 67% - 21%. More clearly, McCain ran up a 61% - 31% margin in the vote-rich suburbs, while still winning 52% - 37% in rural areas. McCain even won among "very conservative" voters, 48% - 44%; the one demographic group he was consistently losing in other state contests.
In the Longhorn state, Born-Agains counted for a greater 62% of primary participants and tilted modestly for Huckabee 47% - 43%. Yet again, McCain cruised among non-Evangelicals, 63% - 21%. And Huckabee had even more trouble closing the gap in less densely populated areas. McCain won comfortably in urban centers (50% - 37%), the suburbs (51% - 37%), and in rural environs as well (57% - 32%).
Evangelical voters are an essential component of the Republican coalition and a great base to have. But absent an expansion of it, Huckabee is like what Barack Obama would have been if he hadn't broadened his appeal beyond African-Americans: a bit player in the nomination battle.
A splendid little run on a shoestring budget (that will inevitably lead to a visible role on the national stage in some form), but Huckabee is proof positive that candidates need to build serious coalitions to win even in the primaries.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 04, 2008 07:29 PM | Email ThisPolite applause.
Will wait for the rousing endorsement of McCain which is expected from Huckabee either tonight or tomorrow.
Posted by: Don Ward on March 4, 2008 07:49 PMIf your Huckabee you got to weigh the possibility of being veep for McCain who, lets be honest, is not the favorite to win the presidency, or sit it out and plan for a possible run in 2012 without the taint of losing.
Not to mention that Huckabee seems to be anything if not 'principled' and might not want to run with McCain on that basis alone.
Posted by: Giffy on March 4, 2008 07:58 PMObama was never a bit player in the nomination battle; his original core of support in this election was not African-Americans (they only started voting for him once he showed that he could win white votes); his campaign message has never shown any policy or rhetorical slant towards any particular voting block (except Democrats, of course). So I guess this comparison just kind of jumps out at me because it is so... well, wrong.
Posted by: Noble on March 4, 2008 08:09 PMIt was a hypothetical example. Obama's relatively early appeal to affluent liberals as well as the coveted youth vote is obviously well-documented.
Posted by: Eric Earling on March 4, 2008 08:38 PMI presume that the constitution that we already have was already written and vetted by the old and new testament of the Bible before it was ever ratified by the 3/4 of the states before it was ever it became the law of the land.
There's nothing that Huckabee is trying to change it. Please give us the languange that Huckabee is plan to rewrite the language that has never had been understood.
Posted by: RBW on March 4, 2008 08:49 PMFor now...
Posted by: Independent Voter on March 4, 2008 09:07 PMThose are the Husters words not mine. His assumption is that the bible has stood the test of time and we can change the constitution easier to fit the bible. Both the bible and the constitution are subject to interpretations by any number of people so what is the difference really. You say potato I say spud. I just don't think it is up to a politician to make the decision on both at the same time depending on his own point of view. That separation thing.
Posted by: HappyHeathen on March 4, 2008 09:55 PMI didn't catch Huckabee's concession speech as it played live. Just got through watching the replay the cable networks and not only did he mention McCain but he spoke at length about the Arizona senator's honorable campaign and how Huckabee was giving him his support.
So much for that bit of misinformation.
Posted by: Don Ward on March 4, 2008 10:21 PMNow he has to pick a VP that can pick up support AND that can run on his/her own in 2012 / 2016 as President.
Much as I like Dick Cheney, he wasn't ever going to run for President, so it meant that there was no clear frontrunner for the nomination.
I'd like to see McCain think outside the box & pick someone who can be center-right & ready to run in 4 or 8 more years.
I don't know whether McCain will be up to being President for 8 years. 4, probably. Then I'd speculate he'd retire.
Posted by: steve miller on March 4, 2008 10:24 PMOr McCain might live to 103 because the guy is too mean and crotchety to die. Stupid comment.
Posted by: Don Ward on March 4, 2008 11:53 PMPersonally, I agree with Rove that Huckabee doesn't build McCain's base. I can see logic to Romney on economic front, but I don't see that he adds bonifide Conservative credentials. Also, I don't think McCain wants to appoint him heir apparent for whenever the next race occurs, plus Romney would be wise to understand that VP candidates on losing tickets don't go anywhere (not to say that McCain is bound to lose, but that the race is still too close to call).
Posted by: tc on March 5, 2008 07:49 AMHe passed his late show audition and within 10 days he will ink a contract.
Posted by: swatter on March 5, 2008 10:09 AMHuckabee would benefit I think from a Senate victory and a focus on foreign policy for the future. A big mistake I think would be to take a tv job with MSNBC.
Godspeed Huck!
Posted by: chukmaty on March 5, 2008 11:54 AM