Drudge: Huckabee leading in Florida now too, says Rasmussen
posted at 10:44 am on December 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The poll’s not out yet so it’s red-fonted halfway down the page. When it does come out, it should get the siren.
Giuliani’s been hoping Huck would break from the second tier, end Mitt’s candidacy by upsetting him in Iowa, and clear the way for Team Rudy to roll up Florida on January 29th. How’s that working out?
RASMUSSEN Florida Primary polling data showing Rudy lost lead; now its Huckabee, Romney on top: Huckabee 27% Romney 23% Giuliani 19%… Developing…
The last Rasmussen Florida poll on November 18 showed Rudy 27, Mitt 19, Fred 16, McCain 10, Huck 9. Eighteen points gained in a month, kids. And at the risk of repeating myself, it’s all been done with no money and no endorsement more significant than Chuck Norris’s. Although that may be changing: Ed Rollins, Reagan’s national campaign director in 1984, just signed as Huck’s new national campaign manager, and remember, he may or may not have a big foreign-policy endorsement coming down the pike today.
Assuming the new poll isn’t a wild outlier, Huck’s big gains likely came within the last 10 days or so: The last poll taken of the state, between December 2 and 4 by Survey USA, showed Rudy up by 14. Note that Mitt’s also gained, which really kills Rudy’s state strategy. He was counting on Florida to favor the moderate; now he’s got two social cons in the lead. Whoever emerges from the Mitt/Huck semifinal is now positioned to inherit a lot of votes from the other and end up leading big. How does Giuliani turn this around, short of abandoning his campaigning elsewhere and pouring everything he’s got left into the state?
The better Huck does, the more morbidly intrigued I am by how this is going to shake out within the party after the election. Lowry thinks we’re bound to be slaughtered in the general with Huckabee as the nominee, for which there’ll naturally be plenty of recriminations against social cons afterwards, but what if he wins and we end up with a religious liberal as president whom Christians can tolerate just fine and the rest of us can’t? You’re looking at massive political reorientations in that case, as non-religious conservatives ask themselves the vaguely sinister question Peggy Noonan asks this morning: Would Ronald Reagan be insufficiently pious for today’s GOP?
Update: Lots of buzz for this piece by Quin Hillyer, although it seems like wishful thinking to me. If Fred ain’t dead, he’d better a-crawl up outta that coffin right quick-like. Because Huck’s up seven in his must-have state, too.
Update: Here’s the poll. Good news for Rudy: He’s in the lead as second choice. Bad news: Among voters who say religion isn’t important at all, he actually trails Mitt by six points.
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: « 1 [2]
This is one poll: Rasmussen, and he polled likely Republican voters.
bnelson44 on December 14, 2007 at 1:08 PM
I don’t think I have seen anyone like that posting here.
bnelson44 on December 14, 2007 at 1:09 PM
I reject theonomy as biblically flawed, though I find insights in Greg Bahnsen’s apologetical strategies.
I also think it is important to distinguish between a system of thought and the issue of “consistency” on the part of those who subscribe to the system itself. The system may be “true”, but the supporters may be guilty of inconsistency at several points. And it is not logical to reject the system for the flaws of the supporters, similar to “it is wrong to judge the message in terms of the messenger.”
Still, the article was very helpful as I try to wrestle over some issues.
ColtsFan on December 14, 2007 at 1:10 PM
As a Floridian, I don’t buy it… but then I don’t attend a church where Imam Billy Bob tells me whom to support, so maybe I’m missing Huck’s primary vehicle. He’s definitely losing the bumper sticker war — and the hyper-religious sure do love their bumper stickers.
Mark Jaquith on December 14, 2007 at 1:10 PM
that link I posted is to Greg Bahnsen’s son’s site, he is pragmatically supporting Rudy. I found his site about his review of “America Alone”, I found myself agreeing with him alot.
jp on December 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I was speaking of those same Huckabee supporters who were calling me names, not you. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Slublog on December 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Agreed. If only the two sides could climb down, find some middle ground and shake hands with Fred or Mitt.
FloatingRock on December 14, 2007 at 1:13 PM
“social cons” Huckabee and Romney.
“so-conserv” Thompson
ALL of the media foment the sensational religiosity for profiteering and manipulative power over the outcome.
MSM motivation: sink the GOP
Non-MSM motivation: to keep up with the MSM Jones’ as though begging for credibility
Blog following motivation: self justification
Nasea and exhaustion are the inevitable result of over consumption. Enough.
The rationale that the two “most faithful” would of themselves negate each other is our only hope, obiwan.
Faith precedes the miracle: we can promote and VOTE the conservative Republican party platform.
maverick muse on December 14, 2007 at 1:14 PM
one thing I noticed on DLB’s site, is he refuses to call himself a theonmist, just that he beleives in “God’s Law”. He claims what his dad stood for has been twisted, he’s not a big fan at all of Chalcedon guys….who have some/alot of ron paul supporters.
I think they come back with, “God’s law pressuposes natural law” or something with that vs. the “Two kingdom” view. I don’t know alot about all this stuff, just a working knowledge though it is interesting. I think some of them get too full of themselves with it.
jp on December 14, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Yeah, I have been to that site in the past when I was wrestling with, “would Greg Bahnsen support the Federal Vision crowd?”
ColtsFan on December 14, 2007 at 1:15 PM
The real Mike Huckabee
Gregor on December 14, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Like so many of you I have no idea how Huckabee has risen to the top. His opponents will have to start challeging his many flawed positions. Of course that is the story of the Republican primary….flawed positions. This thing is wide open, and could still be that way after the early states.
chief on December 14, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Well then whoever is holding that yardstick - quite frankly - wouldn’t know a Christian if one came up and bit him in the ass!
Huckabee’s record is not CHRISTIAN.
thareb on December 14, 2007 at 1:44 PM
So Jim Gilchrist, who supports The High Reverend Huckster, is basically a phony Minuteman.
Seems like there are a lot of other phonies around now too.
Study faults charities for veterans
Watchdog finds major groups paid little of cash raised to injured vets, but plenty to their own execs.
Eight veterans charities, including some of the nation’s largest, gave less than a third of the money raised to the causes they champion, far below the recommended standard, the American Institute of Philanthropy says in a report. One group passed along 1 cent for every dollar raised, the report says. Another paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in compensation and benefits last year, a Washington Post analysis of tax filings showed.
There are no laws regulating the amount of money charities spend on overhead, fundraising or giving. But the institute’s report suggests that 20 of the 29 military charities studied were managing their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct-mail fundraising fees and, in some cases, providing their leaders with six-figure salaries.
The 12 charities rated as failing [This, of course, means that they got an F.] by the institute — including the Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation, the AMVETS National Service Foundation and the Freedom Alliance [Isn't this Sean "You are a Great American" Hannity's "gig"?]– collected at least $266 million in the past fiscal year.
“They know how to work the system, and they seem pretty good at not going over the line, although it is pretty outrageous that so little money is actually winding up benefiting charities,” said Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of the Chicago-based institute.
The philanthropy institute gave F’s to 12 of the 29 military charities reviewed and D’s to eight. Five were awarded A-pluses, one group received an A, and one received an A-minus.
MB4 on December 14, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Yeah, I was pretty shocked down here in Tampa, Mark. I “see” the usual Paul support with signs, and actually feel and hear the Rudy support. I’ve said before that I don’t think Huck could win Florida from the Dems in a million years, but this level of support surprised me. This tells me he is getting near unaminous support from the evangelicals who know nothing about his record yet. Hopefully as the attacks keep coming his evangelical support will erode. If it doesn’t, I am pulling my registration as a Republican, and switching to independent.
RW Wacko on December 14, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Y’know, tommylotto commented that it does no good to try to educate people here at HotAir about Huckabee because most of us are already educated and don’t like Huck (an “echo chamber,” I think tommy called it). He’s right, but it got me wondering–where are the Huck supporters? I can’t find them anywhere online, which leads me to conclude that they’re probably not online at all. That would account for why they’re not educating themselves about his record and then running away screaming like we did.
Funny–Huck’s phenomenon is the exact opposite of Paul’s. Paul’s support seems to be almost entirely online, while Huck’s is almost entirely offline.
aero on December 14, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Exactly. As I pointed out on an earlier thread …
Here’s what’s going on:
Also, it’s important to note that Gilchrist DROPPED the lawsuit.
Gilchrist has never accounted for that $400,000 that he says he was concerned about. As far as anyone knows … he’s already spent it.
Jim Gilchrist still pretends to be the leader of the Minuteman Project and still takes donations on his website, misleading citizens into believing that the funds are going to the original Minuteman Project.
The original and legitimate group is now headed by Marvin Stewart and it’s website can be found here.
Gregor on December 14, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Yeah, Fla has Miami, but also has lots of rural church-going folk, too. Lots of trailer parks, too. Plus a lot of old folks. He’s probably gotta the rural values vote locked up, and maybe the old lady churchgoer vote, too. Hope negative campaign ads reach them, and are effective.
RW Wacko on December 14, 2007 at 2:19 PM
The Huckster is suicide for the Republicans. And the most wonderfulist gift ever given to the Democrats.
Griz on December 14, 2007 at 2:26 PM
AP:
“…but what if he wins and we end up with a religious liberal as president whom Christians can tolerate just fine and the rest of us can’t?”
Pretty much the same thing that would happen if he lost. Republicans from the Republican wing of the Republican party will finally have to face the fact that most social conservatives are not actually political conservatives at all.
The problem for social cons isn’t big government or even intrusive government per se. The problem is the direction American culture has been heading, and social conservatives are just as willing to use government to reverse the flow as their liberal counterparts have been to accelerate it. It’s the only institution that’s potentially powerful enough to stem the tide.
Republicans been making downpayments on the social con/religious right vote for years, but the real asking price has always been a Huckbee in the White House. If not for the war in Iraq, that fundamental faultline in the GOP woud already have cracked wide open by now. A Huckabee nomination is all it will take, win or lose. Better to fracture sooner than later, while the Democratic party is in a shambles too and opportunities for creative realignments abound.
IMO, however, the Huckabee surge is a Democratic black op which will fade as fast as it appeared when serious folks start paying attention some time after the holidays. Social cons seem to be just trying not to jinx a good thing — hence the almost complete, eerie absence of anyone proactively supporting Huckabee on sites like this one where you’d certainly expect to hear from them. They might defend or explain his religious beliefs, but If Huckabee’s your guy, alas, you’ve got zero conservative talking points to work with.
“Bad news: Among voters who say religion isn’t important at all, he actually trails Mitt by six points.”
Bad for Giuliani, yes, but for different reasons. Don’t forget that a bunch of the folks who think religion is important also think Mitt is a brother of Satan. Mitt’s natural constituency has always been more corporate than religious. If he’s gaining ground there, he’s carving off real turf from Giuliani.
JM Hanes on December 14, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Imagine a Paul/Huckabee ticket. Juggernaut!
I think I just frightened myself.
Resolute on December 14, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]