The obligatory “Huckabee now within three of Rudy nationally” post
posted at 11:50 am on December 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Top of the page at Drudge. Rudy led him by 14 points four days ago; now it’s 20-17, with Huck having gained a bit every day for the past five days.
Note what today’s “gain” consists of, though. Huck’s where he was yesterday. It’s Rudy who’s slipping.
I find it hard to believe that Rudy, the opposite of Huckabee in many ways, is losing voters to him so maybe the expense scandal is starting to cost him. Or maybe it’s fallout from his poor showing at the debate. Any theories?
Can’t wait for the next New Hampshire poll. In the meantime, you may, if you like, use the comments to express your feelings about this turn of events. I suspect Private Hudson speaks for many of us.
http://view.break.com/409510 – Watch more free videos
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
Don’t trust the Jowls!
trubble on December 3, 2007 at 11:52 AM
But the ratings fell over the weekend? Isn’t that odd?
Esthier on December 3, 2007 at 11:57 AM
damn you chuck norris! damn youuuuuuuu
crr6 on December 3, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Hollywood types promised to move to Europe if Bush won. I have no need to make the same threat if Huck wins the Republican nomination, because Europe will come to me in the form of Hillarycare, or Huckamnesty, or Socialobamism, or Silkommunism.
peski on December 3, 2007 at 11:59 AM
lol at the clip. Time to build a fire and sing a couple songs I guess.
It just looks to me that some Rudy supporters are reconsidering their vote. I’d wager this is less to do directly with Huck then it has to do with Huck’s recent profile creates the impression of more options, which has not been the storyline of the last several months of a two-man race.
Hard to attribute Rudy’s drop on the debate though without an up-tick in Mitt who was his sparring partner or Fred who was supposedly the winner by his non-involvement. I wouldn’t have guessed that the security/mistress thing would get Rudy, but maybe that has teeth. Or maybe Chuck Norris scared the Rudy supporters off.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Wasn’t he the “In my soul I cannot oppose giving College Tuition to Illegals” or some such none sense. I’m glad he’s moving up. This will get him the vetting he sorely deserves!
I must say, of all the GOP candidates, this guy scares me!!!! And do we really need another President from Arkansas!?!?!?!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 3, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Holy plastic posterior Batman!
infidel on December 3, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Blech. Something is seriously wrong. Nothing about Huckabee’s weird surge passes the smell test.
Redhead Infidel on December 3, 2007 at 12:01 PM
AP, that second video is JUST WRONG. And you’re right, that’s exactly what I feel like with the Huckster ascendant.
peski on December 3, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Yes, Rudy is a liberal and now that more people are paying attention now that we are within 6 weeks of actual voting, which is the norm, Republic primary/caucus voters don’t like Rudy’s record.
P.S. Huck is enjoying a surge because of his good debate performance but that will crest now that he has moved higher in the polls with Huck getting more scrutiny.
I am heartened by this poll being a conservative since it shows Rudy slipping and Huck, perhaps, peaking.
Bill C on December 3, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Is the jump from undecideds starting to idendify with a candidate? I’ve run the top and bottom string and they both account for 75%, so has there been no change in the percentage of undecideds?
TexasDan on December 3, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Actually this poll gives me hope.
Not that Huckster is doing so well but that people are paying so little attention that they really dont know why they are picking their president.
Which means that polls showing dems doing well also are inflated by people who have the attention span of a Gnat and think voting for President is like voting for American Idol.
Hhopefully people will take a closer look
William Amos on December 3, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Keyser Soze?
Huck looks like the face on the sketchpad.
profitsbeard on December 3, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Um, question. Why are the two biggest liberals running in the lead for the Republican nomination? Something doesn’t smell right.
davenp35 on December 3, 2007 at 12:11 PM
What goes up, must come down – come on everyone singalong
EricPWJohnson on December 3, 2007 at 12:12 PM
pollin pollin pollin there goes hcuky pollin ohmy
okay my kids are telling me to not sing and blog
EricPWJohnson on December 3, 2007 at 12:13 PM
That’s what I’ve been saying–something’s fishy here! But what/who/how? I just can’t come up with a reasonable theory to explain this Huckabee surge that doesn’t cross the line into pure nuttery and paranoid conspiracy theory territory.
What is going on?!
aero on December 3, 2007 at 12:15 PM
That baby has got back!
I can’t help but think it is hilarious when people get botched plastic surgery, which is most of the time.
I think the rise in Huck’s numbers are from illegal aliens skewing the polls. No one that wants to protect our nation from this invasion would ever vote for that RINO.
Go Fred!
TheSitRep on December 3, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Because he’s losing his inevitability in the Primary, the more it look like he’s vulnerable, the worse he’ll do. People went with him because they figured he was the inevitable front-runner, and would be facing Hillary, so get his machinery running for that showdown, his whole campaign has been too heavily based on setting up his machinery to take on Hillary.
With Hillary looking shaky as of late, and ditto Rudy now that he faces serious opposition in *groan* Huck, he’s in trouble because now voters and activists see they have a choice. Just a theory.
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I don’t think it’s that at all. Huckabee is rising in the polls because he’s saying exactly what a certain segment of the base wants to hear on some specific issues. No conspiracy. Instead, a useful cautionary tale on the dangers of being a one or two issue voter. Add up the amount of support for those first two issues and you’ll see exactly why Huckabee is rising.
Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 12:23 PM
One thing those poll numbers show is that it really does seem to be anybody’s game at this point. The numbers are fairly evenly distributed among the top five. Talk about wide-open, with very little time left on the clock!
I wish I didn’t feel like such a helpless spectator here in late-voting Texas. I’m nothing but a benchwarmer in the primaries. I won’t get to play until it’s too late to make a difference in the outcome.
aero on December 3, 2007 at 12:24 PM
You might not like his stance on what to do with the illegals already in the country, as I don’t, but he has said repeatedly that the first job on this issue is to secure the borders. Which is something that I think resonates very much with the base.
Defense Guy on December 3, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Damn…in a couple months time this field went from interesting to downright scary now that we pretty much know where the candidates stand on the issue.
Holy crap but Fred better win the nomination because if socially liberal Rudy and fiscally liberal Huck haven’t swung right as people always say candidates do in the primaries what on earth are they gonna look like when appealing to the “general” American?
Yikes.
CTDeLude on December 3, 2007 at 12:29 PM
The biggest relative change in candidate support measured in the poll period are for Romney & Huckabee, with the former having given up around 25 – 30% of his support to the latter. In the meantime, Rudy peaked and fell, but his final level, 20%, represents a drop of around 15%. The headline belongs to Romney – thus leading him to move up The Speech to this week before the Holidays begin to lock perceptions more firmly in place (expect Fujifilm-vivid family photos of happy-joyous Romney CHRISTmas celebrations).
The explanations are 1) fluctuations within the margin of error, 2) selective sampling (in this case of period), 3) churning from Giuliani to Romney and McCain among “electability” Republicans amidst the latest debate eve pseudo-scandal, 4) churning from McCain and slightly enhanced flight from Romney to Huckabee among So-Cons, 5) flavor-of-the-month rush to Huckabee amidst Giuliani-Romney fratricide.
In short, the poll tells us little we don’t already know. Huckabee has buzz, Giuliani and Romney have negative buzz, and Romney has a problem. McCain is stable, waiting for an unlikely but not impossible succession of campaign bus crashes. Fred’s sitting there like a beached whale, waiting for someone with a big enough harness to drag him into the water before it’s too late (same position he’s been in since oh about July).
CK MacLeod on December 3, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Nail on the head.
Christian conservatives backing Huck are in for a Jimmah awakening.
peski on December 3, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Well, that’s an illuminating little graphic. It does indeed help explain the otherwise inexplicable rise of Huckabee. People are frighteningly shortsighted!
aero on December 3, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Most apropos injection of an Aliens clip, evah.
Good shot.
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Minus several million points for the droopy arse cheeks
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Try here in California, where a Republican vote in the general counts for exactly squat.
peski on December 3, 2007 at 12:37 PM
But if this is the case, then it would strike me as good for Rudy. If the choice comes down to him or Huckabee, then Rudy will win even before people start thinking who has the greater chance against the Democrat.
And let’s consider the general election. Bush is deeply unpopular, like Chirac was in France before the last election. The way Sarkozy won as a conservative was to run against Chirac. The one top tier GOP canidate who can’t run against Bush is Huckabee. Thus, Huckabee is a sure loser in the current climate.
thuja on December 3, 2007 at 12:37 PM
rudy wasn’t soo fiscally conservative either….
just to rain on the parade
Embrace the bee – Hackabee, opps Huckabee
EricPWJohnson on December 3, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I suggest pushing for proportional representation of the electoral college votes _within_ each state.
Dems may win Kalifornia overall, but imagine still getting 40% (say) of the EC votes, rather than winner-takes-all?
Me likee…and it’s perfectly constitutional…and you’d never see a Dem in the White House again ;-)
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 12:42 PM
After watching (and loving) the movie that bears his name…I just can’t vote for him…no no no
“Fcukabees!”
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Regardless of his politics, doesn’t the thought of having a president named Huckabee strike anyone as just wrong?
frreal on December 3, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Should see a jump for McCain in that.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I give you….President Higginbottom, President Chunder and President Balderdash
President Scrote was unavailable for comment
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 12:50 PM
for all those who think something smells fishy…i have two words…
Social Conservatives.
i mean, is it really that hard to understand. this guy is the mildly electable alternative to sam brownback. this is the social cons making their move. now, do wall street republicans , libertarians, and hawks lie down for him? we’ll see. if we all do our part, hopefully not
ernesto on December 3, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Remember everyone, according to Rasmussen, Fred was +12 on Rudy while the rest of the polling organizations had Rudy +8 on Fred. Do you still believe that was reflective of the actual support among republican primary voters across the nation? Ras’s polls are exquisitely sensitive to the whims of a very specific section of the base, so much that I think he has a structural problem in his “likely voter” screen Just an example: on the other thread, somebody mentioned that a lot of Republicans stayed home in 2006, depressing the turnout among the party’s base. If Rasmussen weights past voting patters in midterm elections (when only the die-hards show up anyway) heavily in determining who is a likely primary voter, the percentages from an oddball election like that can cause huge swings in who is determined to be “likely” to vote and who is not. There’s something funny with the likely voter screens this year, and either Ras is picking up something that everybody else is missing, including the ginormous Fred surge he reported, or he’s doing something wrong.
Big S on December 3, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Chuck Norris
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 12:56 PM
My theory: that mass of voters who like to get breathlessly excited by the flavor of the month – formerly known as Fred!heads – caught a whiff of the Huck and Chuck show and leaped onto the bandwagon.
Now we’re watching a cyclical process: the Tribe of the Excited People bump up the polls, the press and the pundits report the bump, the Tribe of Eager Beavers gets even more excited and bumps up the polls again … etc.
Ask President Howard Dean. He knows all about the phenomenon.
It’ll stop. Soon. Not that Huckabee can’t win … but the current roller coaster will soon stabilize and you’ll see numbers that approach reality.
In short, there’s not much to see here – it’s mostly a media-fed creation, with the press both feeding the monster and then reporting on it as it rampages through Tokyo. Or, in this case, Sioux City.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 1:01 PM
I know that that seems like a easy conclusion, but I can’t be that simple. There are other candidates that are both fiscally and socially conservative that could fit that need. Also, if your answer were the right one, then why is the surge for Hukabee happening now? Why didn’t happen sooner? Are the social conservatives just now noticing that Rudy is not socially conservative? Outside of Huck getting more of an opportunity to speak in the debates, I can’t see what has changed, even for the social cons.
Weight of Glory on December 3, 2007 at 1:03 PM
sorry ernesto, my typo came across rude.
Weight of Glory on December 3, 2007 at 1:07 PM
The more I hear about these candidates the more I like {shudder} McCain. Our choices are getting less and less palatable.
Tyrs Fury on December 3, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Yes and no. On a logical level, yes, when you factor in politics, no.
Rightly or wrongly, Hillary is perceived as the bigger threat(probably because the conservative movement basically declared her the Antichrist) in the election. Hillary’s power is based entirely on the perception of inevitability, with all of her recent gaffes.
Her aura of inevitability is damaged, and people read that as not necessarily having to sacrifice on principle as much as Rudy would make them, which is why Huck’s rising. Rudy feeds off of Hillary’s inevitability, if she’s strong, so is he, if she’s weak, so is he.
I’m hoping that Huck’s boost is a bubble, and that it’ll pop here soon when they discover he’s a Democrat with a Bible. People seriously chafe at Rudy’s stubbornness on social issues and the second amendment and just general personality, and that’s why they’re flocking to him.
As for the Chirac/Sarko example, people aren’t thinking about whether a candidate has to run against Bush. US politics is like the student council race in high school, the popular kid wins, not necessarily the one who would do a good job. There’s not much strategy involved.
Why do you think Bush won in 00 and 04? Not because he was some amazing candidate, but because Al Gore and John Kerry were both droning tedious tools.
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 1:09 PM
I think Rudy looked really weak in the debate, and the expense scandal is starting to show some teeth. He can’t keep bleeding to “undecided” though, because the more he bleeds, the closer Thompson, Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Paul get, and people who hold back from supporting “less plausible” candidates might feel better about voting their conscience. (I left McCain out of that list, because he tends to be more polarizing. You love McCain or you hate him. There’s not a whole lot of wiggle room. Outside of New Hampshire, he’s not going anywhere.) I’d thought for a long time that a Giuliani nomination was inevitable, but it looks like we have a real race going now.
Mark Jaquith on December 3, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I know. It’s the old “Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich” dilemma (thank you, South Park).
aero on December 3, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Aaaaaaaand that will conclude my lunch break.
Weight of Glory on December 3, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Sorry, WoG! ;-)
aero on December 3, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Aero, you’re right…its looking like a douche and turd type election.
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I’m still wondering how the heck Rush’s non-endorsement endorsement of Fred has suddenly led to a jump in Huckabee’s numbers…
I don’t like Fred, but this is just bizarre.
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 1:23 PM
There’s actually a local push to do just that, but it’s probably DOA as a republican “dirty trick”.
peski on December 3, 2007 at 1:25 PM
On Huck:
Don’t ya remember the ‘polls’ that said America was is FAVOR of AMNESTY this summer. The MSM makes the news folks- and don’t you forget it!
Look how many here buy into the Fred is a lazy loser label.
Murdoch (FOXnews, Wall Street Journal) wants OPEN BORDERS folks so FOX is pushin’ Huck right now. Make NO mistake though Murdoch’ll be happy with Rudy or Mitt or Huck or Hillary- Just as long as it ain’t Fred or Duncan!
On Rudy:
Frank Luntz’s REAL republican voter group chose Fred the winner of the CNN/Ytube debate- BEFORE ANY PUNDITS got to’em.
He also mentioned that EVERY Rudy supporter changed their vote by the end og the debate. EVERY ONE, FOLKS.
No GOP voters left in that room supportin’ Rudy once they were forced to actually listen to his positions. And, by the way, Huck was WAY down at the bottom too.
THAT’S WHAT REAL FOLKS WITH NO AGENDA THOUGHT.
Ex-tex on December 3, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Ex-tex on December 3, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Really? Good luck with that. CA could really turn the tide if that got enacted!
Yes…republican ‘dirty tricks’. How dare they suggest that the people be accurately represented in this free republic! The bastards! ;-)
Ochlan on December 3, 2007 at 1:34 PM
The other thing to keep in mind is that a window opens for Huck and Obama to sneak in for as long as the security issue appears to recede. To that extent, security issue candidates like McCain and Rudy and to a lesser extent Fred suffer as a result of the Surge’s apparent success and the failure, to this point, of Pakistan or Afghanistan to implode, Israel and take-your-pick to go hot, confrontations with Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia to escalate, or AQ to launch another terror spectacular in the West. McCain can run only so far on having been right about the Surge: Politically, it’s a gold watch (and thanks for your service…) in the absence of looming security challenges. Romney was supposed to be the Republican left standing when terror and war receded, and he still may turn out to be.
If, God forbid, a shopping mall was blown up, who’d give a flying crap about how Rudy’s security guards were paid years ago, or what and how and whom they guarded?
CK MacLeod on December 3, 2007 at 1:36 PM
I have a hard time taking the focus groups, which are basically partisan-led polls of groups of sample size = 12. They’re what we call a “stupid media trick” and a way for a guy like Luntz to make a living, nothing more.
Big S on December 3, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Yes. Surely they were inspired by his 2 minute social security droning after being asked what 3 programs he would cut.
Or perhaps it was when he got slapped in the face by Mitt in response to his negative ad.
I was certainly inspired by the world’s tallest old man robot.
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Well okay then, Me and the Luntz group and RUSH thought Fred won the debate- that better?
Ex-tex on December 3, 2007 at 1:56 PM
With Rudy, Huck, Hillary and Obama the top contenders for leadership of the free world, and with Ron Paul and Coocooniche in the race, (not to mention some of the others), isn’t the answer obvious? Clearly aliens are taking over the planet. Duh.
FloatingRock on December 3, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Aww Bkennedy’s man spent 7 to 11 million in Iowa to have it go
Poof!
EricPWJohnson on December 3, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Huckabee doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected. If he wins the Republican nomination, you might as well get Hillary’s presidential portrait session booked.
The candidate that takes Texas will take the election this year. Who is ahead in Texas among all voters?
And don’t look at past elections either, this time it’s different. Texas’ mix of Democratic/Republican/Independent voters now matches for the most part the rest of the country. Texas is a microcosm of the US now.
The candidate who wins Texas will win the election.
crosspatch on December 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Yawn. It’s his money to spend, and the primaries haven’t even started yet.
Go back to throwing darts at a picture of Mitt on your discount dartboard.
You really should get something done about that class envy thing, btw.
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Huckles is closer to the Rudiani-Kerik campaign than you think. Rudiani may have to dump Kerik and go with Huckles as a running mate. That will tie up the election very nicely: Hill wins.
saved on December 3, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Big media is very powerful and a Huckabee nomination would be a liberal dream come true, you can’t watch a news program without seeing a pro Huck spot.
Voters in Iowa can’t be seeing the real Huck or he would be nowhere in the polls.
A picture of that womans butt should be in every plastic surgeons office.
Speakup on December 3, 2007 at 2:52 PM
latest poll of likely republican voters shows giuliani in 1st again in south carolina:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/screp8-710.html
but you won’t hear about that here at “down with rudy” central.
;)
Vincenzo on December 3, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Weeeelllllll…. Huck may have Chuck Norris, but can he tell me where to find Manrik’s wife?
hindmost on December 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Saying that every thought Fred won the debate is a bit of a stretch. Insider advantage did a survey immediately after the debate:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_insideradvantage_post_deb.php and Huckabee won it according to voters in NH and IA, which may be the reason he is rising in the polls not a fox news/rupert murdoch conspiracy.
Complete7 on December 3, 2007 at 4:48 PM
If Huck is gaining then we are all wrong on the illegal immigration amnesty issue. Unless all the people voting for him do not know where he stands ? Are all of them idiots ?
SIJ6141 on December 3, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I’d rather vote for Private Hudson than Huckabee.
And the reason Huck is gaining is that his supporters believe he can turn this country into the Christian version of Iran, economic prosperity and national security be damned.
Never mind that if you take away the religious devotion and throw in a few extramarital bj’s from his interns he’s just another Bill Clinton.
Mark V. on December 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Comment pages: