Huckabee leads in another Iowa poll, New Hampshire paper endorses McCain

posted at 2:15 pm on December 2, 2007 by Allahpundit

He led Mitt 28-25 in a Rasmussen poll of Iowa earlier in the week; the Des Moines Register has it 29-24, with Rudy at 13 percent and Fred, who by his own admission needs to finish in the top three, in single digits. Not enough to worry you? All right, how about Huck tacking on another two points since yesterday in Rasmussen’s daily national survey? He’s now within five of Giuliani for the national lead — again, without much by way of fundraising and without any major evangelical endorsements aside from the Falwell family. Still not enough to worry you? How about the fact that Geraldo think he’s super-keen? Rudy’s campaign admitted to the Telegraph that they’re pulling their punches on Huck right now because (a) he’s killing Mitt for them and (b) they have their eye on him as a VP candidate, but note well:

Former Giuliani speechwriter Fred Siegel told The Sunday Telegraph: “Right now, Huckabee is an unmitigated Godsend for Rudy. They have a shared interest in not attacking each other right now, but if Huckabee threatens to upset the apple cart in Florida, then the gloves will be off for the Giuliani campaign. Florida is his firewall.”

A senior Giuliani campaign adviser said: “Huckabee’s strong showing in Iowa has proved helpful to us. He is a very persuasive campaigner and it’s no secret that a lot of people would like him on the shortlist for vice president if Rudy wins the nomination…

“But the campaign is watching carefully because if he wins Iowa he could turn that into enough momentum to take South Carolina. Then he might be a threat.”

The one bit of good news this week for Rudy? Iowans don’t seem to care about his NYC expense scandal.

Here’s the New Hampshire Union-Leader’s endorsement of McCain, who’s third in most polls but turned up second in Fox’s poll, just eight points behind Mitt. He won the state in 2000 too, of course, which makes him slightly more likely to surge there, especially if Huck knocks off Mitt in Iowa. Suddenly Romney’s getting it on both sides: I said last week that his lead over Huck in New Hampshire is such that he could probably still take the state and remain viable even if he’s upset in Iowa. But what if McCain upsets him in NH, too? That leaves Romney 0 for 2 in the two states he’s staked his candidacy on with Michigan, the state governed by his father, presumably a must-win to have some sort of momentum going in South Carolina. It’s hard to imagine Mitt dropping out early with his war chest but it’s also hard to imagine him winning with Huckabee and McCain surging and Rudy still a threat to take Florida.

Exit question one: If Huck wins Iowa and McCain, the alternative centrist candidate, takes New Hampshire, where does that leave Rudy? Exit question two: If Huck does take the nomination despite having little money, few major endorsements, and a leftist streak on immigration and spending (“I drink a different kind of Jesus juice”), isn’t it proof that religious conservatives own the party? Ron Paul’s not going to win the nomination but there’s been talk lately of his candidacy as signalling a libertarian resurgence. Much will depend on how that resurgence shakes out on foreign policy but I can see a lot of righties disaffected by a Huckabee nomination tacking towards libertarianism in the aftermath.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The one bit of good news this week for Rudy? Iowans don’t seem to care about his NYC expense scandal.

Who outside the beltway does?

bnelson44 on December 2, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Much will depend on how that resurgence shakes out on foreign policy but I can see a lot of righties disaffected by a Huckabee nomination tacking towards libertarianism in the aftermath.

Which is why Rush is peddling Fred.

Valiant on December 2, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Wow. I thought I was depressed about politics after the 2006 elections. Mike Huckabee’s rise in the polls is even more depresssing.

Again, I just hope this is because people just don’t know about his high spending, his taxing, pro-amnesty stance. The pro-amnesty alone should have sunk him. But, then again, pro-amnesty has not sunk Rudy so…

Heck, Rudy is Left on everything, except for foreign policy, and that gets him the front-runner position.

Geez, the more I follow politics, the less I understand it.

Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Again Iowa and New Hampsire are half red and half blue states. The deep south and West are more traditional red states.

Id suggest waiting till super tuesday to start worrying

William Amos on December 2, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Which is why Rush is peddling Fred.

Valiant on December 2, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I’m afraid Rush will have to do much more peddling to get his point across to the vast majority of Republicans.

bnelson44 on December 2, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Remember, in the Iowa Caucasus if someone only gets 15% or less of the votes the caucus attendees have to switch their votes to another candidate or vote uncommitted. That makes Ron Paul supporters wildcards.

bnelson44 on December 2, 2007 at 2:31 PM

rush is pushing fred, ideologically, which is fine. but fred hasn’t shown anything to get behind. and that’s his problem. fred’s beliefs are wonderful; but he’s not showing any of his famous fire in the belly.

Rudy/Huck combo is not perfect (by far) but its electable.

lorien1973 on December 2, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Exit question one: In much better shape then if either Mitt or Huck were to win both.
Exit question two: Perhaps, our perhaps charisma and a quick wit own the Republican party.

In the possibility Slublog shows up (he works for a college, yes?), here’s my devil’s advocate argument for fiscal cons:
Assuming colleges make money off students paying in-state tuition, each student Huck adds to the aggregate increases the profit margin of the education system. The injustice of Huck’s proposal could be mitigated by the elimination of out-of-state tuition fees for American citizens.

To continue the d’s argument, the fiscal benefits of educating the children of immigrants would be win/win. If they remain in the US, we have a higher educated work-force while increasing the profitability of the educational system, thus reducing the need for government subsidy and decreasing the tax burden on the individual tax-payer, or if no change is passed on the tax-payer, increasing the money available for research and development.

If they do not remain in the US, ie either deported or voluntarily return, we bolster the work-force in the undereducated countries that have weak economies, for ex, Mexico. It has been a policy of sort to educate future leaders of foreign countries for sometime. This is essentially the same in nature.

This argument of course fails if education is a closed system, ie can only take so many students and illegals would take the place of citizens. Also if there is no profitability from in-state tuition payers. (The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the poster or the management, lol)

Spirit of 1776 on December 2, 2007 at 2:33 PM

That makes Ron Paul supporters wildcards.

Too bad most of them are democrats and are, thus, irrelevant. ;)

lorien1973 on December 2, 2007 at 2:34 PM

“our” = “or” re:exit question 2

Spirit of 1776 on December 2, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Heck, Rudy is Left on everything, except for foreign policy, and that gets him the front-runner position.

I’m not a primary rudy supporter, however this isn’t true. He isn’t left at all on many issues….and where he was a centrist or liberal it had more to do with actually governing, in a big city no less, which trumps idealism.

jp on December 2, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Ah, Iowa, where presidents are crowned.
In 1972 Edwin Muskie carried Iowa
In 1976 future president Carter finished second to, uncommitted.
Then in 1980 Reagan was finished after losing to George HW Bush
In 1988 Dick Gephart won, in 1992 Tom Harkin won
Also in 1988 Bob Dole won there
YEP Iowa is the be all and end all of elections!

Gatordoug on December 2, 2007 at 2:41 PM

The Republican party needs an enema.
- Jack Napier

MB4 on December 2, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Is there a current poll of how well Huck is doing in his own state of Arkansas?

Speakup on December 2, 2007 at 2:42 PM

All right, how about Huck tacking on another two points since yesterday in Rasmussen’s daily national survey?

That’s margin of error stuff. I don’t deny that he’s doing well, or even that he’s increased his standing in the poll. The thing is, there’s no way of knowing based on a 2% increase in a poll with a 3-4% m.o.e. People need to stop hyperventilating over minute changes in statistically noisy polls.

Big S on December 2, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Used to be the NH Union Leader had a lot of influence—not so very much any more. Certainly not with me, do not care for McCain. Not the right man for the job.

jeanie on December 2, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Geez, the more I follow politics, the less I understand it.

Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 2:27 PM

Once you understand that the world has gone mad, everything falls into place.

MB4 on December 2, 2007 at 2:44 PM

New Hampshire past winners Democrats
1992 Paul Tsongas
1984 Gary Hart
1972 Muskie

New Hampshire past winners GOP
2000 McCain
1996 Buchannon
1964 Henry Cabot Lodge

YEP New Hampshire is a must win alright

Gatordoug on December 2, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Rudy/Huck combo is not perfect (by far) but its electable.

I would vote for that ticket.

If Rudy can convince the fiscal conservatives to vote for him, while Huckabee has a lock on the social conservatives, that would be a pretty strong coalition. And listening to Huck this morning on This week on abc he explained position on taxes, it sounded pretty good and not as devastating as some say.

Complete7 on December 2, 2007 at 2:46 PM

I think Huck’s candidacy will be torpedoed a week before Iowa. There is dirt on this guy, but I think his opponents are just waiting for the right time to release so it will have the most impact.

bert169 on December 2, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Ah, Iowa, where presidents are crowned.
YEP New Hampshire is a must win alright

It’s not so much that they determine the candidate, as it is the impact that they have in the campaigns. Win here and you get a significant amount of free press (Note how much Huck has received simply from the Iowa straw poll). That can catapult a candidate.

Conversely, they can knock out a second-tier candidate and effectively end via dried up fundraising a lesser first-tier candidate. They may not be king makers, but there is a reason that the first three are given such weight by the candidates.

Spirit of 1776 on December 2, 2007 at 2:52 PM

I believe that Huck, more than any other viable Republcan candidate, has the real potential to splinter the Republican Party.

This is a man who is anti free trade, a tax raiser, pro-illegal immigration, big government nanny stater… who also happens to be a pro-life Christian. His nomination will signal that it is more important to be Southern, Christian, and pro-life than it means to be conservative in any broad or meaningful sense. (By the way, what exactly are Huck’s views on Iraq and the war on terror? Somehow I get the impression that I wouldn’t be pleased with his answers if anyone bothered to ask him.)

People say Rudy may split the party, and he may. But Rudy has a plausible argument that he is a conservative on everything except abortion (and maybe gay marriage). What’s more, on those issues where he is conservative, he is CLEARLY conservative. He speaks convincingly on the need for small government, private sector solutions, the war, low taxes, and crime and punishment. On which issues, exactly, does Huck speak convincingly as a conservative? Drawing a blank? Me too.

I feel a bit like those liberal in the Northeast who always are so confused by election results on the grounds that they don’t know anyone who votes Republican. Well, I literally know no one who is or even would support Huckabee for president, and yet there he stands climbing in the polls and set to win at least one primary.

I feel less like a Republican today than I ever have.

Nessuno on December 2, 2007 at 2:58 PM

I hope Iowa wakes up soon. Neither Giuliani nor Huck are conservative. A vote for Huck IS a vote for Giuliani. I don’t think I’ve ever been so upset with my fellow Republicans in my entire life. Open your eyes people!

davenp35 on December 2, 2007 at 3:05 PM

this may have already been discussed but for some reason huck’s looks remind me of that one pres from 24, the one who sold out his country

cougfan on December 2, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Too bad most of them are democrats and are, thus, irrelevant. ;)

lorien1973 on December 2, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Well, those irrelevant Democrats will be sitting and voting in Republican caucuses

bnelson44 on December 2, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Would that it were Fred, Hunter or Tancredo surging who can genuinely embody the most prescient issue in the upcoming race, immigration. Short of that, what has so far been lacking from Mitt or McCain is the kind of sincere mea culpa on past positions which could assure us they now understand what is truly at stake in this election. The irony is that in Huckabee we have the best candidate the Democrats could possibly hope to throw at us, but he is one of our own. Given what I believe would be a considerable advantage he’d likely enjoy over any likely Democrat next November, his attainment of the Republican nomination could effectively freeze out any conservative influence in the executive for who can say how long?

Nyog_of_the_Bog on December 2, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 2, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Heh. Late to the discussion.

State colleges don’t make enough from tuition to pay the bills, necessitating state appropriation. An all-tuition model would require the raising of tuition past the point where most families, especially those of illegal immigrants, would be able to pay.

Compare the tuition of your average state college with that of a private, and you’ll see what I mean.

Plus, higher education really is a closed system of sorts. Only so many students can be educated at one time.

At present, the issue of in-state versus out-of-state tuition is handled regionally in some parts of the country with agreements to offer in-state tuition to out-of-state students based on program need. Take away out-of-state tuition and the taxpayers of states with a lot of universities, such as Massachusetts, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Florida basically end up paying for the higher ed of students from other states.

Slublog on December 2, 2007 at 3:24 PM

I should add that Huckabee’s stance on tuition breaks for illegal immigrants is actually the least of my disagreements with him on policy. His nanny-state tendencies and his taxation record are terrible.

Slublog on December 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Slublog on December 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM

You are right about his nanny statist attitude and he does not mind taxes at all does he?

Gatordoug on December 2, 2007 at 3:34 PM

One thing the Huckabee campaign doesn’t lack is chutzpah. From an email release:

Fine with second in Iowa? The Romney campaign dumped about $7 million into Iowa while we’ve spent, approximately, $327.00. Maybe they are satisfied with second but as fiscal conservatives we expect to get our money’s worth.

Emphasis mine. Are they really trying to pretend Huckabee is a fiscal conservative?

Slublog on December 2, 2007 at 3:44 PM

I don’t care for any of the Repub. cnadidates, at this time. Can’t seem to get worked up about them. It’s depressing. Anyone else having the same feeling?

calgrammy on December 2, 2007 at 3:49 PM

State colleges don’t make enough from tuition to pay the bills…Compare the tuition of your average state college with that of a private, and you’ll see what I mean.

Yeah, I assumed that was the primary reason for the disparity, but I fig’d you would know for sure.

I should add that Huckabee’s stance on tuition breaks for illegal immigrants is actually the least of my disagreements with him on policy. His nanny-state tendencies and his taxation record are terrible.
Slublog on December 2, 2007 at 3:31 PM

So I figured from your post the other day. The spin for the “minor” issue took all of my imagination., so he is on his own there! :)

Spirit of 1776 on December 2, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Come on people. The Huckster looks just like the evil president in 24. Where is Jack Bauer when we need him.

BDavis on December 2, 2007 at 3:51 PM

How any Republican (or Conservative) can endorse McCain is beyond me. He is a notable personality only because of his disdain for Republicans and his willingness to do damage to the Party from within. He has been the champion of Chris Matthews and the rest of the mainstream media for just that reason. Rudy’s no Republican either but at least he’s been honest about it.

edgehead on December 2, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Huckabee Hedges on Aid for Illegals
Article:
Huckabee Hedges on Aid for Illegals

P. James Moriarty on December 2, 2007 at 3:55 PM

“(By the way, what exactly are Huck’s views on Iraq and the war on terror? Somehow I get the impression that I wouldn’t be pleased with his answers if anyone bothered to ask him.)” Nessuno on December 2, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Huckabee’s position on the war on terror and Iraq are the same as any other republican. Plenty of people of have asked him, maybe you are just not listening. This video is from yesterday. You won’t see that much difference between his and Giulianis or Romney’s position on Iraq and the war on terror.

Complete7 on December 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Remember, in the Iowa Caucasus if someone only gets 15% or less of the votes the caucus attendees have to switch their votes to another candidate or vote uncommitted. That makes Ron Paul supporters wildcards.

That only applies to the democrat caucus. The Republican caucus is a non binding straw poll and delegates for the county GOP conventions are chosen, then on to the state GOP convention. I’ll be going, the Paulistinians will be there, should be fun.

wdmdoug on December 2, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Much will depend on how that resurgence shakes out on foreign policy but I can see a lot of righties disaffected by a Huckabee nomination tacking towards libertarianism in the aftermath.

You include yourself in that, Allah? Cuz I’ll admit, I’d be tempted to.

Bad Candy on December 2, 2007 at 4:12 PM

You include yourself in that, Allah? Cuz I’ll admit, I’d be tempted to.

Tempted to what? Include yourself or me?

I’m already pretty libertarian so yeah, I’ll be disaffected by this. But I’m not joining any isolationist movement, under any circumstances.

Allahpundit on December 2, 2007 at 4:14 PM

Tempted to go libertarian.

Bad Candy on December 2, 2007 at 4:18 PM

If it becomes obvious that Huckabee beats Romney because of anti-Mormonism, the Republicans can kiss the West goodbye.

WasatchMan on December 2, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Yeah, I’m about where you are. I can’t go isolationist, its a debate that was lost by them nearly a hundred years ago, and they need to get over it.

Bad Candy on December 2, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Dammit, this sucks.

Bad Candy on December 2, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Rudy’s campaign admitted to the Telegraph that they’re pulling they’re punches on Huck right now because

Mr. Allah…you have a grammar error in the sentence. Just FYI.

Huckster can win Iowa all he wants, but once his immigration policies come forward it’s all ovah.

SouthernGent on December 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM

Huckster can win Iowa all he wants, but once his immigration policies come forward it’s all ovah.

SouthernGent on December 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM

God, how I hope that’s true.

Bad Candy on December 2, 2007 at 4:25 PM

Exit question one: If Huck wins Iowa and McCain, the alternative centrist candidate, takes New Hampshire, where does that leave Rudy?

President of the United States, leader of the free world, and figurative leader of the Republican party until 2016.

Unless, Mitt can win all the early states and get momentum sufficient to overcome Rudy’s 16 point lead in Florida, Rudy goes into Super duper mega ultra Tuesday already with the lead in delegates. He is also way ahead in the polls in the delegate rich states slated to vote on that day. After 2/6, it becomes a coronation. Neither Huck nor McCain have the cash on hand to compete across the country on 2/5. So, they are no real threat. The real question is which one, Huck or McCain, does Rudy pick for VP.

tommylotto on December 2, 2007 at 4:41 PM

A month is a very long time, in campaigning terms, to stay atop the Hill. From my perspective, Huck isn’t standing atop because he rolled the others off, he crawled up the other side while McCain, Romney and Giuliani were in the midst of trying to throw each other down the other side.

It won’t be long that those three, and Fred, rush the top and I’ll predict that, if not by Iowa then shortly thereafter, Huck’s gonna be a bloody dripping lump at the bottom of the hill and whining, to boot, about how he got there.

Dusty on December 2, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Well, when Iowa seemed overwhelmingly for Romney, I accused them of being for sale to the highest bidder. Now they’re moving toward Huckabee, so I assume they’re dominated by evangelicals in a snit.

The truth seems to be that Iowans are simply idiots (except the one who read HotAir!). Why do we care again what Iowans think? Oh, yeah–because they can kill off the ones we DO like before we ever get a chance to vote. Sigh.

aero on December 2, 2007 at 5:01 PM

States like Iowa and New Hampshire do not care about the immigration issue as much because it doesn’t affect them like the border states and Florida. Which is why Huckabee is doing well.

Any party that even considers Rudy could hardly be called being run by the religious right. Please.

Rightwingsparkle on December 2, 2007 at 5:30 PM

Oh come on, RWS! He’s a Democrat with a Bible and a rifle! Gah, Rudy’s trouble too, but Huck’s just as bad.

Bad Candy on December 2, 2007 at 5:37 PM

I hope Iowa wakes up soon. Neither Giuliani nor Huck are conservative. A vote for Huck IS a vote for Giuliani. I don’t think I’ve ever been so upset with my fellow Republicans in my entire life. Open your eyes people!

davenp35 on December 2, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Well this Iowan won’t be voting for either one of them.

States like Iowa and New Hampshire do not care about the immigration issue as much because it doesn’t affect them like the border states and Florida. Which is why Huckabee is doing well.

Any party that even considers Rudy could hardly be called being run by the religious right. Please.

Rightwingsparkle on December 2, 2007 at 5:30 PM

You would be surprised. I think a lot of Iowans just don’t know about Huck’s record on immigration. Also wonder who exactly is being polled. Some parts of Iowa are a lot more conservative than other parts of Iowa, the 5th district in particular.

Gianni on December 2, 2007 at 5:45 PM

Please, not another “man from Hope”.

Let’s shuffle the deck a little better.

(Never liked “Freebird” either… which Huck supposedly can play.)

profitsbeard on December 2, 2007 at 5:52 PM

From David S. Broder who is so very well known for looking out for the best interests of Republicans and Conservatives!!!

Republicans would be wise to tab McCain and Huckabee

MB4 on December 2, 2007 at 6:05 PM

The Huckster will be George Bush III. Do we REALLY want that?

Mojave Mark on December 2, 2007 at 7:32 PM

It is too soon to ask these questions because Huckabee is still tracking up. It looks like Huckabee not only wins Iowa but wins big. If Huckabee wins the nomination Bush and others will get on board and there will be enough money to win. Wouldn’t it be great to know Huckabee is going to debate Hillary instead of wondering if our candidate can string two sentences together.

Huckabee’s greatness is his ability to communicate conservative principals. There is a whole generation that never knew Reagan and they need to learn.

Dont worry he will do just fine as president. He bases his decision on great principals and those kinds of decisions dont let you down.

He is the only candidate I have heard say we need to impeach judges who use foreign law to make decisions. He wants to lower your taxes and doesn’t want more money for the government to spend. He is the only candidate who wants to give you ownership of your life again by getting rid of the IRS.

Mitt is toast, hopefully McCain will bow out soon, Thompson has some great proposals but he has to stop his downward trend and has decided to go hyper negative and it doesn’t make him too appealing in the process. Rudi can’t win against a smaller field. His support has peaked.

moughon on December 2, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Huckabee’s greatness is his ability to communicate conservative principals. There is a whole generation that never knew Reagan and they need to learn.

moughon on December 2, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Hucksterocchio’s greatest talent is lying and taking “gifts”.

He is not a conservative. Period.

And he is damn sure no Reagan. Not unless you spell Reagan C-A-R-T-E-R.

MB4 on December 2, 2007 at 9:07 PM

Much will depend on how that resurgence shakes out on foreign policy but I can see a lot of righties disaffected by a Huckabee nomination tacking towards libertarianism in the aftermath.

Moralizing and high taxes, yuck. Count me as one of those.

Bill C on December 2, 2007 at 9:59 PM

I agree with Wasatchman–if Huckabee surges on anti-mormonism, and it’s clear, then kiss most of the intermountain west goodbye, and perhaps 6 million LDS voters. Why the heck should we stay in a party that rewards anti-mormonism?

Vanceone on December 3, 2007 at 4:14 AM

He wants to lower your taxes and doesn’t want more money for the government to spend.

The most amazing thing about the Huckabee surge are his supporters. For months, we’ve been hearing that if voters only looked at the records of Giuliani, Romney and McCain, they’d lose support.

Now that Huckabee is rising in the polls, we’re asked to look at his ideas and ignore his record as governor.

Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 8:45 AM

George W. Huckles!

saved on December 3, 2007 at 2:56 PM