In discussing Republican VP stakes, one of the issues at hand, especially given McCain's age, is who becomes a future leader of the party as well. Current Governors like Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin are clearly going to be the emerging face of the GOP no matter what comes of the current election cycle. The battle between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, however, is a little more intense for some sense - however relative - of primacy now.
Neither of those two men are actually likely selections for VP, even though Romney is garnering some A-list attention at the current time. Pawlenty or Jindal seem the most likely of the current candidates (and had Sarah Palin not just given birth to her fifth child, and one with Down syndrome at that, she would be in the thick of things too). Yet, the Huckabee/Romney contest lingers.
Huckabee is making news for an interview available at the Huffington Post, in which he speaks with perhaps too much candor for that befitting someone seeking a leadership role within a major political party in the coming years. At its heart, the interview reeks of whining about why he lost the race for the GOP nod, rather than just manning up to the fact.
He said:
If you do an analysis of the election, if we had played by the rules of the Democrats, I would have won, and if the Democrats have played by the rules of the Republicans, Hillary would have won this long ago.If you look at the process, and I'm not bitter about and it's nothing that I'm complaining about. It is what it is. But the Republicans had a front-loaded system with winner-take-all states, and the front-load was largely states that were states that are not Republican states, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California. They were winner-take-all states, but they were big states and delegate-rich. Those were the states John McCain plays very well in. I've won the states in the South. I won Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia and Arkansas...
This is incredibly flawed analysis on so many levels. Huckabee had undeniable strength in the South and among Evangelical voters, including those not otherwise regularly engaged in politics. Yet, in caucuses and primaries across the West he was a non-factor, finishing a distant third, if that. North of the Mason-Dixon Line he was crushed in crowded primary fields like New Hampshire and Michigan, while still losing by large margins in Wisconsin and Ohio even when things became something of a two man race (McCain won every single county on the way to a 29% win in Ohio).
In short, there is virtually zero truth to Huckabee's analysis above, and almost no conceivable means by which he could have become the GOP standard bearer given his obvious and pronounced electoral deficiencies.
This is a pattern with Huckabee at times, going off at times in a charming manner without the facts necessary to fully support his point. Evidence, he also said:
If money were the criteria by which a person was the nominee, Mitt Romney would definitely be the nominee. But no matter how much money Romney spent, and we'll never know, it's an incalculable amount of money probably.
We all realize that Mitt Romney spent a lot of money running for President, both from himself and large numbers of contributors. We also know Mike Huckabee stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but has anyone bothered to tell him that anyone with a computer and a modem can figure out much Romney spent (and from whom he received it) by inquiring with the FEC.
Contrast that fact-free zone and woe-is-me lament with Romney's response on a similar topic in a recent interview:
"I'm a big boy. I understand how politics works. Sen. McCain won fair and square. ... Each of us has to defend our own position with clarity and that's the nature of politics. It's up to me to defend my position, him to defend his and, of course in the campaign, there's a to and fro that's part of the process, unearthing your opponents' positions and clarifying your own but, you know, I don't have anything but respect for the fact that he won."
That's how vanquished primary foes should respond to such questions.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 27, 2008 11:52 PM | Email ThisThis would give us control of the Senate for more than a month! Given the pace of work in that chamber, the Republican Majority could name two, maybe even three federal post offices before the election!
THINK ABOUT IT, FOLKS.
Posted by: AD on May 28, 2008 12:09 AMI think you are onto something. I think that naming post offices would be all we would actually see get done by them. Perhaps they would even do some "feel good" naming of post offices.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 03:21 AMThere's no reason, and actually substantial negative, in McCain waiting to see what the Dems do first insofar as his picking Palin as VP, because, no matter who Obama picks, Palin is by far (and I mean far) the best pick for McCain and the GOP, especially in this time of GOP woes. The GOP can be seen as the party of real 'change' (albeit I hate that mantra, change, change, bla bla), while not really having to change from GOP core conservative values, which Palin more than represents.
In light of the current oil/energy situation, as well as the disaffected female Hillary voters situation, and growing focus on McCain's age and health, Palin is more than perfect -- now.
(Perhaps Team McCain is already on to this.)
Posted by: Ted on May 28, 2008 05:00 AMPerhaps there is one strategy Team McCain could be looking at with the VP nomination regardless of who it is. Perhaps they are hoping the closer to the election they announce the nomination the less attention will be on McCain himself. It would not surprise me if Team McCain uses this tactic in a way to try to excite the base. They would have to wait as long as possible to get the most effect from it and keep the buzz going until November.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 05:41 AMI guess you skipped over the part above where it was stated that "Sarah Palin [has] just given birth to her fifth child, and one with Down syndrome at that..."
That, in my book is not a perfect VP candidate, but a person with a full plate on her hands on the domestic front.
None of these names outside of Romney impress me much and have close to zero name recognition outside of Political junkies or constituents. Romney has actually done something impressive in both the private and public sectors. As Governor of Massashussets, he turned a 1.2 billion dollar deficit into a 700 million dollar surplus in 3 years, and did it as a Republican in a very Blue state. I'll take his resume over the mostly pandering Veep selections listed above. We could actually put a competent "CEO" on the ticket that could slip right into the role of president should McCain not feel up to it or health concerns warrant it.
Huckabee is a weird duck and I don't view him in a serious light for the Veep slot. He's better suited for the role of a carnival barker than VP given his gaffe prone tendencies and self-aggrandizing style.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 28, 2008 06:09 AMI'm crossing my fingers on a Romney selection for Veep.
You have also ran over the winner take all rule of the RNC in many states and that rule cost Governor Huckabee many delegates as he came in close in several States, even after South Carolina.
As to Huckabee being the VP, there is not a better candidate out there for McCain to solidify the base. Huckabee's support is grassroots whereas Romney's is party ordered loyalty. Romney's victories came from States he had a tie to include his Religion. Romney is very weak and his only strength came from the National Committee of the RNC acting as a soviet Gulag.
Posted by: RGeorgeDunn on May 28, 2008 10:45 AM In 2000 Joe "L" was the perfect conservative "D" to balance Al Bores lefty lean...and Joe "L" could play that same roll for Mc Cain in 2008!!!
You have to remember the order in which the primaries occurred and who had money and when they did. It is very easy to see that if the Republican delegates were handed out like the Democrats, then McCain would not be the nominee.
After South Carolina, Huckabee would be the leader in delegates and the media would be writing off McCain instead of hyping him up as the surprise winner in SC. Giuliani would pick up the 'win' in Florida in that case and McCain would no longer be the moderate standard bearer and would have had to leave. Romney would have garnered almost the same number of delegates as Rudy there and Huckabee would have picked up a distant lower quantity but at the time would still lead in delegates, albeit slightly (likely less than McCain but he would have had to drop out.)
Then would come Super Tuesday....Once again Romney would have to decide if he was going to spend another $30 million to stay in, after Rudy picked up McCain's states and Huckabee cleaned up completely in the South with McCain out. Rudy would have a marginal delegate lead over Huck and Romney would would be equal distance behind Huckabee at this point. My guess is that Romney would still have dropped out and Huck would still have stayed in.
After that Huckabee would easily win Kansas and Louisiana and poll well in Washington to limit Rudy's delegate win to just a few in the one state.
I can easily see that Huckabee's analysis is really spot on in that if the Dem's issued delegates like the Rep's Hillary would be the nominee and in all likelihood if the Republicans did what the Democrats did then Huckabee would go to convention with the most delegates.
Posted by: Doug on May 28, 2008 09:06 PMIf you're going to call BS on me at least present a cogent argument.
Remember how Hillary Clinton "won" Nevada. Well, Obama actually received more delegates. But the media didn't report a victory for him there. Same thing in South Carolina. If McCain pulls the highest percentage, he's the "winner."
So, no, Giuliani would not "win" Florida...especially after the complete nosedive he took in the months leading up to that contest. More importantly, keep in mind that with proportional representation Huckabee would still be getting drilled outside the South - and even in the South his delegate totals would suffer since he generally won small/modest victories in crowded fields.
Thus, I can't even take your scenario seriously to be honest with you. In large part because it doesn't change the fact you're ignoring Huckabee's pronounced weakness in primaries outside the South. That's not simply a function of the order of states and the money the candidates had (just like Romney's weakness with rural primary voters would no doubt be present no matter what variables you want to introduce).
Do you really believe voters across the Northeast, Midwest, and the West would suddenly and totally change their minds about a candidate because of a slightly different media narrative over the course of a few weeks?
If you do, I'm done with this discussion because we will find no common ground.
Lastly, this all ignores the bigger point: Huckabee - like Romney for that matter - lost fair and square. He should man up to it instead of positing semi-ridiculous what-ifs.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 28, 2008 09:20 PMIf you do, I'm done with this discussion because we will find no common ground.
Yes, I do believe the media narrative during the primary process has a substantial effect on the outcomes of the next contests. Since you do not, I imagine you would be a great campaign advisor for someone like Romney who had tens of millions of dollars to spend, while someone like McCain had very little yet was still able to win despite not gaining any significant advantage from the media narrative that was working for him.
Posted by: Doug on May 28, 2008 11:03 PMYou're arguing with a straw man here - especially since your Romney v McCain example is so patently obvious. Of course long-term narratives matter, in particular that forged in the months and weeks leading up to the Iowa caucuses. However, I specifically said a "slightly different media narrative over the course of a few weeks." That's all that would come of the variable you described of a different delegate allocation formula in the GOP nominating contest.
Such a turn of events wouldn't fundamentally change wholesale voter views of a candidate. It sure could move candidates several points either way and make a difference in a remotely competitive race. But, you continue to ignore the fact Huckabee was grossly uncompetitive outside the South. He regularly finished in 3rd or worse, 20+ points back, in non-Southern primaries prior to Romney's departure. Even after February 7th he was not competitive in primaries north of Mason-Dixon Line.
A modest change in media narrative during a condensed primary season has commenced isn't going to change that.
Moreover, this is a complete side argument. The real issue remains that a) Huckabee, for all his strengths, wasn't competitive in non-Southern primaries; there is no sense in re-litigating that. b) His comments cited in the original post above are an undignified way to conduct oneself after losing a nomination contest.
Given those facts, I get the sense you're being argumentative simply for the sake of being argumentative. That's something for which I don't have time.
Thus, have a nice day.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 29, 2008 08:11 AMNeedless to say your post came out as completely biased and not grounded in any sensible neutrality. It was only a couple months ago that Mitt Romney was doing the 'whining' and being 'undignified' while complaining that if Huckabee would drop out then he himself would be the nominee instead of McCain.
Each of them had equally reasonable claims for their statements yet Romney is the statesman in your eyes and Huckabee is undignified and a whiner.
The only reason I bothered to comment on your post is because you used your position on this blog to try to manipulate words and the situation for the benefit of the one that you would like to see as VP instead of taking a reasonable unbiased approach when analyzing the potential VP candidates and future GOP Presidential candidates.
Posted by: Doug on May 29, 2008 01:02 PMIf momentum is everything and South Carolina changed everything, what the heck happened to Huckabee in New Hampshire and Michigan? He didn't just lose, he got blown out.
Doug @ 20 -
No, the main issue of the post was to point out a contrast on how to handle oneself after one loses a primary contest and bows (candidates encouraging each other to bow out in the middle of a competitive primary being a completely different level of discourse). I don't think Huckabee is on the radar screen at all for VP nor do I actually think Romney is a likely pick, so the post had nothing to with that.
Again, try sticking with the words I right rather than ascribing motives to me that are the product of your assumptions.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 29, 2008 08:50 PMAs for Michigan, I can't believe you're even trying to make this argument. M.H. had absolutely no ground game there. With his limited resources, he was focusing on South Carolina after Iowa. Him gamble to try and compete in Michigan was risky and probably cost him time and money in South Carolina, though in areas where he was able to have events in Michigan, he did very well.
Moreover, this was a competitive primary season. There weren't 2 top contenders, there were 5, and momentum looked different this year. One thing is for sure, Wyoming will never generate the same momentum as South Carolina.
Look, neither I nor Doug necessarily want M.H to be on the ticket. But, this blatant crush you and other elites have on Mitt Romney is getting old. I'm tired of being accused of "Mormon bigotry" because I don't trust a guy who only a few election cycles ago called himself and "Independent" running to the left of Ted Kennedy and wanted nothing to do with that "Reagan/Bush" stuff.
Posted by: Lynnwood E. on May 29, 2008 10:48 PMGetting Jindal’s name out first — at Team McCain’s BBQ for instance — sets the stage for the obvious choice, Palin. For example, albeit Rush Limbaugh introduced Palin’s name, and later Jindal’s as good Veep choices, of late Rush has been praising the name of Jindal while on his very same shows discussing at great length the frustrated female Hillary voter and the global warming hysteria/need for energy development, without mentioning Palin’s name as the obvious beneficiary of those two issues. Rush walks a fine line, introducing Palin, yet can’t, at least yet, reiterate much, knowing that his praises may be counter-productive to many a swing, moderate and/or formerly Dem voter (who’s against Obama and switching to McCain). Moreover, while I feel that Palin has more real accomplishment, experience and qualification than Obama (and Hillary combined, albeit w/Obama the bar is pretty low), the only potential argument against Palin is she’s a newbie to the national scene. By having Jindal out there first as a VP prospect “passing” the “experience” and “new to the national scene” test, implicitly passes Palin as well. (For that matter Palin’s got as much if not more experience and accomplishment than Florida Gov Crist who’s only been Gov for 2 yrs — and the media has been touting Crist as a VP prospect.)
That’s my thinking at least.
I don't dispute a word of your analysis re: New Hampshire and Michigan. Trust, I'm well aware of the Granite State's crush on John McCain.
However, you pointed out the importance of momentum and Doug has pointed out the value of effective earned media versus the comparative ineffectiveness in this cycle of paid media. Both are good and fair points.
As such, given the momentum Huckabee had coming out of Iowa, and given the wave of positive earned media he received in the preceding weeks, he had more than a fair chance to become known to the NH & MI electorates. Yet, despite those advantages he wasn't even remotely competitive. He didn't just lose. He wasn't even in the ballgame in those states.
Looking at things a little differently, neither McCain, Romney, nor Huckabee had the time or resources to personally campaign or spend heavily in all February 5th states. Yet, outside the South Huckabee was a complete non-factor. Even south of the Mason-Dixon Line he lost heavily in most urban & suburban communities.
I say all that to point out that protestations that Huckabee would have been competitive if only he had had more money or a little different campaign dynamic ignores - and seemingly refuses to acknowledge - that voters had a legitimate chance to assess Mike Huckabee. Yet, in large numbers outside the South and the Evangelical community they took a pass - even as he had positive media coverage and related momentum at key points leading up to the primary cycle.
I don't begrudge the appeal you (and Doug) see in Mike Huckabee, though even as a fellow Evangelical I obviously disagree. And, I don't know where the "Mormon bigotry" relates to our discussion here. I've never accused you or a demographic group writ large of that offense. Some conservatives have concerns with Romney's early years in politics. That's obvious and understandable.
Yet, classifying me as an "elite" is an exceptionally broad definition of the term. I've been around a respectable number of politicians, elected officials, and assorted Republican leaders. Based on that experience I see a lot in Romney I like - and concurrently a lot in Huckabee I don't. Based on the results of the primaries and caucuses through Feb 5th, a number of Republicans much larger than just "elites" reached a similar conclusion.
You're entitled to your opinion. I"m entitled to mine. And since the unique factor of McCain's age has Republicans already assessing future leaders of the Party, this issue isn't going to die, in part because the divide between Huckabee supporters and large swaths of the Republican party, as well as the mainstream of the conservative movement, isn't going anywhere.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 31, 2008 11:09 AMShe has made it very clear that her newborn will not slow her down. The Governor is a great multi-tasker, has lots of practice at juggling family-job reaponsibilities and has a very supportive family.
And yes, being Governor doesn't hurt. She has more resources and support at her disposal than most of us would have, that's understood. Her baby's special needs will be a life-long challenge, the Palin family has been planning for this for a long time.
And the flip side is that her responsibilities as a mother and a public official will be a great witness and example to the entire nation for the sanctity of life, family and what is possible with faith and integrity. What potential VP candidate comes with a storyline like this?
Posted by: Bob on May 31, 2008 12:46 PM...and anyone with children will tell you that the above statement is not true. Add to that she has a special needs newborn and you have a voting electorate that will say "you should be at home". While Mrs. Palin is very admirable, she is not Veep material for this election in 2008. I would not consider adding the Governor of Alaska to the ticket to be a plus as (I can personally attest to) most people on the East coast think that her state is a Canadian province. Next!
McCain/Romney 2008
Posted by: Rick D. on May 31, 2008 01:07 PM